Talk:Murano glass

Lacking quality
This article doesn't do justice to Murano glass; if you didn't already know what it is, you'd think it was just an interesting novelty after reading this article. There should be more pictures of glass sculptures so as to reflect the quality and craftsmanship that goes into this glass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owen214 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguity
I really think that the information in this article, also if formelly correct, are ambiguous in several parts and for several reasons. Obviously these are only my opinions and everybody is free tho think in a different way. You can read below my personal doubts and questions:

The Vetro Artistico® Murano mark [1] administered by the Promovetro Consortium [2] certifies the origin of glass products produced on the island of Murano.

Not true, or at least ambiguous. It seems that every glass made in Murano should be certificated by the Vetro Artistico® Murano mark ; it is not true: only a (small) part of the Murano's glassmakers/companies are memeber of the Consortium and uses the trademark.

(...) The existence of the Vetro Artistico® Murano [3] is a guarantee of the quality and originality of products coming from such a millenary and unique tradition as that of Murano glass making.

Not true. Some of the members of the Vetro Artistico® Murano mark use not traditional techniques. More: expecially the more "artistic" glassmakers (Salvadore, Tagliapietra, Zilio, Fuin, just to have few names) and some of the most famous brands (as Venini) aren't part of the Consortium. Instead are part of the Consortium people working with pyrex or using electric fusing kiln or with other very modern production process.

(...) Today there are more than 50 concessionary companies and their products can be bought in all sales outlets displaying the sticker with the mark.

True. Only 50 companies. Only a small part of the Murano glass companies and studios.

(...) The Consortium, authentic custodian of the Murano art(...)

Imho, with only 50 companies and with the main part of the high end glass producers out the consortium, the Vetro Artistico® Murano mark represent only its own 50 members, not the Murano art. The art of venetian glassmaking is of every skilled venetian glassmakers who works with passions, with or without pseudo-official marks.

This is just my personal opinion. I respect everybody who thinks in a different way.

Sincerely

Marco

Murano Glass vs. Made with Murano Glass

I'd like to see a distinction made between glass objects produced in Italy using Italian Murano glass and objects made outside of Italy using Italian Murano glass. There are a number of companies (incorrectly, intentionally misleading IMO) referring to their products as Murano Glass, when these products are massed produced in China using Murano glass rods.

Jen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.149.191 (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Merger
I feel that although these subjects are related, one article would be far too big and that the seperate articles have potential to become much bigger PhilB   ~ T/C 12:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I will probably be expanding (a little) and merging these articles within the next week or so. I lean towards merging the Murano glass article into the Venetian glass article since the venetian glass article can encompass all glass foundries besides that of Murano. I guess I want to see if there are any objections to this merge before I go ahead and do that. --ImmortalGoddezz ( t/c ) 15:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

as a glass artist myself, I *HIGHLY* suggest these articles be kept separate, because venice has a glass history far longer than when they shipped those guys to murano. they're interwoven, but separate, subjects, from an art history perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.138.11 (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

if you look at the content of the two articles I highly suggest that these two articles be merged. The content is repetitive and murano glass is a type of venetian glass. There is not enough unique content to have a substantial murano glass article and I recommend deletion of the murano glass page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.95.211.74 (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that these articles should rightfully be merged into one. There is quite a bit of repetition between the murano glass and the venetian glass articles. Murano Glass needs to be a section within the Venetian Glass page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.217.58.242 (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Though this topic seems to have run out of steam several years ago, I would urge the merging of Venetian glass and Murano glass. Though there are some nitpicking distinctions that could be made, the contents of the two pages are extremely similar (and, in fact, the Venetian page discusses Murano glass in a couple of places). In the process of merging, much of the content that covers glassblowing techniques (particularly caneworking, murrine, and millefiori) glassblowing tools, and glassblowing terms could be removed with wikilinks to appropriate pages. None of these subjects is unique to Venetian/Murano glass; the Italian terms have been adopted worldwide. Punty Jon (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Material
There is a Samsung 1080p HDTV demo disc, which has a 10-minute clip on Murano glassmaking. It is titled "Masterpieces of Glass Art". The same disc also contains a short video about Tahiti islands and sportscar design shapes. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Murano Glass Today
The first few lines are very... awkwardly written. (Particularly "Today's glass production in Murano has been made by masterglass and his factory; They made glass like their ancient", which is complete Engrish) Could they be revised make it a bit more more readable? No offense intended towards the author of the original lines, of course.

- Draewn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.101.164.246 (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that was terrible, I have cleaned it up. Mfield (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

In popular culture
I fail to see what a passing reference in the dialogue of a television series (The Sopranos) contributes to this article. Unless some other more germane reference can be found I think this section should be removed. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

OTRS
 Wil ly  Wea zley  19:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposing merger of Venetian glass here
Dear Colleagues. The idea of merging these two articles was first raised in 2006, but it never went very far. Perhaps a new look at the two as these have evolved over time might generate enough interest to look into and assess the desiribility of merging the two. As you can see at a quick glance, there is a high ratio of overlap between the two, whether in terms of text content or images. I thank you you for your collaboration. Regards, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose (sew below) I think. At the moment the history is better at "Venetian", and here has more on the modern techniques. Historic glass is in fact usually described as "Venetian", since it wasn't all made in Murano, so there is a good case for keeping things largely as they are, with a bit more cross-referencing, and all contemporary stuff (maybe back to say 1800) moved here.  Neither article is very good, with poor coverage of the heyday of Venetian glass in the 15-17th centuries.  Johnbod (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I wavered a while over the direction of the merge, my gut feeling was to propose it in the invert order, Murano into Venetian, but from experience that would have led to a few editors pointing out that this is the larger article. So, just in case the merge direction swayed your decision, I thought I would point out that I agree that Venetian should enjoy precedence. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Favor I strongly favor the merger. I have a small preference for merging “Murano Glass” into “Venetian Glass”, but would also be in favor of the other direction.  In the process of doing the merger, it is important to eliminate all of the techniques (and terms) that have become widely used in glassblowing everywhere, moving the information (if it is not already there) to technique-named articles elsewhere.  Of course, in a historical context, reference to many of these techniques, originated in Murano, should remain.  Punty Jon (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 22:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Favor I strongly favor the merger. I recently visited the CMOG, and it rarely used the term Murano—almost always Venetian. I have fixed up the Murano glass article. It may be good enough to get GA. It covers Venice too. Replace Murano in a few places, and the article covers both Murano glass and Venetian glass. Take Murano glass, use it to replace the content in Venetian glass, and redirect Murano glass to Venetian glass. TwoScars (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Switched to Support merge, preferably ending at "Venetian", which everybody seems to favour. TwoScars has improved the Murano one considerably, & I think is ready to do the merge. I note that Commons currently puts everything under "Murano". Since this has been open 14 months & nobody now opposes, I'd regard this as closed & just go ahead. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Made merger on December 14, 2018. TwoScars (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Before GAN
Hi, before GAN the missing citation to McCray 2002 needs to be supplied, and I'd suggest the merger above needs to be closed out one way or the other. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Made merger, fixed citation, will withdraw Murano glass from GA, and add Venetian glass. TwoScars (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)