Talk:Ceramic art

Article merged: See old talk-page talk:History of ceramic art

What happened to History of ceramic art?
The article that existed under the title "Ceramic art" consisted entirely of sections about the history of the subject. Therefore, I moved it to History of ceramic art and built a general article on ceramic art over the redirect. The Transhumanist 20:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

How this article was built
Coverage for the subject of ceramic art is dispersed across Wikipedia. Therefore, I copied and pasted the leads of the relevant articles to create the sections for this article, per the guideline Summary style. The article lead was created from material taken from the articles history of ceramic art and ceramic. The Transhumanist 20:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Gmcbjames, do you really think this article is save-able? At the moment almost none of it is about art, which The Transhumanist has no idea how to write about. It might be better to move it, say to Outline of pottery. We are doing a disservice to people looking for "Ceramic art" sending them here rather than the old article, and a lot of work would be required to change that.   Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Johnbod, I left a comment on the History of ceramic art talk page. At a first blush, I was initially hesitant regarding the change.  In reviewing the summary style, this may be a good solution as so many articles are scattered throughout the encyclopedia regarding ceramics/pottery.  In my thought process I gave weight to the fairly new (2003?) American Museum of Ceramic Art - which is a museum with the sole focus on ceramic art.  The museum covers everything regarding ceramics from methods, technology, studio pottery, industrial ceramics & manufacturers - as well as including  a full functioning pottery studio.  The subject is vast and constantly changing.  I see this summary article as expanding the subject of ceramic art allowing other articles to be able to focus and go more into detail on their topics.  Having the summary article may help other articles on ceramics/pottery from overlapping and having content or point of view  forking.  I believe this summary article is a good beginning.  I wouldn't mind the summaries to be shortened somewhat - and of course some illustrative images added.  I have made some additions including the section on Studio pottery.  Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Other suggested improvements to this article would be the addition of a section on criticism, editing the summaries in all sections to better summarize the main articles, and expansion of the lede. Although a good beginning, the summary article will improve with the help of editors familiar with the subject.  Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Is there any difference between the material here and the material in Pottery?


 * BTW, in many years of editing articles on these topics, I've seen repeated edit wars between the engineers and the artists and have pretty well given up. Pelarmian (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Pelarmian, this article is a summary article while the articles Pottery or History of ceramic art expands information in context to the article's subject. Over time unnecessary overlap can be addressed and duplicate information integrated in the article most suitable. The article Pottery was started in 2001.  The former Ceramic arts article (now History of ceramic arts) began in 2006.  From the time the articles were started, many articles related to ceramics/pottery have been created and expanded.  I see this as an opportunity to clean-up, reorganize, and expand ceramic/pottery related articles.  Don't give up - there is room for everyone to contribute!  Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Pelarmian, most of the content came from articles other than the pottery article. The scope of ceramic art is supposedly narrower than that of pottery, in that pottery can be used to make things not considered art. But is that really true?  In architecture, another one of the arts, all examples of architecture are considered to be encompassed by that art, even the ugly or not particularly artistic ones. In the sense of being created within one of the arts, is a plain old plate made from pottery a piece of art? Perhaps it is.


 * The problem you mentioned seems to stem from semantics. The words "ceramic" and "pottery" may refer to the material used to make items, and to the items made from those materials.  But even "ceramic art" has more than one meaning. In addition to referring to art items made from ceramic, it is also one of the arts, particularly one of the visual arts.  Each of the arts encompasses artistic endeavor (the process of making works of art) and the actual works of art produced from that endeavor. There is a great deal of overlap between the scope of manufacturing and art, because manufacturing is one of the processes used to make art, which makes it an integrated part of the arts in which it is so used.  A pot made from crappy clay will fall apart, and therefore the way the pot is made is of particular importance to the art of making pots, also known as "ceramic art".  The title of the article is not "ceramic art object" or "work of ceramic art" or "ceramic artwork", and therefore it encompasses the entire meaning of the word "art", including its context as an art. The Transhumanist 17:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for demonstrating the problem with your stuff so clearly, Transhumanist! That is why this article is almost entirely filled with non-nutricious padding like (at random) "Many composites, such as fiberglass and carbon fiber, while containing ceramic materials, are not considered to be part of the ceramic family.[8]", while having almost nothing relating to art. It is true that "even "ceramic art" has more than one meaning. In addition to referring to art items made from ceramic, it is also one of the arts, particularly one of the visual arts", but since your text deals with neither of these aspects, it is hardly relevant for this discussion.  @ Pelarmian, I haven't noticed much warring for the last few years, & the title "Ceramic art" (as opposed to ones like pottery or porcelain) makes it clear what the emphasis should be here, so until it was moved the old ceramic art (now at history of) was I think free of this.  Johnbod (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * While there are still some subtopics missing, the scope of the article compares well with the scope of other articles on the visual arts, including drawing, painting, sculpture, printmaking, design, crafts, photography, filmmaking and architecture. And the article follows WP:MOS in its use of the Summary style in covering the subtopics of the main subject. The Transhumanist 18:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The "scope" may compare, but the actual content does not. And the old article was better than most of those articles (two of them mainly written by me). As usual WP is worst at the larger topics, while often pretty good at small ones. Johnbod (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Lead
Copy edited. "Created" is a better word than "made" because art implies conception and design as well as manufacture. The issue of nomenclature (art pottery, applied art, fine art, etc.) is too difficult to summarise in the lead, but the lead does need more material in it. Pelarmian (talk) 09:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * . . . and nomenclature wasn't discussed in the main body of the article anyway. Pelarmian (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Despite editing it yesterday, I still think this article is not fit for purpose, nor likely to become so, & will shortly be nominating a merge to the old one. Johnbod (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. Why gather in one place every aspect of pottery and ceramics? Does anyone look for that? More likely they search for concrete terms like "Sevres", from which they can follow any links that interest them. It's the links that make Wikipedia. Summaries are useful but there's no need for exhaustive articles.  Pelarmian (talk)


 * The lead "should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." which is why I reverted the edit - though changing the word "made" to "created" is debatable.  This article needs work - the lead lays out what the article is about - it isn't about the processes, materials, history of ceramics/pottery, it is about "Ceramic art is one of the arts, particularly one of the visual arts."  As we know, articles are not built in a day.  Art criticism needs to be added to this article - as it is a major portion of what this article is about.  Although Chinese ceramics and Islamic ceramics have been recognized as ceramic art from the middle ages, according to reliable sources, ceramic art is in the same class in visual arts as photography.  Both photography and ceramic art has only been recognized only in the 20th century.  Photography as art is only addressed in a section in the article photography.  Since ceramics/pottery is one of the oldest arts, there is room for an article to expand on the subject of ceramics as art.  Other areas needing to be addressed is the argument of whether ceramics/pottery is art or craft - this is a major topic addressed in print.  Most art critics are in agreement ceramic as art was not created until the mid-twentieth century, although this viewpoint is softening.


 * So this said, there is room for expansion of this article. And I agree, this article needs to be cleaned up.  I disagree this article needs to be merged into Ceramics, Ceramic, Pottery, or History of ceramic art.  Let's get beyond being lame - and fix/expand this article. Ceramic art is one of the visual arts.  So please give this time - my book orders are on their way to supplement gaps in my research library which focuses mostly on US/British ceramics/pottery in order to provide sources so I may be able to contribute.  And I have needed time to refresh & expand my knowledge on ceramics with a worldview.  If there are other experts in ceramic art interested in expanding/cleaning up ceramics/pottery do become involved.  To be reasonable and realistic, this article may need six months to a year to reach its potential.  Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It won't get that long. "Ceramic art" gets over 100 views pd, while the banished "History of Ceramic art" gets under 10. It is irresponsible to our readers to leave this very inferior piece where it is that long. There are several incorrect statements in the above (and also some whose point I don't see), and the endless and pointless debates over whether pottery is art, or what sort of art, or when it became so, need only one para in any article; this has essentially been a dead issue for decades anyway. The article has had over a month to improve, and has seen relatively little change. Far too little reflects the "art" in the title - I don't know who you think needs to be told that "Ceramic art is one of the visual arts", since The Transhumanist has evidently moved on wreak havoc elsewhere. The main focus of an article on the exceptionally large subject of "Ceramic art" should be an overview of the vast range of ceramics that can reasonably be considered artistic over the last 2000+ years. Johnbod (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Johnbod, the readability of Ceramic art may be helping readers to focus on what they wish to find - and unfortunately few readers seem to be going to the History of ceramic art main article for various reasons. The History section of Ceramic art needs a complete rewrite. I was hoping you would tackle this as your grasp of art history would help provide an overview and should readers need more information, then they could go for expanded information in the article of History of ceramic art. As a reader I would like a short version with key points. I don't think this article should be long and expansive - some sections especially Materials and Forms are too long for my taste, and I agree sections such as Cultural & Criticism should be no more than a paragraph or two. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The readership of the title of Ceramic art has remained unchanged - as always in WP it is the title not the content that dictates the number of views. As editors our task is to do our best to see that highly-viewed articles are the best quality we cvan make them. Johnbod (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So readers can find the history of ceramic art article when using the search function on WP, I have created Ceramic art history as a redirect to History of ceramic art so when a reader searches "ceramic art" one of the three choices is "ceramic art history." You are correct, no one would search for "History of."


 * And I agree, this article Ceramic art needs to be the best it can be. The History section needs rewriting - if it is well written & concise I would hope the reader would want to find out more by following the hatnote to the main article of the history of ceramic art.  I would give it a try, however Johnbod I think you are the right person.  Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I think that is the wrong approach, & I'm not going to do it. A merged article would not be too large, and would be much less work. The undiscussed renaming of the old article was a mistake that can be reversed, the The Transhumanist has caused everyone a lot of work for, so far, no gain at all. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

History section
Johnbod, after giving much thought, I am leaning towards merging History of ceramic art based on our discussion in the previous section Lead, other article discussions, and examining both articles with a neutral point of view on the subject of ceramic art. I agree, merging History would not place an undue burden on the size of the article. The History article is mostly in summary style and would fit well. I would suggest the section Native American pottery be more in summary of the main North American pottery article - a slight pruning. In the future, history sections which do not have a main article - if they grow larger, can be split. To keep the article Ceramic art a manageable size, I would also suggest the gallery not be included - galleries, which personally I like, aren't appreciated community wide and by not including a gallery of images - the size of the article will not be unduly long. The images could be used within the article. Thoughts everyone? Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

For comparison - Sculpture, one of the visual arts, is 143 kB. Merging the History of ceramic art (44 kB) back into Ceramic art (26 kB) would be 70 kb. The guideline for article size - at 100 kB - states "probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)." The article Sculpture includes history and this is one of the reasons I am leaning towards including the History article back into Ceramic art article. Gmcbjames (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you see it that way - the merged article will probably produce a lower bytes total than a+b, as there will be some repetition that can be removed etc. Fine about the North American bit. I don't really agree about the gallery, but when the articles are merged there will be more text space without images, & it can perhaps be dispersed there, and the selection improved as well. I suggest we look at the situation after that & see what we think. Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

✅ - The article History of ceramic art has been merged with Ceramic art. There is a bit of clean-up to do especially in the lede summary to the History section. Please see the recommendations in the discussion for improvements to the article Ceramic art. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 00:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Citations needed
I am surprised to find it all a matter of controversy that this article is in need of more references. However, if proof be needed, there are at the moment nine whole sections with no inline refs at all: and there are no "general" sources listed at the end which could possibly act as a figleaf for the lack of more obvious sourcing; there would have been 12 but I found sources for three of those today.

In addition, there are 26 whole paragraphs, some quite substantial, with no references at all; and many other paragraphs have one sentence reffed, the rest uncovered.

It is not enough to point to other articles: Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and each article must stand on its own explicitly declared sources. We can all be grateful for the excellent work and knowledgeable writing that has gone into assembling this article, but all the same, the referencing leaves room for improvement and it is now time for this to be flagged up. A single refimprove tag is in no way tag-bombing, which would consist of at least 38 separate tags in the case of this article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Chiswick Chap, general tags are extremely unhelpful and usually rot. This article is in summary style and yes - each article is verified independently, however this is not the issue.  As noted in my edit summary, so see the guidelines/essays WP:WHYCITE, WP:CITEOVERKILL, and  WP:LIKELY, if there are statements which you know are more than 50% likely to be challenged - or you have information the statement is untrue, then an appropriate tag by the statement would be more helpful or as you have done - add a cite to support the statement.  A general cite at the end of the paragraph (actually if there a source that would support the whole paragraph) is misleading.  Thank you for adding cites, however do look at the statements and if you feel the statement is more than 50% likely to be challenged, then use  .  Do note the article History of ceramic art has been merged.  Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 18:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, these days there are not many people prepared to to spend time tracking down refs for the like of blindingly obvious things like "In Asian and Islamic countries ceramics are usually a strong feature of general and national museums.". Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I hear your feeling here for the lack of necessity for comprehensive referencing, and your visceral dislike of general tagging. However, your argument about summary style would prove too much, if it were valid. Let's just think for a moment what it would mean. A top-level article on, say, Dinosaur, would not need refs as there'd be articles on, say, Dinosaur phylogeny, Dinosaurs in popular culture, Jurassic dinosaurs, Tyrannosaurs, and so on. It would in this pure world of shining logic not be a problem that each of these articles in turn did not contain any refs, because the Dinosaur phylogeny article would be able to rely on the rock-solid sourcing of the articles on Tyrannosaur phylogeny, Ankylosaur phylogeny, and so on and on. So, verifying the sourcing of Dinosaur would be a matter of identifying all the subsidiary and sub-sub-... articles in the tree of Dinosaur articles, noting that the ones at the leaves of the tree were fully reffed, and manually correlating each summary claim in the subsidiary articles derived satisfactorily from all of its leaf articles; and finally, checking that each summary claim in the Dinosaur article itself derived satisfactorily from each of its direct subsidiaries. In this way, the energetic verifier (perhaps a verification clerk?) would be able to make sure that every top-level claim was in fact derived from good sources. No. It won't do, for one simple reason: Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Anyone can add claims to any article, and without immediate, there-on-the-spot references, it's essentially impossible for anyone to verify claims. Talk of "blindingly obvious" may sound easy and convincing at first blush, but it won't do, because there are any number of ways it can break, indeed it all quickly comes to bits. Only one thing can resolve the problem: local references. If one summarises a subsidiary article, one must also check and bring over the references, or at least the most useful of them. You have quoted various WP: reasons for not citing the article. There is really just one WP: reason for citing it: WP:V, and nothing you have said about likelihood or summary style negates that - how could it: for Verifiability is, rightly, one of the pillars of Wikipedia. Is it likely that anyone could challenge it? Yes, I just did, for every uncited claim in the whole article. Reads well? Yes. Sounds plausible? Yes. No need to verify the citations then? No. If it were Yes, then huge numbers of articles on Wikipedia would need no citations. But they do. The "The refs are somewhere else" claim is unsustainable, and would, indeed, be fatal to the encyclopedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Almost all articles on WP need more references, and editors don't need reminding of this. If you want more refs, it is better to add them yourself rather than going round pointing out their absence, or going on about it on talk pages. Don't expect any thanks for this essentially useless activity. Johnbod (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I have added general references in the new section Sources using the short citation style - see WP:SFN. Other editors are welcome to add more citations. Since there is no consensus to keep the tag, I have removed it - see Tagging pages for problems. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 23:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Ceramic art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080602012550/http://artpotterymanufacturers.com:80/Welcome.html to http://www.artpotterymanufacturers.com/Welcome.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150908094818/http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2792293957101026524 to http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2792293957101026524
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141209214110/http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9384284 to http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9384284

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Ceramic art. 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/20050413214248/http://www.faience-de-quimper.com/histquim_en.html to http://www.faience-de-quimper.com/histquim_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ceramic art. 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/20160303200546/http://www.chinaculture.org/classics/2009-02/16/content_322071.htm to http://www.chinaculture.org/classics/2009-02/16/content_322071.htm

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) 06:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)