Talk:Faience

The list[edit]

Here's why I added the list at the end: when working on the Wikipedia:2004 Encyclopedia topics project I realized that EB2004 has a virtual fetish about describing the different types of faience. Eventually, WP should cover the same ground. By the conventions of the project, each EB entry should correspond to a WP article or at least a redirect. I figured, if there will be many short articles, this list would be useful. Or we could move the list to its own WP article, maybe even include the brief descriptions embedded in the list itself, and point all the redirs to that. I don't know which way to go yet. David Brooks 18:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do you approve my technique of working some EB headings into the text? Not all are really deserving (yet) of separate articles. I'm a lumper: I like long, rich articles full of context. I dislike brief articles that offer no links. --Wetman 06:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whatever works. The rule should be: if a user searches using the title of the EB article, they should land on an article that clearly describes what they were looking for. If it's obvious how to find the information in the page they land on, that's OK. Unfortunately you can't combine a redirect with a # tag. It's too soon to say whether your technique will work, as there aren't many styles described in the text yet.

If you like it lumpy, it might work to add a sentence or two to each element of the list, and a seealso if there is enough material to warrant a whole article. David Brooks 23:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Someone has broken up the introduction to fit it under "historical" headings. The material and the name need to be introduced first. An example of how sense can be lost through "splitting".--Wetman 20:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Faience needs updating?[edit]

I'm on ArtStor right now, looking at something that claims to be an Egyptian Faience bowl from 1540-1350 BC (I came here to see what Faience was). I'm not really sure how ArtStor or Wikipedia works... so I'm going write myself a note and if no-one rewrites the Egyptian section by the time I locate the note again (perhaps a week from now), I'll mention this in the article (which currently gives the impression that only beads were made in Egypt), and in the article specific to Egyptian Faience. If anyone else has access to ArtStor, I'm looking at CMA_.1914.614 "Decorated Bowl". I would much prefer if someone else did it though. Peace! :)

IPA entry?[edit]

Could someone familiar with the conventional English pronunciation of Faience please insert an IPA entry? --Dan Ventresca 20:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I have explained the rationale for this proposal under Maiolica. Marshall46 15:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A better suggestion, which I've copied from Talk:Maiolica: create an article Tin-glazed pottery. Draw together succinct versions of the current maiolica, majolica, faience etc etc, each précis with the usual italicised hatnote Main article.... Final step, an introduction concerning general historical developments and techniques, (i.e. a condensed version of the article tin-glazing). The reasons for separate articles on maiolica and faience will appear from a first scan of the two, distinct relevant literatures. Nested articles, such as these could be, are at the heart of encyclopedic treatment.--Wetman 21:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now done this Marshall46 17:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

This article appears to have been drawn from authoritative sources but they are not shown. Marshall46 16:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to the Italian city of Faenza[edit]

The name faience comes from the Italian city of Faenza, but there is no mention of this in the article.

Actual name[edit]

Shouldn't this article be faïence and faience redirect there? Or is this the more correct spelling? Graham (talk, contrib, SIGN HERE!!!) 19:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it shouldn't. In mose cases the word faience is spelled without a diaeresis. In actual fact, I have seen spellings of this word with a diaresis only as a second variant in dictionaries and encyclopedias. So this is inacceptable because the majority of English-speaking people even have no idea of that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.181.113.43 (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Greek Faience[edit]

In his book The Life of Greece (p.219), Will Durant says that the ancient Greek colony of Naucratis (located in the Nile delta of Egypt) "...exported faience and translucent glass." Durant does not give any further details, but the quote is taken from a section of the book entitled Aegean Prelude:3500-1000 B.C. Wikipedia's article on Naucratis indicates that it was founded (or taken over by Greeks) shortly after 750 B.C., and that archaeological expeditions of the late 19th and early 20th centuries "unearthed a small factory for faience scarab seals" in the city. Does anyone have any more detailed information about Naucratis' production of faience or how closely what was produced there fits the definition of faience? Dadadaddyo (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Faience. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050413214248/http://www.faience-de-quimper.com:80/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 to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Faience. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sticking to what faience is as that term is used in English[edit]

As this is English Wikipedia, our articles discuss subjects known by titles that by English speakers are understood to denote those subjects. This article was getting into the weeds, focusing on the word itself, and concerning itself with what may or may not be considered "faience" in other languages. I've done some editing to address that.

It seemed similar to someone expounding in the Dogue article on French Wikipedia about breeds of dog that aren't considered dogues in French, and adding that though, in English, they're considered dogs, they are indeed not dogues. Just as what English speakers call "dogs" is irrelevant to French Wikipedia readers reading about dogues, its irrelevant to us what things might be covered in other languages by the meaning of a word cognate to "faience". This article should be about the subject denoted by the English word. Largoplazo (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your bold but doomed attempt to remove all the inevitable confusing complexity of the term in English. It's not about what other languages do, but what English does. Faience is "fine tin-glazed pottery", but randomly the most important types of this are not called "faience" in English, and some other types of pottery that aren't fine tin-glazed pottery at all are called faience in English. This is messy and there's no getting round it. Johnbod (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]