Talk:Cawood sword

Archaeology Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Yorkshire Mid‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Cawood sword 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

York Museums Trust Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

I don't know why this has its own page. Sure, it is "outstandingly important", but only in context, and the context is a highly specific topic of 12th century development of sword morphology in Europe. So it should be part of a discussion on that topic, and not a "random artefact" article. --dab (𒁳) 13:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think it now turns out that the topic is indeed of sufficient importance for a separate discussion, but the topic is not "the Cawood sword", but "type XII swords with type M pommel", a group of about eight swords, which seem to be very important for the absolute chronology of medieval swords in general (i.e. their being re-dated from c. 1300 to c. 1100 has enormous consequences for the dating of pretty much all high medieval swords). --dab (𒁳) 14:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

There is additional material available to discuss 'The Cawood Sword' as a standalone topic. Its in the Yorkshire Museum and several of the other "Star objects" have unique pages. I'm COI so don't want to rewrite the page, but there is useful secondary sources that can be found:

The object page with York Museums Trust: http://www.yorkmuseumstrust.org.uk/collections/search/item/?id=11769&search_query=c2VhcmNoX3RleHQ9Y2F3b29kK3N3b3Jk
Local information: http://www.cawoodheritage.org.uk/wordpress/?page_id=557
PostHole article: http://www.theposthole.org/read/article/28
In the Oakeshott link on the main page -- Zakhx150 (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cawood sword. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080629094604/http://www.yorkshiremuseum.org.uk:80/Page/ViewNewsArticle.aspx?ArticleId=10 to http://www.yorkshiremuseum.org.uk/Page/ViewNewsArticle.aspx?ArticleId=10

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic