Talk:Coffin Stone

Added by anon UK ip

There is also a coffin stone in Waterford, Eire. It was used by the Brits during the troubles. In their infinite compassion the Brits thought they would erect a Gibbet on a hill overlooking the town so that condemned Irishmen could have their last view of the town before they were murdered. When their victims were dead the brits would lay them on the stone for their families to collect. When not put to such use and the weather was fair, the women of the town would sit on the stone and knit.

It needs some work. adamsan 10:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is also a Coffin Stone near Ambleside in the Lake District. This stone is located on the Coffin Trail . This was a trail used to carry coffins. It is said that the bearers would rest, while the coffin rested on the stone. It was not unusual for coffins to be carried over long distances as many parishes did not have their own burial ground. So a coffin would have to be carried to a parish with a burial ground. There are still many of these trails, some have been formalised into paths or roads. JHvW 07:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coffin Stone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090910033304/http://www.aylesfordpc.kentparishes.gov.uk:80/default.cfm?pid=2368 to http://www.aylesfordpc.kentparishes.gov.uk/default.cfm?pid=2368

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Coffin Stone/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Caeciliusinhorto (talk · contribs) 17:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I do like me a megalith. Will get you some substantial comments later tonight, hopefully. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

First run through:

• "covered by a woodland of oak, ash, hazel/alder and Maloideae": I see this is exactly what the source cited says, but it remains opaque to me: does "hazel/alder" indicate that they can't tell which? Our articles on the trees confirm my understanding that they are different species (I doubted myself on reading this!) Barclay et al. cite Alldritt & Challinor 2006, but the paper is inconveniently not included in their bibliography and I can't work out what it refers to: perhaps you will have better luck?
  • I'm afraid that I'm in the same boat as you are here. I always assumed that it meant that hazel/alder could not be differentiated using the particular scientific methodology that they employed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, I assume that is what it means, but it's confusing. I know more detail is always good, and I am loath to suggest this, but I would be seriously tempted just to chop that sentence after "Early Neolithic"; we don't lose that much information, and anyone familiar with UK forestry is likely to have a mental image of prehistoric English forests with plenty of oak, ash, and hazel in it anyway! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
      • I'd rather leave it in that delete it, to be honest, even if it results in some ambiguity. I think that readers from other parts of the world may not be terribly familiar with southern English woodlands (bear in mind, not too much further north in global terms and forests become decidedly coniferous). We already have the same wording in FA-rated articles like Coldrum Long Barrow and Smythe's Megalith, if that counts for anything. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
        • Hmm, well no one objected at either of those FAs, so I'm happy to leave it as it is for the moment – maybe it's just me who dislikes this! If you bring this to FA, I'll bring it up there for wider discussion... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• "The larger stones found in the Tottington's western springhead may have been these façade sarsens": wait, which larger stones? This phrasing implies that we have already discussed these stones, but I can't find it. (Perhaps: "Larger stones which have been found in the Tottington's western springhead may have been these façade sarsens"?)
  • The sentences presently read: "There may have been a stone façade in front of the chamber. The larger stones found in the Tottington's western springhead may have been these façade sarsens." I had meant for the first sentence to introduce the possible façade and the second to indicate where said stones might now be, but reading it back I can see that this is not terribly clear. I'll reword it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Clearer now, thanks! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
• "This book contained the first published illustration of the monument": it would be nice to include this illustration if you can get a good scan of it!
  • You're right, that would be nice. I'll have a rummage and see what I can do. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I haven't been able to find an online copy of the second volume of Stukeley's book (only the first), from which the image could be procured. Hopefully that isn't a barrier to GA status at this stage. It's definitely something to consider going forward, however, particularly if the article ends up at FAC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Certainly not a barrier to GA status, no. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

More to follow. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, a couple more thoughts:

• The lead image tells us that "The topmost stone was placed there recently by the farmer"; the article says that it was "at some point in the twentieth century". While this is recently relative to prehistoric megaliths, it might be as much as a century ago, which is a not-very-recent sort of recent! (And per MOS:RELTIME we should prefer absolute time anyway). Suggest "placed there in the twentieth century" or similar instead.
  • I couldn't agree more. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• Is there anything to say about standing stones in prehistoric Kent (or even more generally in Western Europe) given that is apparently the other major hypothesis about where the Coffin stone came from? I realise that there's a lot to say about chambered long barrows because of the proximity of the Medway Megaliths, but spending so much time on that and nothing on menhirs is worrying me from a due weight perspective...
  • It's a fair point. However, I'm not really familiar with any studies on monoliths in prehistoric Kent per se; that's not to say that no study on the subject exists, however. I'll try and have a rummage through some of the books on the subject and see what I can find. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I haven't been able to find any on a cursory look. I'll give you some time to search through your books, but if there isn't anything to say again I don't think this is disqualifying. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
      • @Midnightblueowl: Did you manage to find anything in your sources? If not, I will go ahead and finish up this review. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping. I haven't been on Wikipedia for the past week or so; I apologie for the delay. I've got the sources out and will have a look. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I've made a skim through the main sources available to me, Caeciliusinhorto, and found nothing. It's possible that I missed something, or that it will crop up in a more obscure sources somewhere, and if so I shall be sure to incorporate such information into this article in future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. I'll finish this review now. Congratulations! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Goldfish Muffin?

I'm sorry if this seems silly, but... "Also known as the gold fish muffin", uncited, seemingly slapped onto the end of the first paragraph. Can anyone weigh in on this? It doesn't seem... right.Remiriya (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

It is probably not any help, but this seems like vandalism to me. The Goldfish Muffin I know is a snack made by Graham's (a brand of Pepperidge Farm). As far as I am aware it has nothing to do with the Coffin Stone. JHvW 15:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)