![]() | A news item involving Leekfrith torcs was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 2 March 2017. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
The Stoke Sentinel on 28 February reported that
but "Staffslive" reports, on the same day, that
Are we to understand that the archaeologists surveyed the field and came up empty, and after that the hobbyists went back with their metal detector and promptly found another piece? -- dab (đł) 11:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
We currently have both "The last torc was found by the same men, in the same field, several weeks later" and "A missing piece of the smallest torc was discovered by the original metal detectorists on 26 February 2017". I suspect these refer to the same object. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
WP:ELDUP quite clearly says "websites that can be both references and external linksâinclude any official sites for the article topic"
, so the link to
http://www.stokemuseums.org.uk/collections/local-history/leekfrith-iron-age-torcs/ should be in the "External links" section - where Joe Public is likely to look for it after reading the article - even if it used as a reference, and even if it is the infobox (which is supposed to summarise content from the rest of the article).
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
00:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
We now have a link to the actual press conference here - already used as a reference. This is an 18 minute video, which answers many of the questions raised above, especially the last 10 minutes when Julia Farley of the BM is speaking. It also shows how poor the journalists' summaries are! We should make considerable use of this, which gives us an opportunity to do better than just repeating the basic and often inaccurate summaries in the press. Johnbod ( talk) 04:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() | A news item involving Leekfrith torcs was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 2 March 2017. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
The Stoke Sentinel on 28 February reported that
but "Staffslive" reports, on the same day, that
Are we to understand that the archaeologists surveyed the field and came up empty, and after that the hobbyists went back with their metal detector and promptly found another piece? -- dab (đł) 11:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
We currently have both "The last torc was found by the same men, in the same field, several weeks later" and "A missing piece of the smallest torc was discovered by the original metal detectorists on 26 February 2017". I suspect these refer to the same object. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
WP:ELDUP quite clearly says "websites that can be both references and external linksâinclude any official sites for the article topic"
, so the link to
http://www.stokemuseums.org.uk/collections/local-history/leekfrith-iron-age-torcs/ should be in the "External links" section - where Joe Public is likely to look for it after reading the article - even if it used as a reference, and even if it is the infobox (which is supposed to summarise content from the rest of the article).
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
00:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
We now have a link to the actual press conference here - already used as a reference. This is an 18 minute video, which answers many of the questions raised above, especially the last 10 minutes when Julia Farley of the BM is speaking. It also shows how poor the journalists' summaries are! We should make considerable use of this, which gives us an opportunity to do better than just repeating the basic and often inaccurate summaries in the press. Johnbod ( talk) 04:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)