Jump to content

Talk:Meissen porcelain

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move, although I'm personally strongly against this move and don't think it follows policy. Whatever. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 13:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion and vote

[edit]

Clearly it should be Meissen as the official name of the company is: Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH. Request site to be moved to:Meissen porcelain. Ekem 14:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Add any additional comments

Is this article about porcelain from Meißen or the company that produces it? If it is about the style of porcelain from Meißen, it should remain at "Meißen porcelain" as long as the city's article is at "Meißen" (as opposed to "Meissen"). If this article is about the company, it should be at "Meissen Porcelain Inc." or "Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH". Olessi 16:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter. "ß" is an illegal character in the English language. It's not even a latin character. Supporting a special exemption for Germans because they are voiciferous in their objections to using English letters in English would be biased. As the nominator states, to be unbiased, Chinese characters should be allowed, or else it is racist against people do don't use Western European alphabets. 70.51.9.199 02:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a huge difference between Chinese characters and the ligature ß, that's part of the extended Latin alphabet. About the porcelain, I'm not sure. The term is commonly used in English, and written as Meissen porcelain (see Cambridge dictionary and Merriam-Webster dictionary). The town is something different, I think that should stay at Meißen. Markussep 08:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, are we back to these intolerant arguments from anonymous editors again? No, there's nothing wrong with ß per se in article titles; it is used widely across the English Wikipedia without problems. "Illegal" it is clearly not. That aside, the term "Meissen porcelain" does indeed seem to be widespread in English and to have a long tradition. There seem to be very few hits on the web for "Meißen porcelain" apart from Wikipedia clones, too much so for us to argue around it by saying that de-teutonised spellings tend to predominate even when wrong (although that is clearly the case). Let me make it clear, though: we would not be changing this title just through a dislike of "ß", but rather because of widespread use by authoritative sources. For similar reasons, I think Olessi's suggestions of moving it to the company name should not be followed. This is a case where common usage takes precedence. The decision made here would not, however, affect the title of the town's article, there being no reason for it not to be at Meißen. A little bit of inconsistency never hurt. --Stemonitis 15:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Stremonitis's arguments (except that I would extend them to the town too). Septentrionalis 18:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will venture to say that when talking about places that have "English" spellings for the names, those names should be used. Few people in English would probably search for Meißen or even use the ß. They would use Meissen instead. I will go further to say that, except in a few, few cases, only standard Latin characters should be used, with modifications if necessary. That is, abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz. I don't think WP uses the thorn in any titles (other than redirects to the page about the letter) and I think this should extend to include the eszett, which is totally foreign to English eyes. Charles 01:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Thorn, Stemonitis is right (below): this is not the place to discuss that. If you're looking for the place, here it is: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (thorn). --Francis Schonken 18:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was only support for my argument. Charles 19:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WP does use thorn, although it shouldn't. Thorn also has a nationalist constituency who ignore English usage and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (thorn). The English name for the town is also long-established. There is a case for leaving eszett in the names of villages, on the grounds that they have no English name at all. Septentrionalis 01:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the matter of "having" an English name, a process of Anglification is to covert the eszett to ss. It's used in German even where the means of using the eszett are absent. Charles 02:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any general debate over the use of ß (also ä, ð, etc.) is misplaced here; this page should only be used to discuss the specifics of "Meissen procelain" / "Meißen porcelain". --Stemonitis 07:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the first discussion about ß in article titles, there was also one for Weißenburg in Bayern, and probably more will follow, e.g. for Gießen. If we want to stop wasting Wikipedians' time, we should solve the general question: is ß an allowed character for article titles. For now, even though some users claim different, there's no consensus, see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(use_English)#Disputed_issues. I hope we can solve this without big and misplaced words like racism, xenophobia and nationalism. An argument for the ß: wikipedias for other languages (French, Polish, Dutch, Norwegian, Esperanto, Spanish, Portuguese) without ß also use ß in German names. Markussep 19:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit of description

[edit]

I have changed back the reverted description. Not only was it incorrect, there is no 'true' porcelain, but the original reference was very bad :- it refernced a Wikipedia article, and I quote "instead of a reference here, just see any book." This is a terrible way of referencing anything, and incorrect! None of my books support this claim, and in fact disprove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.68.105 (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Meissen porcelain candalebra.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Meissen porcelain candalebra.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Meissen porcelain. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

It seems the article is loaded with images. The gallery seemed a bit of an overload, so I chopped a bit. And rather quickly was reverted with the odd explanation of "Phooeey, not a great selection, but plenty of pics are wanted here". Well, first if not a great selection - then why not prune it? And we don't need everything - commons is over yonder. Vsmith (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • We haven't got everything - Commons has a few thousand images - nearly a thousand in Category:Meissen porcelain in the Metropolitan Museum of Art alone - & it isn't helpful to the readers. The images should be better chosen & described, but you left far too few; if you'd removed the castle & the medal that might have been better. I see I started the process last year, with the mini-gallery on early wares, & will no doubt continue it one day. It is very time-consuming, partly because Commons has such a vast selection. The article text is also pretty poor, but that too is a lot of work. I noticed you added the same edit summary at Lake Junaluska, North Carolina without checking if the article actually linked to its Commons category (it didn't). Johnbod (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Info on life of Johann Friedrich Böttger

[edit]

Info on this man seems to be conflicting with info on his own wikipedia entry Johann Friedrich Böttger - Wikipedia - eg Which king actually kidnapped him? and how did he become in charge of the process? seems like a biased slant in favor of Tschirnhaus. 2600:6C46:6200:5BA4:CDC8:4AFC:AE7E:7AE (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Meissen_porcelain&oldid=1208412568"