Talk:Empress pepper pot

A fact from Empress pepper pot appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 July 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the 4th century "Empress" pepper pot (pictured) held pepper, and we know the Romans had pepper because translations of the Vindolanda tablets confirm it?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2010/July.

Wikipedia

British Museum Mid‑importance

	This article relates to the British Museum. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one, as needed.British MuseumWikipedia:GLAM/British MuseumTemplate:WikiProject British MuseumBritish Museum-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article title[edit]

Given that the name of Object 40 is "Hoxne pepper pot", I suggest that this page be moved. As is explained in more detail in a footnote at Hoxne Hoard, the initial name was a misnomer. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, it's generally referred to as the "Empress Pepper Pot", and "Hoxne Pepper Pot" could refer to 3 other items. The Land (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is the article for this particular object as this is its specific name (even though it's a misnomer). We should redirect Hoxne pepper pot to here IMO. Witty Lama 14:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hobbs has given talks under the title "Hoxne Empress pepper pot". The BM at times calls it "Hoxne 'Empress' pepper pot". If we went for the latter, it would seem to be the best of all worlds. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ive added both as alternates to the lede. I think that it will take a while for the common name to change. Victuallers (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it Empress pepper pot or Empress Pepper Pot ? -- both are used inconsistently in the article. The article title ought to be the same as whichever capitalization is chosen. BabelStone (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Empress pepper pot is probably better actually. The Land (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Empress" discussion[edit]

The migration from the Hoard article has introduced a glitch. As of c.1993, the "Empress" name was awarded to the pepper pot by analogy with steelyard weights that at that time were thought to represent Empresses. As of 2010, neither the pot nor that class of weights is thought to represent Empresses at all. The wording should reflect all that. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y done, I reckon Victuallers (talk) 11:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone got a reference for the fact that the golg was put on using mercury? Victuallers (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Covered by Hoxne Hoard#Scientific analysis of finds, though that is a general assertion about the silverware. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have broken out the discussion to a separate section entitled "nomenclature" and gone into a little bit more detail. It is a complicated description to make, especially given that the fact is quite irrelevant to the pot itself (it was just a quickly ascribed name that ended up sticking) and so I don't want to give this discussion undue weight. Witty Lama 14:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A comparative photo of a steelyard weight in the shape of an Imperial Lady from the right period (preferably from the northern provinces) would be terribly handy and neatly clarify what is being discussed. A quick search through the BM collection for records with images shows no decent matches (though plenty in the shape of other figures), though I may have missed something. Fæ (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a comparative photo would indeed be handy, but I don't believe that a) there are many of them around (and not at the BM) and b) those photos that do exist are unlikely to be freely licensed... Witty Lama

There are some early publications that relate to this, I have uploaded this image which includes an Emperor figure as a steelyard weight from Pompeii. Fæ (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

Are we going to list this for DYK? Witty Lama 23:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusive dates[edit]

Is it OK for me to change AD to CE? Awien (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No — this is not a situation in which AD is always inappropriate (e.g. Jewish topics), and unless AD is always inappropriate, articles shouldn't be switched from one to the other. Nyttend (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should have addressed myself more specifically to The Land, who started the article, because I am asking them for specific permission to make the change in this article.

The Land: do you object to using inclusive dating (BCE/CE) in this article as opposed to the christian-centric BC/AD? My reason for preferring and proposing it is that with WP being used all over the world, I feel that the more inclusive we can be, the better.

Awien (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ERA - there is no general preference for this. So we should probably leave it as it is. The Land (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awien, please note, no contributor to this article owns it so the viewpoint of one editor is not any more authoritative than another. If you disagree with other editors then establish a specific consensus for this article as per the guidance of WP:ERA. My preference is for AD in line with the parent article Hoxne Hoard. Fæ (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I might as well second this comment as well. While I started this article I definitely don't intend to 'own' it (and indeed looking at my present commitments don't think I'll be back to it for a long time!) The Land (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: from WP:ERA: "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors", which there isn't here. Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The substantial reason for the change is that inclusive language, including dates, is a desirable objective. How sad that nobody opposing the change addresses it.

As for "keep it the way it is because that's the way it is": an article's successive versions should e'er improve upon its start, or what's a wiki for?

I hope you will some day be open to progressive change. Your soon-to-be-septuagenarian colleague Awien (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Size[edit]

According to http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/search_the_collection_database/search_object_details.aspx?objectid=1362638&partid=1 The size of this article on the British Museum web site does not list a length, probably because it's mostly circular. Where does the length in the narrative come from? The Diameter was incorrect as well. I corrected that dimension to what was listed by the British Museum. Metricmike (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. Nothing like real size so no idea what went wrong. Fæ (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese?[edit]

An anonymous editor added edits in good faith about the design being chinese - we need a reference for this - you are welcome. Do discuss below Victuallers (talk) 09:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]