 | A fact from Silver-gilt appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 August 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
What of Vermeil?
editI interwikied this page to the French Vermeil one... and notice that this one was already interwikied to Vermeil. To me, this means there are two pages dedicated to the same subject that could definitely benefit from being merged. I'd just like to know if somebody more competent about such manipulations, and more knowledgeable about the matter than myself could take a look into it. --Svartalf (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Vermeil is in the US a particular legally defined standard of silver-gilt - see the footnote re Boston. In France I think it just means silver-gilt, & in the UK the term is hardly ever used. We have 2 articles for the similar situation with silver and sterling silver. perhaps the Freech article should link here. Johnbod (talk) 01:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- The Concise Oxford has an entry for vermeil, which it defines as silver gilt, so indicating that the terms are synonymous in the UK seems appropriate to me. Awien (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I just had the same experience— why do we have articles on both topics when they are not, apparently, different topics? That "vermeil" is a term used in the US for the same thing does not mean it warrants a separate article, it means it warrants space within this article under the subheading "vermeil". Which is what I am now going to do: merge and redirect. KDS4444 (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Triva, or not?
editIs it worth mentioning that in certain contexts (more particularly, UK Gardening shows such as the Chelsea Flower Show and Hampton Court Palace Flower Show) a silver-gilt medal is awarded as being intermediate between silver and gold medals? --Neil (talk) 11:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Suggested copy edits
editFollowing up here to understand Johnbod's objections to my proposed edits, and where they may run affoul of national varieties of English. Thank you!Meleager91 (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- Don't worry - my reversion has made everything fine again. Your edits introduced several slight changes in sense or emphasis, not for the better. There were a whole load of changes, none of which really made significant improvements. In such cases you only have to make a couple of retrograde edits for the whole thing to get reverted. Is there anything you think really needs changing? Johnbod (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not following. I understand that you took exception to the change in "jewelry", which I acquiesced to, but you reverted my subsequent effort to reinstate the rest of my edits and specify that the article should be written in British English, to avoid future use of American English in the article. Your reversions seemed to run afoul of WP:BADREVERT, as most of my edits reduced verbosity and improved clarity, and did not wholly make the article objectively worse. Meleager91 (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- I've put the BE template back. Many of your edits were fiddling word order changes that made next to no difference either way, but some "introduced several slight changes in sense or emphasis, not for the better", as I said above. I expect these were accidental. Edits like that are likely to be reverted if detected. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not following. I understand that you took exception to the change in "jewelry", which I acquiesced to, but you reverted my subsequent effort to reinstate the rest of my edits and specify that the article should be written in British English, to avoid future use of American English in the article. Your reversions seemed to run afoul of WP:BADREVERT, as most of my edits reduced verbosity and improved clarity, and did not wholly make the article objectively worse. Meleager91 (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)