Talk:Biscuit porcelain

message: George Savage & Harold Newman.
An illustrated dictionary of ceramics.
Thames & Hudson.
Reprint 2000.
Article "Bisque":
Bisque (French) A term erroneously applied tot BISCUIT ware.
Need I say more?Gerard53 12:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree the use of bisque tends to be by the less knowledgeable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.1.162 (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of "bisque"

message: I moved the biscuit paragraph from this article to its own article changing that page from a disambiguation page into an article. I copied the comments below, in "Use of the term 'biscuit'" to the talk page of the article Biscuit (pottery). As demonstrated in talk subsection, "biscuit" and "bisque" are utterly distinct pottery items with bisque being a small subcategory of the larger biscuit. Biscuit is any pottery after the first firing and before any glaze is applied. This can be a final product such as bisque, or terra cotta, or an intermediary step in a glazed final product. Since most biscuit becomes either glazed or terra cotta, and only a tiny fraction is bisque. It seems to me utterly strange to have biscuit as a paragraph in bisque. Kind of a "tail wagging the dog" situation.
Unsourced, original research: my mother was a part of the artistic community in the town I grew up in, and she knew potters. Many times I was in their workshops, and heard these two terms. They never used them interchangeably. I was stunned to see the conflated here as I grew up knowing the difference and thought everyone did. To me this is as odd as confusing hay with straw. If the "layperson", one not familiar with the topic, uses them incorrectly as interchangeable, then it is incumbent on Wikipedia editors to produce articles which correct this mistake. After all most readers come to Wikipedia to learn about topics which they are not knowledgeable about.
Under the Wikipedia dictate "be bold" I am doing this. If some knowledgeable editor knows of a "standard Wikipedian" way of doing this, which I have violated, please let me know in a kind and gentle way. Nick Beeson (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately you have done this in a way that completely fails to inform the reader not interested in technical processes that references they encounter to "biscuit" generally mean what is called "bisque" here! The terms are not at all "utterly distinct pottery items", as you clearly know. It would probably be better to merge the two articles. You also left, at Bisque "* Bisque (pottery), a piece of partially fired, or "biscuit-fired" unglazed pottery" - which redirects to here!  In any case, this page should be moved to biscuit porcelain, by far the most common and correct term, used by auction houses and museums on both sides of the Atlantic. Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved to biscuit

message: Having discovered another short article, Biscuit (pottery), I think the readers would be best served with a merged article (titled Biscuit pottery?) I understand that "biscuit" is a broader term that applies to pottery other than porcelain, but its main application is in porcelain, and they would gracefully fit together. As it stands now, both articles are rather short and force the reader to navigate between them in order to learn about the complet topic. No such user (talk) 09:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing this, after 1 oppose in 6 weeks or so. Johnbod (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Biscuit (pottery)