Talk:Salt glaze pottery

message: Started this page 1-27-05.  Will work on it.  Advice welcome. -W
It looks very good. I don't know anything about the subject, but I've just done a bit of wikification and added it to the Pottery category. A picture would go well. Thryduulf 11:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Added a paragraph about soda glaze. Perhaps this should be a separate entry? -SC 163.120.80.183 19:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Soda glaze

message: Sometime ago I suggested a merge of the article above with this entry, as it has a more general title.  Someone later added a tag to that effect.  With recent edits, this might be a good time to make the merge and restructure a larger article.  Any objections?  Comments please.  WBardwin 23:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will be out of state for a few days in the last half of April -- with my recent history the trip might start another "wikibreak".  But, unless anyone objects, I'll try and merge the articles around the 1st of May.  Comments?  WBardwin 06:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Will merge the two articles.  I plan on using Salt glaze pottery as the final title - as it seems more inclusive.  Although, frankly, I don't know anyone who does Salt glaze earthenware, and porcelain in this method is probably rare.  Comments?  WBardwin 00:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with a merger. I feel that salt-glazed stoneware is a specific type of pottery that was the predominant houseware of America from around 1800 until the late 19th century. It was used in other countries at different time periods, but its most prolific usage was within the tradition that began in the Rhineland area of Germany and was subsequently elaborated on by the Americans. This, in my opinion, warrants its own topic. Salt glaze pottery is a very general topic that encompasses any salt-glazed ware produced from the time of the discovery of the technique up until the present day. The point of the article, which I originally wrote, was to illuminate this important houseware for what it is. Thanks for any input. Billyshears 17:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My intention wasn't to lose any of the info in this article, but to make a stronger article out of two small ones.  Eastern American salt-ware is quite distinctive, but has its roots in the European tradition.  We can beef up the history and discuss historic and modern techniques in a larger article, as well as profiling the salt-ware as you do here.  Would you like to work on an outline that might suit your preferences?  WBardwin 01:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I left a note on Billyshears talk page about this merge.  Anyone else have comments, objections?  WBardwin 09:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with [[Salt-glazed stoneware]]

message: Would like to propose external link to the following article - American Stoneware Pots and Jars Smithville 00:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: looks like an interesting cite, but Wikipedia does not allow/support commercial links.  see: Wikipedia:External links.  So, if you know of sources of good information that do not sell stoneware, that would be more appropriate here.  WBardwin 05:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal For External Link 

message: Can someone point out which terms are considered peacock here? It all seems fine to me? Teapotgeorge (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the above section you can see my irritable efforts to talk to one of several IP numbers (who knows how many actual users) that have targeted this section in the last few months.  I guess you could call this a looooooooooooong edit war.  I too would like these folks to talk about what they consider objectionable.  An then I would like to see them make an effort to improve the sections.  Simple deletion and/or "tagging", to me, removes a change for both dialogue and article improvement.  But, so far, I have not had much luck engaging these folk (or just one user?) in constructive dialogue.  So, I keep replacing the material in one form or another to try and encourage discussion.  Teapotgeorge, if you have any idea what sections the "peacocking" tag targets, or areas we could work on to improve the article, I'd be happy to collaborate.  Best wishes.  WBardwin (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: yet again, IP editors are trying to tag this paragraph as "peacocking."  I have reverted and will continue to revert until they come to the talk page and begin a discussion.  WBardwin (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi WBadwin. re. your comments here and direct to me on another page: Hi "perhaps they are all one person" I do not know, "perhaps you?" no they are not, just today / yesterday, "wants to discuss the matter" there is existing discussion on the page, "I will continue to revert any changes" that is rather unhelpful don't you think? I and other could do the same, and where would that get us?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.20.139 (talk) 05:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: It's called an edit war, and regretfully that is what has been going on on this page, regarding this particular paragraph, for almost a year by one IP editor after another -- or perhaps just one editor with differing IPs.  Nothing has been done on the section by the IP's but deletions, tagging and reverts.  Instead of edit warring, come to the discussion page - this is where people talk about article issues.  Place your complaints and concerns here, in clear English.  Explain what you see as the problem and make some constructive suggestions.  Then wait for responses from others and make more suggestions.  Eventually a group of editors come to a "consensus" about a particular problem and a section is then, and only then, altered to the satisfaction of all concerned.  Despite the fact that this, and any article can be improved, I will continue to revert tagging and deletions by anonymous editors without any effort at discussion.  So - are you going to explain your problems with this section?  WBardwin (talk) 05:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peacock terms? 

message: I note with interest that 86.155.88.117 acknowledges being also 86.146.21.129, and thus was himself/herself edit warring when warning WBardwin on April 27. (86.14620.139 is obviously the same as well.) This slow edit war has gone on long enough. Editing as an IP is permitted (though in a situation like this, it's certainly discouraged), but dishonest editing is not. I'm semi-protecting the article. bishzilla ROARR!! 07:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Semiprotecting

message: I want to move the section on American salt-glazed stoneware out into a new page entitled "American Stoneware." I want to do this for a few different reasons. 1. American Stoneware deserves its own topic. It has always been of significant interest to decorative arts / ceramics historians but it is of extreme interest now. It is highly collectible and is one of the most highly regarded antique American decorative art forms. It is also an important part of American history, period. 2. For American stoneware in general to be lumped in with all Salt-glaze pottery is a bad way to handle it, I think, because not all American stoneware is salt-glazed. Also, it should not be seen only as an off-shoot of a worldwide tradition of salt-glazing but should instead be seen within a much narrower and relevant context. It is derived out of the salt-glazed stoneware than originated in the Rhineland but it is also closely related with certain earthenware pottery (commonly called "Redware" in America today), which was often produced by the same American potters who produced stoneware. 3. Someone has complained that "This article or section deals primarily with the United States and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject." It seems to me that he or she is right in that the purpose of the Salt-glaze pottery page is to give an overview of worldwide salt-glazed ceramics. The section on American stoneware seems out of place in that it is fairly detailed (including a list of makers, for instance) and puts the focus of the article on American salt-glazed stoneware.
All of that being said, I think American Stoneware deserves its own topic, and I've already got something ready to go if no one has any objections. Thanks for any comments / criticisms / jokes / etc. Billyshears (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: American Stoneware

message: With the addition of some soda based info -- how about a change to "Vapour glaze pottery"?  The article could begin with a discussion of the whole sodium chemistry and then set out info on both salt and soda techniques.  History, in sections by geo area, would be helpful too.  65.54.154.18 (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Name Change?

message: I've just undertaken some tidying up including the addition of references. What I don't have available are any appropriately freely licenced images so I'm posting a note here in the hope someone else does. Certainly one, ideally more, are needed to replace that of the badly decorated & deformed piece currently displayed in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.66.111 (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a photo of a salt glazed jug that I own hope this was the sort of thing you were looking for? RegardsTeapotgeorgeTalk 21:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.66.111 (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits & request for images

message: I don't think the section on English Salt Glaze Stoneware can be complete without mention of the Martin Famil - would be good if someone could put in a few sentences about them and a link to their page 151.228.156.103 (talk) 09:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Martin Bros