Talk:Cissbury Ring

Merge Cissbury with Cissbury Ring

There is really no good reason to have these two articles separate - they both discuss the same site. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

No opinions for or against in two and a half years; I've merged the refs to Further reading, and redirected here. The other article had no in-line refs, and nothing worth rescuing. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Split Flint mine section to Cissbury or Cissbury flint mines

Cissbury was redirected to Cissbury Ring with some material left behind. I have just brought over that material, and in doing so I note that the flint mines material now dominates the Cissbury Ring article, which is about a hill fort. Though the articles share a name and a location, they are about two separate subjects - flint mines and hill fort. I think it is possible to talk about disparate topics within the same article, though it is also possible to talk about them in two distinct articles. It's a judgement call. I have a preference for bringing related articles together where possible and appropriate, as often it is easier to understand, for example, the relevance of a minor station within an article on the whole railway line than when it's simply a stand alone article, though in this case the flint mines and the fort are not related, they simply occupy roughly the same space. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a decent topic for a sub-article, with a briefer summary here in Cissbury Ring (which wouldn't be complete without it). Simon Burchell (talk) 10:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree that the sub-article needs to be split out. Ideally, the cascade might look like this: mine -- neolithic mines -- neolithic mines in Britain -- neolithic flint mines in Britain -- Cissbury flint mines121.223.18.36 (talk) 05:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)