Talk:Stoneware

message: I still object to using simply 0 percent in the article - a range would be more appropriate.  Although many modern porcelain bodies near the ideal 0 percent porosity, this was not true in historic times.  Chinese porcelains were particularly good and some actually approached zero, but did not achieve it.  In all pottery articles, we should make a clear distinction between the modern, chemically refined materials we are blessed with and the "naturally" occuring materials past potters had to work with.  Sand, i.e. flint/silica, in your list above is another example of a historic material. Pottery and other ceramic materials are very important in history and archaeology -- and the science related to them sometimes varies quite a bit from culture to culture.  Best.........WBardwin 06:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Porcelain from 0 to 3%” 

message: Quote Fired stoneware absorbs up to 5% water that is way too high. That would make article porous when stoneware is vitreous or at least very low absorbtion. I suggest this is changed Theriac 16:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree.  WBardwin (talk) 03:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Water absorbtion

message: I reverted recent IP edits trying to "pare" down the article's mention of other clay types.  That does not mean the section could not be rewritten to better reflect the actual differences between stoneware and other clay types.  This individual may be the same IP user who wants no mention of or links to other methods or procedures on select pottery pages.  I've been reverting these type of edits for some time, but the individual does not come to the talk pages when requested.  This "purist" approach may have some benefits, but part of Wikipedia's purpose is to help people move from article to article.  This may be particulary true in the small "wiki-corner" occupied by pottery articles.  I would support a rewrite this section.  WBardwin (talk) 03:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent IP edits

message: Can someone tell me if stoneware is chip and scratch resistant?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.14.69 (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is stoneware chip and scratch resistant? 

message: Sorry, this might have been a confusing way to say it, but this article talks a bit about stoneware, but then next paragraph seems to veer off to talking about earthenware, then the next paragraph is about "clay" in general, then it goes into talking about Glaze.  
This article about "stoneware" maybe should stick with the subject, and another article started on "Methods and materials of Pottery" or something.
Just a suggestion. thanks.  76.177.52.79 (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The article is about stoneware so the reference to earthenware, porcelain, clays and glaze should be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.165.47 (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This Article is not what it sais it is

message: plastic fire clays 0–100%, ball clays 0–15%, quartz, 0–30% feldspar and chamotte 0 –15%
Which of the following should I understand that as:
# Contains an unspecified amount of quartz. Contains 0–30% feldspar. Contains 0–15% chamotte. 
# Contains 0–30% quartz. Contains 0–15% feldspar and chamotte.
# Contains 0–30% quartz. Contains an unspecified amount of feldspar. Contains 0–15% chamotte.
The comma after quartz suggests #1, but that means the percentage for feldspar is before the item, rather than after it like the others. If I expect consistent percentage positions and expect every item to have a percentage, that makes #2 more likely. I went to check the source, but the source is given as "E-Learning item – Body Compositions. Ceram Research." I'm not familiar with the type of thing is being cited there. CERAM Research Ltd seems to be a company (located in The Potteries). Does "E-Learning item" refer to a page on their website? If so, which page?  Card Zero  (talk) 11:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formulation ambiguous and has bad souce 

message: The English article here links to the German Steinzeug.  The German Steinzeug AND Steingut link to the English article here.  The German Steingut article says that it was invented in England (at a date much later than Steinzeug).  That being the case, what then is the English name for Steingut?211.225.33.104 (talk) 05:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  German links 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Stoneware. 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/20100803205657/http://www.wedgwood.com/GB/About_Wedgwood/_Design_and_Craftsmanship/Heritage_Products/Heritage_Products_Page_3 to http://www.wedgwood.com/GB/About_Wedgwood/_Design_and_Craftsmanship/Heritage_Products/Heritage_Products_Page_3
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110120082623/http://www.wedgwood.com/GB/About_Wedgwood/_Design_and_Craftsmanship/Heritage_Products/Heritage_Products_Page_4 to http://www.wedgwood.com/GB/About_Wedgwood/_Design_and_Craftsmanship/Heritage_Products/Heritage_Products_Page_4
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090520072843/http://cf.hum.uva.nl/galle/avondster/beardman.html to http://cf.hum.uva.nl/galle/avondster/beardman.html
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) 18:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi Gang! Thanks for an informative article. I see there are many terminological obstacles to be negotiated here, and experts are hard at work on them. Be that as it may, the second sentence in the lede has a logical problem that needs fixing: it tries to define "stoneware" by reference to the undefined "stoneware clay", which is not productive. Wegesrand (talk) 10:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Better take that up with the source! What stoneware clay is is, broadly, covered lower down. Johnbod (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circular definition 

message: "Rather" is a useful modifier; a drive-by editor has objected to its use in the first sentence, in "a rather broad term", but it seems perfectly appropriate to me. His objection seems purely linguistic, rather than based in any knowledge of the subject. Johnbod (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rather"