Talk:Melbourne Castle

Key information?

the addition of NHLE details has been removed from the infobox - why is this not considered to be worth including here? EdwardUK (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOX gives some helpful guidance here. An infobox should selectively provide the reader with the most important highlights on an article. I don't think that in this case that includes the full details of their NHLE - does the average reader really care about what date they were put on the register, for example? Other than the legal government listing - which has to by law! - I've never seen a source bother highlighting these facts about this castle. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The dates may not be too significant, but I would have thought that the fact it's a scheduled monument is important, and the infobox seems an appropriate place to highlight this (even if without all the details of the listing) - as well as proving a reference to a website with a good architectural history of the castle. - Would it be reasonable to include just the designation type and number as I think this would enhance the article EdwardUK (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Its classification in UK conservation law doesn't seem to be a fact that other websites or books pull out as being prominent, and if we were looking for additional relevant facts about the castle to highlight to a busy reader, surely there have to be better ones? Hchc2009 (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I accept that most sources focus on the history of the site rather than its present status, and maybe facts about this could be added as well/instead - currently the data in the infobox seems very limited - and as a quick reference doesn't provide very much information - I am aware that the infobox should be complimentary rather than a distraction from the main text, but think adding more facts (whether they be on events/battles or conservation) would be helpful to readers - and it would be possible to reduce the size of the map to compensate for any changes - EdwardUK (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Map

What value has that wretched map? It (like many others on Wikipedia) tells us almost nothing. AnthonyCamp (talk) 08:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC).

This is a really fine piece of work

Excellent article, really impressive.

Does anyone know if any of the archaeologists have attempted to map out a castle plan, even a speculative one? Would be interested to see the shape. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Dweller, I was greatly assisted in getting sources for this by the then conservation officer for South Derbyshire. I think if such a plan existed, he would have known. Much of the archaeology, as the text indicates, is in any case buried below the streets and buildings of Melbourne. As far as I know, all we know about the overall structure is the old drawings Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I thought so. Shame. Thanks for the reply. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained revert

Having been reverted by Ian Rose without explanation (apart from noting that the change was previously undiscussed), I figure I should bring the matter to the talk page. The following changes were reverted (and my apologies in advance in case I inadvertently overlooked any other changes):

• The addition of commas to "Mary, Queen of Scots," when used mid-sentence, in line with uses of similar titles in the article;
• The moving of the Greenway reference to the bibliography section and the significant correction of the citation itself (which I'm surprised was necessary in a featured article);
• The addition of anchor links to short citations in the footnotes (while maintaining the less commonly used format with parentheses in accordance with WP:CITEVAR);
• The addition of {{page needed}} to the Usher (1991) footnotes as the page range for the entirety of the article was currently being cited;
• The addition of an external link to a freely available copy of the issue of Derbyshire Miscellany being cited, the addition of the journal's ISSN, and the addition of the article's page range in the bibliography;
• The combination of footnotes in three instances;
• The replacement of ISBN-10 with ISBN-13 and the addition of the appropriate hyphens (in accordance with WP:ISBN);
• The addition of missing internal links to the biographies of authors and editors in the bibliography;
• The addition of {{full citation needed}} to the reference to the Journal of the Derbyshire Archaeological and Natural History Society in the bibliography as it does not so much as list the article it is referencing;
• The correction of the format for the listing of an illustrator in the bibliography (in accordance with Template:Cite book/doc);
• The addition of the name of an author who was inexplicably omitted from the Magna Britannia reference in the bibliography and the corresponding correction of the footnotes;
• The standardisation of the format for listing volumes in the bibliography;
• The correction of the author of Melbourne Conservation Area Character Statement as at no point in the work was Mel Morris credited as an individual (unless I'm missing it); and
• The addition of an internal link to the article about Magna Britannia.

About which of these changes do you have concerns, Ian Rose? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

There having been no objection to the specific changes made (and no explanation of the reversion in question), I have restored the changes while ensuring that edits made to the article over the past three days are retained. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Melbourne Castle. 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/20131014202953/http://www.south-derbys.gov.uk/Images/MelbourneA4complete_tcm21-85590.pdf to http://www.south-derbys.gov.uk/Images/MelbourneA4complete_tcm21-85590.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)