Talk:Sursock bronze

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Jeromi Mikhael talk 02:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

The Sursock bronze on display in the Louvre

• ... that Jupiter Heliopolitanus, depicted in the Sursock bronze (pictured), was a syncretic god rooted in the Canaanite worship of Baal-Hadad?
  Source: Dupont-Sommer 1949, pp. 109, 113. & Seyrig 1929, pp. 315, 346.
  • ALT1: ... that the armor of the Sursock bronze (pictured) features busts of seven celestial Roman deities? Source: Kropp 2010, p. 233. & Cumont 1921, p. 41.
  • ALT2: ... that the Sursock bronze's (pictured) hollow base and prominent Adam's apple suggest it was connected with the oracular functions of the Temple of Jupiter Heliopolitanus? Source: Dussaud 1920, pp. 5, 13–15
  • ALT3: ... that the Sursock bronze (pictured) was discovered in a damaged state with hacked parts, possibly vandalized by early Christian iconoclasts? Source: Bel 2015, 1:55.
  • ALT4: ... that French archaeologist René Dussaud chose the Sursock bronze (pictured) as the subject of the inaugural article of the journal Syria in 1920? Source: Bel 2012b, p. 14. & Cumont 1921, p. 40.
  • ALT5: ... that the Sursock bronze (pictured) illustrates the syncretic nature of Jupiter Heliopolitanus, a deity combining traits of Baal-Hadad, Helios, and Jupiter? Source: Seyrig 1929, pp. 315, 346.& Hajjar 1977b, p. 515. & Cook 1914, pp. 550–551
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Antwerp prison

Moved to mainspace by Elias Ziade (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 51 past nominations.

el.ziade (talkallam) 12:58, 8 September 2025 (UTC).

• Hello @Elias Ziade:. First off, great job on the article! It's really impressive. Before I start the review, though, I'll need a clarification; The article was created on 7 February 2024, but this DYK nomination is from 8 September 2025. According to WP:DYKNEW, an article is considered new enough if within the last seven days, the article has been created in mainspace from a redlink or redirect; expanded at least fivefold in terms of its prose portion; promoted to good article status; moved from userspace or draftspace into mainspace; or translated from another Wikipedia. I'm not sure this article qualifies as new enough under those rules. Am I missing something? Mariamnei (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

• Hi Mariamnei, I appreciate you taking the trouble to review the article. I indeed created this one a while back, and moved to main space on said date. I may have tagged it incorrectly in the nomination though. el.ziade (talkallam) 20:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

• Thank you for the clarification! The article is indeed new enough and long enough. All links are in order, and the sources are reliable, written by scholars of the topic. Some are quite old, but since this concerns descriptions of an archaeological artifact, that's entirely acceptable. No copyright issues have been identified. Many sources are in French, but the basics are supported by English sources as well; AGF for the rest. The tone seems neutral, the hooks are short enough, and the QPQ is completed.

I'd recommend ALT3 as the most engaging for general readers, with a bit of drama to make it stand out. Then, ALT2 follows closely behind, as it can also spark curiosity. ALT1 and ALT5 are more museum like but they still offer something of interest for a wider audience. I would avoid ALT4, as it seems too niche for general appeal. Mariamnei (talk) 10:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sursock bronze/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Elias Ziade (talk · contribs) 15:45, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Dumelow (talk · contribs) 11:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Happy to take a look at this one - Dumelow (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

1. Well-written

Criteria: the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

The cult of Jupiter Heliopolitanus

• "Jupiter Optimus Maximus Heliopolitanus (Latin: Iovi Optimo Maximo Heliopolitano; shortened IOMH) was a syncretic supreme deity worshipped in the Great Temple of Baalbek, located in modern-day Lebanon."

I would link syncretic and Baalbek here at least ^{^ Done}

• "While a number of scholars propose that Baal was an indigenous Canaanite deity whose cult was identified with or absorbed aspects of Hadad's"

"a number of scholars" might fall foul of MOS:AWW, can we be more specific? ^{^ Added footnote with sources.}

• Do we know when the worship of Baal-Hadad arose? Otherwise the first mention of any dating information is at the end of the first paragraph (1st millennium BC) ^{^ Added}

• "After the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC, the Diadochi—his generals, family members, and companions"

Worth a link to Diadochi?^{^ Done}

• "During the Hellenistic period,[a] the cult of Baal-Hadad in Baalbek acquired a solar character"

Worth linking Solar deity?^{^ Done}

• "University of Nottingham scholar Andreas Kropp challenges the established notions of a solar syncretism of Jupiter Heliopolitanus and his identification with the Semitic Hadad"

Link University of Nottingham?^{^ Done}

We've not mentioned "Semitic" before, can this be introduced?^{^ Done}

• "The Hellenistic overlords likely conflated Baal-Hadad with their sun god Helios, a storm god often depicted brandishing a whip, symbolizing lightning.[11] The whip was also a symbol associated with Helios, who was often depicted holding a whip to drive his sun chariot across the sky"

The two sentences here about Helios being associated with whips feel a bit redundant, can they be combined? ^{^ Much clearer now}

• "Modern scholars dispute this claim, recognizing it as part of the broader syncretic tendencies of Roman historians."

"modern scholars dispute" again might have issues with WP:AWW.^{^ Much clearer who said what}

I also wasn't clear whose claim they were disputing. Macrobius on the statue or the Egyptian priests?^{^ Done}

• " It maintain however good relations with the princes, who held control over southern access for pilgrims coming from Palestine, Arabia, or Damascus"

"maintained" presumably?^{^ Done}

• "The Temple of Jupiter Heliopolitanus in Baalbek was renowned in antiquity for its oracular functions and as a divination center"

Link oracle and Divination?^{^ Done}

• "The cult of Heliopolitan Jupiter spread from this cultic center to far corners of the Roman empire"

Can we give any examples?^{^ Done}

• "These include rites of divination and the oracular power of Jupiter, the dedication of hair to Venus Heliopolitana and the associated sacred prostitution, the prominence of astrology, ritual processions to the nearby 'Aïn el-Gouë spring with the deposition of divine images in the sacred spring's basins, liturgical banquets, ritual purification and hair shaving, the prohibition of pork, and the celebration of the Maiuma festival"

Could probably use some links. Eg. Venus (mythology), Sacred prostitution, astrology, ritual purification, Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork, Maiuma (festival)?^{^ Done}

Identification and descriptions of the Heliopolitan Jupiter iconographic type

• "Some of the bronze statuettes replace the kalathos with a pschent, the Ancient Egyptian double crown, or a radiate crown as shown on miniature engravings."

link radiate crown?^{^ Done}

The mention of miniature engravings in relation to the radiate crown confused me here, are we saying they show it or the bronze statuettes, or both?^{^ rephrased}

• "The god is often depicted donning his characteristic kalathos, a vase-shaped headdress that tapers at the base ... Typically, he is depicted standing, wearing a kalathos (a basket shaped headdress that flares upward and outward from a torus-shaped base) ... and an ependytes (a close-fitting dress) and an armor "

I don't think we need to describe the kalathos twice (and slightly differently) in close succession^{^ Oops, removed}

The "and" before "an ependytes" is superfluous I think?^{^ Done}

Discovery

• " The French archaeologist and then Deputy Curator of Louvre's Department of Near Eastern Antiquities René Dussaud, writing in his 1920 monograph "Jupiter héliopolitain. Bronze de la collection Charles Sursock", identified Baalbek as the discovery site"

I think needs a "the" before Louvre?^{^ Done}

• "a location considered credible by historian Joseph Hajjar due to its association with two dedications to Heliopolitan Jupitear."

Typo on the last word^{^ Done}

Composition and description

• "the god is depicted standing on a cubic base measuring 5.5 cm × 5 cm (2.2 in × 2.0 in)"

Do we know the third dimension, if not which two of the three are these?^{^ I put Dussaud's measurements}

• "Two bulls, flank the effigy of the god, with the entire group resting on a rectangular base measuring 14.7 cm (5.8 in) wide, 12.7 cm (5.0 in) deep and 4.7 cm (1.9 in) high."

First comma not needed^{^ Done}

• "The front and back of deity's armor is divided into square registers, with one to two registers per row."

Not all of them are square, perhaps "rectangular" is better?^{^^ You're very observant but I will keep the "square" here, but if you insist i can still review the sources and do the necessary changes.}

• "The third register also includes two registers featuring Mars wearing military cuirass with imbricated scales and a legionary's shoulder piece, alongside Mercury with a caduceus and a winged helmet."

This should be "third row", I think, and not register?^{^ Absoluetely, yes}

• "These fields feature each a stylized thunderbolt"

Would read better to me as "each feature"^{^ Done}

Interpretation

• "Hajjar offered an alternative hypothesis, referencing ancient texts that describe the simulacrum of Jupiter Heliopolitanus being carried on a 'ferculum during processions before delivering oracles."

Is the apostrophe before "ferculum" intended? It's not used in the adjacent caption ^{^ removed typo}

Iconographical precedents

• "He adds that, while some iconographic elements, like grouped divine bust on the deity's dress reflect artistic trends from the second century AD, others suggest greater antiquity, drawing similarity to a bronze in the Louvre (pictured)."

I think this should be the plural "busts"?^{^ Done}

• "According to Bel, the planetary deities ornamentation reflects a Roman Imperial era conceptualization, in which Jupiter Heliopolitanus evolved into a cosmological, universal force, encompassing planetary motion, the passage of time, and possessing oracular abilities that enjoyed significant popularity during the imperial period"

You haven't introduced Bel before, could use a short introduction ^{^ Done}

This feels like a complicated sentence that I don't think I followed, is there any way it can be simplified for the layman?^{^ I often struggle with French sources, which always have a literary ring to them, it's such a beautiful language that doesnt translate well.}

Lead

• Felt a little long, I find a good length is around 300-400 words. Is there anything that can be trimmed, I thought perhaps the second and third paragraphs could be made more concise and combined? ^{^ Done}

• "Four-pointed stars etched next to Mars, Mercury, and Saturn to indicate their planetary nature, while Venus is flanked by a pair of stars, alluding to her dual aspects as 'morning' and 'evening star'."

Has an error in syntax ^{^ Done}

2. Verifiable with no original research

Criteria: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

• "The Sursock bronze is modeled after the great statue of Jupiter Heliopolitanus as it stood in the Great Temple of Baalbek around the mid-second century AD"

I couldn't see where this part of the lead was supported in the main text.^{^ You're right, i fixed it. It's from the Dating section.}

• "it is also the largest Roman temple ever constructed"

I couldn't access the sources but our article says the Temple of Venus and Roma in Rome was larger. Can you provide an extract of what the modern sources say (the citation to Gordon 1921 is probably not worth using here)

The temple of Venus and Roma was the largest, within Rome, not the Roman world. From Magli

A topographical alignment with the area at which the Hellenistic water pipe enters the city, Ain Juj, has been proposed [23]. At Ain Juj the remains of a small round building, with suggested date at the end of 1 BC, were found, but the building is today lost, and its location is unsure. Furthermore, the idea that the largest Temple of the Roman empire was oriented to a water supply, however sacred its source might have been, is frankly difficult to believe (the assertion that the so-called Temple of the Muses is also directed to the same point is only approximatively true; the orientation of this temple is instead clearly astronomical, as shown below).

From Paturel, p1

Yet by the mid-third century, Baalbek-Heliopolis was host to one of the largest religious sanctuaries anywhere in the Roman Empire.

Idem page 200

The scale of the building is enormous; the Temple stood on a podium 13.5m above the Great Court, with columns rising another 20m, giving a gable some 40m above the floor below (Ward-Perkins 1981, 316). The Great Court measured 97m by 86m and would have been nearly 200m long if the Temple plan had ever been completed according to its hypothetical original design. The Temple was the largest religious building anywhere in the Roman Empire (Sader, Scheffler, and Neuwirth 1998, ix) including Rome itself

el.ziade (talkallam) 16:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the quotes. Looks good. You may want to use them to change the lead of Temple of Jupiter (Baalbek) which says (uncited) "It is the largest of the Roman world after the Temple of Venus and Roma in Rome", but that's obviously outside the scope of this GA review - Dumelow (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• "Modern scholars dispute this claim, recognizing it as part of the broader syncretic tendencies of Roman historians"

This is cited to "Dussaud 1920, p. 4; Seyrig 1929, pp. 346–347; Hajjar 1977b, p. 514", while certainly "modern" compared to Macrobius, is there nobody more recent we can cite? Otherwise I might be tempted to rephrase this as "by the 20th century scholars..."^{^ Clarified}

• I am limited in what I have access to (or can translate) from the sources but have checked the following:

"The cult of Hadad found its way to Rome, where he was mentioned in three inscriptions on an altar uncovered on the eastern slopes of the Janiculum hill. The inscriptions read: "to the god Adados", "to the god Adados of Libanos", and "to the god Adados of the Mountaintop" are believed by British classical archaeologist and scholar Arthur Bernard Cook to suggest an increasing trend toward associating Hadad more with Jupiter, known as a mountain god, rather than with Helios"

Broadly checks out to Cook 1914, pp. 550–551; although he says it was Zeus that Hadad was equated with, rather than Jupiter, though I appreciate they were equivalent.^{^ I added a hyphen, as is often done when referring to gods in cases of interpretatio}

that the "thunderbolt" was a symbol of Hadad is confirmed by Green 2003, p. 85.

"The whip was also a symbol associated with Helios, who was often depicted holding a whip to drive his sun chariot across the sky"

Could probably use a more recent reference than Heck 1851, p. 422.

"by the 1st millennium BC, Hadad and Baal were regarded as distinct deities: Hadad was primarilly venerated by the Aramaeans, while Baal was venerated by the Phoenicians and other Canaanites"

Checks out to Hermann 1999, p. 132.

That Gennaios was "a figure regarded as a solar deity venerated at Baalbek" checks out to Hill 1910, pp. XLVIII–XLIX, 9 but again, do we have a more modern source on the matter?

"The variability of iconography of Jupiter Heliopolitanus may stem from limited access to the cult statue in its temple adyton and restricted opportunities to observe it closely outside occasional processions."

Checks out to Kropp 2010, pp. 234–235.

• I didn't pick up on any overly close paraphrasing form the sources I checked and Earwig flags nothing of concern

3. Broad in its coverage

Criteria: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Resolved

I am not experienced in the field but I found no obvious gaps and the level of detail felt appropriate - Dumelow (talk) 07:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

4. Neutral

Criteria: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Resolved

No obvious issues with WP:NPOV - Dumelow (talk) 07:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

5. Stable

Criteria: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Resolved

Article moved to mainspace early September, there have been no major changes since and no evidence of dispute on the talk page - Dumelow (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

6. Illustrated

Criteria: media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• Image licenses all look to be appropriate

• Captions all contain material stated in the article or obvious from the image/source, except the altar series, which has a citation

• I think an image of the back of the object would be useful. I found myself referring to one to work out what the back of the dress looked like

---

Dumelow Thank you so much for taking the time to review this article. I hope it’s not too dry and that it was at least somewhat interesting to read! Your detailed comments are extremely helpful and I really appreciate how you pointed out style and contextual refinements. I’ll go through your notes carefully and make the adjustments you suggested. If there’s anything in particular you’d like me to clarify or expand on before you reach a final verdict, please let me know. I truly value the time and care you’ve put into this review. el.ziade (talkallam) 11:04, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

No worries, it's an area of history I don't know much about so I found it quite an interesting read. I'll try to complete the review against criteria 2 today. Feel free to disagree with any of my stylistic suggestions, by the way! - Dumelow (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I have completed my review and will now show this as on hold; actions in sections 1, 2 and 6 above - Dumelow (talk) 06:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@Dumelow Thank you so much for taking the time to do this. I will be addressing the identified issues progressively and will ping you when I have made good progress. el.ziade (talkallam) 10:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Dumelow I have addressed your comments, please let me know if I skipped anything or if you have further suggestions for improvement. el.ziade (talkallam) 10:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi el.ziade, your changes all look good to me. Excellent work on this article, well done! I will pass it for GA. One thing I would still consider is adding an image showing the back of the statue (there are some on Commons); I found myself having to pull one up to assist with my understanding of the text - Dumelow (talk) 11:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Dumelow Thank you so much for taking the time to review this! It makes me so happy you found it interesting. I had prepared a close-up image for the back and will add it to the article. I really appreciate your thoughtful feedback and the GA pass, thank you again for the kind words and careful review! el.ziade (talkallam) 13:41, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Peer review

Sursock bronze

I've listed this article for peer review because I’ve worked hard to bring it to a high standard and would love to refine it further with your feedback. I believe it could eventually meet Featured Article criteria, and I’d greatly appreciate any suggestions for improvement. Thanks, el.ziade (talkallam) 15:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Cas Liber

Looks promising at first glance...

• I admit I had not come across the term "sculptural group" before, though figured out what it meant pretty readily.Not sure this is actionable as such though.

• Iovi Optimo Maximo Heliopolitano - is Latin dative. Looks a bit odd just saying "Latin" there. Possibly misleading as it implies that Jupiter Optimus Maximus Heliopolitanus is not Latin (??)

• The Discovery section doesn't mention possible options of discovery dates, apart from when the Louvre got it.

Otherwise, looked okay - definitely comprehensive. Prose looked okay but am tired and tuned out a bit. Might try to revisit later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:25, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Casliber Thanks for the feedback and don't feel rushed. Thanks for pointing out the dative case issue; I have adjusted the language label. Sources don’t give a discovery date; they only mention when the Louvre acquired it. el.ziade (talkallam) 08:49, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Funk

• I'll have a look when Cas is done, then I should be able to support at FAC as well. FunkMonk (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

• ✔ Link Hadad in first instead of second mention in the article body.

• ✔ Likewise with Helios.

• ✔ Link Phoenicians?

• ✔ "The Hellenistic overlords likely conflated Baal-Hadad with their sun god Helios; Baal, a storm god often depicted brandishing a whip symbolizing lightning" and This shared iconography likely led to the conflation of the two deities by the new Hellenistic overlords who also renamed the town Heliopolis." very similar wording in close succession, is there a way to consolidate these senescence or shorten one?

I removed the redundancy I think it flows a little better. el.ziade (talkallam) 12:51, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

• ✔ Add dates for mentioned publications in footnote a for context?

• ✔ Link solar deity and other general types of deities if articles exist?

• ✔ Link Ptolemaic.

• ✔ "Tetradrachm of Antiochus XII Dionysus (87/6–84/3 BC), Damascus mint" Link Damascus?

• ✔ Link ancient Rome and ancient Egypt at first mentions.

• ✔ Hellenistic period is duplinked in footnote b.

• ✔ "kalathos, a basket-shaped headdress that tapers at the base. Some of the bronze statuettes replace the kalathos with a pschent" if kalathos is in italics, shouldn't pschent also be? Kalathos also isn't in italics at every mention.

• ✔ "All parts of the bronze group were hacked and disjointed with the kalathos headdress separated from the head, the head detached from the body and the small cubic pedestal separated from the underlying larger base." as in they were found in this condition?

• As it was named after Charles Sursock, wouldn't it almost make more sense to show an image of him than of René Dussaud?

FunkMonk There aren't any!! :( el.ziade (talkallam) 12:51, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

• ✔ You link ears of wheat a few times after their first mention.

• "house cultic animals" which animals?

This is explained in the later paragraphs (eagle and ram heads). el.ziade (talkallam) 12:51, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

• ✔ There's what appears to be an unintentional line break between "The fourth row features the busts of a bearded" and "and draped Jupiter", but either way the paragraph looks very long and could be broken into two in a more accurate way.

• ✔ "supporting the figure of the Jupiter" I don't think the second "the" is needed.

• ✔ Link Israelite, golden calf, and Hebrew.

• ✔ "it wasn't" contractions are discouraged, check for that throughout.

• ✔ Link incense burner?

• ✔ "He also posited that the vandalism to which the statuette was subjected implies that the idol was damaged by early Christians iconoclasts.[32]" this is stated almost word for word in the Discovery section, which could warrant consolidation, and iconoclast is also first linked at second mention.

Removed redundancy el.ziade (talkallam) 11:36, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• ✔ The Sursock Bronze, would then, according to Dussaud, be positioned above an opening in a temple platform, may have served as a conduit for such responses" something off with this sentence, a word missing? Maybe "and" before "may have"?

Punctuation also fixed. el.ziade (talkallam) 11:36, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• ✔ Link Judaic.

• ✔ "He adds that, while some iconographic elements, like grouped divine busts on the deity's dress reflect artistic trends from the second century AD, others suggest greater antiquity, drawing similarity to a bronze in the Louvre (pictured)." very convoluted sentence, seems a comma is missing after dress, but maybe the whole sentence can be restructured somehow.

paraphrased. el.ziade (talkallam) 11:36, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• ✔ Link Persian.

• ✔ "Canaanite god with composite headdress, Louvre." the caption could perhaps briefly establish its relevance to the subject as the article body does.

• ✔ You give discovery location for all but two images in the gallery under Iconographical variability.

• ✔ "of the celestial deities busts" I think it should be "deity busts", as "busts" is enough to indicate plural.

• ✔ Link jinn.

• Have there been any calls to bring it back to Lebanon?

Nope :s Not that i know of and it's highly unlikely. el.ziade (talkallam) 11:59, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• ✔ "now in the Louvre." While it may seem a given, could state this is in Paris, also in the article body.

• ✔ "The temple, the largest in the Roman world" Link Roman world to something?

• The middle paragraph of the intro is pretty huge, could be split in two.

A GA reviwer actually asked to merge the two paragraphse, i will split it again. el.ziade (talkallam) 11:59, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks FunkMonk! el.ziade (talkallam) 11:59, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@FunkMonk do you think it's ready for FA? el.ziade (talkallam) 12:52, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Yep, I can support once it reaches FAC! FunkMonk (talk) 14:09, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

number date

"Sursock statuette, is a second century AD" why isn’t second turned into 2nd? I think WP:CENTURY doesn’t allow this? correct me if I’m wrong the bfdi guy… not really it’s actually raveCrowny (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@RaveCrowny Centuries and millennia are identified using either Arabic numerals (the 18th century) or words (the second millennium), with in-article consistency (MOS:ORDINAL notwithstanding). When used adjectivally they contain a hyphen (nineteenth-century painting or 1st-century BC fresco). Do not use superscripts (19th century). el.ziade (talkallam) 12:53, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2026

Please update the page title formatting and ensure the article consistently uses “Sursock Bronze” with proper capitalization throughout the article text and headings. PratikResearchEditor (talk) 07:17, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: to request a page move, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 12:30, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

@PratikResearchEditor I will oppose a move request. The article consistently uses "Sursock bronze" throughout. This is deliberate and uniform, not an oversight. The descriptive noun "bronze" is descriptive and stays lowercase because it isn't itself a proper name. el.ziade (talkallam) 14:37, 18 May 2026 (UTC)