Talk:Creswell Crags

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nottinghamshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Nottingham and Nottinghamshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NottinghamshireWikipedia:WikiProject NottinghamshireTemplate:WikiProject NottinghamshireNottinghamshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Caves

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caves, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of caving and cave articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CavesWikipedia:WikiProject CavesTemplate:WikiProject CavesCaves articles

Derbyshire Mid‑importance

The article on Creswell Crags is supported by the Derbyshire WikiProject, which is a collaborative effort to improve the quality and coverage of Derbyshire-related articles on Wikipedia.DerbyshireWikipedia:WikiProject DerbyshireTemplate:WikiProject DerbyshireDerbyshire articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

More information:
/
	At least one photograph is included in this article
	This article needs a map
	This article has an infobox

Derby Museum and Art Gallery High‑importance

	This article is related to the Derby Museum and Art Gallery. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Derby Museum and Art GalleryWikipedia:GLAM/DerbyTemplate:WikiProject Derby Museum and Art GalleryDerby Museum and Art Gallery-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Archaeology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dawkins and excavations[edit]

Removed the following claim: "Early excavations were carried out by Professor Sir William Boyd Dawkins, who wrote several papers on his findings." Early excavations at Robin Hood Cave were led by J.M. Mello; Dawkins evaluated and wrote about what was excavated. Richigi (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New material[edit]

I have added new images to improve this article, despite deletions by others with no explanation. If you object, please use the talk page!86.158.178.49 (talk) 05:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, the two deletions by two different editors of your images both had explanations. The first said "Drawings don't contribute to the contents of the article, and certainly upset the layout", and the second says "Outdated hundred year old views of the Neanderthals are not relevant here". Your first reinstatement of the images had no explanation, and the second was accompanied by the dogmatic statement "images of neanderthals are fine, as is the woolly rhino". Personally, I think that an adequate page has gone downhill in the last few days, but I have no intention of becoming involved in an edit war. Langcliffe (talk) 07:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So images of extinct animals such as the cave hyena and woolly rhine don't add to the content ?? They are central to the finds at Cresswell, and indeed, there is a reconstructed cave hyena at the Cresswell museum. The Neanderthals also left their remains, so why not make this rather dreary article more interesting for the casual reader, and perhaps encourage him or her to visit the site? 86.158.178.49 (talk) 08:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the other contributors that the images don't add to the article (and I've removed them again). A photo of the actual hyena at the site would be relevant; a picture of a cave hyena elsewhere is not. WP:IRELEV: "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." Dave.Dunford (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So the article returns to its boring status: images of the cave hyena is directly relevant and is mentioned in the text, as is the woolly rhino. I am reverting, so that the great British Public can gain more from the article. There is only a handful of palaeolithic sites in the UK open to the public and this is one of them. 86.158.178.49 (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see I was wrong to state in my edit that there was no reference to hyenas in the article. A photo of the hyena in the museum would be good. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So if they are mentioned and there is one in the Museum, why delete? I have reverted another strange edit.86.158.178.49 (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the article mentions the Gower peninsula and flowstone. So shall was have some pretty pictures of the Gower and some stalactites to make the article less "boring" and "dreary"? Excuse my sarcasm, but in my judgement you're going against consensus here: three different editors have removed the image and you've put it back each time. That's close to WP:3RR territory. Are you aware of these policies? Dave.Dunford (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have any of these armchair editors actually visited Cresswell crags and seen the impressive cave hyena? 86.158.178.49 (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)86.158.178.49 (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean by 'armchair editor', but I assume that the expression is intended to be derogatory. If you are referring to me, inter alia, then yes, I have visited Cresswell and I have seen the model hyena, but I fail to see the relevance of the question. A more relevant question is that asked by the editor above. Langcliffe (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is this: negative and unhelpful edits do nothing to improve articles. Another example is a very low res image of one of the caves, and the absence of supporting material or links. An outsider would not realise the importance of this site at all..... where are any images of the new Palaeolithic engravings?? It is the only stone age site with such art anywhere in the UK. 86.158.178.49 (talk) 09:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)86.158.178.49 (talk) 09:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does a 20th-century reconstruction of a cave hyena, in a German Museum, aid our understanding of the Palaeolithic engravings in Britain? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm becoming more confused. To make the point that you consider some edits by other editors to be negative and unhelpful, you ask if they have seen a model hyena? I'm sure that there are more cogent ways in which you could have made such a point. I agree with you that the article would benefit from the inclusion of a photograph illustrating the Upper Palaeolithic cave art (far more than a picture of a German model hyena). Do you have one you can contribute? Langcliffe (talk) 09:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should volunteer since you know so much about the site? Perhaps you live locally and could make some positive (rather than negative) efforts to improve a very poor article. You might start by inserting some better pictures of the place? And adding one of the cave hyena? 86.158.178.49 (talk) 09:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to me? No, I don't live near Creswell Crags, and unfortunately I don't have any photographs that would benefit the article, so I regret that I cannot help in that respect. But I thank you for the invitation. Langcliffe (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this is a "very poor article". I guess it has some gaps. It would certainly benefit from images of the Palaeolithic engravings and anyone who lives anywhere would be very welcome to add some, if they were copyright free. Maybe Dr Paul Petit at Durham University could recommend some? But I'm not sure that public access to Church Hole is very easy to obtain. And I'm really not sure how adding images of cave hyenas, however well they have been reconstructed, can really help to fill the gaps. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article's nowhere near as bad as the anon IP makes out and I still think the German museum photo adds little or nothing; however, the article would certainly be improved, by:

a description of the cave art in the lead, since it's probably the major reason for the site's renown (more so than the existence of cave hyena and woolly rhino remains, neither of which are unique to Creswell, even in a British context).
a better picture of Church Hole Cave
a picture of the cave art (though my understanding is that the engravings are faint and – presumably – hard to photograph, even if access and copyright issues could be overcome)

The first is easily remedied; as for the second and third I'll take a trip over to Creswell at some point and see what I can do. I've already looked at the available pictures on Geograph.org.uk and while there are usable pictures of some of the caves, there are none specifically of Church Hole Cave, where the best carving is. Dave.Dunford (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apotropaic marks[edit]

What do you make of this Guardian article? --Kolya (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revert[edit]

My revert went through before I had completed the edit summary explaining that I deleted because it duplicates referenced content elsewhere in the artilce. Dudley Miles (talk) 05:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I reverted prior to adding more detail, then realised the source and detail were already used elsewhere. A household incident then halted any further work on this. - I'm happy with the revert of my revert. (An edit summary at the time might have made things clearer, though) Nick Moyes (talk) 06:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]