Talk:Ring (jewellery)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ring (jewellery) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
symbol of slavery
editThe nosering in India and earrings in Christianity originally signified slavery. I will find cites and add.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3zdks2/were_wedding_rings_once_a_symbol_of_slavery/
- http://www.oocities.org/robert_upci/the_history_of_rings_by_chalfant.htm
- http://weddings.lovetoknow.com/wiki/History_of_the_Wedding_Ring
See also Ring of O--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what dialect of English the author of this article speaks. "Jewellery" is not the most common dictionary spelling of this word. Oxford English Dictionary offers two spelling (jewellery and jewelry) but Merriam Webster Dictionary offers only 'jewelry'. I am revising this article to make it more accessible globally.
- I moved the article to update the spelling in the title. Any links to the alternate spelling will resolve to the common spelling.
- I updated one spellings in the article content not associated with a citation.
Any well-thought comments or revisions are appreciated. Thanks! Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- It is the standard British English spelling, and should be left where appropriate per WP:ENGVAR. You should get a better dictionary, and be more cautious. Johnbod (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- Johnbod, you comment sounds snarky. I researched this carefully for a half-hour then spent another 15 minutes revising this article. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- You need to read WP:ENGVAR slowly and carefully. Before a move you need consensus here (which you won't get). 'jewelry' is wrong in BE. Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Opportunities for commonality reads "Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms, especially in article titles." This is why I referred to dictionary spellings from both Europe (Oxford) and North America (Merriam Webster). Wikipedia:Requested moves reads "If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page." Do you want to put it to a vote? Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- As I explained above, 'jewelry' is wrong in BE, so there is no "universally used term", or in this case spelling. Do a requested move (see WP:RM) if you must, but you will lose. The community does not support disruption of long established titles to go to any language version on personal preference (or ignorance of other spellings). Any RM should be carefully argued in terms of WP:ENGVAR. Go ahead, waste everybody's time. (NOTE: the opening entry in this section has been considerably revised - see the original here. Johnbod (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- If you care to search wikipedia titles for 'jewelry' and 'jewellery', you will find lost of both. Therefore unless y'all drop this linguistic purity nonsense, we have a LOT of page moves ahead of us for the sake of stupidic consistency. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Not quite sure what point you're trying to make, but you will find all the 'jewelry' ones are American (etc) and the 'jewellery' ones British (etc). So there is no "universally used term", and normal ENGVAR principles apply. Johnbod (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- That's what I was saying: it someone would successfully insist on a single "unversally used term", we would be up to lots and lots of renaming. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Not quite sure what point you're trying to make, but you will find all the 'jewelry' ones are American (etc) and the 'jewellery' ones British (etc). So there is no "universally used term", and normal ENGVAR principles apply. Johnbod (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- If you care to search wikipedia titles for 'jewelry' and 'jewellery', you will find lost of both. Therefore unless y'all drop this linguistic purity nonsense, we have a LOT of page moves ahead of us for the sake of stupidic consistency. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- As I explained above, 'jewelry' is wrong in BE, so there is no "universally used term", or in this case spelling. Do a requested move (see WP:RM) if you must, but you will lose. The community does not support disruption of long established titles to go to any language version on personal preference (or ignorance of other spellings). Any RM should be carefully argued in terms of WP:ENGVAR. Go ahead, waste everybody's time. (NOTE: the opening entry in this section has been considerably revised - see the original here. Johnbod (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Possible source
editCampbell, Marian (2009). Medieval Jewellery in Europe 1100-1500. V&A Publishing. pp. 72–79. ISBN 9781851775828.
©Geni (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- another full scan of a book with a lot on rings:
"Breakaway rings"
editAny editors who have sources on breakaway style rings or breakaway modifications, please add to the safety section of this article, and add citations where I have indicated. I have read about this trend, obviously approve of it, and unfortunately do not remember where I read it (in a hurry today). I'm not a jeweller, and never wear rings, for the stated reasons in the safety section. (I once had a scary dream, decades ago, about this very thing, yet I never wore rings then, either.)--Quisqualis (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
It's not bad, but it seems to be "just" a modern ring. Can we do better, something more iconic? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)