Talk:Vienna porcelain

Requested move 15 August 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page to Vienna porcelain at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 01:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Viennese Porcelain Manufactory → ? – queried move request. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC) Google views: Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 11:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * queried move request: move to Vienna porcelain? to Vienna Porcelain Manufactory? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Anthony, Could you move this to Vienna porcelain, over the redirect? "Viennese Porcelain Manufactory" is just wrong - it should be Vienna Porcelain Manufactory, but "Vienna porcelain" is better & more the common name I think - the modern factory is always called Augarten to avoid confusion. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Anthony! Support Vienna porcelain, the normal common name. The actual formal name of the organization in German never seems to have a translation of either Viennese Porcelain Manufactory or Vienna Porcelain Manufactory but "Kaiserlich privilegierte Porcellain Fabrique" etc. This is not an uncommon situation with older porcelain factories, where we use the short common name, as at Meissen porcelain (not "Königliche Porzellan-Manufaktur"), Capodimonte porcelain (not "Real Fabbrica di Capodimonte"), etc.
 * "Viennese Porcelain Manufactory" 7k results
 * "Vienna Porcelain Manufactory" 17k results
 * "Vienna P/porcelain" 180k results
 * Support Vienna Porcelain Manufactory. Google Books, Google Books, JSTOR, and ngram all agree that Vienna is massively more common than Viennese. Informal sampling of the sources indicates that Viennese is primarily used by native speakers of German who are evidently not used to translating adjectives as nouns. Native speakers of English unmistakably prefer Vienna. Informal sampling also indicates that Vienna porcelain (without manufactory) is usually used in reference to the product, not the company. Since the more specific term is well attested, and since a raw search result count alone does not prove the less specific term is attested any better, let's go with the former. Damvile (talk) 11:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, dear! This has never been the official name of the organization that I can see, and like other ceramics articles, the article essentially covers the wares or products rather than the company, a point I should have made more clearly above. Johnbod (talk) 12:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well no, the official name was Österreichisch-Kaiserlich [sic] Privilegirte [sic] Porcellain Fabrique. (The wording and spelling currently in the article would not have been used before ca. 1860 at the earliest, i.e. they're almost certainly anachronistic.) Problem is, the official name does not appear to have had an official English translation. Older texts written in English refer to the place as "the Imperial Manufactory" or "the manufactory at Vienna" (e.g. Chaffers 1891) or simply as "the manufactory" (e.g. Douglas 1791). On the other hand, the modern WP:COMMONNAME in German is Wiener Porzellanmanufaktur; it has been so since before WWI (e.g. Folnesics 1914). As far as I can tell, using your method of looking at Google results, this name is usually rendered as Vienna Porcelain Manufactory in English.
 * Then again you're right about the article itself; it would be easy to turn this from an page about the company into a page about the product. We'd basically only have to rephrase the first three sentences. If an article about the product is what we want then sure, that article should probably be titled Vienna porcelain. Damvile (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, is this enough? I can add more. Johnbod (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nah I think you made your point :D Damvile (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Vienna porcelain per nom. Damvile (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Or move to Vienna Porcelain? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No - it should be like Meissen porcelain and Capodimonte porcelain, though we aren't entirely consistent elsewhere. Generally the best sources use lower case to discuss the wares. Johnbod (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

mixed-up sentence
section 'History', first paragraph: "While Meissen and most later German factories were owned by the local ruler, and usually heavily funded, du Pacquier received only permission to manufacture, and many orders for wares, from the emperor, and the factory seems always to have been under-capitalized in his time." this part is completely clear:

"While Meissen and most later German factories were owned by the local ruler, and usually heavily funded, du Pacquier received only permission to manufacture, and the factory seems always to have been under-capitalized in his time."

but this does not fit in there, makes no sense: "and many orders for wares, from the emperor" or does it?? – I don't think so. 2A02:3035:417:86E6:1:1:5C06:765 (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ?? Why not? What's your issue? He wasn't funded, but he did get big orders for goods. Johnbod (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Information Studies
— Assignment last updated by Wikiforschoolhomework (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)