Talk:Earthenware

message: Thank you for your message. As you note Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopaedia, however the changes I have made to the entries have been to correct errors in what have most certainly not been “existing accurate information”, and these have included:
1. Cones are made of "chemically refined clay" This is meaningless and shows ignorance of how ceramic raw materials and processed and used
2. More than clay is for cones. A range of compositions of different minerals dependent on their rating
3. The entry only mentions Orton cones where other manufacturers exist
4. There is no mention of other pyrometric devices
5. Your messages describes “Wedgewood” .. at least spell the name correctly: Wedgwood
6. I corrected an entry on earthenware, not least to replace the suggestion that potash is an ingredient. Have you ever formulated a body ... if you had you would know that the use potash, or potassium carbonate, is unknown
7. Earthenware again: classically most is not red as many examples are white or off white
Kiln entry: they do not ‘chemically refine clay objects’ For a start the objects will be comprised of more than just clay, and again “chemically refine” is a meaningless. Although not definitive something better would be ”To induce permanent physical and chemical changes that converts a relatively weak and porous material consisting of innumerable particles into a strong, single mass composed on a glassy phase interspersed with pores and crystalline material.”
8. Change entry on soft –paste porcelain. The original entry suggested the glass was used .. correct for the early developments but with the very occasionally exception, such as Belleck, its not been used for 200 years. Similarly for soapstone and lime
And with respect your statement "as a working potter, I can assure you that I will evaluate and discuss your contributions and that worthy material" is arrogant. To refer back to your statement that Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopaedia" Have you ever considered that others may have  better understanding of the subject than yourself, yet you deem yourself to a worthy moderator?
I’m sorry that my contributions are not welcome, not least as I thought Wikipedia was an open source. How many other knowledgeable contributors do you wish to exclude?
Change & reason: Reference of Hamer & Hamer removed as the information in the article was not taken from there
Regards,
Andy
:I can't evaluate the accuracy of the information you are adding and subtracting, but I observe that every time you edit the page, you break things. On various edits, you have:
:*stripped all links out of paragraphs you did not otherwise edit.
:*removed the picture
:*removed formatting for no obvious reason
:*removed information that seems correct, with no explanation
:*broken formatting for things like °C (making it 0C instead)
:Given these issues with your edits, people naturally do not assume high quality for the information you are attempting to add. If you want to be taken seriously and have your edits "stick", you need to not mess up the article so much in the process. If you make it easier for people to revert your additions than to fix them, they will. I am not personally able to verify any of the information you've added, but I'll try to merge some of it into the article text. Hopefully someone else can fact-check it.
:About the reference: Do not delete references from articles. If something is listed as a "reference" it means that a previous editor referred to that book while working on the article. It doesn't matter whether you can tell that some information in the article came from that source. Material need not have been directly quoted from the reference. About the only time it would be acceptable to delete a reference from an article would be if either it was believed to have been added in bad faith, or if one is certain that the material that was influenced by the reference has been deleted. Even then, unless the reference is of no use whatsoever, it would be better to leave it.
--Srleffler 05:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cones, etc.

message: Picture.  I think the picture is of stoneware, not of earthenware.  If I am right I will replace it in due course.  Marshall46 11:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been flagged for a long time without comment.  I am almost certain that the pottery of Okinawa illustrated is stoneware - see Mingeikan - so I have deleted it.  Marshall46 (talk) 09:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: I have included alternative terminologies where appropriate: "bisque" and "biscuit"; "glaze" and glost".  All are used, and so all should be recorded.  
One or other has been deleted by certain editors because it is supposedly not the accepted usage, or not the correct usage, or not the usage preferred by particular writers. But there is no such thing as "accepted usage", there is only usage, the existence of a word in current use. If a usage exists, then, by the mere fact of its existence, it is accepted by the people who use it.  When an editor says that a usage is accepted, he means that it is accepted by users that he prefers, and when he says that it is not accepted he means that he deprecates that usage.  To that extent, "accepted" is a point of view, against which can and should be be set other points of view.
As all the above words are used, none should be removed.  If we were talking about removing fringe or obsolete or antiquarian usages, or very obscure ones, that would be another matter, but we are not. Whether "bisque" and "biscuit", "glaze" and glost" are majority or minority usages, or usages that vary by region, or by different parts of the ceramic industry, or between industrial and art ceramics, they are all in current use and all should be given due weight, as they are in the present version of this page.  Marshall46 (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, glost-fired and glaze-fired are both in common use and as such it makes sense to include both.Theroadislong (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why this terminology causes such strong feeling.  It is quite right that a block has been put on the person who has been edit-warring over it.  But this conflict has been going on for a long time, anonymous editors reverting without discussion. It will arise again. I suggest therefore that the page is locked against anonymous editors.  Marshall46 (talk) 10:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: From the tone of the edit summaries and the similarities of the IP addresses, it looks like it's just one person. Hopefully this person will try using the talk page and explain their reasoning (I'd guess that it's a regional variation, that "glaze" is widely used in some English-speaking countries, but sounds ridiculously archaic in others? Or that "glost" is a professional term and "glaze" is a layman's term, and the editor thinks it looks unprofessional to use the word here?), but if they go back to flat "you are wrong" edit warring, sure, we can consider page protection. --McGeddon (talk) 10:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is now semi-protected. Marshall46 (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In Japan, and different counties to I have been, the name is biscuit.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.160.218.95 (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hamer and Hamer, who write for the studio potter, say that the term glost firing "has come to us from the industry".  There is no reason to prefer the usage of industry over the usage of the studio.  Marshall46 (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hammer & Hammer is renowned for being riddled with errors.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.187.78.196 (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: How reliable is an editor who mis-spells "Hamer and Hamer"? Marshall46 (talk) 11:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Touché, but an ad hominem-style insinuation based on a simple spelling mistake does not negate the validity of the observation that “The Potter’s Dictionary Of Materials and Techniques” is riddled with flawed content and inaccuracies. For a starter, consider the entry for Cornish stone on pages 82 – 83 of the 5th edition.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.187.78.188 (talk) 09:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We'd need more than anecdotal evidence to throw out an entire source as questionable, but if the book made a mistake on a matter, it should be easy enough to find other, more reliable sources that contradict this, and to use those instead. --McGeddon (talk) 10:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The entry on Cornish stone is beside the point.  Hamer and Hamer were cited for their statement that the term glost firing has come to us from the industry.  Is that not the case?  The Leeds editor keeps talking about what is correct and  erroneous usage, but usage is neither correct nor erroneous, it is simply usage.  The terms "glost", "glaze", "bisque" and "biscuit" are all used, and this article ought to reflect the fact. Marshall46 (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology and current usage 

message: "Although body formulations vary between countries and even between individual makers, a generic composition is 25% ball clay, 28% kaolin, 32% quartz and 15% feldspar." - surely nonsense for earthenware in general - removed. Johnbod (talk) 12:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed 

message: A Frit (according to Dora M.Millington in her book The Technique of Pottery) is the name for a kind of glass or incomplete glaze made by fusing together certain of it's constituents. It does not relate to earthenware clay in particular? Theroadislong (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: thank you for the change to fritware now it makes more sense. Theroadislong (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Billington.  Pelarmian (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Dora Billington Johnbod (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frit 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Earthenware. 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/20070831123241/http://www.nfb.ca/objectifdocumentaire/index.php?mode=view&filmId=12&language=english&sort=title to http://www.nfb.ca/objectifdocumentaire/index.php?mode=view&filmId=12&language=english&sort=title
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
* 
* 
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion