Talk:Stirling torcs

Name
Is there a reason why "Stirlingshire Hoard" (capital H too?) is being used? No-one outside wikipedia seems to be using it, and indeed I'd be surprised if it ends up being called that. For now, I think something like David Booth hoard would be preferable. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 07:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That would have little or no precedent I know of - can you think of another significant hoard known after the finder? They usually end up as "Location Hoard" & if a different name emerges we can change it. Since Stirlingshire barely exists any more it may go to "Stirling" when they disclose the actual find site. So far  Johnbod (talk) 10:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That was actually why I suggested this. We can't invent a proper name, so we use a temporary descriptive one. "David Booth hoard" is descriptive. I suppose "Stirling horde" or "Stirling torcs" would do just as well. In all likelihood as you said, the "hoard" will get named after the precise location when that is revealed to the public (e.g. St_Ninian's_Isle).Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 10:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There is precedent for the Stirlingshire Hoard title, see Staffordshire Hoard. – ukexpat (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That's OR though, and there really isn't much in common with these finds or the names (Stirlingshire being abolished long ago), not much of a precedent. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 11:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So you go ahead and move it without consensus? - ukexpat (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the Deacon's way. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Good day, gentlemen. I do think the dear Deacon has run rather amok with his aspergillum, thrashing it this way and that, and in his haste has managed to remove possibly the most pertinent factor about these torcs from the body of the article as well as from its title - that they comprise a hoard, deliberately deposited and not just lost by some butterfingers. I have attempted to rectify the article.

Now gentlemen I won't pretend that I am not concerned with titles, for obvious reasons. But I do rather feel that the current choice of title for my little effort is not quite ideal. If you care to look at the Hoard article, in the "Hoards with individual articles" section, dear Deacon, you will see that there are many instances of hoards being named, as Mr Johnbod noted, as "Findspot" and then "Hoard". Plenty of precedent there. So I would prefer to see the article as Stirling hoard, with a lower case 'h' as I don't want to suggest that that is its proper name. But I do think we must not lose from the title the fact that they have been hoarded, with all that that implies.

Princess Venetia di Cannoli (talk) 09:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Stirling hoard or Stirling golden [no actually] hoard vex me not. All that is left is for Her Highness to organize a grand assembly of the Wikipedia community to confirm such a title, to get the consensus needed. A quorum of 100 editors should be reasonable. Otherwise her Highness may have to assume the ill will of messrs Ukexpat and Johnbod, and in those circumstances I'd hold great fear for her safety, that Lord Gerard may come upon your trail as he did your kinswoman. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As usual, Deacon, your cheek is staggering - you were the one who moved the name in the face of two existing objections.  Any name we have now is just a placeholder until a generally accepted one emerges, but I agree it is a hoard, & the lower-case apparently does not offend the Deacon's scruples, so go for it. Johnbod (talk) 02:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand most of what you write above, dear Deacon (have you been at the wine again?), but it seems to me that we are now all in accord, and so I shall instruct my man to re-name the article. Thank-you Mr Johnbod for your kind and gracious support.


 * Princess Venetia di Cannoli (talk) 07:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure if her Highness reads it a few more times it will come to her. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 09:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * John, give me a break (or is it your "way" to bust the balls of random users over nothing?). No-one objected to the move because I didn't propose it on talk. Please familiarise yourself with WP:BRD. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 09:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read the top of the section again. Johnbod (talk) 12:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Where I will find a proposal to rename this "Stirling Iron Age torcs"? Check again my friend ... though I do recommend you read WP:BRD first. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read the top of the section again. This is exactly the sort of thing that makes you such a tiresome editor. You might also read BRD yourself, noting it is not DB, which was your procedure here.  Enough. Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You can be sure I understand the top of the section, John, don't worry about that. You're repeating yourself now, and not being very decent about it either. I have never come across you in my life as far as my memory serves me, but I suggest you get over whatever grudge you have and find more productive outlets for your energy than this. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Naming revisited

 * and 15 months later..... So the Deacon is still at it, once again moving the article without anyt attempt at discussion! The current title is now completely without support from the references, AFAIK. Still, mustn't complain.... Johnbod (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I corrected the image caption only for consistency. Had I kown this discussion was progressing I would not have bothered. Having read the above, as a pretty impartial newcomer, I would definitely support use of "Hoard". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Consider myself impartial on this matter too! It's just that "Stirling hoard" isn't a good name because there are other hoards found in what is now the Stirling region, whereas 'Stirling torcs' isn't ambiguous and is more descriptive. I had actually forgotten this was discussed in the past; had just been reading references to it in the Scotsman and thought their name was well chosen. Not a big deal (though John Bod's incivility and lack of familiarity with WP:BRD might be). Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 14:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * a quick revision course: What BRD is, and is not: "BRD is most useful for pages where seeking consensus would be difficult, perhaps because it is not clear which other editors are watching or sufficiently interested in the page,.." (so not here then) "BRD is best used by experienced wiki-editors. It requires more diplomacy and skill to use successfully than other methods, and has more potential for failure." (You should probably avoid it entirely) "You can also try using it in less volatile situations, but take care when doing so.  Some have even taken to simply declaring their intent by adding the shortcut " WP:BRD " at the front of their edit summary.  This seems to help keep people from taking as much offense at proposed changes.  In a way, you're actively provoking another person with an edit they may (strongly) disagree on, so you're going to need to use all your tact to explain what you're aiming to achieve." Johnbod (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What is the number and nature of the other hoards in the Stirling region? Do the have wikipedia articles? If they do, even in future, could they be given more precise geographic titles? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There are several references to a Roman coin hoard as "Stirling hoard" on gbooks, and in both the traditional county and the modern council area there are enough "hoards" to justify a list article for anyone who wished to do the research (Antonine Wall runs through Stirlingshire). Coverage of archaeological artifacts on Wikipedia is sporadic at best and very recentist in focus, but it is true that the dab matter is ideal rather than critical. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 17:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * So how many, exactly, is "enough"? It seem that List of hoards in Britain lists about 175, of which 46 have articles. Well sporadic, yes, but that reflects their comparative rarity? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Vast majority of 'hoards' won't ever get in the list because the contents aren't 'interesting' enough. I think it reflects editor-preference too. Scotland's most famous hoard is almost certainly the St Ninian's Isle treasure, yet that doesn't have an article yet because the right people aren't interested in making one. Likewise, it is fairly random that Vita Sancti Niniani, a work of some note in northern England and southern Scotland in the Middle Ages has an article but Vita Sancti Martini, one of the most famous pieces of literature in medieval Europe, doesn't. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 17:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason the St Ninian's Isle Treasure doesn't have a fuller article yet (you gave the wrong link) is because my plea for photos to the Scottish project a good while ago met with zero response.  Otherwise it would have one, as I have sources, but describing objects like that with no photos is little use - I did the Hunterston Brooch but that is just one object.  When it does it should of course have a capital T.  The Norries Law plaques are equally without proper photos, & probably of more international interest than the St Ninian's Isle Celtic brooches, which have more spectacular counterparts from the other parts of the British Isles.  Most of the few photos of antiquities in Edinburgh on Commons were taken when some were exhibited in Paris; Scottish Wikipedians seem uninterested in their older heritage.  Johnbod (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Another reason is that Shetlanders are not well-represented here, partly due to the existence of the very useful Shetlopedia - see St Ninian's Isle Treasure. It used to offer a compatible Creative Commons licence, but when we started nicking articles wholesale they (understandably) removed it. Ben   Mac  Dui  11:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I see proper values live on in the Shetlands ("trinkets")! Is "gilted" correct in Scots? Out text seems to have originally been lifted from Shetlopedia, "trinkets" and all. Johnbod (talk) 11:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * They are not demonstrative folk and yes, we have indeed purloined their wares. As to gilted - I am not sure - do they mean "kilted"? :) Ben   Mac  Dui  18:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, "gilded", unless there's a Scots variant. Johnbod (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, the OED gives to gilt as a variant of to gild derived from the past participle (Wycliffe Bible: And thilk tablid thingis he giltide), marked as now only used in Scottish and Northern English. BabelStone (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)