Talk:Casket (decorative box)

Untitled

"they really like poo." What's going on with this article!? This is in desperate need of an edit.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.202.29 (talk) 15:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Issues

This article is a prime candidate to be renamed and of course reworked entirely. "Jewelry box", as well as the UK spelled jewellery box, redirects here. This article was create in 2005 and even Wikipedia hasn't been effective in changing the common name. This article is actually junk in that the external links reference a casket for bodies, a "See also" points to "coffin", and there are no references to support the name as there are no references period. I suppose it has been some secret joke to see how long it could last.

A look at "what links here" reveals more evidence of some screwed up things. Words like:

• Embalming
• Catafalque
• Paul Bearer
• Promession
• Chevra kadisha
• Funeral director
• Disposal of human corpses (and others listed)

These words have as much to do with the price of tea in China as a "jewel box", "jewelry box", "jewellery box", or a jewelry casket". As far back as 1906 the word "coffin" was being replaced with "casket", when the name of Batesville Coffin Company was changed to Batesville Casket Company, when referencing an interment vessel.

However, historically the term jewelry casket was such an item as discussed in this article, now classified as antiques, but the name has evolved since around 1918. Article name The name of this article should be Jewelry box with a history section and content on jewelry caskets. Otr500 (talk) 03:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Casket coffin?

I see I'm not the first one to be bewildered by the sorry state of this article.

Casket as in funeral casket is not discussed at all, except for a see also. Problem is that article (coffin) summarily tells us a "casket" is a foursided coffin, something that isn't even mentioned here. CapnZapp (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

There's a hatnote. This article isn't about coffins at all. Surely a 6-sider is a casket too? Johnbod (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is certainly an article that needs "fixing". I commented because it needs work but also to look at it later. It has no references and an "External link" is not a reference. I just have not had the time to get back to it. I am not against stubby stubs, but when I read articles like this, with no references that has been hanging around for years, it astounds me.

Jewelry box redirects here, that would seem to be a logical first choice title name (and common), with a reverse redirect. This would allow adding content on the more common jewelry box, that can include all forms of containers for jewelry, and the antique or vintage "casket" can be in a section.

Gunther Mele sales Jewelry Armoires, but they have multiple shelves and are usually on legs or stands. What they refer to as a "jewelry box" is actually boxes. Their "Jewelry storage" (boxes or containers) are what I know of as a jewelry box where the top has sections and a lid that closes with multiple drawers.

Something needs to be done because since 2005 there have been 75 editors, apparently before source and reference policies and guidelines, and over 11 years later there are still none. This is not because they do not exist but evidently because the use of references are apparently not that important to man, this subject is not one of any common interest, and apparently it is confusing.

The short lead starts out "A Casket or jewelry box". The article includes Franks Casket but these are actually chests. The Brescia Casket is thought to be a relic-container or reliquary more than a jewelry box that would need to be in a separate section. The article lists chaser and this has nothing to do with the specialty of construction.

The history section starts out "In recent times they are mostly receptacles for trinkets and jewels, but in earlier periods...,". There is mention of Marie Antoinette’s Jewelry cabinets and this may be of interest but not concerning caskets. An article can't be too broad to cause confusion. A "commode", in historical context, is a chest with drawers. A variation is a "night commode" that was near a bed, had a place for a toilet, and a top with a basin or place for a water pitcher and bowl. You could put jewelry or trinkets in it but it is not a casket. Some "commodes sat on the floor. some had legs, some were ornate with mirrors like the Louis Philippe Style, and some had drawers for trinkets or jewelry. There are escritoire's that are writing desks that are in any shape and size imaginable and can include cabinates, bureaus, chests bookcases, and a more common desk. Some had smaller drawers for trinkets, medallions, or jewelry. In many cases any piece of furniture, that had a writing area, that might be visable or that folded down, referred to as a secretaire, could have trinket or jewelry drawers. Medallion cabinets were small boxes that then became actual cabinets (#6)

A jewelry "case", in historical times, was not the size of a cell phone or sun glasses case but like one of Marie-antoinette’s jewellery cases (#18) was a large chest or cabinet with legs.

The site Polyvore lists antique or vintage jewelry boxes or jewelry caskets.

The site Novica lists "jewelry box" or "coffer" but a coffer is more like a chest.

A Google search of "jewelry casket" returns results that supports using antique or vintage, associated with "caskets", as referring to jewelry boxes, and shows small containers actually shaped in forms like a traditional casket. There are however many shapes, and some look nothing like a "casket", still referred to as casket.

Some etymology suggests "circa 1425–75; late Middle English; of uncertain origin". The site The Attic Birds gives some etymology.

A look at British terminology shows "casket" associated with antique jewellery boxes. It appears the word may be predominantly a British term: Vintage British Jewelry Casket still referencing "vintage" or "antique".

For natural disambiguation jewelry should be in the title. There is an association between the naming of jewelry casket and coffin and this should be covered.

There is a hatnote ("For the funerary box, see Coffin. For the newspaper, see The Casket.", and I didn't look at the history but if it was already there it didn't prevent editors from adding "coffin" content to the article. These could be presented in a "See also" section without the need for a preventive disambiguation hatnote.

Astounding: Take a look at "What links here". There are many links that would certainly make it appear the current title worth retaining. Read down the long list to find numerous links to articles that have nothing to do with the title subject. There is a link to a casket redirect page that includes most things related to a box for human remains, a multitude of totally off subject links like Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan, List of patron saints by occupation and activity, Disposal of human corpses, and many others that may cover the price of tea in China but not a form of jewelry box or case. I just glanced down the list but there is one to Decorative box that can certainly be related.

Evidence shows the title does need to be changed if anyone is interested in a discussion. "If" a discussion is not fruitful we can use a more formal remedy. Possible alternatives:

• • Jewelry box, that could have several sections, with a redirect from casket, and allow for expansion,
  • Jewelry casket that is restrictive to a more particular time and only solves the ambiguity issue,
  • jewellery box if the original editor was British or there is British editorial interest.

In all fairness, if there is a British form of consensus I would abstain from future editing as this is not my area of interest. This is alright though if we can get a better article with references.

• This article can remain a career stub, or can be expanded, but under the current name it is restricted to a point where there is no choice. After all this, and I am sure it is evident that I looked around, I still think Jewelry box a better candidate. It is better to have one decent article, with many references, than a bunch of career stubs likely with few or no references, so why not broaden the subject? There is a rumor that referencing has become important on Wikipedia right? Otr500 (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 7 January 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Pages moved as initially requested. Decorated box is a red link while decorative box is the applicable broad-concept article. Jewelry box rejected due to "other uses" and not being the primary term (see List of caskets where they're not called jewelry boxes). Arguments this article is primary topic for casket fall flat when, even after this RM has run for a week editors still allow links from Richie Ashburn, Orangeville, Illinois, and Paul Bearer (LOL), among others. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

---

• Casket → Casket (decorative box)
• Casket (disambiguation) → Casket

– The current title seems too ambiguous with Coffin. See also the previous comments on the article talk page from 2016. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 07:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support. The jewellery box is clearly not the primary topic for the term. See also the significant reader traffic from Casket to the dab page or to the coffin article [1], and the incoming links, many of which seem to intend the funerary meaning. – Uanfala (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Small boxes clearly are the primary topic for the term, whether for jewellery or not. The delicate euphemism for "coffin" is I think mainly an American usage. Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  It may have once been a delicate euphemism, but its neutral use is well established in the US (the OED has examples in matter-of-fact contexts from the past 150 years). If you do a web search (try [Duckduckgo https://duckduckgo.com/?q=casket]) even with the location set to the UK, you'll get overwhelmingly results about coffins. – Uanfala (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  I notice that the article uses the American spelling for 'jewelry' and does not use any distinctly British spellings. Even though there is a WP:ENGVAR issue for the title, it seems undesirable to WP:ASTONISH the large number of readers who (like Rreagan007) are primarily or exclusively familiar with the synonym for coffin. It's not considered a "delicate euphemism" everywhere. It is often considered simply a somewhat more formal term. I've heard the term "Open casket" many times – does anyone refer to an "Open coffin"? I notice that's a red link. Clearly, "open casket" has the funerary meaning. (See also the use of that term at Funeral#Visitation.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  The American spelling for 'jewelry' has been in the article ever since its creation. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

• Move to Jewelry box per WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION, WP:ASTONISH, and MOS:COMMONALITY. I've never even heard of the term "casket" being used to refer to anything other than a coffin. It's actually the primary term for a burial box in the U.S. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely DON'T move to Jewelry box, per WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION, WP:ASTONISH, and MOS:COMMONALITY. Jewellery is only one use for a casket. The Brescia Casket is a reliquary, and seems to have always been one; its imagery is all religious. The Franks Casket was probably also made in a religious context, such as a monastery. The imagery on the Morgan Casket seems very masculine. Anything can be kept in a small box; many were probably used for papers, cash, you name it. Anyone who cites MOS:COMMONALITY as a reason to move to a title using "jewelry" is .... er, words fail me. Anyway, it's nice we've expanded Reagan's vocabulary. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nomination and Uanfala as well per subsequent comments by BarrelProof and Rreagan007. The primary meaning of "casket" is most definitely as the synonym for "coffin". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
• Move to Jewelry box per WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION, good call In ictu oculi (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  I think I'll stick with my suggestion of Casket (decorated box), per Johnbod, since jewelry is not the only use of such boxes (especially historically). Another possibility to consider is a merge with Decorative box. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  Can anyone provide a rationale for why we should not merge Casket into Decorative box? I don't really see a difference between these topics. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  Decorative box, which let's face it is not actually a term used in any context, is an agglomeration of all sorts of different things, from modern consumer packaging - gift box redirects there - to the totally different snuff box and knife box and others, which should probably be given their own articles. I see nothing but differences between these topics. But yes, caskets are one type covered. Johnbod (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. If consensus skews towards the proposed alternative options Casket → Casket (jewelry box) or simply Casket → Jewelry box, per Rreagan007 and In ictu oculi, I would likewise support either option. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

When the hatnote is the most clicked link in the article, we're probably not navigating readers well. WordNet dictionary suggests jewel casket as a synonym for the more generic meaning. I'd disambiguate and then re-examine the traffic later to see if anything changed. --Joy (talk) 11:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support Google returns the Coffin on the right with the information listed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, those coffins are big ticket items, the featured ones 1,500-2,000+ £/$, so get top spots in an advertising-led search engine. Irrelevant here. Johnbod (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The small box is the primary topic. In most parts of the world, the bigger ones are called coffins. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-RM comment: It seems I made an error when trying to change the proposal from Casket (decorative box) to Casket (decorated box) before the discussion began, so what was shown at WP:RM was Casket (decorative box) while what was shown here was Casket (decorated box) until being reverted back as the RM was closed. I can understand the closing rationale that "decorative" is justified in order to match the broad-concept article. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I can't really. As I implied above, "decorative box" is an OR invention, misleadingly implying that the boxes have no purpose except decoration. This is rarely true for the several very various types of boxes covered. Both would be better moved to "decorated", if this move sticks. Johnbod (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

That is why I tried to change the proposal from "decorative" to "decorated" immediately after opening the RM before anyone replied. The word "decorative" asserts a (possibly inaccurate) purpose for a box, while "decorated" merely describes an observable characteristic of the box. Perhaps I should submit a second RM for that smaller change.—⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. I'd support, but maybe let the dust settle first. Johnbod (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Why not simply Casket (box)? Station1 (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Simply using "box" may not distinguish sufficiently from coffin. A coffin is also a box. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but a coffin may also be decorated (although admittedly rarely decorative). Station1 (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

"A decorative box is a form of packaging that is generally more than just functional, but also intended to be decorative and artistic", per that article's lead sentence. I don't agree that the term misleadingly implies that such a box is a faux box incapable of storing anything. If you think that term should be changed, start a discussion at Talk:Decorative box. The problem with our "casket" article is that its scope is "container that is usually smaller than a chest" which is too small for a body and obviously caskets are used to store bodies, at least in the United States. Yes, a coffin may be decorated but they aren't decorated for the purpose of being decorative, unlike the boxes that store jewelry. Once a coffin is buried, nobody sees it anymore. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow all of that. Speaking for myself at least, I referred to decorativeness as "a (possibly inaccurate) purpose" being asserted by the "decorative box" description, not as the only purpose being asserted for it. Regarding the coffin discussion, are you suggesting that this article should include a discussion of coffins within its scope? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)