Talk:Carn Brea, Redruth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

References[edit]

This text could do with some hard references to substantiate dates and history. I have seen and heard various factoids (then repeated on websites) but the history of Carn Brea is often retold and can drift from documented fact.

I also doubt the statement These provided the first evidence in Britain of permanent Neolithic settlement..., what about the permanent Neolithic settlement at Skara Brae excavated by 1930?
Ashley VH 19:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

I have just put back in Category:Archaeological sites in the United Kingdom, Category:Iron Age Britain, Category:Stone Age Europe, Category:Neolithic. These still seem relevant for a site that has had extensive Archaelogical surveys and digs and is a site with finds relevant for each of the age categories, not just prehistory. Was there a rationale for removing them? -- Ashley VH 15:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just put these in for a second time - what's going on? If you are totally desperate to remove all references to Britain and Europe, please at least create similar sub categories for Cornwall.-- Ashley VH 16:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Ashley. Missed reading your first comment above. Yes indeed, these categories are still relevant to this article. However, the article is already under Category:Prehistoric sites in Cornwall and the categories I removed are ancestral categories to that category (except Category:Neolithic which I left in second time). You'll see that, at present this article is the only one listed under Category:Archaeological sites in the United Kingdom because everything else is under a sub-category. The categories really need removing from this article as they are damaging the integrity of the hierarchy. Walgamanus 16:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, I'll have to invest some time in surfing the categories...-- Ashley VH 17:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So are there any objections to me removing them again? Walgamanus 19:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not from me if you are clear about the logic.-- Ashley VH 19:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hierarchy of categories[edit]

Just working through the category logic (which is definitely confusing, for example "Iron Age" being a parent of "Prehistory" (issue raised in Category talk:Prehistoric sites in England)), I thought it would be useful to put the hierarchy here for reference (not exhaustive). Bold shows where Carn Brea has been added. -- Ashley VH 12:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Archaeology

Category:Iron Age Britain is no longer a parent category of Category:Prehistoric sites in England. There is a new Category:Iron Age sites in England. Same for Stone Age and Bronze Age - Walgamanus 23:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sidenote, the tool Special:CategoryTree is highly useful for checking categories.--Ashley VH (talk) 13:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Megalith[edit]

I've created a new template for megalithic sites, Template:Megalith, as used on Pikestones and Round Loaf. Some instructions on the template talk page, to show how to use it. Cheers! --PopUpPirate 13:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter reference[edit]

I have reinstated this news item, as I feel it is a relevant fact about activity on the castle.

I agree, it is shame this has been removed twice. This news story was one of the rare occaisons that Carn Brea appeared in national newspapers and so I would not call this unencyclopedic or trivia. -- Ashley VH 12:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should not be in the article. It's a trivial news item that overweighs the entire article about the place. --Tony Sidaway 14:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many WP articles have a "Trivia" section for such items that are not core to the topic but of interest to many readers searching for them. I'll add such a section to deal with your point of view without having to revert your changes. Please read the standard guidance in wp:trivia before removing this reference for a second time. -- Ashley VH 14:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dumping crap into a trivia section is not recommended by Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections (which you referred to above as wp:trivia). I've read that guideline. So should you before you recommend that others do so. --Tony Sidaway 13:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not appreciate you using such offensive and confrontational language. I took care to review the guideline and perhaps you should suggest how to integrate the reference rather than taking such an aggressive stance.Ashley VH 15:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any problem with including a mention of the Potter-car, and am utterly at a loss as to how anyone could feel it overweighs the entire article. DuncanHill 15:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cars are stolen and dumped all the time. This reference makes the article look utterly pathetic, which the location does not deserve. --Tony Sidaway 13:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cars which have been featured in enormously-popular films, and on the cover of best-selling books, are, I respectfully suggest, rather less frequently stolen and dumped. The article does not look pathetic with the reference, and I'm honestly a bit baffled by your objection. DuncanHill 13:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this was a trivia section with more stuff in, I'd be less inclined to remove it. But the car thing is the only thing there. If it merits a mention in the article, I suggest you add it elsewhere, and not a special section on its own. Majorly (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was moved to a trivia section because of the objections of a single editor to its inclusion. I have now restored it to where it was before. DuncanHill 14:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's still cruft. --Tony Sidaway 14:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's cited from a major newspaper, it's factual, it involves one of the major publishing and cinematic events of recent years, and it in no way overwhelms or detracts from the rest of the article. I'm sure there is plenty of Potter-cruft on Wikipedia, and Tony you seem to be doing an excellent job of countering it, but I think just this once you have been a little over-zealous. DuncanHill 14:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the very few people who grew up on the top of Carn Brea, I feel the story of the Potter car is highly worthy of inclusion as the only event I can remember actually hitting the national papers. Even the handful of deaths (by drowning in the flooded mine-shaft) over the last few decades on Carn Brea never made it to the national papers and for the page to have balance there should be some recent events. Otherwise the page may as well be called History of Carn Brea rather than Carn Brea. Ashley VH 15:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tony. It might have made the press, but it doesn't really tell us anything about Carn Brea. It's sub-trivia. It's out of place, and it reeks of recentism. --Gmaxwell 16:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone thinks that 17 words, at the end of a paragraph, 2 thirds of the way down the page overweighs the entire article then I'm sorry but they have no sense of proportion. It's OK to hate Harry Potter guys - just don't assume that that makes you always right about what should go in an article. DuncanHill 16:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Seventeen words that shouldn't be where they are do cause problems of undue weight, I don't think anyone would seriously oppose that notion because it's pretty obvious. The question of whether the words should be there has been addressed so far in this discussion by myself, gmaxwell, Ashleyvh and DuncanHill, and we're split down the middle on that question.
Please don't assume that those who oppose what they consider to be inappropriate placement of Harry Potter references are doing so because they hate Harry Potter. In my case, far from it. I enjoyed the third film and the fifth very much, I enjoyed the third book, and I've worked recently on the article about the seventh. --Tony Sidaway 17:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And Tinminer also restored the info. Tony, I think you are way off-beam in this case - it doesn't overwhelm the article, there's a fair amount (I would love to see more) on the history of Carn Brea, and one little sentence about its recent newsworthy history. I've never read any Potter books, or seen the films, and I probably never will, but I really see no harm in the mention. DuncanHill 17:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just re-read WP:LAME and have an eerie feeling we are sliding inexorably towards it - can we all take a little break from this, have a cup of tea, maybe walk the dog or weed the garden, and remember that life has much more in it. DuncanHill 17:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also nice to see editors turning up who have previously shown no interest in the article, or any other Cornish articles, bringing their expertise. I hope to see lots more of them! DuncanHill 17:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a piece of news has hit several national (UK) newspapers, why should we, as Wikipedians, feel the need that it merits no place in Wikipedia land? Can anyone who objects to the Harry Potter reference please explain that? Tinminer 18:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely if we really want to wade fully into pedantic land with this, why don't we remove all reference to 'smugglers tunnel', as there is no physical proof of its existence, or any quality references for it. I don't think that we actually should remove it, but I feel that the reference to the Harry Potter car is MORE valid, as it has actual evidence to back it up. Tinminer 18:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of where we put information, really, and whether it adds to our knowledge of the location or its history in a significant way. Certainly we don't include every trivial event that makes the newspapers in Wikipedia, let alone in every single article to which it has relevance.
To set this in context, Carn Brea is an area famous for its unique geology and history. The building in question, which has roots in the fourteenth century, with the present structure going back to the seventeenth, has also been used recently as a restaurant.
Then we get to the reference to the Harry Potter car. Note that this car has nothing to do with Harry Potter, a fictional character. It's merely the shell of a Ford Anglia, perhaps one of several used in the production, that was bought by a nearby film production company. Lacking an engine, it is not drivable. One day this mid-1960s rustbucket disappeared, and shortly afterwards it showed up close to the building. A decent filler for a slow news day.
But as Digby Tantrum said in a recent edit summary: what does this have to do with Carn Brea, exactly? I note that the event is mentioned in one other place: South West Film Studios, the owner of which concern had somehow obtained the car, presumably to attract attention and a bit of credibility to its plans to make films. That mention is certainly appropriate to the article, which is about an instance of mismanagement of public funds and the events of the subsequent receivership. Could it be relevant to Carn Brea? Well, if we had large and compendious coverage of Carn Brea, which would certainly be possible given the nature of the area, this item might merit a mention. As it is, however, we have minimal coverage of the geographical features and their history, with the result that the Harry Potter car story, absurdly trivial as it is, is given undue prominence.
You might say "so what? What harm is it doing?" Well we have a policy known as neutral point of view, part of which (often referred to as WP:WEIGHT) is given over to the subject of undue weight. After describing the importance of this to the presentation of viewpoints, it says:
Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
I think this is a reasonable policy statement, and I'm sure most will agree in principle. Perhaps there is disagreement on how it applies here. That's a matter of judgement, and I think it's what we should discuss. --Tony Sidaway 18:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


That's a lot different to your previous claim that it overweighs [sic] the entire article. It is a brief mention, not featured in the introduction, and comes after the material about the Carn's history. In my judgement, it is not undue weight, and does not detract from or distort the article.DuncanHill 19:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, if we apply your argument to the Carn Brea article, we will need to delete most of it, as there are a lot of un-sourced and un-referenced statements and facts which are not directly related to each other (e.g. the Boxing Day hunt and the neolithic settlement). However, while this may make the article more balanced in your view, it would also deplete the usefulness of the article, and the authority it gives as a work of reference. Tinminer 19:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're getting close to the unprotect time, and I don't see consensus yet. Does someone want to respond to the closest thing to an attempt at compromise I've seen here, Tony's: "if we had large and compendious coverage of Carn Brea, which would certainly be possible given the nature of the area, this item might merit a mention."? For example, someone might want to say ... that sounds great, here are five references that I intend to use to expand this article to meet that goal? Hint, hint? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given some of Tony's comments at Talk:Kenmare where a very similar situation has arisen, I feel disinclined to "reach out" to him, sorry. DuncanHill 20:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically this one. DuncanHill 20:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Tony's off-the-cuff remarks are registered as deadly weapons on six continents. That said, let's take one article at a time; can we focus on improving this article, and not the people working on it? Trust me, as someone who hasn't edited this particular article before, but has worked with a lot of editors; you are each trying to improve it, honest. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've previously said that I'd like to see more on the history of the Carn, but I don't see how a "you can have the Potter-ref, but only if you have lots of other stuff" settlement could ever work. And maybe I've been spending too much time on Wikipedia, but I am pretty fed up with editors who add nothing to an article, but simply remove content and then start getting abusive about editors who'd like it restored. It is incredibly hard to assume good faith - or concentrate on just the one article - when one sees the sort of abuse (and to be frank "off the cuff" don't excuse anything) that the person one is supposed to be debating with will produce in a very similar situation. Vernon has come up with some excellent ideas for the article (below) and given his history of highly productive and constructive work, I feel sure that the article will soon expand and improve in ways that should please everybody. Apart from that, I've already said all I can about the Potter-ref above and on Tony's talk page, and I really can't be bothered with this any more, at least until Tony starts being more constructive. I am sorry if this seems negative, but for me to continue in this debate would not help me or anyone else. DuncanHill 20:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It really is about undue weight. The Harry Potter car thing looks odd in the article now, and that will not improve over time. In five years time the fact that some wankers chose the top of Carn Brea Hill to dump a heap of junk will seem even more out-of-place in this article about a historic location, not less.
I'm sorry that you see editing of articles as "abuse". That can only be helped if you change your attitude. --Tony Sidaway 16:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apparently am not sufficiently noisy to edit this article, so I will make a comment and "earn" the right. As far as I can see, the Potter reference is a minor happenstance which doesn't add anything of note to Carn Brea's history. Simply mentioning Harry Potter is not a guarantee of a worthwhile addition, for all the glamour that name bears; it's not as if we can even source that the thieves chose the castle for any special reason. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 10:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protected[edit]

All right, folks. That's something like 15 edits all just adding or removing this one line of text, and no other edits to this article in months. WP:LAME is right. Talk it over until you get some kind of agreement, please, and tell me, or another admin, and we'll unprotect. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've set it at 2 days, since this is just one line about a stolen car, and not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, so surely reaching at least some kind of grudging agreement in a few days is not impossible. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it is. DuncanHill 10:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked AnonEMouse to return to this problem. DuncanHill 10:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about Cornwall, but did a bit of on-web research, added some information and citations, and the image from this talk page. I hope my edits are considered useful in any case. Tony, are they sufficient for you to consider that the sentence about the car will no longer be undue weight? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you AnonEMouse, your contributions are very welcome. DuncanHill 17:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly defer to DuncanHill and AnonEMouse, should they be in agreement on an appropriate representation of any matter pertaining to this article. --Tony Sidaway 18:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tony, very much appreciated, Best wishes, DuncanHill 18:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you for your hard work and good faith. --Tony Sidaway 19:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Basset, Baron de Dunstanville and first Baron Basset (1757–1835)[edit]

It would enhance this article if there were an article on Francis Basset, Baron de Dunstanville and first Baron Basset (1757–1835).Vernon White - T A L K . . . to me. 07:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.DuncanHill 19:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carn Brea Mining Society[edit]

Carn Brea from Redruth

It would be good to add a link to Carn Brea Mining Society when Harry Potter and all his works are forgotten and the page is unfrozen! Also a Wikimedia gallery page. Vernon White - T A L K . . . to me. 19:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also good, I like that view of the Carn, a different angle to most pics I've seen. DuncanHill 19:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The wikimedia Gallery has an aerial view and a view from the top. [1] Vernon White - T A L K . . . to me. 21:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

I've taken the liberty of adding the "editprotected" template here. The picture is GFDL-compatible and shows the sky-line in the environs of Carn Brea. The link, to http://www.carnbreaminingsociety.co.uk/, would also enhance the article.
I'd also like to note that I discussed this matter with Greg Maxwell (User:gmaxwell) the other day, and he remarked that soon he will have imported all of the free images and metadata from geograph. The quality of the pictures is variable but it contains a wealth of metadata that would greatly enhance articles like this one. --Tony Sidaway 16:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please could you provide a link to your discussion with gmaxwell or add it to this talkpage, so that other editors can contribute? DuncanHill 16:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discusson was off-wiki. I'm sure he'll be happy to confirm and elaborate his statements about geograph if you put a question on his talk page. --Tony Sidaway 16:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To give you an idea of what it's all about, see here. --Tony Sidaway 16:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article's not protected. I've removed the expired protection tag. Cheers. --MZMcBride 21:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Top of Carn Brea Hill

Any objections to using this cropped image instead? The larger one is mostly of trees and houses, and doesn't show the castle and monument much. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things I like about the first version of the picture is that it shows the Carn in relation to the town - could you crop the sky but leave some of the houses? DuncanHill 18:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smugglers' Cave[edit]

Changed to Smugglers' Cave from Smugglers' Tunnel to fit with Michael Tangye's description in his book and added the book as a reference.

Note that as a young boy (in the 1970's) I was lowered down on a tow-rope by my cousin into part of the Smugglers' Cave "tunnel" that then could be entered by a small overgrown hole along its length (about 40 foot away from the larger cave-like entrance further towards the Cross, later blocked off by the Council). It was partially blocked and the floor of the tunnel was loose slate. The tunnel was about 5 foot in height but I was too frightened to release myself from the rope to go exploring any further, probably a sensible decision as I could see that parts of the tunnel had already fallen in. -- Ashley VH 10:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the GPS coordinates and a photograph for the cave entrance after tracking it down on 19 June 2008. The entrance was overgrown with ferns and difficult to reach as there is no nearby path. I would recommend looking for it in winter when the ferns have died down and anyone trying should take care as there are some treacherous gaps hidden between the rocks along the ridge.—Ashleyvh (talk) 11:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion of further material[edit]

The book Cornovia: Ancient Sites of Cornwall & Scilly by Craig Weatherhill, ISBN 1-871060-31-1 has an excellent piece on the prehistory of the Carn, if someone has access to the book they would find useful and citable additions for the article. I have the book, and can supply extracts to editors, but am currently unwilling to edit the article. DuncanHill 10:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that the page has become subject to an edit war. I also feel disinclined to contribute in such a hostile environment. After adding a few references to Smugglers' Cave I shall retire until User:Tony Sidaway feels he has made his point and gets bored of picking an argument. Tony, you win, congratulations. Ashley VH 11:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For material on Carn Brea mines, I suggest Cornwall's Central Mines: The Northern District 1810-1895 by T. A. Morrison, ISBN 0-906720-10-9, for Carn Brea and granite, then South West Granite by Peter Stanier, ISBN 1-900147-13-0 has much of value. DuncanHill 11:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further material on the mines on the side of the Carn can be found in A History of Tin Mining and Smelting in Cornwall, D. B. Barton, ISBN 1-871060-03-6 DuncanHill 11:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Parish?I[edit]

Is this article really about both the Civil Parish AND the hilltop site? Bodrugan (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. DuncanHill (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map: A30 mislabeled[edit]

There is an error in the map, the label for the A30 road is on the railway track, according to Open Street Map. But see also Commons:File talk:Carn Brea.svg where this is disputed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem has been fixed now. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How come Carn Brea has 55,000 people?[edit]

What do they do? When did it grow? The article defines a civil parish that does not appear to have existed before 1974. What was it before that date?

I have never heard of Carn Brea before (and I live in the UK). Enough about archaeology and a car that was in a film, I want to know about the history of the community since, say, 1800.

(signed, A genealogist) --Oldontarian (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carn Brea does not have 55,000 people. That figure is for the Camborne-Redruth area, including several other parishes. I'm not sure it really belongs in this article. DuncanHill (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Carn Brea, Redruth. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 23:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Carn Brea, Redruth. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 21:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Carn Brea, Redruth. 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:

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) 07:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carn_Brea,_Redruth&oldid=1206551621"