# Talk:Conisbrough Castle

I've added my photo of the castle, its also on the Doncaster page.

I've deleted the sentence starting: "The Saxon-Norman divide has been overplayed in Ivanhoe". See [1] and [2] for support for the opinion that Scott was right about Norman subjugation of the Anglo-Saxons.--Mabzilla (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The British Library has uploaded some PD plans of the castle, available here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibrary/tags/sysnum003418130. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking to do some further work to expand this article over the coming months. Before starting though, I'd like to propose a change to the citation style. The current style uses long references, e.g. " 'Conquest, Anarchy and Lordship: Yorkshire, 1066-1154' By Paul Dalton, Cambridge University Press, 2002, ISBN 0-521-52464-4, pp. 34". I wish to propose using the harnvb template short citation system throughout, backed up by the "cite web" template as appropriate; the previous example would appear as "Dalton 2000, p. 34" under this approach, for example, linked to the relevant item in the bibliography. I personally think that short citations for articles with lots of citations, particularly from edited volumes, are easier to read and to edit. Such a change requires prior consensus on this talk page, as per MOS:CITE, of course.
NB: if the consensus was to stay with the current style, I would look to carry out the expansion work anyway, using the current citation style. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

As it stands at the moment the current system of referencing is OK, but if you are expanding it using several different page references from the same source the change would cut down on the reference clutter. If this is the case than I would agree to a change of style.
Would be good to convert the free text references over to {{cite book}} for consistent formatting at the same time. Keith D (talk) 12:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Cheers Keith. Yep - there would be multiple such references; I'd do the free text references at the same time. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Done. The relevant academic articles have been ordered, so will work through the article when they arrive. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I've gone through and expanded the article; it's not yet covering the literature up to FA standard, but should be covering the bases now. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Conisbrough Castle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 19:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll take this one, comments to follow in the next few days. Zawed (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Very good work, only minor comments as follows:
Lead

"mural towers" - wikilink?
11th – 12th centuries

Please check the dashes are appropriate as per MOS.
13th – 15th centuries

"The castle continued in Hamelin Plantagenet's family...": suggest "The castle remained in the ownership of Hamelin Plantagenet's family..."
20th – 21st centuries

Wikilink Ministry of Public Works, English Heritage, Doncaster Council
"Under this agreement the trust would manage the site, English Heritage maintains the historic fabric...": suggest "Under this agreement the trust would manage the site and English Heritage would maintain the historic fabric..."
"...settled at around 30,000...": presumably per annum?
Architecture

"...linked it with the inner ward.": ward?
No mention here of "mural" towers?
Wikilink barbican
Other stuff

References check out OK
No dup links
No dab links
External links are good
images appear to have appropriate licencing/tags
Will check back in a few days. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hchc2009, just checking in on the state of play on this review? It would be good to close it up as it has been open for a while. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Most of the changes are now done - will finish off the last couple later today. Hchc2009 (talk)
Should all be done now. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Looks good, passing as GA. Zawed (talk) 07:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I might be heading to Conisbrough Castle in July. I don't know how much of an opportunity I'll get to take photos, but if I do are there any particular areas which could do with coverage? Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Below are the pictures I took back in July. They might not be especially useful, but there they are just in case. I blame the weather for the quality of the pictures, rather than it being anything to do with my skill (or lack thereof) as a photographer. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 09:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
<Gallery mode=packed heights=150px>
Conisbrough Castle great tower.webm
Conisbrough Castle (1) (19290361998).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (2) (18855431924).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (3) (19471580162).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (4) (19482249341).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (5) (19290366268).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (6) (19451876176).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (7) (19482252741).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (8) (18857316713).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (9) (18857318103).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (10) (19471588312).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (11) (18855441214).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (12) (19482258401).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (13) (18857323053).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (14) (19291809589).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (15) (19291811139).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (16) (19290379998).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (17) (19471598062).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (18) (19451892236).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (19) (19451894326).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (20) (19482271971).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (21) (19471606562).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (22) (19290412630).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (23) (19471611322).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (24) (19290416940).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (25) (19477954505).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (27) (19482286771).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (28) (19482288661).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (29) (19471622452).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (30) (18855475274).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (31) (19290409898).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (32) (19482295761).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (33) (18855480704).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (34) (18855482144).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (35) (18855483224).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (36) (19290436420).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (37) (19471635262).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (38) (19290420978).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (39) (18855490344).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (40) (18855492104).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (41) (18857375633).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (42) (19482313001).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (43) (19477984575).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (44) (18857379853).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (45) (19482317191).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (46) (19290457370).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (47) (19451944106).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (48) (19451945526).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (49) (19290458450).jpg
Conisbrough Castle (50) (19471656892).jpg
</Galley>

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Conisbrough Castle/CommentsTalk:Conisbrough Castle/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Last edited at 13:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC).
Substituted at 12:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

At the moment I'm looking up Brindle, Stephen (2012), "The Keep at Conisbrough Castle, Yorkshire", Château Gaillard: Etudes de castellologie médiévale, 25: 61–74. I'm looking for examples where mottes have been truncated so that stone towes can be built, but on page 61 Brindle says

Excavations were carried out ... in 1963-5 and 1973-7. [The excavation work] suggests that n the late 11th century the site was occupied by a ringwork crowned with a timber palisade: the excavations did not produce any trace of a motte and the site is perhaps too small to have accommodated one.
I can work on some wording for the article later, but I think we might need to include the view that there may not have been a motte. Richard Nevell (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for not replying sooner Richard - yes, seems a sensible suggestion. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)