Talk:Hoxne Hoard

Peer Review by Catherine Johns and Richard Hobbs

Here is a peer review provided to me just now by Catherine and Richard. Sincerely, Witty Lama 12:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Discovery and Excavation

1. In the first paragraph, it is still stated that Lawes and Whatling initially informed ‘the local museum’ (which?) of the find. This is not what they told me: my understanding was that they first informed the Suffolk County Council, who are the landowners. Peter Whatling is a tenant farmer, and he very properly informed his landlords of the find. They in turn passed on the information to the Suffolk Archaeological Unit, which is also part of the local Council. I think it would be best simply to say that the two men ‘informed the authorities’, who alerted the archaeological unit.
   • Y The phrasing in Hoxne Hoard#Discovery and initial excavation now appears correct and well supported with sources. Fæ (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

   Items discovered

11. This sentence should be corrected: ‘Within the chest, some items had been placed in smaller boxes made of yew or cherry wood while others had been packed in woollen cloth or hay’. Change to: Within the chest, some objects had evidently been placed inside smaller containers, and one group had been wrapped in linen cloth and padded with straw. ‘4 pepper pots, including the Empress Pepper Pot’ : add quotes around ‘Empress’.
    • Y Done. Victuallers (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    Coins

21. Suggest that the illustration of the clipped siliqua should be captioned ‘a heavily clipped siliqua’.
    • Y Rephrased. Victuallers (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    Silver items

31. Unclear sentence: ‘The bust of the lady has partial gilding to the detail of fine clothes and jewellery...’ I suggest: ‘The woman’s hair, jewellery and clothing are carefully represented, and gilding is used to pick out many details’. Y Done Victuallers (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC) I still feel that there is an undue emphasis on pepper, especially with the addition of the quotes.

    Done Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    The tigress: we cannot say that she was attached by the hind paws only. There are clear traces of solder beneath the hind paws, but the front paws rested on some element of the parent vessel, and may well also have had some solder, now decayed. So delete the part of the sentence that begins, ‘...by her rear paws only’. The reference cited should be to p.186 of the catalogue as well as p.64.

    Reworked; can someone add the extra ref to the template here?

    Y Page added, just use "pp" instead of "p" parameter. Fæ (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    In general, I dislike the use of the word gender as a kind of euphemism for sex: nouns have gender, but living creatures have sex. However, this is a stylistic point, not a factual one.

    Y Changed, though it may be objected to by some, as "dugs" was above! Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    Comment - The OED-based rationale for "sex" is fine, in this case a less ambiguous word than gender and so this is not just a style choice but a matter of clarity; the issue with "dugs" was slightly different. Fæ (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

32. Cochlearia: ‘small spoons’, well, they are smaller than the cigni/ligulae, but at this period, they are larger than a modern teaspoon. A minor point.

    Comment I'm not sure what we can do about this. The current text states "51 cochlearia, which are small spoons with shallow bowls and long, tapering pointed handles ...", which does not imply that they were tea spoon sized. I suggest that no change is required. BabelStone (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

33. ‘The Romans did not use forks’ should be edited to read ‘The Romans did not use forks at table’: Roman forks exist, but they were not tableware.

    Y Done Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    Cigni: why ‘flat’ spoons? They are spoon-shaped, concave, not flat.

    Changed to "rather shallow"; is that ok? Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    ‘Monogram cross’, not ‘cross monogram’.

    Y Done. Many thanks for these - I'll leave the next point for others. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

34. I really do not feel that the table of inscriptions is either necessary or useful. This is another example of giving undue prominence to one aspect of the hoard. It provides a lop-sided source of information.
    • Comment: I disagree entirely with the above assessment of the table of inscriptions. Inscriptions are one of the most important features of any collection of artefacts, and not only do they provide valuable information (e.g. whether the hoard was Christian or pagan), but they add a human dimension to the hoard. The information in this table is not available anywhere else on the internet on a single page, and should be very useful to anyone with a serious interest in archaeology. In my opinion, without this table, the article cannot advance beyond B-class (B-class Readers' experience: Useful to many, but not all, readers. A casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic, but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material would have trouble doing so, or would risk error in derivative work. -- how could a serious student possibly hope to understand the material if the inscriptions that name the owners of the artefacts are omitted?). If the table makes the article seem lop-sided, that is because similarly important detailed information is missing from other parts of the article. In particular, I think that the section on coins is not yet up to standard, and I would like to see it improved by the additon of a summary table of coins by date and type. Without such information the article is of little use to a serious student or researcher. As a reminder, the readers' experience for a featured article is Definitive. Outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information. -- we should be adding more useful information, not deleting valuable information. BabelStone (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    I have taken it out (though before reading this) - The names are present in the article in other places than this table, as is a discussion of their meaning. The "definitive" work on this subject constitutes two 250-page books, and they contain many data tables. We are writing an encyclopedia article! The Land (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    Hmm, on reflection I've put it back in. Any other views? The Land (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    • Second viewpoint: I agree with BabelStone, the table was (is) useful, and referenced out to the individual BM records so that the reader can check the full description and text (these links were nowhere else). I suggest it is replaced (kept) until we have a consensus on what is appropriate for an encyclopaedic entry versus the BM expert's opinion of what they feel is lop-sided (which does not imply cognisance of WP guidance such as WP:UNDUE). In terms of format, perhaps there is a way of slimming down on the page, slapping into a note or splitting out to a list article? Fæ (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    I agree that it should stay. It may not be the most important thing about the hoard, but the article should clearly set that into perspective elsewhere. The perception of undue weight is only there if the article does not deal with the facts in context. If anything information on the inscriptions help to create context. Also I don't see why one would remove pertinent information from an encyclopedia article. Revcasy (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    ⇒ See #Table of inscriptions (con't) for later discussion. Fæ (talk) 07:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

    ⇒ See #Feedback on the pepper pot intro for additional points on Silver items. Fæ (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

    Cochlearia / cignus

    Note from Liam - this subsection of the review refers not only to the HH article but the new stubs Cochlearium and Cigni Witty Lama 14:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

41. cochlear, pl. cochlearia (sometimes spelt without the h, because the Greek chi does not exist in Latin) and cignus, pl. cigni -- meaning 'a swan'. Cochlearia were in use throughout the Roman period, but cignus is a name applied only tentatively to a specific and fairly rare late-Roman type, the type with a large bowl and short handle terminating in a bird's head. We don't know that this was what they were called; it is merely a likely hypothesis. Larger spoons, and there were many different types, were usually called ligulae (sing. ligula).

     Question: Ok; is it that "cigni" is used in ancient sources in appropriate contexts, and it is thought that this spoon shape is what it meant? Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    Comment. I think that discussion of the exact form and nomenclature of spoons is something that is best addressed in the relevant Wikipedia articles that are linked to from Hoxne Hoard (Cochlearium and Cigni), and no changes are required to this article. BabelStone (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

    Iron and organic

51. First para: - the iron fittings probably all belong to the outer chest. The identifiable, though vanished, small boxes had silver fittings.
    • Y Rephrased. Fæ (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
52. Could I suggest the following wording for the sentences beginning ‘A fragmentary pyxis...’: Small fragments from a decorated ivory pyxis (a cylindrical lidded box) were found, along with more than 150 tiny shaped pieces of bone inlay or veneer, probably from a wooden box or boxes. Minuscule fragments of wood adhering to metal objects were identified as belonging to nine different species of timber, all native to Britain: wood traces associated with the iron fittings of the outer chest established that it was made of oak. Silver locks and hinges were from two small wooden boxes or caskets: these were made from cherry wood and yew, both decorative timbers. Some wheat straw survived as padding between the plain silver bowls, which also bore faint traces of linen cloth.
    • Y Corrections made as suggested. Fæ (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    Historical Background

61. First para: ‘modern-day England and Wales’, please.
    • Y done Victuallers (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
62. The road in question linked with London (Londinium) as well as Colchester. - is there a ref? Victuallers (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Y went ahead and added link. may still need a ref. Revcasy (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
      • I feel we do need a ref for this. Our Pye Road article and others say it went to Colchester although on the Roman map there is clearly ..another? road to Londonium. We need the ref to at least change the Pye Road stub. I can't find a ref ... I did quickly look. Victuallers (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Johns 2010 p.9 The Land (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
          • Added the ref. Revcasy (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
63. The latest burial date of AD 450 (which I believe to be too late). Emphasis that it is the absolute latest, and make reference [79] to Johns and Bland 1994, p.168

    Comment. There is no longer any mention of 450 as the latest burial date. A terminus post quem of 408 is given, but no terminus ante quem is given. Do we need to add in an absolute latest date of 450, or just leave it hanging? BabelStone (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

    I think just leave it hanging. The terminus ante quem isn't clearly established, it's simply that the longer after 420ish you go, the less and less plausible it is. I think the natural way of reading "After 408" is "A few years or decades after 408" rather than "at any time between 408 and 2010" - so by omitting a ante quem date we are not misleading people. The Land (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

    Agree; leave floating rather than potentially be misunderstood – for those unaware, this was discussed at the BM workshop. The general view was that 450 was overly conservative but even that would be a speculative TPQ and the more likely range of 420ish would still be an educated guess (even if footnoted to a good source). Fæ (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

    Since we no longer suggest 450 as the terminus ante quem, I think the parenthetical date range on the section head "Turmoil in Britain (406–450)" should be removed. The section actually covers a longer range than that anyway. I added the dates specifically to match the date range for the hoard of 408-450 as it existed in the article on 18 June. If there are no objections I'll remove "(406–450)". - PKM (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

    Agreed - they're fairly arbitrary anyway (as if to say that the place was fine and dandy on either side of that date range :-) Witty Lama 00:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

    Y Dates removed from heading. - PKM (talk) 03:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

64. 3rd para, first sentence. change to ‘...Constantine III, led a British force across the English Channel to Gaul in his bid to become Emperor’.
    • Y Already done by someone. BabelStone (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
65. The ‘Rescript of Honorius’: this is a much-disputed document, and really, this is not the place to go into it. It may have had nothing at all to do with Britain. Richard suggests the following reference, if you must mention it: M.E. Jones, The End of Roman Britain (1996). p.249, fn.19.

    Rescript of Honorius now deleted

    Late Roman Hoards

71. Both Richard and I feel that this is simply not the place for this. The first sentence (about increasing amounts of bullion) needs a reference: neither of us knows about it. Mildenhall: buried in late 4th, but contains earlier material. If Kaiseraugst, Esquiline etc. are to be mentioned, then the relevant catalogues must be cited (all are in the Hoxne bibliography, but they are also listed at the end of this letter). Last para/sentence better deleted. It touches on matters that require FAR more explanation to make any sense at all.

    I think we certainly need something here; this may be the difference between an encyclopedic editorial style & a curatorial style. We have several mentions of the partial picture of contemporary silver that Hoxne provides, and need to say something about the missing part of the picture. "[It]... places the subject in context" is one of the criteria for features articles. The museum is able to display the Mildenhall and Thetford treasures next to Hoxne, we have to give context through text. We can only reference works we have seen, and Kent and Painter's "Wealth of the Roman World", which had a summary and catalogue entries on objects from each of the other hoards in the second paragraph, is perfectly adequate for the few words said on each here, though of course other refs could be used, and BM links should be added to the notes, as one has been for the Egyptian body chain.

    The first sentence has been edited & moved, but was originally referenced to Kent and Painter's introductory section, pp. 15-19. I'll look at this & the last para. I thought Canterbury at least was too late to group in this way. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    Now redone, changing what were the first & third paras; is this better? Johnbod (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

    Acquisition, display and impact

81. Second para, sentence beginning ‘From 1997...’ Revise latter part to: ‘...and adjacent to the Mildenhall treasure, which contains large vessels of types that are absent from the Hoxne hoard’.
    • Y Already done by someone ("... which contains large silver vessels of types that are absent from the Hoxne hoard"). BabelStone (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
82. The final para. of this section still does not explain the specific impact of the publicity surrounding the Hoxne treasure. Because the finder, Eric Lawes, was repeatedly praised and thanked by the archaeological establishment for his prompt reporting of the find, which enabled professional excavation to take place, other detectorists came to understand that they, too, would be praised rather than reviled if they did the right thing. This was a great change of perception in the metal-detecting fraternity. This is discussed in some detail on p.2 of the 2010 catalogue.

    Amended the final para to deal with this point The Land (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    A sentence on this is needed in the lead para too. Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    • Y Seems to have already been done. BabelStone (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

    References

91. In general, the use of very early and popular references (such as the 1993 Current Archaeology article) should be avoided. The early articles to use are the 1994 Britannia article and/or the equivalent in JRA.

    Comment. I agree in principle that the Current Archaeology article is not the best source; but as someone trying to make useful contributions to the article without access to any print sources, it was the best on-line resource available for certain information. I don't have any objections to changing any or all of the CA references, but I think that a link to the on-line version of the article should still be kept somewhere in the article (External Links ?) as it would be interesting to the majority of readers, who do not have access to the catalogue or other print sources. BabelStone (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

    Y It's only cited for one payment figure (along with the Independent) and the fact that the finder split the cash with the farmer. Nothing really controversial or requiring analysis/expertise. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

92. Instead of the Helena Hawkesford paper use the up-to-date ref. which is the 2010 catalogue. If you want an earlier piece on the body-chain alone, I wrote one for a Festschrift, which HH used as her source, but you don’t need it anyway because of the catalogue.

     Question: Could someone suggest the best page numbers to reference in the 2010 catalogue as a replacement for the footnotes for the less appropriate Hawkesford paper? Fæ (talk) 08:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

    • Y Done. I have replaced the reference for Roman settlement at Scole with Warner p.38 and "Roman Grey Literature Stage 1 Database" #1081 (the latter has the dates); and replaced the reference for the Eye hoard with Abdy p.58. BabelStone (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
93. * Other possible references The additions below include references to the standard monographs on other treasures, if you want them.
    • Johns, Catherine; Bland, Roger (1994), "The Hoxne Late Roman Treasure", Britannia, 25: 165–173, ISSN 0068113, OCLC 486318148 {{citation}}: Check |issn= value (help)
    • Baratte, François (2002), Le trésor de Carthage : contribution à l'étude de l'orfèvrerie de l'Antiquité tardive, Etudes d'antiquités africaines. (in French), CNRS, ISBN 9782271060099
    • Shelton, Kathleen J (1981), The Esquiline treasure, London: British Museum, ISBN 9780714113562
    • Alföldi-Rosenbaum, Elisabeth; Cahn, Herbert Adolph; Kaufmann-Heinimann, Annemarie (1984), Der Spätrömische Silberschatz von Kaiseraugst, Basler Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Bd. 9 (in German), Habegger, OCLC 12046808
    • Guggisberg, Martin A; Kaufmann-Heinimann, Annemarie; Ewald, Jürg (2003), Der spätrömische Silberschatz von Kaiseraugst, Forschungen in Augst, 34. (in German), Römerstadt Augusta Raurica, ISBN 9783715100340
    • Bastien, Pierre; Metzger, Catherine (1977), Le trésor de Beaurains, Numismatique romaine, 10.; Mémoires, t. 17 (in French), Wetteren, OCLC 474776900

    Y Partially Done. The Britannia reference is already used; but I do not think there is a need to add footnoted references for the other Roman hoards where they are only discussed in passing (the wikilink to the appropriate article page is sufficient in my opinion), so I suggest that unless anyone has access to the other references and is able to make use of them, they do not currently have a place in the article. BabelStone (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Coin tables

Am adding in two tables of origins/dates of solidi and siquilae respectively. I suck at the table syntax so please improve. :-) The Land (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

These would probably have been better played with in a sub-page draft before adding. After a couple of edit conflicts I'm holding back. In terms of format, I suggest frills such as collapsible and hide functionality are avoided. I can not see much, or any, benefit to being able to sort every possible column by number and such non-standard styling may actually hamper FA status. Fæ (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed ... I mean to the hiding I think the last addition of "355-364" went in the wrong table. I'm guessing. Sorting seems useful to have in a table although we can switch columns off Victuallers (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that. The tables are now correctly formatted, any idea how to add captions/refernces/explanatory text to them? The Land (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Refs work as normal I think. You just put the ref tag where you want the superscript. Captions I can add as a null if required Victuallers (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If you add a table title, then it can be referenced in the text. How about a sort only on the end total as below? Fæ (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

draft table

Coin table 2 Mint 355-364 364-7 367-75 375-8 378-88 388-95 395-402 402-8 Total Arles 747 6 753 Trier 69 1,855 709 1,720 2,000 6,353 Lyons 376 11 6 29 268 2 692 Milan 175 335 4,836 5,346 Rome 287 85 2 3 335 Aquileia 123 209 335 Siscia 2 21 11 34 Sirmium 5 9 14 Thessalonica 1 3 9 2 15 Constantinople 4 8 8 2 15 Cyzicus 1 1 Nicomedia 9 4 13 Antioch 22 18 40 uncertain mint 69 1 1 11 42 124 Total 1,301 324 1,894 856 2,251 2,649 4,836 8 14,119

Good.... suggest we add one on the Places too so they can be sorted into alpha order. Actually what order are they in now? Should they not start in Alphabetic order? Victuallers (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Fixed sorting so bottom line stays where its put Victuallers (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Currently they are grouped geographically. Gaul - Italy - Pannonia - Greece - Turkey. Which is a very logical way of doing it! The Land (talk) 17:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this obvious to the average reader? Suggest add country coloumn or changing order would improve accessibility Victuallers (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Second thoughts - reading it as "East to West" is obvious Victuallers (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

In the reformatting I have sorted by alphabet but the default layout could be left as the original order (although sorting would not be able to return the table to this default). Fæ (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the article is really improved by the addition of the two tables, and it provides information that I personally find very useful. Just a couple of points: 1) Is it possible to square or explain the discrepancy between the totals in the tables and the stated number of coins in the text (580 vs 569 gold solidi, and 14,119 vs 14,212 silver siliquae) ? 2) the 60 silver miliarenses and 24 bronze nummi coins are probably too few to warrant a table, but is it possible to give a little detail of their dates and mints in the text ? BabelStone (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! The miliarenses are of a similar range of dates and mints, but their small number seems to mean that Guest doesn't draw many conclusions from them, will see if I can add a bit to the article tomorrow. The nummi are basically too ruined to draw any conclusions. I assume the difference in the figures is down to a) Guest counting additional coins retrieved in later work from the same area as the find and this increasing the number of coins to work with (these often seem to be a confounding factor). b) Guest not counting the imitation and counterfeit siliquae when doing this analysis, reducing the number of siliquae. Maybe we should take the numbers from these tables as the canonical ones for the article? The Land (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to improve the layout of the article and eliminate white space and other problems with floating tables. This has made it necessary to move the tables to the end of the text in that section. I hope everyone approves. Working with floating tables I find tricky, but if someone has a better solution please feel free to change it. Revcasy (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

These format rather poorly for lower resolution widths - the tables split left and right but are not side by side. Perhaps this is a candidate for a split out? The detailed data is not needed right next to the summary text and being in a special detailed hoard stats page would make layout a non-issue and may make it easier to add further background analysis on mint production timelines. Fæ (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

My laptop is 1280 px wide and the side-by-side tables force horizontal scrolling for me. I would recommend we stack them. - PKM (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I have let these default to the left and collapsed them as resulting length on the page seemed excessive. I think using collapsible tables in this way might be a problem when complying with MOS though perhaps this rationale is sufficient. Can anyone advise? Fæ (talk) 08:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Table of inscriptions (con't)

Following paragraph provided by Catherine Johns:
I dislike the table of inscriptions because it is simultaneously too detailed and not detailed enough. One the one hand, It gives registration numbers, but on the other, it lists only the inscriptions with personal names, not the additional ones featuring Christian symbols. There is a summary list of the inscriptions in the catalogue, pp. 263-264. Anyone who wanted to go into this degree of detail would surely have the nous to consult the catalogue, or at least the individual object records accessed via the BM website. -- Catherine

To that end, whilst I've seen the points made above by Wikipedians about WP:UNDUE, could we add in a sentence (or bet a header line to the table) referring to the fact that this is not a comprehensive list (i.e. it ignores the other ones she mentions). Also - can we put in a footnote to the entire table to the page reference she cites? Witty Lama 22:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I could easily put those in as well (I have them in my notes), but I thought it better to simply mention them in the text ("... Three sets of ten spoons, and several other spoons, are decorated with such Christian symbols") rather than include them in the table as they would have no entries in three of the columns. BTW, it does not only list the inscriptions with personal names, but also includes vir bone vivas and vivas in deo.

The whole point of putting this information in the article is so that people can have access to it. If everyone had the catalogue then there would be no need for this article, but as most people won't have access to it we need to include as much useful information as possible. BabelStone (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If anyone wants to add them to the table:

1994,0408.135 Chi-rho monogram

1994,0408.91-100 monogram cross

1994,0408.52-61 Chi-rho monogram

1994,0408.81-90 Chi-Rho, alpha and omega, plus AVRVRSICINI^†

1994,0408.118-119 Chi-Rho, alpha and omega

BabelStone (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If the table is going to be a handy index that the BM site does not provide, perhaps my earlier suggestion of splitting it out might be realistic?

As a side-note; if the reader is navigating from the BBC AHOTW in 100 objects website to the BM Hoxne Hoard pepper pot page, then there is a list of references but the catalogue is not currently mentioned. If the BM pages are being updated this might be worth pointing out. Fæ (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Y Added a collapsible table for the symbols only. † - this was already in the main table, so not added to the collapsible version. Footnote citation added back to catalogue as suggested. Fæ (talk) 07:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I think these look much better; hope everyone is much happier with them. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Citation and footnote formats

I am happy to help with reformatting footnotes (clearly we're going to have to be consistent), but I am not an expert with cite vs citation and with Harvard. Do we just need to change Author (YYYY) to Author YYYY or do we need to use Harvard everywhere? Do we need the year when there is only one title by an author (Guest, Snyder)? - PKM (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no hard rule apart from consistency, the evolved default here has been to use the same style as {{harvnb}} (Harvard, no brackets) which would always include the year. Although it is not required to use an anchor (which is how {{harvnb}} works) to cross-link the footnote with a reference, this might be good practice for FA status. For long term maintenance purposes, I would recommend using the template rather than adding anchors by hand.

See previous discussion #Proposal for consistent cross-referencing. Fæ (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Changed to {{harvnb}} throughout. - PKM (talk) 03:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Clarification: I reformatted the book citations. I have not addressed journal or newspaper citations. - PKM (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

See #Citation and footnote formats (cont'd) for further discussion. - PKM (talk) 03:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

More sundry suggestions

Hi, I'll be making another pass through the article. I've been adding ALT text, and added that parameter to the {{Location map}} template. Please check that you agree with what I've written. The goal of ALT text (as I understand it) is to describe the look of the picture without interpreting its meaning; the latter goes into the caption. Willow (talk) 03:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think there's a typo in the description of commons:File:Hoxne Hoard coin 2.JPG. I believe that the first word of the inscription reads "VIRTUS" not "VIATUS". Willow (talk) 03:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• This is idle curiosity, but is it possible that the hoard was buried by robbers, and not by its owner(s)? That might account for the fact that the hoard was found so far from a Roman settlement. Oops, sorry! I found this hypothesis by reading further in the text. :) Still, out of curiosity, can it be established whether the items of the hoard belonged to one family? Could it be that the hoard represents the sum of numerous robberies? Willow (talk) 03:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It can't be established one way or the other - so several robberies is also a possibility.... The Land (talk) 09:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• This is a minor point, but can we agree on a notation of year-dates, especially whether "AD" should added before or after the numeral — or not at all? The article has all three possibilities, e.g., AD 407, 407 AD, and 407. Willow (talk) 12:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd go for "nnn AD" format just to be consistent, and it fits well with WP:ERA. Note as per ERA guidance, best practice is that we should not qualify dates like "407" where they are unambiguous, i.e. "AD 407" becomes "407 AD" but where unambiguous unqualified numbers should be left as they are (probably all of these are unambiguous). Fæ (talk) 12:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Reading that guideline it seems that just nnn is most favoured. However perhaps we can retain a few instances of AD (for instance in the lead) so that if someone with no clue at all about history comes along, they get the context. The Land (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that nnn is the most sensible date format, with the possible retention of AD in a few cases to initially establish clarity. I think that AD can be taken as given and that only BC (or dates in other formats such as BCE or BP) need to be specifically noted. I believe that all the dates in the article are AD (?), so it should not be an issue. Revcasy (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I have removed all of the occurrences of 'AD' save the one in the lead and the one in note 3 (77-79 could conceivably be ambiguous in the context of the article since it is so much earlier than all the other dates, and first century dates look a bit odd to me without 'AD'). Revcasy (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Can we get a photograph of the rings mentioned in the text? The three of them together would be ideal. :) Willow (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Spoons

The following two paragraphs are from Catherine Johns:

Pics of spoons: the usual convention in illustrating Roman spoons is that they are shown horizontal, with the bowl to the left, that is, as held by a right-handed user -- not vertical (as in the catalogue). This is in part because if there is an inscription in the bowl or on the handle, it will usually run in that direction. It doesn't matter hugely, but in the case of the portion of one of the spoons with a small monogram cross within the bowl, it would make better sense to turn it left through 90 degrees, so that the monogram cross is upright rather than lying on its back.

Monogram cross: I think the image being referred to is [1], so I might have misunderstood the comment as the cross appears upright in the current version. The other spoon images being used started off with the bowl to the left and were flipped by +90° as we might have placed them side by side. I have created an alternate of the spoon image File:Hoxne Hoard two spoons horizontal.JPG so that other pages have a choice of layout. Fæ (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Y See below. Fæ (talk) 05:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

An extra point about the name inscriptions, arising from one of the comments on the talk page: the names on the objects, such as spoons, are the names of the owners of those individual artefacts. We do not know which, if any, are the names of the owner(s) of the hoard as a whole. This is why speculations about names like 'Aurelius Ursicinus' cannot take us very far. He is no more, and no less, likely to be the 'lead' name than the Euherius whose name is on the beaker, or Silvicola, or Juliane. But the Christian status of the owner(s) is very emphatically attested by the presence of no fewer than 25 certain and 2 possible Christian inscriptions/symbols (see summary list on p.263 of Johns 2010). -- Catherine

I've added the Euherius inscription to the table (and made it collapsible like the others to avoid undue prominence to this particular table). Could someone with access to the catalogue check and see (pages 263-264) if there is still anything missing from the table? I have also updated the summary list of objects to include the beaker, changed 5 bowls to 4 bowls and a small dish, and changed "roughly 100" spoons and ladles to "98" for consistency with the 'Silver items' section. May need to add a ref for the beaker in the summary list. Liam might want to try to explain to our friends at the BM that the Wikipedia way is to improve articles where they are deficient rather than simply remove content because someone does not like it. BabelStone (talk) 11:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, I was reading the comments from the BM in this section as pointers on content rather than direct requests for deletion. I suggest our Wikipedia spectacles are tuned to interpret anything that looks like a "must" as a "should" and open to discussion and clarification. Fæ (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

In principle I agree that speculation about the names does not get us very far, but the Wikipedia way is to summarise all the available published research, and not just reflect the views of a single person (however authoritative they may be). As some experts have speculated (and it is only human to do so) about the names, it is right and proper for such speculation to be included in this article. Equally, I would be quite happy to see a note of caution about the value of the names added to the article, reflecting Catherine Johns' views, if there is a published source for such a statement. BabelStone (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The following three paragraphs are from Catherine Johns

Many late-Roman spoons and some other personal items bear the names of their owners. These names can hardly ever be equated with the names of personages recorded in historical documents. As in our own society, lots of people had the same or similar names. As an example, if you found a bracelet inscribed 'Good luck, Susan!', would you (a) assume it had to be a famous person named Susan and/or (b) expect to be able to pin down the one Susan out of hundreds of thousands in the country who might have owned it? Even in a society in which all births and deaths are formally documented, it couldn't be done. Even full names are massively duplicated: anyone who has googled his or her own name is soon disabused of the idea that they are the only person of that name.

There are many, many things that are hugely important about the Hoxne find: its size, its near-completeness, the dating evidence (and the date), the fact it was properly excavated, the presence of several very rare types and a few brand-new, formerly undocumented ones, the organic remains, the matching series of objects, just for starters. The personal names is not one of those things. The presence of names is expected; it is neither unusual nor especially enlightening, and it absolutely, positively does NOT indicate the names of the owners of the whole assemblage. The Christian inscriptions are also expected (Thetford, with its pagan dedications, is much more exciting in that respect). By putting in a relatively detailed, though incomplete, list of the names, the impression is given that these are high in the list of importance of the find. They are not. They are on the same level of importance as the detailed tables I have in the monograph on the figural decoration, or the detailed tables of metal analyses. Anyone who is working on late-Roman names, specifically, or on the names found on late-Roman gold and silver objects, will go to the catalogue itself or at least to the individual registration records on the BM website. For anyone else it really distorts the overall balance of the article.

If you all insist on keeping it in then PLEASE do not cite only the reference to the summary list at the back of the catalogue in the catalogue. There is a chapter on the inscriptions by Roger Tomlin, one of the leading Roman epigraphers in Europe. He has extracted all from these inscriptions that can be extracted in the present state of knowledge. Chapter 9, 'The Inscriptions', is on pp.165-173 of the volume. --Catherine

Summary of changes so far:

• The tables have been collapsed to avoid distracting from the main text with excruciating detail.
• The list of names in the silverware section has been qualified to point out that none of these people can be said to have been involved in hiding the hoard or were necessarily alive at the time (the text added could be improved further and would benefit from a footnoted citation).
• The citation for the table has been extended to include Roger Tomlin's analysis for those referring to the catalogue.

I think these improvements have significantly shifted the emphasis of the section and addressed suggested improvement to any perceived undue weight. Based on conversations with others, I believe that inscriptions are of general public interest and many casual readers will enjoy looking at the summary table within the Wikipedia article and they are unlikely to click the "show" tab if not. As each inscription is linked to the British Museum record, anyone wanting information beyond the scope of an encyclopaedia entry can easily find a better source than Wikipedia.

Interpreting Catherine's recommendations above, overly detailed tables that have to be collapsed should be avoided and I encourage contributors to propose sections are split into further articles (as with the Empress pepper pot) if there is sufficient interest to create a better, self-contained and detailed encyclopaedic entry from one of the summary sub-sections. Fæ (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Error reports from Catherine:

• There is a mistake in the para. now preceding the inscriptions table: it states that the Thetford spoons have 'a mixture of Christian and pagan inscriptions'. Not so. They are all pagan (which is why they are particularly interesting, at that date). One of the spoons has a fish, but that need not be Xtian, and probably isn't in the context.

The source cited argues that the fish and palm engravings and some of the not explicitly pagan inscriptions (e.g. vir bone vivas) are actually Christian, and that the Thetford material is mixed Christian/pagan. However, despite the fact that Wikipedia policy on NPOV would normally suggest that the article should reflect different scholarly opinions, and not just be based on what one authority says is right, I am not going to argue this one (I don't have a fixed opinion one way or the other on the Thetford material -- and the argument is probably best put into the as yet stubby Thetford Hoard article); so I have changed the wording to "the Thetford Hoard spoons have mostly pagan inscriptions" (as some of the inscriptions could be either pagan or Christian), and changed "household" to "household (or households)" to reflect the fact the hoard may come from one or many households. BabelStone (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Back to the article, there are some mistakes in the inscriptions table, too, e.g. the Aurelius Ursinicus set are not all inscribed in the same way: some are inscribed AURVRSICINI and some AVRVRSICINVS. Two have an alpha/chi-rho/omega in addition to the name.

Corrected, thank you for pointing out the mistakes. BabelStone (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Is the Juliane inscription in the list? It should be, as should the monogram cross on the necklace-clasp.

The Juliane inscription and the monogram cross on the necklace-clasp are both discussed separately in the Gold jewellery section, and I do not think that they needs to be added to the Table of inscriptions on silver tableware (note that this section is explicitly limited to silver tableware). BabelStone (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• The monogram cross spoons, eg no.92:The loop which looks like a P is a rho, and it is at the top. The orientation should be with the bowl of the spoon to the left and the handle to the right.

• This means that this image File:Hoxne Hoard spoon detail 2.jpg should be rotated 90 degrees anticlockwise. Witty Lama 17:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. BabelStone (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Incidentally, picking upon another comment on the discussion page, no "authorities" have speculated on the identities of the people represented in the names, because they know better. Plenty of unqualified journalists have done so.

As most of the criticism seems to be directed at me, I would like to point out that the only speculation about names that I have added to the article is: "Soon after the hoard was discovered, there was speculation, based on the name Faustinus engraved on one of the spoons, that the hoard may have come from the 'Villa Faustini' that is recorded in Itinerary V of the Antonine Itinerary ... However, this early theory has since been rejected, both because Faustinus is a common name, and it only occurs on a single spoon in the hoard" which I think is very fair and NPOV (and of course reflects the referenced source).

The caveat "the logic of using the inscriptions to determine ownership is considered flawed" that has since been added to this is, in my opinion, totally unnecessary -- it should be up to the reader to draw their own conclusions as to whether such a method is flawed or not ... and whether it is flawed or not depends upon a number of factors (such as the commonness and fullness of the name).

As for the original source of this speculation, I do not believe that there is a single journalist in this country who could have come up with the theory about Faustinus without some prompting from an academic source. You might dismiss him as a "popular historian", but Guy de la Bédoyère at least has some speculation on the name of "Aurelius Ursicinus" in his Gods with Thunderbolts: Religion in Roman Britain (2002) page 199: "... Aurelius [---]cinus, a name that matches the Aurelius Ursicinus on the Hoxne (Norfolk) early fifth-century hoard of coins, spoons and jewellery. There is absolutely no demonstrable connection between the two, but if the pagan revival was a product of the wealthy villa-owning élite, it would not be surprising if they were one and the same man, or from the same family." You may not like particular sources, and want us to only refer to you or your aproved list of sources, so the finished article closely reflects your particular viewpoints, but it is the Wikipedia way to try to give a fair hearing to all voices. So I would oppose continued removal of cited material from this article just because Catherine Johns disagrees with it. BabelStone (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Can I just interject here - writing as myself - and say that this is starting to get personal rather than about the content and is not actually helping. Argue the content - not the person making the commentary. Witty Lama 21:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

After sleeping on the issue, I find the guidance of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE helpful. To paraphrase; the inclusion of a published minority view or unproven hypothesis should be based on notability, as judged by the impact of these theories in independent sources. If a particular theory is notable then it should not be excluded, however it must also be given proportionate weight - in proportion to the level of representation in reliable sources. The BM expert comments above relate to a specific sub-section of this article dealing with silver tableware. If sufficient sources can be produced to show any hypothesis as to the Hoxne Hoard "names" is notable then a new sub-section on these theories might be appropriate in order not to unbalance the factual discussion of tableware artefacts. Such text would be best drafted in a sandbox and discussed for inclusion, or proposed as a new split from the article.

Conclusion: Insufficient reliable sources have been identified, so far, to indisputably demonstrate notability of any such theory. To ensure the stability of the article I recommend these theories should not be added to the article until we can reach a consensus on notability based on a draft.

PS, notability need not be based on recognised "Academic" sources, refer to the notability policy. Fæ (talk) 05:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

+1 Witty Lama 11:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to change lead image

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the choice of image. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Conclusion: Most people seem to prefer the idea of the chest reconstruction as a main image unless some better photos are made available. Fæ (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: I suggest that the lead image (3 spoons) seems rather dull for a FA, and this should change to one more generally representative of the hoard, at least in the public eye... I suggest a single well known item (Tiger or Pepper pot?), the image we have of the chest or perhaps someone has another candidate. Quick straw poll to gauge opinion? Fæ (talk) 11:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

discussion

Lead image selection 1: Recreation of Hoxne Hoard chest 2: Hoxne Hoard "Empress" Pepper pot 3: Hoxne Hoard Tigress 1b: Recreation of Hoxne Hoard chest 2b: Hoxne Hoard "Empress" Pepper pot 3b: Hoxne Hoard Tigress I have no particular preference, as none of them have the wow factor. The pepper pot and tigress are both rather lacking in colour, and the background (although desaturated) is distracting, but they could perhaps be improved by cutting them out and pasting them onto a plain black or white background. BabelStone (talk) 11:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC) I thought the BM was going to do us a "hoard" shot, yesterday using a "private" camera? If not available then I would go for the tigress, which I think we say is emblematic. Victuallers (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC) ... second thoughts.... is that the hoard picture? It is of mouth watering detail .... I change my vote! Victuallers (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC) I originally put the three spoon image in as a temporary holding one until a better image emerged. I still hope that one will, and I think one of the curators was going to do something. I think the new bodychain photo would make the best lead of the photos we currently have, but I'd prefer to keep it where it is because I like its current caption and think that would have too much detail for lead caption, also I would like a wow image with multiple diverse objects from the hoard. I don't suppose that a clickable collage would be acceptable, or would it? Another reason for not using either the Tiger or the Pepperpot is that they have both been used by others as frontispieces for books etc, and I feel we should make a different aesthetic choice. ϢereSpielChequers 13:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Format help needed I have fiddled around using Photoshop to create PNG images (as recommended on Commons) for versions of the above with transparency layers. It seems to work and the large size images look great with no loss of quality. However when shown at the 220px width, the images seem to have a reduced contrast (when viewed on my Macmini running Leopard). Firstly can other people see a difference in quality (1:2:3) (it may vary based on your local image rendering software) and secondly can anyone suggest how to get better results? Fæ (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC) I think the answer was to upload the PNG at the size you want to use it. When a PNG reduces, it may loose resolution badly. I have created a copy of File:British Museum Hoxne Hoard Empress Pepper Pot.png to display at 220px wide for use in the infobox on Empress pepper pot. Fæ (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC) I'd vote for image #1 (the hoard chest) without doctoring the background. It really reflects what the hoard is and is also representative of a thoughtful and engaging museum display of a buried hoard. - PKM (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Favour #1, the hoard chest. The Land (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Agree #1 is the best of these. Johnbod (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Regarding the loss of quality in reduction - if an original image is opened with Picasa and "exported" to a file that will be uploaded, there is a tool at that function that allows selection of the reduction size during its export that retains the quality of the original -- I suggest 640 pixils, which may be found approximately three markers from the left on the sliding scale. Images then may be uploaded easily and, when enlarged by readers, look as good as the original. By any chance, did anyone get close-up images of the plaque of the body chain, its lion heads, and the gold solidus in the rear? If so please upload for review and possible use in the articles about the hoard. ----83d40m (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Commons has a fairly close shot of the rear centre of the body chain. Johnbod (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks. If you were at the museum and saw the body chain, can you tell me whether the ears of the lions were visible? ----83d40m (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Crikey! I don't remember, but looking at Commons they all seem visible but flattened, like the lower ones here Is it just me or is the silver tigress image now being used in the article a bit weird looking... without the background to give it depth and context it looks flat and floating in midair for no reason. To me the lack of background is worse than the original blurry one Witty Lama 21:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Yes, also the old one expanded very nicely, which this one doesn't at all. Johnbod (talk) 21:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Swapped back to jpg version of Tigress and added slight tint (and more blur) to the previously fully desaturated background to make it appear as if the back of the case had tinted glass. Fæ (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Feedback on the pepper pot intro

The following comes from Catherine Johns:

35. The current article states:

    "In spite of the name, the image does not appear to be that of any empress, or indeed any of the Roman goddesses. Initially, archaeologists thought the bust was similar to that of a set of steelyard weights, but this is no longer the case..."

    This is incorrect. When first seen, the pepper-pot was seen to resemble, iconographically, a type (not a 'set') of Late Antique steelyard bronze weights which were at that time interpreted as images of Empresses. It still does resemble that type, it hasn't changed. The reference for this is in a paragraph in the introductory chapter of my catalogue (p.7): "Continuing work ont he bronze weights is now moving away from this interpretation, and detailed work on the Hoxne empress itself quite independently suggests that 'lady' would be a more appropriate label. However, the object has, in the mean time, become widely known as the 'empress', and careful consideration had to be given to the wisdom of discarding that description completely." Over the last few years both my work on the pepper-pot and the independent work of other scholars on the steelyard weights have led to the conclusion that neither the Hoxne vessel nor the steelyard weights are actually intended to depict Empresses. Nevertheless they are still iconographically similar.

    • Re:Empress pepper pot: I am not fond of that particular note anyway. It does not make clear in what way the pepper pot is or is not similar to the steelyard weights, does not make it clear what steelyard weights are, or which ones are being referred to. The inadequacy is made even more apparent by Catherine Johns comments. The note needs to be expanded and re-worded, or else removed entirely (with a possible brief rewording of the annotated place in the text to clarify "misnomer"). Revcasy (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
      • It needs improvement and careful re-wording. Whether the information is in a note or not is a question of style, the background into why this pepper pot was called "Empress" and how the academic view has shifted is encyclopaedic and notable enough to ensure it is adequately covered. Simple copy-editing rather than removal is the best response here. Fæ (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Y The note has been corrected in line with the suggested changes. Reference added to p.7 of Johns 2010. I took out the brackets pointing out the misnomer, this seemed excessive in addition to the flagged note. I have not added any more detail of what bronze late antique steelyard weights were, this possible somewhat tangential improvement could be added here or an amendment to a more appropriate article, something similar to Ancient Roman units of measurement. Fæ (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
36. Another small point is that the little jug (no.32) which partly matches the beaker (31) is not listed in the summary list of finds. --Catherine
    • Y I've added the little jug to the summary list, but I wonder whether if it would make sense to convert the list to a table, and provide a linked BM reference number for the important and distinctive objects such as the pepper pots, tigress, body chain, and even the silver tableware (minus spoons) as there are only a few of them. I personally find it tiresome to use the BM search engine every time I want to look at a particular item, and would welcome a list of links in a single place. BabelStone (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Steelyard weights

A link put on steelyard has only just revealed to me that this phrase has got nothing to do with the metallic alloy called steel. Obvious, I now realise, as this was still the age of iron. I suggest that "steelyard weight" would be better referred to as the weights used on the portable balances known as steelyards to make this clear. Or is it just me? Victuallers (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I too had instinctively thought it was to do with the metal "steel". Yes - clarification would be good :-) Witty Lama 19:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

New term to me as well. Makes more sense now! Revcasy (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Made Change. Anyone going to the Met Museum? I think the relevant weights are these. I cannot find a free picture as it might be useful for the pepper pot article. Victuallers (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Cliché forgeries

After some research, I have started a very stubby stub on Cliché forgery (rectifying a red link in the process). The term is not obvious and may require some sort of note or other explanation in this article for context. Anyone with more numismatic expertise than myself is welcome to improve both the new stub and the current article, as my understanding may be incomplete (definitely not my area). Revcasy (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The issues in this article seem resolved with the current wording. Revcasy (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Citation and footnote formats (cont'd)

All of the book citations have now been moved to References, and footnotes to them are now in {{harvnb}} format. I don't know how to do {{harvnb}}-style notes to the newspaper and radio citations, if that is possible or necessary, so I have left those as I found them. - PKM (talk) 03:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The same in-text style can be used for newspapers (http://libweb.anglia.ac.uk/referencing/harvard.htm has a good guide), though in this case as the newspaper articles are not being referenced in multiple places, there seems a weak rationale to split them out for the sake of it. Fæ (talk) 06:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, since the news articles are short and don't have page numbers, it's rather pointless to make readers have to follow another link to get to the citation info. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense to me. I also verified that all of the {{harvnb}}-style footnotes link to their references correctly (if I missed any, or new ones are added that don't work, I am sure a reviewer will let us know). - PKM (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

FAR comments on repetitive dates for coins

In one of his comments, Mike Christie (talk) said:

I'm not sure what to do about it, but I think it reads oddly that the first items in the list of the hoard contents -- the coins -- have their descriptions repeated almost verbatim in the next paragraph. The description in the list could be compressed, perhaps by leaving out the dating, or at least the emperors; the subsequent paragraph might instead be rephrased to make reference to the list above it, though that would be harder to do gracefully. As it stands it feels quite repetitive.

I agree, and my inclination is to remove the dates and emperors from the initial list and relocate the footnotes to the following paragraph. I think this would be consistent with the abbreviated descriptions of the other items in that list. But I'd like to see if we have concurrence or if someone else has a more elegant solution before making the change. - PKM (talk) 06:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I resolved the replication by removing the details from the list. I also added the singulars of Latin plurals not ending in -s for those not familar with Latin (which has been bugging me for sometime). I also removed the redundant "coins" after solidi, nummi, etc. in the coinage section. We have established by the list and the section head that these are types of coins. - PKM (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Linking historic cities

Currently none of the list of mint cities in the Historic spread and minting section are wiki linked. I took the liberty of linking Gaul, and would like to link the other historic names of cities in the section, but I do not want to get into a WP:Overlink situation. I think that Antioch, Nicomedia, Cyzicus, and Sirmium are worth linking as they have all either changed their name or disappeared, and in all cases where the city still exist under a different name an article already exist on the ancient city, and the character and importance of the ancient city is drastically different from its modern counterpart. Any thoughts? Revcasy (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I note that all of the cities are linked on the map, but this may be a case where it is appropriate to link in the text as well? Revcasy (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Linked Sicia to Sisak. - PKM (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Findspot details

While I was editing the findspot details at the BM the other day, one of the curators asked me not to give precise details of the findspot. He was concerned, particularly if this ends up on the Main Page as a featured article, that it could lead to the farmer being harassed by metal detectorists. I noticed that someone had restored the details that I removed earlier - I've removed them again and I think they should stay out, given these concerns. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the change as Wikipedia should not censor verifiable information for whatever motives. The approximate find spot ("Home Farm") is not a secret (e.g. the ArchSearch page for the site is titled HOME FARM, HOXNE, and any nighthawker could easily find out that the hoard was found on Home Farm from sources other than Wikipedia. Indeed, the site had already been attacked by illegal metal detecorists in 1994, without any help from Wikipedia. BabelStone (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia should and does redact some things for some quite legitimate motives all the time - see WP:OFFICE for starters. For example, WP:BLP policies could be interpreted as censorship or simply behaving in a way that recognises our potential to do real-world damage. WP:NOTCENSORED is thrown out constantly against any reason given for being more circumspect about how we deal with potentially sensitive information. Whether or not this is one of those cases is up for grabs. As you say, the data about "home farm" is available already on a published, open access, reliable source. This being the case we should at least insert that footnote (currently used elsewhere as number 18 in the article). If ArchSearch decide to take this information down then so should we because a) we have lost the verification and b) because if there is genuine concern for the welfare of the farmer by ArchSearch (and us) publshing that then we should take that social responsability seriously. Witty Lama 02:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and been WP:BOLD and removed the specific farm name from the article but retained the footnote (no.18) to ArchSearch as well as descriptions of where the farm (and findspot) is relative to the town. Here's the diff. I believe this is an acceptable middle ground between preserving the legitimate privacy of the farmer and the encyclopedic importance of the location of the find. Witty Lama 02:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hammer

Hazzah! I've found the actual hammer in the museum database and linked it as a footnote in the Discovery and initial excavation section :-) Registration:1994,0408.400 Witty Lama 09:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe this has been archived away with the hoard. Someone had a good chuckle when creating this entry on the database. Fæ (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

yeah, from what I can gather, the whole "I was just looking for my friend's hammer and happened across this hoard" story is pretty suss (especially under the former laws), so I think they gave the BM a hammer too to back up the story :-) Of course, this is not verifiable and therefore won't get in the article, but a tantilising titbit. Witty Lama 11:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

May I point out that the hammer has been re-numbered. It is now 1994,0408.410, and is under that number in the published catalogue. The Museum database entries are in the process of being updated, but that process is not yet complete. CMJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.85.125 (talk) 11:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I've made the change (it's footnote 12 at the moment and until someone adds another footnote above it). Is that you Catherine (CMJ)? If so, how are you liking the progress of the article in the last couple of days - especially the extensive feedback being given on the Feature Article review page: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hoxne Hoard/archive1 ? Liam - Witty Lama 11:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, CMJ = Catherine Johns. :-) I haven't gone through the whole article yet this weekend. I am sure it continues to improve.