Talk:Leekfrith torcs

Additional piece

The Stoke Sentinel on 28 February reported that

"Archaeologists have now carried out investigations at the site and they say it is a 'complete' find, with no evidence of any other pieces on the land."

but "Staffslive" reports, on the same day, that

"Mr Hambleton and Mr Kania discovered the missing piece of the torc on Sunday (February 26) when they returned to the site."

Are we to understand that the archaeologists surveyed the field and came up empty, and after that the hobbyists went back with their metal detector and promptly found another piece? --dab (𒁳) 11:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Added to the article. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

We currently have both "The last torc was found by the same men, in the same field, several weeks later" and "A missing piece of the smallest torc was discovered by the original metal detectorists on 26 February 2017". I suspect these refer to the same object. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: As I understand it from the refs, the first of these refers to the 4th torc (only 3 were discovered initially), and dates from circa end of December 2016. The latter is then a much later event, happening a few months later. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The text of the former simply says "The pair returned to the field several weeks later and uncovered the fourth piece"; its video says "subsequently [to the archaeological survey, which was just after Xmas 2016] an extra piece was identified and recovered", but does not give a date. OTOH, the absence of the smaller piece of the thinnest torc from the publicity photos (including the one we have), suggests the 26 Feb date may be correct. If finds were made on three dates, I'm sure at least one source - or one person in one of the videos - would mention it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The timing of the more recent one might mean that most of the current round of news articles wouldn't be able to mention both. Hopefully this will become clearer over time (particularly if those involved can publish some scientific papers on this discovery). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Official website

WP:ELDUP quite clearly says "websites that can be both references and external links—include any official sites for the article topic", so the link to http://www.stokemuseums.org.uk/collections/local-history/leekfrith-iron-age-torcs/ should be in the "External links" section - where Joe Public is likely to look for it after reading the article - even if it used as a reference, and even if it is the infobox (which is supposed to summarise content from the rest of the article). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I can't see the point of linking to the same URL three times in an article (infobox, references, external links). For that matter, I can't see the point of linking to it more than once, with a preference for that link being in the references section, particularly since it is not guaranteed to be a long-term official link. Is having two links to it (infobox and references) a reasonable compromise for now? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The links I describe are common and supported by WP:ELDUP, for the reasons I give. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Actual press conference

We now have a link to the actual press conference here - already used as a reference. This is an 18 minute video, which answers many of the questions raised above, especially the last 10 minutes when Julia Farley of the BM is speaking. It also shows how poor the journalists' summaries are! We should make considerable use of this, which gives us an opportunity to do better than just repeating the basic and often inaccurate summaries in the press. Johnbod (talk) 04:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I've rescued this from the archive, as the excellent material here has still not been properly included in the article. Johnbod (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2017 (UTC)