Talk:Coppergate Helmet

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Coppergate Helmet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070209075313/http://www.skb.se:80/default2____16919.aspx to http://www.skb.se/default2____16919.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is there a reason to capitalize "helmet" in the title? The literature appears to exclusively use "helmet" (no caps). The Yorkshire Museum—which generally terms it the York Helmet—appears to be one of the few to prefer "Helmet" (link). On Wikipedia, the Sutton Hoo helmet, Benty Grange helmet, Staffordshire helmet, and Shorwell helmet all have "helmet" uncapitalized, while the Pioneer Helmet is the only other one to have it capitalized. Absent views to the contrary I would suggest renaming the page "Coppergate helmet". --Usernameunique (talk) 09:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea, there seems to be a general consensus on Wikipedia not to capitalise words following the initial word in headings, unless they are proper nouns. This runs contrary to my education, in which headings have all the substantive words capitalised (not: 'and', 'to', 'the' etc.). Then again I'm a dinosaur who was delighted to use the word 'involuted' in a scientific paper. Urselius (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

text: Per WP:MOSCAPS we are supposed to follow "standard usage" I think it is. The very good reason for preferring a cap is of course that it makes it clear it is a single object rather than a type, and that such objects are typically capitalized as proper nouns. Why is it not a proper noun? It's not just in the title, all uses of the full names should have caps, though obviously "the helmet" in text. Looking more widely on WP, there are plenty like Meyrick Helmet, Agris Helmet, which are correct imo. I think all the examples above should be capitalized. The usage of the owning institution should be given some special credence, per WP:VAMOS. Johnbod (talk) 11:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll modify this somewhat for the Sutton Hoo helmet, because it is part of a larger hoard. Not quite sure what I feel about that. Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: My two cents: I think that with the Sutton Hoo, that it is one part of a large group, so there is the Sutton Hoo Hoard and then the helmet, the ship, the many gravesite with their various goods and so on. Shearonink (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

text: Agree with  re standard/common usage, that it is not thought of as a Coppergate helmet, it is singular & thought of as the only Coppergate Helmet the same way we have the United States Declaration of Independence. the Magna Charta, the Golden Gate Bridge, the Wye Oak, Devil's Island....the complete phrase or words are usually regarded as the item's proper name. Shearonink (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coppergate Helmet vs. Coppergate helmet 

message: "The brass crest terminates in a decorative animal head at the base of the nasal. The brass eyebrow decorations that flank the nasal also terminate in animal heads. The decoration of the nasal consists of two intertwined beasts, whose bodies and limbs degenerate into interlace ornament.[6]"
The decoration on the nasal is a Caduceus - the ancient symbol of two snakes entwined that later becomes the common symbol of medicine and healing.  Not to be confused with the Rod Of Asclepius which is usually only one snake.  CorkyH (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look closely the beasts have shoulders and fore-limbs, they are not snakes. I have to admit that the rear limbs are not evident. Urselius (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decoration Section - Snake Motif on the Nasal Stem is a Caduceus 

message: Excellent article, but it's missing any useful information about its current location, other than an unreferenced statement in the infobox. One paragraph also mentions replicas - one I think is in the Viking Centre, but how many were made, when, and where are they? Optimist on the run (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox did say, but "It is now in the Yorkshire Museum" added. Johnbod (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: , with regards to your second point, the mention of "replicas" in the article did not refer to replica helmets. It referred to the brass strips that were created to replace those that were lost when the excavator struck the helmet. I've just uploaded a photograph and added it here—if you look at the strips in full resolution, you can see how the ones on the right (original) and left (replica) are clearly different. I've changed the wording in the article to avoid further confusion. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Display and replica