Talk:Chains (geological site)
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
GCR site?
[edit]Where is the reference that demonstrates that this is a GCR site - and for what? Surely not for its biology which is how it reads currently. cheers Geopersona (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- The English Heritage data sheet says it is a GCR site.— Rod talk 21:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking, the citation says that the SSSI includes the (separately defined) Chains GCR. It would be worth locating that separate reference so that it could be quoted. I wasn't meaning to question whether there was a GCR but it ought to be evidenced in the article. It would be useful to know why the area has been designated for its geological interest whereas the citation is principally concerned with the areas biological interest. cheersGeopersona (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Is this link the one you mean?— Rod talk 22:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Nice one Rodw - yes, it would be worth adding as an additional reference. It would be something that folks might then like to follow up themselves if they had a particular interest - certainly my own interest has been sparked. best wishes Geopersona (talk) 05:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- Is this link the one you mean?— Rod talk 22:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking, the citation says that the SSSI includes the (separately defined) Chains GCR. It would be worth locating that separate reference so that it could be quoted. I wasn't meaning to question whether there was a GCR but it ought to be evidenced in the article. It would be useful to know why the area has been designated for its geological interest whereas the citation is principally concerned with the areas biological interest. cheersGeopersona (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chains (geological site). 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/20061013121549/http://www.english-nature.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1006541.pdf to http://www.english-nature.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1006541.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: 5 June 2024).
- 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) 19:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)