Talk:Old Sheffield Plate

Why "double" sandwich?

To my mind, a sandwich is a piece of meat, cheese, etc. between two bits of bread. Silver-copper-silver is a single sandwich, not a double one. However, I ask the question before making a change, as I am not an expert. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

A sandwich can be "open-faced", too. We may just want to leave this as a rough analogy -- it is a pretty commonly used word with a wide range of meaning.

Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Role of Sheffield Plate in antiques

Warning readers about problems with antiques always seems like a worthy end in itself, but Wiki needs to be careful not to wander into personal opinion and trivia. There are plenty of good references describing how to identify "problem" pieces, and I suggest that they be combined here into a section, say, called "Identifying Sheffield Plate". BTW, "Sheffield Plate" is a name, so it is inappropriate to use lowercase for "Plate".

Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Care of Sheffield Plate

Considering that many readers of this article will also own Sheffield Plate or be potential buyers, it would be nice to have a section on cleaning and preservation.

Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

Inline refs, with a photo or diagram would help get this to a C-class article IMO - BulldozerD11 (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Silverware

Would anyone be interested in helping to set up a WikiProject Silverware? I'm interested in salvers, coffee pots, jugs, candlesticks, famous silversmiths, different styles, etc. Thanks. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sheffield plate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060127084938/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/S/SH/SHEFFIELD_PLATE.htm to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/S/SH/SHEFFIELD_PLATE.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Some updating to this Article

As a collector of Old Sheffield Plate and occasional contributor to Wikipedia, I felt that this article as it stood did not provide a very satisfactory picture of the Old Sheffield Plate manufacturing business or the range of items produced. Accordingly, while keeping as much of the existing text as possible, I have revised and added some new material. The old reference(s) were frankly rather poor, so I have added as well a number of up-to-date references to major publications relating to the field. Also, I will in time add some illustrations of OSP items, which are at the moment sadly lacking. As well the title needs changed – I believe it should be ‘Old Sheffield Plate’, with all three words capitalised - this is how the material is known in the antiques trade and almost all literature on the subject. Hope others reading this may have some further thoughts for improvements. ArchaicW (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for edits

Thanks to the folk who have done some 'tidying up' edits, following the new/revised material which I added to this Article. The topics may not be of the greatest importance, but I think I quite often have something useful to say to improve certain articles - maybe! BUT what I am not good at are all the rules and regulations which seem to have developed around Wikipedia. Could someone possible now REMOVE the advisory that this article only has one reference! You'll see that I have added half a dozen first class refs, so that doesn't now seem relevant. The main thing I think now missing are some illustrations, which I am now working on and I hope to add several over the next few days. Thanks for your help. ArchaicW (talk) 10:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I am happy to remove tag. The 2 sections "Sources and references" and "References" need fixing, may be the first renamed just "Sources" & moved after the "See also" section. Keith D (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Dear Keith D Many thanks for doing that. On the 'Sources & References', absolutely - I'd rather overlooked that we already had References. I think just reducing it to 'Sources' would do? Also, moving it would be fine. Do you want me to do these things, or were you going to do that yourself? Thanks ArchaicW (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Usual practice is to have the inline references in the References section which should be the majority of the cites in the article. Sources is used for general references that are used throughout the article - but have an in-line reference in the reference section entry. So if you have a book in the Sources section, the in-line entries in the Reference section will show the page numbers for each use of that source. Linking can be done using harv type links, but not essential. See Wikipedia:Citing sources Keith D (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Keith D, points noted. I've changed the title of that section to 'Sources and further reading'. I've used that phrase before on another Article which was looked at by three Editors and no one commented on that, so I hope that will be OK. ArchaicW (talk) 14:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Rename article to 'Old Sheffield Plate'?

Thanks to Keith D and others who have helped. As per my first post, I wonder if we could now re-name this Article to 'Old Sheffield Plate'? This would be more correct, and ironically in the original Article it actually stated that the material was usually known as 'Old Sheffield Plate', so why the Article was called something different I am not sure. NB but it must have CAPITALS on all three words, which might be a problem, as unnecessary capitals seem to be frowned upon, but they are not in this case! Grateful for any thoughts and inputs Thanks ArchaicW (talk) 12:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Would you then set [Sheffield plate] to be a disambig page pointing to OSP and Electroplate? --Mervyn (talk) 15:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Unnecessary changes?

Hello Ineffablebookkeeper I'm a bit mystified as to why you have made these largely unnecessary changes? I've read your Talk page and it doesn't seem to be a subject with which you have any connection? I've been working on this Article for a few weeks now, as it was not very good and I had still a few things to do, like removing further subjective statements. I am particularly puzzled as to why you have removed the short descriptions of a number of Sources? The titles of these on their own tell you very little, hence the extra detail. A highly experienced editor, Keith D, did not it seems have a problem with these. I would like to Undo this change, but don't want to start a war, so I would be very grateful of you would reverse this. Thanks ArchaicW (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Unnecessary Changes 2

Dear Ineffablebookkeeper Rather disappointed not to hear from you directly, following the normal conventions on the Talk Page for an Article. (Also puzzled as to how you managed to make several changes without me receiving any Notification emails? A recent change made by Keith D reached me by email straightaway.)

Having looked at your Talk page, I cannot think why on earth you even wanted to look at this Article? I also note from your Archive that many people were not happy with changes you made and reversed them, perhaps there’s a lesson here? Personally, I make it a principle NOT to make changes to what has gone before if it can possibly be helped. Folk have put much time, energy, research and thought to what they have written on Wikipedia and that I believe should always be respected. I wouldn't dream of altering any article about Japan.

Anyway, I think I’d agree that my reading list was perhaps worded a little too subjectively - but on the other hand it contained valuable information about learning about OSP which you are denying readers by turning it into a list which has no more info than the Refs? The irony here is that on your own Talk Page you do exactly what I was trying to do – you give a list of books about Japan with copious notes on what’s in them! Maybe you should be ‘edited’?

I didn't think there was really any need for it, but I have now made some changes and added one or two refs to this section. For example I have included a book review of Crosskey: ‘Crosskeys’s [book] magnificently supersedes any previous publication on the subject’ and ‘a work of thorough detailed scholarship . . . makes it the standard reference work on the subject.’ This written by a V&A Curator. Also, I cannot understand the point of changing some of the refs with page numbers in superscript? Anyway, I have edited the ‘Reading List’ to make it more objective. I’d be very grateful if you’d please not alter anything else. Thanks ArchaicW (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Title?

Hi Keith D Very kind of you to take an interest in this article, as I see you are a mega Wikipedian! However, also a Yorkshireman which I'm sure explains your interest. As it happened, I lived in Yorkshire for thirty years, mostly in York. I know the northern parts well, but not much about Sheffield and south Yorkshire.

Anyway, I wonder if you would like to take off that Template at the top? Personally, I don't see the problem with subsequent refs put in as op cit etc, but no matter, they have all gone! I'm still doing a bit to improve the Article, and hope to put up some more illustrations possibly in a Gallery.

The other thing I would really like to do is change the name of the Article to ‘Old Sheffield Plate’, all three words with capitals. I did ask about this before, but you never replied on that point. If I do it, some interfering person like ‘Ineffablebookkeeper’ will no doubt change it back, but if you do it, I rather think it will be left alone? Many thanks ArchaicW (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I have removed tag & moved page as seems to be predominate usage. I have also done some minor clean-up. Just for reference {{ping|Keith D}} will alert me to the discussion. Keith D (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Dear Keith D Thank you very much for making these changes to the OSP article, especially changing the title. While a very small contributor, I like to think that I have contributed some useful articles and additions to Wikipedia. What I am not good at (or not prepared to take the time to learn!!) is what seems to be the rather excessive 'rule book' which has grown up around Wikipedia. In particular, I find using the 'Mark Up' language especially trying. I don't know why Wikipedia does not go over to something like LibreOffice, a true WYSIWYG word processing program? I'm sure Wikipedia could have it's own version, with templates etc. So much easier. But thank you for your help on this one. ArchaicW (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)