This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums 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.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caves, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of caving and cave articles 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.CavesWikipedia:WikiProject CavesTemplate:WikiProject CavesCaves
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mining, a collaborative project to organize and improve articles related to mining and mineral industries. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, or visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, join in the discussion, or join the project.MiningWikipedia:WikiProject MiningTemplate:WikiProject MiningMining
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gloucestershire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gloucestershire 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.GloucestershireWikipedia:WikiProject GloucestershireTemplate:WikiProject GloucestershireWikiProject Gloucestershire
I've cleaned up this section so it's got much less wide-eyed credulity. Personally I think it's a pile of bunkum but I've left it in for now. 124.184.107.122 (talk) 06:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I think it should be taken out. It distracts from the main article, there's no references, the one link is broken and the "orbs" nonsense has long been de-bunked. Unless anyone can think of a good reason to keep it in?Nedtrifle (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't reasonable to say that such things have been seen, but it's perfectly encylopaedic to say that people have claimed to have seen such things. As long as the claims are supported by citations, I see no reason to remove them. Obscurasky (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have no problem with it being mentioned but it seems like there's too much in the article at the moment. I've had a go at cutting it down to a bare minimum (which at least has a reference - albeit a poor one)Nedtrifle (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
