Talk:Cissbury Ring

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cissbury Ring article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sussex Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sussex 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.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: British / European Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Template:Findnotice

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 mines 121.223.18.36 (talk) 05:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]