Talk:Horncastle boar's head

Query
I am puzzled about the "Treasure Report Valuations 2004". Should not this be 2002? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , 2004 refers to the date in which the report was published (October 2004, see last page), not the time span covered by the report (2002). It would obviously not be possible to publish a report on all treasure found in 2002 that same year, without the risk of being incomplete. --Usernameunique (talk) 13:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I thought that it was an error but I can see that I was wrong. Cwmhiraeth (talk)

Article title
At FAC it was agreed that the article title should be changed to Horncastle boar's head and I think this should be done before TFA. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * ,, & , I've been thinking about this, and I'm both not opposed to the name change, and think it could go either way. There are two main sources for the article. The Portable Antiquities Scheme labels (link) the piece a "HELMET", with the caveat "Object type certainty: Possibly". Angela Care Evans, meanwhile, terms it an Anglo-Saxon parcel-gilt terminal in the form of a boar's head, and states that Its function is unclear but its scale suggests that it could have been a decorative terminal on a narrow helmet crest, in the same way that individual gilt-bronze dragon heads act as terminals to either end of the crest on the Sutton Hoo helmet. As it stands, this article is doing what the Portable Antiquities Scheme is doing: titling the object with the its most likely function, but quickly noting that this is not certain.
 * The main arguments in favor of keeping the title as it is, I think, are that it underscores the point of the article, and that it maintains some consistency across related articles: Gevninge helmet fragment, Tjele helmet fragment, Lokrume helmet fragment, and the one at issue. "Helmet fragment" quickly gets the point of the articles across, and I'm not sure what else, if anything, we would rename some of the other article (Gevninge ocular? Tjele nose and eyebrow piece?). That said, I understand why it may not be the best idea to have an article title that effectively states a conclusion, while the article effectively states a hypothesis. At any rate, please share your thoughts, and if consensus is the change the title, then I agree that we should do this before TFA. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it is misleading to title an article based on a PAS label "HELMET", "Object type certainty: Possibly", and the title should be changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with change. Johnbod (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * . You agreed at FAC that the article name should be changed, and as I have said above I think this should be done before the TFA, but is it too late now the article is protected? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Gladly. I'm avoiding tool use when the page is protected (more than I used to, anyway), but I don't have a problem stepping in here ... the page has been move-protected by a bot since it was scheduled, so non-admins would have been thwarted to some extent. - Dank (push to talk) 17:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Tweddle
Hi, Thanks for another fascinating article. I was trying to determine in Note 1, "similar to those of canines.[11] This helmet is more recent, dating to the eighth century", which helmet the "This helmet ... eighth century" was referring to. The Tweddle pdf link only gives me an error message (even when I changed coppregate to coppergate in the url:). Is it the same document as the archived copy on Dominic Tweddle? If so, maybe add archived to this article? Thanks JennyOz (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the praise,, and for noticing that. I think I've got them all now—that book is used a lot—and have clarified the footnote to The York helmet is more recent... If you're still interested in looking through the book, keep in mind that the pagination of the pdf (which appears to be an OCR'd copy by the York Archaeological Trust) differs somewhat from the citations, which refer to the pages in physical copies of the book; the apparent canine dentition is mentioned on page 184 of the pdf. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks ! ... for all the archive additions, for the note tweak and the hint re pdf. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)