Talk:Petuntse

China stone

In the US, when listing the British clay/kaolin "china stone" in a glaze recipe or buying it from a supplier, it is usually referenced as "Cornwall Stone" [1]. This may be just a marketing issue. It would be good to identify the differences and similarities between the terms. WBardwin 17:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-China Stone is just another name for Cornwall Stone, and is a form of decayed feldspar similar to Petuntse, but not the same, as China Stone refers specifically to the kaolinsed feldspar which occurs only in Cornwall, England, displaying qualities unique to that area. Therefore your contribution should be added to a seperate wikipedia article for China Stone.--Badharlick 06:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Badharlick, I’ve previously created a China stone entry – I’ve now added a link to this in the petunse section – where you'll see that rather than being decayed feldspar it's actually partially decomposed granite ... I could have been more exact and used kaolinised rather than decomposed but thought it perhaps a little too specialised a term for a short encyclopaedia entry Regards, Andy

Additional editors needed

Amid additional citations, reformatting, correction, and improvement of a stub article amounting to a rebuild, @Johnbod (apparently snarky because of unpleasantness at Talk:Jingdezhen porcelain) performed his own "drive-by" series of reverts to maintain the previous unlinked, malformatted, and bloated mess in the citations in the name of WP:CITEVAR, undoing several of the article's other edits and improvements along the way. With the personal attack and inaccurate edit summary, it certainly seems personal but even on the merits the previous version doesn't seem to be any consistent citevar to maintain, the rebuild and improvements should cover changing it anyway, and (if the consensus really is to maintain 30 separate cites for the same points) it certainly seems like WP:OVERCITE needs it cleaned up somehow.

One or both of us need additional eyes and comments on the page to clean it up one way or the other. Thanks for your time. — LlywelynII 16:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a premature, tantrum-led Rfc (originally added to an absurd number of lists, but omitting the most relevant ones). The actual improvements wouldn't take 5 minutes to reinstate respecting WP:CITEVAR. Far from being a "drive-by", I fist edited the article in 2016, where as only a few hours ago LlywelynII had evidently never heard of "whatever the heck "pih-tun-tsze"/"pai-tun-tsze"/"petuntse" was". Then he must have seen the link, and immediately waded in. I've said in edit summaries I agree with consolidating the taxi ranks of refs, and probably we don't need so many, but neither LlywelynII nor I will be the best judges of which technical ones aren't needed. This article on a mineral is essentially a subject in geology, in which neither of us have much/any expertise. I'd encourage anyone interested in talk of "unpleasantness at Talk:Jingdezhen porcelain" to read the last two sections there & form their own conclusions. Like it or not WP:CITEVAR is a policy, that was grossly breached here. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see no indication that WP:RFCBEFORE has been tried, let alone exhausted. RfC is a process of last resort: accordingly, I've pulled the {{rfc}} tag. This does not prevent continued discussion; WP:BRD urges people to discuss, but doesn't say to jump straight for a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed - thanks! Apart from the citation style, perhaps LlywelynII could state what issues he has; currently I've no idea. Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]