![]() | A fact from Brescia Casket appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 28 January 2013 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 26 January 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Brescia casket. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Has anyone done C14 dating or some other test to identify the source of the ivory? I'm assuming that the construction is of several panels rather than a single giant tusk. Dow we have any sources that cover that? Ϣere SpielChequers 10:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I've made a 3D model of the Brescia Casket using the images from the Wikipedia entry. I've acknowledged the source and linked back to Wikipedia. Would it make sense to add a link from the Wikipedia entry to the 3D model? See the model at http://www.medievalist.net/unityworlds/bresciacasket.htm Glenn Gunhouse — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.96.104.232 ( talk) 19:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Brescia Casket. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre ( talk) 09:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
– In the recent discussion at Talk:Bimaran casket#Requested move 8 January 2023, Dicklyon provided n-gram evidence that these titles are not consistently capitalized in book sources and suggested renaming them to lowercase titles: Brescia, Cammin, Kanishka, Troyes, Veroli. — BarrelProof ( talk) 18:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
pass me the Wellington boot...", there is no ambiguity in context about which particular Wellington boot is being referred to. It is quite definitely referring to a specific Wellington boot. That is the inherent nature of the definite article. True proper names are not descriptive. The Bresica C|casket is descriptive. It is a casket. To say,
this is a single object with a proper name(an assertion made without reference to any criteria or evidence) is even more so
OR, not recognised by WP guidelines.There are different perceptions about what should or should not be capitalised and this is why the P&G is to rely on empirical evidence. Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.This is a much higher threshold than a simple majority and, because ngrams don't distinguish headings, captions etc where title case is commonly used, the threshold for ngram evidence per many other discussions is about 80% to account for this. For uncommon ngrams (like these) a single source with multiple instances of a particular ngram can result in a large spike. Dicklyon would attribute a spike at 2002 for the Brescia casket to this source and that seems quite reasonable. Viewing the ngrams wholistically they do not appear to reach a threshold for capitalisation. They show quite mixed usage. They certainly do not show the degree of consistent usage of the Dead Sea Scrolls (which are in the plural), the Shroud of Turin nor the Rosetta Stone which is not quite as clear but certainly much clearer than these caskets. There are many perceptions of what is a proper noun and what should be capitalised consequently. Because of this, WP relies on empirical evidence to determine capitalisation. Consequently, many of the comments here carry little weight because they ignore the prevailing WP:P&G. If we disagree about the conclusions to be reached on assessment of the evidence against the guidance, then we need to establish why one conclusion should be preferred? Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 13:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from Brescia Casket appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 28 January 2013 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 26 January 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Brescia casket. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Has anyone done C14 dating or some other test to identify the source of the ivory? I'm assuming that the construction is of several panels rather than a single giant tusk. Dow we have any sources that cover that? Ϣere SpielChequers 10:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I've made a 3D model of the Brescia Casket using the images from the Wikipedia entry. I've acknowledged the source and linked back to Wikipedia. Would it make sense to add a link from the Wikipedia entry to the 3D model? See the model at http://www.medievalist.net/unityworlds/bresciacasket.htm Glenn Gunhouse — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.96.104.232 ( talk) 19:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Brescia Casket. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre ( talk) 09:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
– In the recent discussion at Talk:Bimaran casket#Requested move 8 January 2023, Dicklyon provided n-gram evidence that these titles are not consistently capitalized in book sources and suggested renaming them to lowercase titles: Brescia, Cammin, Kanishka, Troyes, Veroli. — BarrelProof ( talk) 18:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
pass me the Wellington boot...", there is no ambiguity in context about which particular Wellington boot is being referred to. It is quite definitely referring to a specific Wellington boot. That is the inherent nature of the definite article. True proper names are not descriptive. The Bresica C|casket is descriptive. It is a casket. To say,
this is a single object with a proper name(an assertion made without reference to any criteria or evidence) is even more so
OR, not recognised by WP guidelines.There are different perceptions about what should or should not be capitalised and this is why the P&G is to rely on empirical evidence. Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.This is a much higher threshold than a simple majority and, because ngrams don't distinguish headings, captions etc where title case is commonly used, the threshold for ngram evidence per many other discussions is about 80% to account for this. For uncommon ngrams (like these) a single source with multiple instances of a particular ngram can result in a large spike. Dicklyon would attribute a spike at 2002 for the Brescia casket to this source and that seems quite reasonable. Viewing the ngrams wholistically they do not appear to reach a threshold for capitalisation. They show quite mixed usage. They certainly do not show the degree of consistent usage of the Dead Sea Scrolls (which are in the plural), the Shroud of Turin nor the Rosetta Stone which is not quite as clear but certainly much clearer than these caskets. There are many perceptions of what is a proper noun and what should be capitalised consequently. Because of this, WP relies on empirical evidence to determine capitalisation. Consequently, many of the comments here carry little weight because they ignore the prevailing WP:P&G. If we disagree about the conclusions to be reached on assessment of the evidence against the guidance, then we need to establish why one conclusion should be preferred? Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 13:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)