Talk:Middleham Hoard

Ham Castle
From the history of the article:
 * revision as of 17:07, 25 July 2015 by user:BabelStone "Undid revision 673037973 by PBS Ham Castle is in Worcestershire so totally unrelated to Middleham, and the article g"

The castle is unrelated but the chance finding of a hoard is a similar event. One for a hoard hidden in the Civil War another for the finding of a hoard in the Civil War. As to your last point "and the article g" I presume "g" is for a good article, but that in itself is no reason to remove an entry in see also. -- PBS (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * There are hundreds of hoards in Britain, and unless there is some relationship between two hoards (e.g. same location, same period) there is no point in linking them. In the case of the Ham Castle hoard, not only is there no relationship between it and the Middleham Hoard but there is no article on the hoard, only a single (unreferenced at the time you linked it) vague mention of a hoard being found in the Ham Castle article. It makes sense to link articles about other Civil War period hoards with articles (e.g. Bitterley Hoard) but makes no sense to link to Ham Castle.  As to the final part of my edit summary, I accidentally hit Enter instead of Backspace so it lost the rest of my planned comment. BabelStone (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * My observation the edit summary was not a criticism (long comments get chopped off) it was an attempt to guess what else you were writing, and if my guess is wrong then please finish it.
 * I believe that to state "only a single (unreferenced at the time you linked it) vague mention of a hoard being found in the Ham Castle article." means that you have only read the lead in the article (and sentences in the lead that summarise the body of the article do not usually have citations), as there are a couple of quotes in the article about the hoard supported by the required inline citations. -- PBS (talk) 07:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)