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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Cissbury Ring. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130212014543/http://www.bournemouth.ac.uk:80/caah/landscapeandtownscapearchaeology/neolithic_flint_mines_of_sussex.html to http://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/caah/landscapeandtownscapearchaeology/neolithic_flint_mines_of_sussex.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:26, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Article on damage
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-38101813

©Geni (talk) 02:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Free Festival
It would be nice to mention the free festivals held at CR, but this link is not really an RS. It also says the festival was in 1980 but I'm fairly sure I went to one there in 1981 too. Ericoides (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cissbury Ring. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080917090532/http://www2.prestel.co.uk/aspen/sussex/cissbury.html to http://www2.prestel.co.uk/aspen/sussex/cissbury.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/caah/landscapeandtownscapearchaeology/neolithic_flint_mines_of_sussex.html
 * Added tag to http://www.findon.info/names/names.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060615034402/http://www.findon.info/cissbury/cissbury.htm to http://www.findon.info/cissbury/cissbury.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Artillery
The 100lb gun might be a 5.5 inch https://ra39-45.co.uk/guns-equipment/5-5-inch-medium-gun The usual shells are given as being 100lb. (The gun itself, in use, weighs 14 000lb or so.) Midgley (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

National Trust pilot
Hello! During late June, July and some of August, I'm working on a paid project sponsored by the National Trust to review and enhance coverage of NT sites. You can find the pilot edits here, as well as a statement and contact details for the National Trust. I am leaving this message when I make a first edit to a page; please do get in touch if you have any concerns. Lajmmoore (talk) 08:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)