Talk:Pinhole Cave Man

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it (including art) may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Archaeology Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Derbyshire Low‑importance

	Derbyshire portal The article on Pinhole Cave Man 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts 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.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Revert of reference

What were the errors in the formating? Wkharrisjr (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Sieveking ref is a catalogue number, not a page number. Johnbod (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else wrong with the referencing? Note that external links should not be in the body of the article, which was the intent of my referencing changes. Wkharrisjr (talk) 13:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The citation style should not be changed without discussion. Note that this is a very new user, who will not know what to do with citation templates. Johnbod (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added two inline refs keeping with parenthetical cit. style, but have to say that this style does not lend itself to citing an online museum database. Maybe another editor can make it more sensible. I appreciate that new users may not know what to do with templates (I'm still learning myself), but I applied citation templates to the full citations anyway, just to clean up the style; I used the parameter "chapter" to describe the catalog number on the Sieveking ref. I also removed the inline ext. link because Wkharrisjr is right: they do not belong in the body of the article. IMO, the sooner new users learn about templates, the happier they will be. Richigi (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what WP:CITE says should be done only after obtaining consensus. Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, Johnbod, that is the letter of the law. There are now, I presume, two votes for changing the citation style. In the meantime, I'm sure we can agree that WP:CITEVAR does not negate other style guidelines such as WP:ELPOINTS, MOS:TITLE, WP:DATED, etc. Richigi (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page really needs a picture.

Seriously... 74.93.254.92 (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, why is there no picture? I can't find one online either. Perhaps there isn't one??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.145.103 (talk) 07:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found a photo of it just sitting there on Wikimedia. I've put it on the page. Not sure why it wasn't there before. --Hibernian (talk) 01:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]