Talk:Ring (jewellery)

What finger?

An interesting addition might be to indicate the finger different rings are traditionally worn on, if applicable (for instance, class ring - middle finger, right hand, according to a few sites I just visited to find the info). DonaNobisPacem 05:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

History of the Ring

I'd like see something about the history of the finger ring in the article T@nn 09:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

White men & rings

I find that white men have a higher rate of wearing rings than East Asians. What's up with that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.114.27.241 (talk) 03:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Varity of meaning depending finger use.

Anyone know what it means to wear a ring on what finger? Around here it's 'mandatory' to wear a wedding ring on the ring finger, but what about other uses? What would it mean if one wears a signet ring on his middle finger for example? etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drakuun (talk • contribs) 21:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I too would be interested in this! --Fox5200 (talk) 10:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Masonic ring

I am cutting this from the list. There really isn't anything special about a masonic ring. It is simply a ring depicting masonic symbols, identifying the wearer as belonging to the Freemasons... it's no different than rings created for most fraternal societies. The list does not talk about Rotary rings, Knights of Columbus rings, or any of a dozen other fraternal societies that have rings. Perhaps an entry on "Fraternaty rings" would fit the bill better. Also, while many masonic rings depict the Square and Compasses (probably the best known masonic emblem), not all do. Some will depict other Masonic symbols. Thanks. Blueboar 15:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

English spelling variations

So, here in America jewelry is spelled with one L. I realize that in the UK, it's spelled "jewellery." That looks odd to me, and my spell checker on FireFox claims it's misspelled. If a Britton created this page, then okay. But if you're American, and you created this page, SHAME ON YOU for not knowing how to spell!! 66.218.202.9 (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

OK! so you made me think, and i wanted to research it a lil.

At dictionary.com Jewellery. came up but, Jewelery did also, but as a spelling mistake. And 30+ suggestions including numerous single 'L' spellings, all nouns. I am sure you can spell it either way, just to me what the dictionary explains, to me means, Jewelery is whats being sold. and Jewellery is what is owned, Strange. But thats what it seems to come up as noun difinitions. CHEERS! 116.199.208.54 (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation

The following is taken word for word from the cited reference, which is a violation of copyright. I eliminated it from the article for this reason. "

Ring Symbolism

The Symbolism of Rings

Rings are circles. In all cultures the circle is a symbol of unity and eternity, encompassing all. In early cultures, rings were considered magical or sacred through their association with the sun, moon and gods, thus giving protection to the wearer by binding one with power and energy.Some of the magical mythology of ancient times still influences how and why we wear rings. Kings, priests and healers wore rings on the index finger because that finger was thought to be especially powerful. Medicines were applied to the body with the index finger to give speed and power to their effect. Even today, wearers of healing gemstones wear the rings on the index finger to take the best advantage of the curing energies.

The strongest magical tradition that still holds fast today is the one about the fourth or ring finger. The ring finger was thought to contain a nerve that went directly to the heart. Wearing a wedding or engagement ring on the ring finger still symbolizes the binding commitment and union of hearts.

The Meaning of Fingers When Wearing Rings

The right and left hands

In the dual nature of man, the right and left hands are part of his whole being yet represent his twofold conscious and subconscious mind. The left hand (the subconscious) is a reflection of his deeply buried instinct, beliefs and attitudes. The right hand (the conscious) reflects his logic and his awareness. Wearing rings on your left hand could symbolize your unknowing wish to strengthen the powers associated with the finger that wears the ring. Rings on the right hand reflect your desire to control your life and actions.

The Thumb: Will Power

The thumb represents the self. Set apart from other fingers but working in unison with them to give strength to the hand that the others cannot, the thumb symbolized our self in our world. It is associated with logic and will power which govern our actions. Rings on the thumb symbolize freedom and independence of thought and action.

The Index Finger: Authority & Ambition

This finger reflects our need to enhance our ego. The forefinger, throughout history, has represented authority and power. It is associated with leadership and ambition. Kings, priests and healers wore rings on the index finger because that finger was thought to be especially powerful. Nowadays, people wear rings on the index finger as a display of assertiveness, or power.

The Middle Finger: Identity & Materialism

The middle finger is associated with our role in life. Being in the center of the hand, it symbolizes personal identity and those things that are at central to our world. Those wearing rings on the middle fingers are well balanced yet wish to be at the center of attention.

The Ring Finger: Emotion & Creativity

The fourth finger is associated with affections because it is the one with a direct connection to the heart. It also represents our creativity and artistic self. A wedding or engagement ring on this finger proclaims to the world that the wearer’s emotions and creative goals are committed to the giver of the ring. If the ring is acquired by the wearer instead of a mate, it symbolizes self worth and a commitment to one’s personal skills and talents.

Little Finger: Relationships

The little finger is at the opposite end from the thumb. While the thumb symbolizes the inner self, the little finger is associated with others outside of ourselves. It sits on the outside of our hands, facing the world. It is the relationship finger, expressing our attitudes towards other people, sex, and the material world. Rings on the little finger represent confidence and independence in personal and business relationships. Rings here can also express a person’s attitude about sexuality and how appealing they consider themselves to be. " Thanks. Theseeker4 (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Expansion urgently needed

This article is embarrassingly short or insufficient for an encyclopedia of the stature to which Wikipedia aspires to be. For a piece of jewelry as ancient and common as the ring there should be a lot more information. The history section alone should be at least as long as the article currently is. Earliest known rings, rings worn by the ancients, rings worn by royalty, famous rings, infamous rings, a section discussing the history of rings as fashion and as function (wedding rings, rings worn by officers in history). There is really so much more which belongs on this article. Photos of ancient rings, of modern rings, most common modern ring designs, social attitudes towards rings through history and in modern times (like wearing many rings in some parts of the world is fashionable, but in other parts it is considered vulgar). JayKeaton (talk) 14:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What happened to the Spoken word version

It would seem that the spoken word version (see banner at top) got deleted. Tis a shame. -- œ^™ 22:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Eclarian ring delete?

I propose deletion of "eclarian ring" as I can find no citation of such a ring's existence or title other than sites which have copied Wikipedia's article directly. The description sounds like a conventional "spinner" ring with no particular significance to gay men or gay men's "beliefs," whatever those are. Religious? LGBT Pride? Rights? There is no historical or commercial information on such a ring. AtenRa (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No objection here... œ^™ 23:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The title seriously has to be changed...

I understand that in England it's spelled that way, but since there are more people in the United States than in the United Kingdom, it's more likely that an American will visit this page so it should be the American spelling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.132.17 (talk) 22:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I like that. Does anyone on Wikipedia have any percentage numbers about who uses Wikipedia most? Incidentally, either spelling is acceptable in America. Just so happens "jewelry" is more common.Djathinkimacowboy 05:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Page protection

OK, very funny Flubberchubs. Now... are we going to need article protection here? Discussion, please. Djathinkimacowboy 20:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for mythical rings section

In light of this[1], which was an excellent addition albeit in the wrong section, perhaps we could consider a mythic ring section? Or rings in literature or some such? Discussion?...I await a deafening silence. If I see no activity, I'll do it. We have enough in-Wikipedia to do so as it is.Djathinkimacowboy^(yell) 06:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Content dispute: rings (jewellery) or only ring for the finger?

We appear to have a conflict, a content dispute. Is this article exclusively about rings for the finger? If so, it doesn't say that anywhere. Content removal on that basis should be discussed here first. Refusal to do so constitutes edit warring.—Djathinkimacowboy 03:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Firstly there is the issue of general english. A ring in the context of jewellery is generally taken to mean a finger ring.

Secondly the article as it stands is basically about finger rings. If someone wants to write about the use of circles in jewellery they would need to start again from scratch either at a different title or after this one had been moved.

It would also be a rather odd article. I'm not aware any work that pushes together Bracelets, Torcs, Neck rings, Armbands finger rings, hoop earings, plugs, some types of chains, Circlets, headbands, Diadem, Hair ties, some types of Tiara, Anklets, Bangles and Chokers.

©Geni 03:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

No! To your 1st point: no one can decide to dictate how the reader may interpret a title or general article subject. You are trying to do that. It's true we usually mean a finger ring when we say or write "ring". However, that scope is not a decision for anyone to make here unilaterally. You said: 'Secondly the article as it stands is basically about finger rings. If someone wants to write about the use of circles in jewellery they would need to start again from scratch either at a different title or after this one had been moved.' Yes, it is basically about finger rings because there is little anyone can add about other rings- but there are other rings and they belong here too. I'd say to you, if someone wants to have this article only be about finger rings, they're going to have a problem. As to the rest of your comment posted, I'm not sure I understand you. It looks to me like you're just trying to make this article about rings for the finger. If you think there's trouble, I'll be glad to participate in a DRN.—Djathinkimacowboy 03:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

May I also indicate that 'Bracelets...Circlets, headbands, Diadem, Hair ties, some types of Tiara, Anklets, Bangles and Chokers' are not generally considered "rings". And no one said anything specifically about them. They do fall into another category and I see what you mean. However, you are trying to ignore toe rings, nose rings, and earrings.—Djathinkimacowboy 03:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Geni, I was looking everything over and have a compromise. It seems to me this article should be about finger rings only. We have links to, and also mention, toe rings, nose rings and earrings. What if we do a generic sweep, sort of clean up the article the way you are thinking, and leave the other types of rings each to its own article? I think I see exactly what you are saying and I agree with you now I've thought more deeply about it.—Djathinkimacowboy 03:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Well at least part of the problem is the title. how about we move the article to finger ring (which is currently a redirect to this article and if we can fix all the incoming links redirect Ring (jewellery) to ring which is the existing disambiguation page.©Geni 03:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Your judgment is usually sound. I will stand aside, because I wish I had more time to help but I don't. However, I agree with you about that. The title's the real problem. The article is looking good. You've done, after all, a great deal of good work. And please sign your posts!—Djathinkimacowboy 03:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Images

Looking through commons most of our pics of rings have depth of field issues. For historical reasons most of the leading collections of rings are in Britain (basically the Victorian ring collectors tended to be british). They are spread out across the V&A, British museum and Ashmolean. Other leading national collections do have examples though.

Based on what I plan to write we need good quality photos of:

• An ancient Egyptian ring. Preferably a scarab ring or a Cartouche ring.
• A classical greek ring
• A roman ring. This one will be difficult since there are so many of the things I have no idea what is typical (I would use File:Rings from the snettisham jewellers hoard.JPG but again depth of field issues). Personally I'd like it to be a cameo ring but I can't provide any justification for that.
• probably something byzantine. preferably with Christian iconography.
• viking perhaps?

©Geni 03:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. This sort of thing is subject to deletion if you insist on posting 'anonymously'.—Djathinkimacowboy 03:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

1)no it isn't. 2)How about accepting that is 4am and I was posting that while simultaneously trying to recall details of naming conventions I haven't used in years and thus along with with an unreasonably large number of typos I forgot to sign it. 3)we have a bot that signs things it really isn't worth caring about that much.©Geni 03:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

1) YES IT IS. Look, I of all editors understand where you're coming from, but making excuses ("it's 4 a.m.") and saying there are bots is not going to cut it. Bots do not sign this sort of thing all the time. I see posts all over that are unsigned and editors do not like checking diffs to see who did what. Worse than that, people might have assumed I posted that and not you. Please do not take such a casual attitude when you're working. If you're tired, then take a break!—Djathinkimacowboy 05:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Signatures is a guideline not a policy.©Geni 05:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Interposed comment: Understood, Geni, but what part of 'they might think I posted it' do you not understand? Just sign your darned posts and try not to treat this article/article talk page as if you WP:OWNed it.—Djathinkimacowboy 00:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Roman ring hoarde

Now to address a specific thing you raised: it depends on what example of Roman ring you want. A gladiator's ring? A pope's ring? A rich senator's ring? An early Christian ring? A pagan ring (i.e., would have a bust of Mithras that is always confused for Mercury)? You'll be lucky if you can find an image of anything except perhaps someone's old papal ring.—Djathinkimacowboy 05:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The roman one is a bit of a problem. Over 2000 of the things have been found along the Rhine valley alone. Oh well worry about it when I actual write a section on roman rings.©Geni 05:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You have a major problem: there is no such thing as a "Roman" ring, anymore than there is an "American" ring. This is going to be a case of can opened, worms everywhere. And you cannot choose one ring to represent all of Rome, though you might go with the gladiator's ring since it is the ancestor of many types of ring traditions.—Djathinkimacowboy 00:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

snettisham jewellers hoard for roman stuff second centry.©Geni 21:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Geni, what is this? Can you try to post a constructive, informative post here on talk instead of using it for notes to yourself? Or is that also just a guideline and not a policy? I'm planning to have a look at that by the way.—Djathinkimacowboy 00:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Geni, I see only this:

Jewellery: Because this is a manufacturer's hoard that can be closely dated, the large series of similar rings are particularly interesting. They show the range of variation possible in a single type at one time and place. There is a series of standard Roman gem-set rings, and an even larger group of snake-rings of a simple type which were mass-produced using hammer and dies. The chains, necklace-clasps and pendants belong to standard early-Roman types, but the snake-bracelets are of a stylized form best known in Britain.

taken from here[2]. What exactly will you be able to do with that? Are you thinking of beginning a Roman history section there? That would be cool, because I think Roman rings more than any are the ones we still have today. If so, I will try to help. But I see no useful image ideas at this source.—Djathinkimacowboy 00:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

However, I do not advise that you suddenly attempt to monopolise the article with Roman history. You are staring awfully hard at a particular time within Roman history and Roman history spans millennia. I say 'history' and not only the empire itself. Be careful with this. Also I retitled this section. Other editors work here, even if only rarely, and you seem not to care about that.—Djathinkimacowboy 00:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Its a note because its something I was to remember when I get to the roman section (talk pages can be used for pretty much any meta stuff with regards to the article and notes to self fall within that range). The reason I need the note is I always get confused with the Snettisham Hoard which is something else entirely. And we do have imaghes File:Rings from the snettisham jewellers hoard.JPG and a bunch I haven't uploaded but I can improve on them next time I visit the British museum anyway.©Geni 00:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Frstly, good luck with all that. Secondly, may I suggest a trick I often use for citations: email links to the citations to yourself. This way you won't struggle to find them in the article talk page. Another very good idea is to create a section expressly for that on your own talk page, which I have also done in the past. Works miracles. You seem way more experienced than I am; perhaps it's true an editor can use talk pages for personal notes to self, but several admins have commented to me in the past that editors should keep personal 'notes' and 'reminders' off the 'public way', so to say. Anyway I am truly anxious to see what material you get. Just recall my warning. If you start down the Roman Road, you will have to balance it out evenly with other ring histories. The Germans have good history but there is little ref material.—Djathinkimacowboy 00:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, we should use this[3] Geni. Fantastic, brilliant! Those old Roman rings look exactly like the typical men's 'slender, stone-set' ring everyone wears today. That is a style especially popular for men's birthstone rings. (See my editing work at Ecclesiastical ring, Ring of the Fisherman and Birthstones). Wish I could show you my personal file of ring images- I have examples of every type you can imagine, including various Roman examples from various periods/locations. But no way to upload these: could be copyvio and besides, these are my personal stash of reference photos for research.—Djathinkimacowboy 01:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Firstly I've seen people do all sorts of stuff on talk pages and as an admin I only care when they are either trying to use wikipedia as a personal webhost or are being actively disruptive (as well as the usual issues of personal attacks and copyright violations etc etc).

Now thats out of the way on to the serious business of the article. In an ideal world the eventual result would be a separate article on roman rings with a summary in this one. However there is no way I'm in a position to write that. I would also expect the list of types of rings also to be split off at some point. The problem with the snettisham jewellers hoard image is that it only shows one of the types of rings found in the horde and on a technical level the depth of field is slightly to short (ring nearest the camera isn't quite in focus).©Geni 03:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate what you've seen on talk pages just as you should appreciate what I have seen. Additionally, I was merely trying to be helpful and my remarks, about notes to yourself, were kindly meant. Now that's out of the way! As to the rest, I agree that a Roman ring article is the way to go- one thing I don't understand is your hesitation about the photo. It is perfect: a photo of typical Roman rings of the era (I didn't check but they look 2nd century). What I am advising is we back off any further 'Romanisation' of the main article. It would look crazy.—Djathinkimacowboy 02:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The new work--splendid

Geni! Very good thus far, and I see you are working your way to a Roman section. It'll be brilliant. That diagram has two issues. Part 4 of a ring, when it is not stone-set, that area is called the 'table' which technically is set within the 'bezel' or may in some instances constitute the entire bezel....I wonder whether that should be added/changed if possible.

....Not all rings are stone-set, and not all stone-set rings are set with a 'jewel', but with a 'stone' and in some cases a tooth or other animal part. Ah, another item: part 1 of the ring is correctly and universally called the 'hoop', not 'ring', because the entire item is the 'ring'. In America they tend to refer to the bottom half of the 'hoop' as the 'palm-side'. I'm so glad the diagram does not call it 'the shank', at least.

That is a fine diagram, I can't imagine where you found something so simple and elegant- and correct. Oh, the Engineer's Ring is glorious. I could not find an image anyplace. I also no longer have mine to have uploaded a photo of it to Commons.—Djathinkimacowboy 16:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou for picking up on the ring/hoop issue. I wasn't sure which was correct. As for the bezel the source I'm using it seems to use the term bezel even when there is no jewel present as does the british museum. The images in this article in general need work. Wikipedia has photographers who could do far better than our existing images.

The bit about roman rings is going to be delayed while I try and find a better source.©Geni 17:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, that old source of headache when one wishes to write about rings. It is indeed 'the hoop' and don't let any weird new source convince you it is a 'shank'. From palm-side to the 'shoulders', it seems most writers are in the dark. It seems to me 'bezel' comes in handy in order to describe the 'top' of a ring, and it is a natural progression since the bezel is always that which rests on the shoulders, so we could think of it as the 'head' of the ring. A seal ring (such as Prince Charles' ring which isn't a true seal, for example), has a table (or shall one say 'tableaux') that makes up the entire bezel. Others, however, have tables of a carved/engraved/chased design on or in the bezel- thus proving the stoneless, jewelless design has a 'table' set in or on the 'bezel'. I'd run across these distinctions when studying bishops' rings, but of course Jones, Kunz and McCarthy all explain the parts of the ring with elegance and grace.—Djathinkimacowboy 09:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Then of course you know when the ring is stone-set or bejewelled, it is placed in a 'setting' a.k.a 'mounting'. Naturally the stone/gem and 'setting' are contained on or in the 'bezel', and some jewellers even consider the setting to make up the entire bezel.I'd say a diagram in order from bottom-to-top should read 'hoop', 'shoulders', 'bezel', 'table', 'mounting'/'setting' and leave the stone/gem off- it almost strikes me as insulting that a diagram would have to illustrate for the reader where and what the stone/gem is! Thus I visualise two diagrams as handy, one with a flat table-mounted bezel and one stone-set.—Djathinkimacowboy 09:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Too sum up my thoughts, I believe the descriptions are wrong. The "hoop" should read "shank" (I know you don't think so, and I'm not weird) and there is no "bezel", unless a bezel is actually used. Otherwise it would be a "basket" or simply "prongs" (multiple choice). Please correct me, if I got it all wrong. Drendel (talk) 04:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Drendel. You posted: 'I believe the descriptions are wrong. The "hoop" should read "shank" (I know you don't think so, and I'm not weird) and there is no "bezel", unless a bezel is actually used. Otherwise it would be a "basket" or simply "prongs"...' You are indeed wrong. The formal name of the majority of a finger ring is THE HOOP. Some say 'shank' and that is simply erroneous. Secondly, you said it yourself: if there is no bezel then there is no bezel. If there is, however, anything indicating the 'top' of a ring, then that is indeed the bezel of the ring. Where you got 'basket' and 'prongs' I do not know but it may be British jewellers sometimes use these terms. We do not need to go into it that far.Djathinkimacowboy 01:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Brass rat - removal from the list

I would like to suggest removing the "Brass rat" from the list of ring styles. Unlike the others (with possible exception of "SS Ehrenring") it is a particular ring of a particular university and thus it doesn't fit into a list of ring styles, which should represent a compilation of broader cathegories or unique functions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.80.17.5 (talk) 10:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

We think and agree that the MIT ring is an 'ultimate' representation of not only a 'class ring' and 'college ring', but an ultimate example of university education achievement. It is one of the signatures and symbols of the MIT graduate. There is no sense in removing it. That list is a list of 'prime examples' as well as broad examples, and the Rat satisfies both.—Djathinkimacowboy 07:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

User:2.220.167.82: [4] -- you had no cause to remove this ring from its listing, and I have noted that this ring seems to be a contentious subject for some editors. However, it does belong on that list. Be more careful in your editing. As to the item itself: if someone has a problem with this, please bring it to the talk page first. This kind of editing is really unhelpful.—Djathinkimacowboy 17:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Class Ring Image

As it's been noted that we're missing a class ring image, I'd like to start the discussion about which we would like to use to represent the classification in the "Styles" section. Here's what I've found with a simple search

Commons:Category:Class rings

Commons:File:West Point 2012 Ring.JPG

File:Citadel Class Ring II.jpg

File:Tamukclassring001.png

File:XRing.jpg

I couldn't find any others that I feel comfortable putting up for this discussion based on a Commons FfD discussion that might cause us problems when we try to add the image to a new page. Let's have a week of debate/additional nominations prior to having a week of voting (And I know voting isn't a substitute for consensus) for which one should be inserted to represent Class Rings. Hasteur (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

As I essentially started what was seen as a conflict, I'd like to state right now that I am 100% for whatever is decided here.—Djathinkimacowboy 20:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: I am applying the tests "Able to be on Commons" (So we don't have to write a Fair Use Rationale), Decently sized, not an obvious copyvio. In no way am I making judgments about the look of a ring or favoring one institution over another. Hasteur (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

DISCUSSION: list of rings content

List of rings and broad category of styles: I have noticed sometimes an editor passes by and has a problem with a ring being on the list of rings in the article. It would be nice if we settled once and for all time whether this list will be nothing more than broad categorisations - in which case I suggest we do away with the list completely - or if it can consist of any historical or other ring of interest and significance. For example, I was in a kerfuffle about MIT's Brass Rat ring, but it was thought unnecessary because it is a class ring - but we have repetitions in that list and I favour them because they are significant. Thoughts?Djathinkimacowboy 01:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Consensus can change, but I'm looking at the article right now and seeing several that could be collapsed as specific examples. Hasteur (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh hi Hasteur. Would you give me some examples please? I'm most anxious to actually change that whole list, but one does not like to remove good content. One thing that confuses me is what you mean when you say "collapse"; the other confusing thing is consensus. What consensus?©Djathinkimacowboy 05:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

In my mind there are subclasses of Marrige (Engagement/Promise/Pre-engagement/Claddagh ring/Regards/Wedding/Eternity/Purity), Rings of Initiation (Class/Doctoral/Iron), Gemstone Rings (Mothers/Birthstone), and Historical (Any ring that has gone out of common usage (Cameo/Momento Mori/Morning/Posie/Poison/Signet/SS ring)). I would also evaluate the examples in the list and remove any that did not have a stand alone article or one that is a poor quality stub for potential removal. Hasteur (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hasteur, just a moment. I would point out certain things:

1) We should not just do what is in our minds. I own three authoritative books on the history of rings, and your list is simply too limited.

2) You say you would 'remove any [ring] that did not have a stand alone article or one that is a poor quality stub for potential removal.' I disagree with that as a criterion. I appreciate your line of thought, but it is limited and would exclude, for example, the Jewish 5 metals ring.

We need to think this through into further stages. Though of course I appreciate your input. I'd like to see - won't hold my breath - if anyone else has input which I doubt.-©Djathinkimacowboy 19:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I've always assumed that that section would eventually be split off into its own "list of ring types" article. It should probably be said that cataloging all the ring types used over the last few thousand years has presented collectors and museums with a significant challenge.©Geni 06:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Right, well, you see that was the point made earlier on in the discussion: should we pare down the list to general classes/types of rings only. That presumes the elimination of anything not strong enough or notable enough to merit its own article. Posie rings make a good example. I have argued that we keep the list because the rings on it are per se significant but nothing much more beyond that. However, if you will look at Pinky ring, you'll see how an editor saved it brilliantly. I was subsequently able to add to it and it stands, much to my surprise. As to further splitting this article, the answer is self-evident. The subject really cannot be parsed into spin-offs due to 1) a lack of interest 2) a lack of sources. No one can find sufficient sources to maintain Posie ring and yet here it is in the article listed and then linking the ring back to a stub.~©Djathinkimacowboy 09:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Clarification: Now, as to types, G., let me try to do what the earlier editor tried and express the only rings one can make reference to, successfully. In no particular order, we have award rings (the class ring), betrothal/wedding, vow rings (such as the purity ring and in certain cases the Claddagh ring), ecclesiastical rings (which count as a subclass of royal/imperial rings) and that leads us to "identification" rings. Etc. etc. In my view further sub-classification, to say nothing of a separate article purely to list types of rings, is a waste of time and no one will do it.~©Djathinkimacowboy 09:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Rather than cutting up the list I would suggest splitting it off now and focusing this article on more general issues like history and methods of manufacturer.©Geni 03:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

In principal I agree the list should not be cut into pieces--but that was never suggested by anyone anyway. I strongly disagree that we split it off into a separate article. There isn't the material to do that and still have a respectable article here. There's also no need to remove the heart of this article, which is the list, 'just because'. I say we edit it slowly and see what may come of that.~©Djathinkimacowboy 05:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I would probably be better to focus on expanding the article rather than messing with the list. I don't have any books on rings to hand though.©Geni 06:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, Geni. At the moment I am also exhausted vis-a-vis resources. There is one editor at Pinky ring, quite brilliant, who may be able to assist here--assuming he's not gone on one of his 'jaunts'.~©Djathinkimacowboy 12:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)