This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
This article is related to the York Museums Trust and is relevant to the GLAM partnership between the trust and Wikimedia UK. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.York Museums TrustWikipedia:GLAM/YMTTemplate:WikiProject York Museums TrustYork Museums Trust-related articles
Middleham Hoard is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
A fact from Middleham Hoard appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 February 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the Middleham Hoard from Yorkshire included seven Spanish-American reales but only two of them were real (unreal real pictured)?
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
