Talk:Ceramic glaze

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject Glass (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glass, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of glass on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
 

Sculptural image[edit]

Madonna with Child and Angels, ceramica glaze by Renaissance artist Andrea della Robbia.

Although a beautiful sculptural piece, are the glaze distinctions visible enough for it to be an example for this article? WBardwin 23:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


History section[edit]

This is terrible. It is far too short and shows a worrying biase towards Japan. Is this nationalism? Is is ignorance? Is this a reflection of the corruption of pottery arising from those who believe Bernard Leach? (posted by anon........ )

Complaining? Then improve it! If you have a personal opinion or know something from your personal experience, make sure it is backed by a definative source. Be aware that pottery, and pottery articles, are not black and white subjects. Each potter, from my experience here, defines terms and processes differently and there are vast differences in people's perspective and training. For example, your POV above seems to be anti-Leach. WBardwin 00:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Damn right I'm anti-Leach - the bloke was highly predjudiced and promoted his views as being the only correct ones. Sadly this has been accepted by legions, and incredibly taught at colleges and universities. —The preceding ::unsigned comment was added by 217.42.223.65 (talk) 00:36, August 20, 2007 (UTC)
Your personal point of view noted, but it does not belong in the article. I would suggest that you work with other editors, striving for concensus, rather than making deletions and demands. WBardwin 01:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"it does not belong in the article." Well that is why I did not include it in the article. And please do not accuse me of "making demands" when I clearly have not done so. (posted by anon ........)

Your assertion: "I have only removed irrelevant and incorrect information & it does not belong in the article." -- this is your "opinion" about the material in question! In my opinion, the material is useful and should remain. Other editors of these articles have agreed to this material in the past. A discussion of material leads to concensus of opinion, a Wikipedia virtue. Definitions on pottery terms, believe me, are very flexible and variable. For example: "Leather hard" has several definitions depending on the pottery tradition and methodology. In the articles, you can talk about, compare and contrast the different definitions but don't assert that your definition is the one and only truth. That is a personal POV and should be discussed with others. WBardwin 01:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Please keep to the subject of this page.
  • "I have only removed irrelevant and incorrect information" You have cut and pasted this from other discussion pages, it is not connected with this article.
  • "it does not belong in the article." Why have you highlighted this? Your state my opinion does not belong in the article< and yet when I confirm this and show that I have not included it in the article you pull out this quote. What are you trying to achieve on this discussion page?

Glaze Recipes?[edit]

Hi there, I'm new to ceramics and came here to look for more information about glazing. How are glazes put together? Do we have any links to good glaze recipes? These might be dumb questions, but it would seem natural to expand this article with them. Agree? Shinku Hisaki 08:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead glaze[edit]

Lead glaze should be mentioned, in particular the health issues raised when lead-glazed earthenware items such as bowls and plates are sold for the purpose of use for eating. Badagnani 10:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It is perfectly possibly to have a leaded glaze which posses no risk to human health:- just because some leaded glazes have leached unacceptable levels of Pb does not mean all do, and to suggest otherwise is scaremongering or is from a position of ignorance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.70.140.167 (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Process[edit]

I can't really understand why the citation request is in the first section, referring to glaze application. Basically any general pottery book will serve (eg the Complete Potters Companion, Tony Birks; but I wouldn't really cite this as any such book would do). Any method of applying a liquid, paste or powder to the surface of an item can (and probably has) be[en] used - potters like to experiment. Anyone really feel a citation is needed for this? Pbhj (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Spelling[edit]

The original article used both USA and English spellings of the word "color" [1] The USA spelling version has been in use for some time I see no reason to suddenly change to an English version.Theroadislong (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

'Colour' was used first, and therefore following protocol this sets the spelling variant. That someone changed it and this wasn't reverted for a period of time is irrelevant.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.70.140.167 (talkcontribs) 14:19, 12 January 2012‎
WP:ENGVAR: "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary." The article used a careless mix of spellings (even in the very first edit) until someone standardised the spelling in 2007 - at which point "consistent usage" of US English was established. Let's just leave it at that. --McGeddon (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Biscuit/biscuit - regional variation?[edit]

There's been a lot of underexplained edit warring as to whether this article should use the word "biscuit" or "bisque" in a particular sentence. Some of these edits have also edited "color" to "colour", so is it fair to say that "biscuit" is the common British term for the process, and "bisque" the American? --McGeddon (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Both terms are in common use, it may be that studio potters and the industry prefer one against the other, but neither is incorrect and it seems perverse to link to the article called Bisque (pottery) whilst using piping to disguise it as biscuit! The same editing pattern occurs on many other ceramic related articlesTheroadislong (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Most certainly is not an American/ British consideration! <<Biscuit>> is the accepted term for fired, unglazed articles that will be glazed; and <<bisque>> is fired, unglazed articles that will never be glazed. Yours, Michel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.253.63.246 (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
A voice from Germany - (a) biscuit is not equalling bisque. (b) bisque is porcelain with no glaze coat and is final. (c) biscuit is not finished porcelain because no glaze now but will get glaze soon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.45.27.140 (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)