Template:Did you know nominations/Jingdezhen ware


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Jingdezhen porcelain

 * ... that despite being a remote mountain town, Jingdezhen has been the largest producer of Chinese porcelain for over 600 years? Source: pp. 176 & 216, Vainker, S.J., Chinese Pottery and Porcelain, 1991, British Museum Press, 9780714114705


 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Howard Hawks

5x expanded by Johnbod (talk). Self-nominated at 12:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC).


 * Sorry, going away for a few days, so qpq will have to wait a bit. Johnbod (talk) 19:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC) Done, Johnbod (talk) 04:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg size and age ok, Earwig's copyvio tool clear, hook sourced to offline source accepted in good faith. Good to go. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

copied from DYK talk

A "remote mountain town" with 1.5 million inhabitants

 * ... that Jingdezhen, though a remote mountain town, has been the largest producer of Chinese porcelain (example pictured) for over 600 years?

Template:Did you know nominations/Jingdezhen ware

Jingdezhen is a city with 1.5 million inhabitants, easily accessible along river plains, with an elevation of 35m. Jingdezhen ware was first produced in remote mountain towns like Yaoli, Jiangxi, which is some 50km from Jingdezhen. "Jingdezhen" is either the big cuty itself, or (as in the name of the porcelain) a larger region surrounding the city, but it isn't nor ever was a "remote mountain town". Pulled. Fram (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, I didn't look at that part of it - just checked the porcelain bit. Well, my vote would be to remove the "though a remote mountain town" and restore. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The hook remains interesting even with the clause between commas removed, so I would support Cas' suggestion. Vanamonde (talk) 11:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Whatever they tell the tourists, after poking around the sources, I can't see that anything produced at Yaoli, Jiangxi counts as Jingdezhen ware, which was produced in or very close to the town. The tourist site source for that article is completely non-RS. The altitude may not be high, but it would be lower still without the pottery sherds which apparently underlie the whole place. The pages following this, by an expert give much information, though their archaeologist hosts didn't think it worth stopping at Yaoli, and just drove them through. The source I used included, re the town "From its apparently remote situation...". Using "town" rather than "city" reflected the historical size, but I can see the hook needs altering. Please hold the thing while I find a better alt. Johnbod (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll copy this to the nom for the record. Johnbod (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Now added to the nom: ALT1 ".... that in Imperial China, a concubine of the first rank was allowed 121 pieces of Jingdezhen ware, that were yellow with a white interior? Source: pp. 211, Vainker, S.J., Chinese Pottery and Porcelain, 1991, British Museum Press, 9780714114705
 * 1.5 million is a backwaters town by Chinese standard. "Remote" is relative distance. (I was a resident of Jilin City, a "3rd-rate city" of 2 million inhabitants.) But since we're having a petty dispute of what is a "remote town" compared to a "big city", I approve the simplest solution which is to remove "though a remote mountain town" and restore, as Casliber suggested. Deryck C. 13:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I prefer the alt, particularly in relation to the age of the Vainker source and the concern I have over the promoted hook that I noted in the section above. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I prefer the Alt as well, given several issues with orignal hook. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Emperor, empress and empress dowager yellow inside and out; first rank concubines yellow with white insides, and then it's dragons of various colours all the way down (Kerr, p 26). The yellow's a deep yellow, classed by Kerr (p 91) as a low-fired enamel containing lead and antimony, "very slightly poisonous", hence the white insides- except on the emperor's bowls! The potters appear to be aware of the risks, because bright lime green and brilliant lemon glazes were discontinued because they "were dangerous to both potters and patrons alike". Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Coupe Jaune impérial Musée Guimet 2418.jpg]]
 * I promoted the hook with the "remote mountain town" in good faith, as it was sourced to an offline source. However, I like Johnbod's alt1 better. It is also offline and therefore is AGF and cited inline. Would you like to use this image for the lead slot? (Is this yellow cup in fact Jingdezhen ware?) Yoninah (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's Jingdezhen ware (seems to be modelled on an archaic bronze form). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unless it is illegally using the imperial yellow, it is. Johnbod (talk) 03:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Just to note that this is exactly why I've been urging nominators to quote the source in the nomination, thus helping to ensure that interpretations like "remote mountain town" don't creep in unsourced.  E Eng  20:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I support this attitude!! Yay!  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Quoting the source, which uses the word "remote" would not have helped, I think. Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. What exactly did the source say?  E Eng  04:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Johnbod, you dismiss Yaoli rather out of hand, using e.g. the Gotheborg source. Looking at that source, I notice that the Porcelain Exhibition Hall in Jingdezhen, described as "an exhibition of what has been produced in Jingdezhen through the ages", has Yaoli porcelain in showcase 1 (1279-1436 CE), and nothing but Yaoli porcelain in showcase 2 (1436-1464) ("One cannot say that it was exactly at Yaoli they made the best porcelain, but Yaoli was the largest, so then quite a few should have been good." Emphasis mine) It seems clear that Yaoli was the first important site producing Jiangdezhen ware, and then faded as a pottery producer and just became one of the main clay providers. Fram (talk) 07:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, life is peaceful there, in the open air, where the skies are blue, that's what we gonna do. Try this link instead. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This site has photos of a couple of dragon kilns at Yaoli. According to Kerr (p 39) the climbing or dragon kiln was "sufficient for the needs of the smaller potteries". Larger concerns used the Jingdezhen egg-shaped kiln, developed from an earlier gourd type, containing a very large number of pieces at high temperatures in a reducing atmosphere (e.g. carbon monoxide) which enabled them to produce pieces with "high-fired" glazes. The yellow enamel was fired in a muffle kiln at lower temperatures on already-fired pots. I'm guessing from the photos of the area that there's no room at Yaoli to build large kilns. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It isn't at all clear to me! Note, at the top of the linked page "All exhibited pottery here is called Minyao, meaning the People's Wares, in the sense of that this porcelain have been made at private kilns and for the use by ordinary people." All the pieces in the case 2, as described, come from well after Jiangdezhen was producing wares for the court, and look very popular in quality. None of the sources I have, including eg Vainker, S.J., Chinese Pottery and Porcelain, 1991, British Museum Press, 9780714114705, with over 40 pages on Jingdezhen ware, mentions Yaoli, either for kilns or clay deposits, though other places are mentioned. The museum just shows Blue & White, with no Qingbai, Jingdezhen's earliest high-quality ware, from some 400 years before the Ming onwards. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The "All exhibited pottery here ..." appears to be a translation from the exhibit caption. The British Museum (link here) refers to Ming-period kilns at Yaoli, nothing earlier, producing min yao. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 05:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is the only hit for "Yaoli" in the over 2 million items in the BM database, and shows a popular Ming bowl just like those in the museum case. Note "Where the rim is ground down a dark red-brown body is revealed contrasting starkly with the pure white porcelain clays used contemporaneously at the imperial factory.". But they do call it "Made in: Jingdezhen (probably Yaoli.)". I think we're done here; I'll copy this to the article talk, as it has thrown up some relevant issues. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Jingdezhen is a city with 1.5 million inhabitants, easily accessible along river plains, with an elevation of 35m. Jingdezhen ware was first produced in remote mountain towns like Yaoli, Jiangxi, which is some 50km from Jingdezhen. "Jingdezhen" is either the big cuty itself, or (as in the name of the porcelain) a larger region surrounding the city, but it isn't nor ever was a "remote mountain town". Pulled. Fram (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, I didn't look at that part of it - just checked the porcelain bit. Well, my vote would be to remove the "though a remote mountain town" and restore. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The hook remains interesting even with the clause between commas removed, so I would support Cas' suggestion. Vanamonde (talk) 11:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Whatever they tell the tourists, after poking around the sources, I can't see that anything produced at Yaoli, Jiangxi counts as Jingdezhen ware, which was produced in or very close to the town. The tourist site source for that article is completely non-RS. The altitude may not be high, but it would be lower still without the pottery sherds which apparently underlie the whole place. The pages following this, by an expert give much information, though their archaeologist hosts didn't think it worth stopping at Yaoli, and just drove them through. The source I used included, re the town "From its apparently remote situation...". Using "town" rather than "city" reflected the historical size, but I can see the hook needs altering. Please hold the thing while I find a better alt. Johnbod (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll copy this to the nom for the record. Johnbod (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ALT1 ".... that in Imperial China, a concubine of the first rank was allowed 121 pieces of Jingdezhen porcelain, that were yellow with a white interior? Source: pp. 211, Vainker, S.J., Chinese Pottery and Porcelain, 1991, British Museum Press, 9780714114705

I'm not sure if the significance of the yellow colour can be fully explained in 200 characters. How about a simple tweak of the original hook:
 * ALT2: ... that Jingdezhen has been a centre of production of Chinese porcelain (example pictured) for more than six centuries? --PFHLai (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Rather boring. For a start, it has been the main centre, as the original hook said. I don't see the significance of yellow especially needs explaining in a hook, nor does the pic need to show a yellow piece. I now think it better to have a hook that uses "Jingdezhen ware" in full. Johnbod (talk) 03:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * ALT3: ... that the mass production of underglaze blue porcelain in the 14th century made Jingdezhen "one of the world's earliest industrial towns"? --PFHLai (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Easter egg link, which I don't like. Is it too long? And the pic would wrong. Johnbod (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Only 137 characters not too long. --PFHLai (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * ALT4: ... that the Fonthill Vase (pictured), the earliest piece of Chinese porcelain documented to have reached Europe, is an example of Jingdezhen ware? --PFHLai (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ALT4a: ... that the Fonthill Vase (pictured), the earliest piece of Chinese porcelain documented to have reached Europe, was produced in Jingdezhen? --PFHLai (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't like that, especially as we don't have a proper picture, and the picture is not used in the article (nor should it be). The 4a link is terrible. I feel you are clutching at straws here; what is wrong with ALT1? Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ALT4, I suppose, can be used without the picture.
 * IMHO, ALT1 is rather esoteric. "concubine of the first rank"? "allowed"? What do you mean? I really don't understand why the colour is hooky. My coffee mug at work is red. Why should anyone care to know the colour? --PFHLai (talk) 07:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * A particular hue of yellow was reserved for the imperial family, in dress and porcelain. According to Imperial Chinese Harem system the Qing emperor was supposedly limited to six concubines; the regulation used for the DYK dates to 1899, during the reign of the Guangxu Emperor, who had 2 concubines, so I suppose one was first rank and one was second. In 1898 he was put under house arrest, after launching a coup against the Dowager Empress, who appears to have had him poisoned in 1908. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * IMO, ALT1 only works if the general readership on MainPage already understands the significance of the yellow colour, etc. Good luck packing all that info in the hook. 200 characters max. --PFHLai (talk) 12:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC), 12:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see that at all. The idea of hooks is to draw the reader into the article. Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * (from Macintosh, p 88, paraphrased) The potters (at J.) were cruelly oppressed by the eunuchs, who exploited their position at court to order vast quantities of porcelain for themselves. Severely punished for their inability to make large fish bowls to the eunuchs' specificiations, a potter named Dong took the responsibility upon himself, and sacrificed his life by leaping into the kiln. The fishbowls came out perfectly, and his fellow potters built a temple to worship Dong as The Genius of Fire and Blast. DYK Dong died so the eunuchs could have their perfect fishbowls? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 11:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The Jingdezhen potters referred to the kaolin and the petuntse as the "flesh and bones" of the porcelain, so DYK J-ware is made from flesh and bones (but this would have to be sourced and added to the article). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * ALT5 ... that despite coming from a remote town in a mountainous region, Jingdezhen ware has dominated fine Chinese porcelain for over 600 years? Source: pp. 176 & 216, Vainker, S.J., Chinese Pottery and Porcelain, 1991, British Museum Press, 9780714114705 - the original hook revisited, making the basic key point. Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Review needed for the latest ALT hook; as it is based on the original hook, which was pulled from prep, be sure to make sure that the original concerns have been addressed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The ALT5 still is misleading, as it sounds as if it comes from one small town, but it really comes from the whole district, and the city, not just one town. So how about: Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That was Fram's assertion, but I don't believe he was able to demonstrate this at all. Unlike many/most other Chinese wares, it seems the production really was concentrated very closely around the city. Of course you have to read a lot of sources to know this, which speak about this very differently from the way other wares are described. The main imperial kiln was visible from the city centre, on the other side of the river. pp. 15-18 here may help - it seems the workers came to the city from the surrounding district for a firing season. Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Added today: "The imperial kilns were in the centre of the city at Zhushan (Pearl Hill), with many other kilns four kilometres away at Hutian" (ref Krahl in Grove) and "In 1905 a European visitor reported that most production was in a short summer season, when workers from surrounding areas came to live in "barrack-like sheds" in the city, without their families. This influx took the population of the city to about 400,000, and caused some social problems." (ref Kerr) Johnbod (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ALT5a ... that despite coming from a mountainous region, Jingdezhen ware has dominated fine Chinese porcelain for over 600 years? Source: pp. 176 & 216, Vainker, S.J., Chinese Pottery and Porcelain, 1991, British Museum Press, 9780714114705
 * As written, that doesn't give an indication as to why the "despite" is there, unless there is a "remote" in there. Or something. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't really see this, but see above. Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Summary so far: ALTs 1 & 5 have been objected to, but the objections are without merit imo - see above. Johnbod (talk) 05:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought I could review something here, but am tempted to propose another hook, following KISS. Who cares about remote mountains?
 * ALT6: ... that Jingdezhen ware (example pictured) has dominated fine Chinese porcelain for over 600 years? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sigh! Ok, at this point, after nearly two months, I think we need to stop piling on new hook suggestions without commenting on the existing ones, and select one from the viable ones, which as far as I am concerned are (more or less in my order of preference) ALTs: 2, 5, 5a, 6. ALT 3 could be rewritten to work. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ALT3a: ... that the mass production of Jingdezhen porcelain in the 14th century made Jingdezhen "one of the world's earliest industrial towns"? (I prefer the Easter egg, though. Or ALT4 without the picture. But I'm biased. Both 3&4 are my hooks.) --PFHLai (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I really don't ALT4, nor ALT3 much. The picture is good, and it would be a pity not to use it, although there seems to be some sort of rule against ever running ceramics pics, or possibly ceramics articles at all (I now have 7 waiting). Johnbod (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Although the article's titled "Jingdezhen ware" it's really about the Jingdezhen ceramic industry- the wares are too various in styles and manufacture. The town itself is a Yangtze river port, situated next to a source of saggar clay (Jenyn pp 11-13) and surrounded by pine forests; the ideal place to locate a pottery industry (the kaolin and petuntse were stockpiled for a year or more before being used so the location of their extraction is not so important). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * According to The Grove Encyclopedia of Decorative Arts, Volume 1, p. 529 since the late 20th century Jingdezhen produces about 300 million pieces of household porcelain a year, plus reproductions of classic Chinese models. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to suggest a name change, here (already far too long) isn't the place. There is something to be said for this, to "J porcelain" probably. At least it is all porcelain, which is more than can be said for some "wares". Obviously, it has continued far longer than most "wares" and is also on a larger scale, so is very varied. Since this seems stuck here indefinitely, we can discuss on talk. Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, to the talk page it is! Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Now renamed to Jingdezhen porcelain. Promising hooks (ALT 1, 3a) updated for this. Alt 5 etc rejigged to: Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ALT 7: ... that despite coming from a remote town in a mountainous region, Jingdezhen porcelain has dominated fine Chinese ceramics for over 600 years? Source: pp. 176 & 216, Vainker, S.J., Chinese Pottery and Porcelain, 1991, British Museum Press, 9780714114705 - the original hook revisited, making the basic key point. Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Requesting that Fram comment on the current selection of ALT hooks, since he pulled the original hook and there is no point in proceeding with similarly worded hooks if they will be pulled again, unless the subsequent sourcing has addressed his concerns. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't get where the insistence on the "remote town in a mountainous region" comes from". "By 1712, Jingdezhen had a population of more than a million". How many cities in the world had more than a million inhabitants in that period? A dozen? This is a whole book on Jingdezhen as porcelain capital, and it mentions "mountain" twice, to name Macang Mountain. While around 1000-1100 (so before the period the hook discusses) it was still a town, it wasn't especially "remote" and that the region was "mountainous" had little bearing on its success. By 1400, it no longer was either remote or really a town. Fram (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Fram, the insistence comes from following sources rather than following your own erroneous OR! Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So Jingdenzhen did not have 1 million inhabitants in 1712, and was hardly a town by 1400 (the start of the hook period)? And the fact that a complete book about Jingdezhen and its porcelain doesn't seem to feel the need to mention the mountainous region is insignificant? That a fact may be mentioned in one book or article is not necessarily sufficient to have it as a hook, certainly not when it is contradicted by other sources. Calling Jingdezhen a remote town is like calling Geneva a remote town in a mountainous region. Fram (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't tell me, tell Shiela Vainker! That that the region was "mountainous" had plenty of bearing on its success, as it gave slopes to run the early dragon kilns up, & meant there were forests with the enormous quantities of fuel needed for the kilns at hand, unlike in north China. More OR! Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ¨*You seem to express the mistaken belief that one needs mountains to have forests. In any case, any reason why ALT3a wouldn't be acceptable? Fram (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * China is not Scandinavia - flat land gets farmed, & has done for a very long time. As I said above, I don't really like it, but as people think you have a veto, I suppose it will have to do. Johnbod (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ALT3a then? --PFHLai (talk) 08:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That one seems to be perfectly acceptable. Fram (talk) 09:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Reviewer needed to check remaining ALT3a hook. (Have struck the ones variously objected to.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The source on that is: p. 137 of Canby, Sheila R. (ed). Shah Abbas; The Remaking of Iran, 2009, British Museum Press, ISBN 9780714124520. PFHLai, please add the source in the normal way for ALT hooks. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Normal'? Sorry, i'm not sure what you want me to do, John. --PFHLai (talk) 12:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * ALT3a: ... that the mass production of Jingdezhen porcelain (example pictured) in the 14th century made Jingdezhen "one of the world's earliest industrial towns"?


 * ALT3b: ... that in the 14th century, mass production of Jingdezhen porcelain (example pictured) made Jingdezhen "one of the world's earliest industrial towns"?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I had a long look through this a week ago. It's a shame about the vexatious nit-picking but so it goes.  My main thought was that the moonflask picture (right) was particularly attractive and so we should build on that or another good picture.  That picture doesn't go well with the hooks about mass production though because it was a special piece for the emperor.  I gave some thought to an appropriate hook but didn't have time and wasn't sure that I should muddy the waters further.  But now that Johnbod is appealing for more attention, I'm commenting to see if this helps us make progress. Andrew D. (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg Both ALT3a and ALT3b are acceptable and each has an inline citation to a reliable source. They have identical facts expressed in two different ways and either could be promoted. Other parts of the review are as per Cas Liber's original review. Good to go. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: If we have to show "(example pictured)" on MainPage, please use a pic of a piece 'from the 14th century' to match the hook. Not from the Qianlong era (the 18th century), please. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 12:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You wait two months after first proposing the hook before coming up with that? I don't see it as a problem. Johnbod (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait? Two months ago, ALT3 came with no pic, and John, you then posted "And the pic would (be) wrong". Can the hook go on MainPage without a picture? It's rather confusing to have the text about the 14th century with a pic of sth not from the same century. --PFHLai (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC) I must say that it's a pity that a good pic doesn't get used, but it's also a pity that this nom gets stuck on T:TDYK for so long. Oh, well... Wish I could help with a better hook. --PFHLai (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, please, you've done enough already... Johnbod (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg It's a shame this one has been stuck for so long. Personally, I don't think it's a big issue to use that nice moonflask pic with a hook about mass production.  But if that is what is holding up this nom, there are other pics available in the article from the right period, I suggest one of these two if the moonflask is really that objectionable. SpinningSpark 11:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg It is a real shame not to use that beautiful moonflask image. what do you think about rewording the hook as follows:


 * ALT8: ... that by the 14th century the town of Jingdezhen had become the largest production centre of Chinese porcelain, and only increased its dominance in subsequent centuries (18th-century moonflask pictured)? Yoninah (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec) No link to the actual article! (Now changed). But I agree about the pic, & the drift of the hook.
 * ALT8a: ... that Jingdezhen porcelain was the most-produced Chinese porcelain by the 14th century, and only increased its dominance in subsequent centuries (18th-century moonflask pictured)? A tad shorter too. Johnbod (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Very nice! LET'S RUN WITH IT. Could another editor please give this the AGF tick and take it to the main page ASAP? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We can also go back to Gerda's ALT6, which is a little snappier:
 * ALT6: ... that Jingdezhen ware (example pictured) has dominated Chinese porcelain for over 600 years? Yoninah (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also ok - let's get this down the slipway. Johnbod (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg ALT8a is a bit clunky, so approving ALT6 as good to go with the flask image, mentioning in passing that I have removed the word "fine" from the hook as not being used in the lead paragraph, which is cited with ref1. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ALT6 looks to be a good result – well done everyone. It will be interesting to see how it does on the day.  Andrew D. (talk) 10:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)