Re: Druidtemple site confusion - calling eds | Forum

Moth Nov 1, 2005 00:49:10

Replying to greywether

I'd say it's a good idea too. it might also help with the following, but this might just be me.

Is it right that these various clava cairns are subsites under 'Clava Cairns'. I mean, they're up to 14km apart. It's comprehensive either - there are other sites in the area that are clava cairns but are standalone sites....

It kind of means that the 'Clava Cairns' page http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/486 is actually a 'type of monument' page, rather than a 'site' or 'neighbouring sites' page.

I mean Corrimony's a clava cairn isn't it? That's 40 km away, but the point I'm making is where do you draw the line?

love

Moth

FourWinds Nov 1, 2005 06:59:56

Replying to Moth

(I think) what was suggested is a new site type as in 'stone circle', 'standing stone' etc. not a grouping. A good idea in my book!

greywether Nov 1, 2005 14:57:14

Replying to Moth

Exactly..... and I'm glad YOU mentioned it since it might have looked like special pleading coming from me (since I've ignored that grouping and created what I thought to be the "correct" entries in the past).

However, while the duplication had to be dealt with, the solution offered by the Eds (probably unwittingly) perpetuates the situation.

If Clava Cairn cannot be a separate category (and I don't see what the problem is with that) can I suggest the following.

I will create a Clava Cairn "definition" as a Misc under the Clava Cairn Group (not Druidtemple) which will cover the point about multiple features and the problems of categorisation and then hyperlink the other Clava Cairn sites to that definition. That way, if anyone wants to know all the posted Clava Cairn sites, they can search for "Clava Cairn" in site entry.

Seems like a long way for a shortcut though.

Druidtemple site confusion — calling eds