Talk:Mildenhall Treasure

message: Does anyone happen to know of any images that could be used in this article without breach of copyright? It seems to be the sort of article that is ideally suited for illustration. Silverthorn 16:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: This page needs a lot of work.  I am happy to take some of it on, bit by bit, except that I am still unsure how to do references and footnotes;  I haven't yet really understood all the formatting guidelines.  The text needs to be divided up further -- and I think Roald Dahl's story needs a small separate section, rather than being mixed up with the description of the objects.  Dahl's story is germane to what we know of the discovery, and that aspect has now been fully researched and published by Richard Hobbs.
There is a problem about the statement '34 objects' in the hoard in the opening text:  the museum registration sequence is 1-34, but each separate item had to be individually registered in 1946, and soldered components of ancient silver, such as handles, often break off during burial, so that the '34' includes pieces of other objects.  Two are the handles from the fluted bowl (now re-attached) and nos. 18-26 are 5 bowls and 4 handles from round-bowled spoons/ladles.  The total number of complete or near-complete objects is 28, that is, if one counts the deep flanged bowl and its (secondary) domed lid as two objects rather than one, and if one assumes that there were 5 dolphin-handled ladles, since it is conceivable that not all the bowls and handles actually belong together.  That all seems rather too complex to explain in the opening section.  Would it be best to just list the objects there? AgTigress (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's easy to list the number of objects it's worth doing so as it's a natural question.  However, given your comments, I think it's OK to put in the list, as you have done; the lead is still quite short so it doesn't make it too wordy.  If we later decide the lead needs trimming we can look at it again then. Mike Christie (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: I have done some headings and sub-headings, and described all the objects in the hoard fairly briefly, but there are still aspects that require more discussion, including the rather sparse 'importance' paragraph at the end, which I need to think about.  I think I have got the hang of doing footnote references at last, but I still don't understand how to do links to other Wikipedia pages, though.  Any comments and revisions welcome.  AgTigress (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basics done 

message: Is it known for sure whether or not Dahl's account of Ford's actions and motivations was correct or not? This article seems to go one way in the lead and the other way in the body. My understanding is that the Dahl piece was not fictionalised to any great extent, and so in that respect his account is accurate.
Just as an aside, because it's not notable or sourced, Mr Butcher's son still lives near Mildenhall, and doesn't cycle to work in the dark to plough other mens' fields - he owns a good proportion of the local housing stock rented to USAF and RAF personnel stationed at the nearby airbases. Apparently Butcher put the reward money to good use!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.107.247 (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I used the expression 'fictionalised account' advisedly, to emphasise the fact that Dahl's story is not, and was not intended to be, a plain, unvarnished account, but rather, a good and vivid story.  Based as it was on his interview with Butcher, is clearly broadly factually accurate, but the author was a journalist and novelist, not an historian, and the characterisation would appear to involve considerable artistic licence.  I have not re-read either the 1947 Saturday Evening Post piece or the story in the anthology, published around 40 years later, for many years, but I think that the shift from colourful reporting to storytelling is evident if one compares them.  But in any case, all these issues are discussed in some detail in the two papers by Richard Hobbs which are cited.  In spite of Dahl's early publication of the story, there is still much that is, and will always remain, unknown about the details of the discovery — which is the usual state of affairs with treasure finds.  AgTigress (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role of Sydney Ford 

message: Would any one have a pic of these two particular items in order to possibly better describe them by form name since they sound as if they may be what I have heard as referred to as a footed tazza's (https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0SO8wf7TxBUvJkAhSZXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB0ZjNrbDcyBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1NNRTU4OV8x?_adv_prop=image&fr=yfp-t-409-s&va=footed+tazza ) which would resemble in some form the letter "Y" to "T" on which to display candies, etc. They could come in metal or glass or pottery.66.74.176.59 (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "two small pedestalled dishes" 

message: I'm adding a  tag to the article. 
Wording like:
:"masterpieces", "by far", "most valuable"
... seems to fall into the realm of WP:FLOWERY and WP:PUFF; ie overly emphatic and 'promotional', not encyclopedic. 
I considered making an attempt to tweak the lede on my own, but after glancing further and also noticing such tone elsewhere in the article, I'm opting to open up discussion of the issue here instead so as to offer folks with an established interest in this article opportunity to consider and address the situation.
A fellow editor, --75.188.199.98 (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flowery phrasing