Talk:Tin-glazed pottery

Image needs replacement

Hello all...

An image used in the article, specifically Image:Ajvdelft.jpg, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.

You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Categories

"Pottery" is a sub-category of "Ceramics". There is no need for both. Marshall46 (talk) 10:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - discussion started on this issue here. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion tab? Davidmadelena (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Revival

I have replaced the statement that it was superseded in the pottery industry and revived by artist potters. The point is that tin-glaze was a common form of tableware until Wedgewood developed creamware, when it receded to specialist production by a few manufacturers in Holland, Tuscany and Mintons' brief excursion in the early 19th century. (Most of what passes for "Delft ware" in Holland today is actually not tin-glaze at all but underglaze blue.) This analysis is well-sourced and I will put in a citation when I have more time. Marshall46 (talk) 10:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not correct. Whilst the use of tin oxide declined after WWI tin glazes have never died out and consequently they could not be revived. I've recenetly added some content, including on the continued use at [[1]], although I don't understand the need for two separate articles. BTW its Wegdwood not Wedgewood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.66.111 (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Copied dialogue from elsewhere

Marshall 46 wrote "You reverted a deletion that you thought inexplicable. The reason given was that "tin glazed pottery" does not include sanitary ware. What is your view? Why do you think it is relevant?"

Geoffrey replied "Hello Marshall 46. I replaced the section because it is relevant! Sanitaryware is pottery, (by the majority of interpretations though I recognize that a few sources use a very limited interpretation of 'pottery' due to a restricted view or flawed understanding.) and some sanitaryware is still glazed with glazes that use tin oxide as the opacifying agent. I do note I would not suggest 'Tin-glazed pottery' is re-written to emphasize sanitaryware and I recognize the principal theme is that of decorative pottery. Nevertheless, this single sentence illustrating a non-historical use of tin glazes is of value, and I would suggest is essential for a general view of a subject which is the function of a reference work such as Wikipedia. (for record I think I may copy this dialogue to the tin glaze page. I hope that is acceptable.) Sincerely, Geoffrey." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.163.103.7 (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Geoffrey: I accept that you made a good-faith edit there, but I am not sure that the majority of interpretations do include sanitary ware in pottery. True, it is included in the broadest interpretations of "pottery", for example, the output of the North Staffordshire Potteries includes sanitary ware manufacturers like Armitage Shanks, but I have never seen it included in discussions of tin-glazed pottery. Can you give some example, please? Marshall46 (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Marshall 46. I did not say that sanitaryware is described as 'tin-glazed pottery.' I said that it is pottery (which you agree), and which is coated with a tin glaze. This is why a little mention (but nothing more) should stay. I would be happy if something is added such as "sanitaryware is not classed as 'tin-glazed pottery'" but not that it is removed. It is very relevant information! Sincerely, Geoffrey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeoffreySuchart (talk • contribs) 10:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

As you say, sanitaryware is not described as tin-glazed pottery and, indeed, not all pottery coated with tin-glaze is so described. The passage in question, "Tin oxide has been widely used as the opacifier in sanitaryware glazes. In this application additions of up to 6% is reported to be current use," is very relevant to tin oxide, sanitaryware, pottery, glaze, tin-glaze and opacifier, but in what sense is it relevant to tin-glazed pottery, since it is not about tin-glazed pottery? Marshall46 (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Marshall 46. Tin-glazed sanitaryware may not be tin-glazed, decorative pottery but sanitaryware is pottery that can be tin glazed - that is why this small passage is relevant. I did write earlier that I would be happy for additions to be made, for example to reflect differences in use of the final product (decorative, functional etc.), or another possibility is to describe one type as "tin-glazed, pottery" and the other as "Tin-glazed pottery." I do not have a strong view how the differences are described but am very strong in that this relevant information be maintained. Sincerely, Geoffrey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeoffreySuchart (talk • contribs) 14:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, Geoffrey, in due course I will make an edit so that your addition fits better into the article. Thanks for contributing your expertise. Marshall46 (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Marshall 46. I am largely happy with the changes you made. I do have some reservations about "In the 20th century there were technical changes in the application of tin-glaze" This leads to questions of "What changes?" and "How were :these different to any changes for the application of non tin-glazes?" How can these questions be avoided? This may be rewite the sentence, or even remove. I am very unsure if the current words help 'Tin-glazed pottery.' Sincerely, Geoffrey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeoffreySuchart (talk • contribs) 09:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It was a just away of introducing the material in the following paragraph and binding together the disparate statements about zirconium/sanitaryware and artist potters. Feel free to improve it but please don't remove it. Marshall46 (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Marshall 46. "Formulation" rather than "application" is preferable by far. Application refers to how glazes are applied, such as dipping, spraying or waterfall. I am unsure about "innovations in the creation of decorative wares", but this may simply be individuals' differing methods of expressing concepts. Sincerely, Geoffrey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeoffreySuchart (talk • contribs) 01:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "innovations" was not the best word to describe the adoption of this medium by artist potters, and I have changed it.

By the way, it's helpful if you indent your replies with colons like this : and if you sign your posts with four tildes like this ~, which makes it easier to follow the dialogue.

Thanks again for your contributions. Marshall46 (talk) 09:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Marshall 46. Your recent changes are better I think, and also my formating :-) GeoffreySuchart (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)