Template:Did you know nominations/Swatow 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) 17:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Swatow ware[edit]
"Split pagoda" motif
- ... that scholars have been puzzled by a motif in Chinese Swatow ware, where a pagoda is split "almost like a volcanic eruption"?
Source: Quote is from Medley, p. 235. From Stober PDF: "This unusual motif provoked much discussion with Western ceramic historians. Margaret Medley in her book The Chinese Potter, published in 1976, simply called it a “mystery”. Regina Krahl remarked on the example in the Topkapi Sarai collection, Istanbul : “The model or inspiration for this subject is still a mystery: it can be interpreted as a waterfall rushing down from the mountains into a lake, and therefore visually splitting the pagoda in the background in two...." (and a page or so more on this at pp. 30-31 here
- Reviewed: Eriksen M/25
5x expanded by Johnbod (talk). Self-nominated at 04:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC).
Before this goes further, Mr Bod should review the shitstorm at this nomination over the use of "ware" in its title. Let's make sure we have this at the right place before we put it on the front page. — LlywelynII 15:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- The name there was settled very easily at Talk:Jingdezhen_porcelain#Renaming_article, and was only a side issue to the "shitstorm". There is no issue here, although there are two alternative names, both using "ware" in the literature, as the article says. I know that some people just don't like "ware" names at all. But they are the correct term. Johnbod (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, fwiw, I agree with you that they should all be at "~ ware". That said, being at the wrong namespace is a major issue and the reviewer should try to keep these page names on the same/similar content consistent. — LlywelynII 13:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Names should follow what the sources use. It's not really an issue for DYK reviewers, and the great majority of Chinese pottery types use "ware", with some using "porcelain" - see Category:Chinese_pottery. European modern pottery is much the same. Purely archaeological names often use "pottery", globally. It is not for WP to attempt to "reform" what sources use. Obviously there are also redirects. I'd also point out that this is an expansion of a stub begun with this title in August 2005, and no one has ever raised the title (or indeed anything else) on talk. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
This article is a five-fold expansion and is new enough and long enough. The image is appropriately licensed and the hook facts are interesting and cited inline. The article is neutral and I detected no policy issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
