Talk:Longquan celadon

Old

Shouldn't the B.C.'s in the text be replaced by A.D.'s ?

Moved from Image:About Longquan Celadon.doc with the following revision history (UTC):

(cur) (last) . . 11:06, 16 Sep 2003 . . Patrick (Text moved to [[Longquan Celadon]]. This "image" to be deleted.) 
(cur) (last) . . 09:22, 16 Sep 2003 . . Orinsky 
(cur) (last) . . M 09:22, 16 Sep 2003 . . Orinsky 
(cur) (last) . . 09:21, 16 Sep 2003 . . Orinsky 
(cur) (last) . . M 09:20, 16 Sep 2003 . . Orinsky 
(cur) (last) . . M 09:19, 16 Sep 2003 . . Orinsky 
(cur) (last) . . M 09:18, 16 Sep 2003 . . Orinsky 
(cur) (last) . . M 09:15, 16 Sep 2003 . . Orinsky (Longquan Celadon,pottery) 
(cur) (last) . . 09:10, 16 Sep 2003 . . Orinsky (About Longquan Celadon)

Why is Longquan celadon illustrated with a picture that has no celadon in it? (Well, there is something greenish on the right, but that hardly qulaifies.) This seems to be really stretching for some kind of illustration. Dandrake 01:47, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

If the picture you mention is still the one that's there today, I agree. Possibly not even Longquan. Oh, probably not a planter, either.--Nick 23:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

REVISION

This article is in need of a total revision by someone who knows about the subject or can read Chinese and Japanese. Literate and informed!--Iwanafish 06:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite complete except for Chinese characters. Topkapi vase is gone because such photos do not capture essential qualities of the glaze and texture.--Iwanafish 04:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Green color

As background for my addition, celadon can be defined as glazed ware that gets its green color from reduced iron. Celadon is fired in reduction, but reduction firing usually ends with a brief oxidation. Iron that ends up in the glaze remains reduced, because the glaze is thick. Iron in the interior is black, so the piece is dark grey when it breaks, but the exposed body surface is re-oxidized and red. (The green, instead of grey, color of the glaze might be caused by the particle size, like blue bird feathers or the blue sky, or it might be due to a chemical reaction.)

GOCE

Just finished the copy edit; I added some tags for technical terms that need definition or links, such as a "resist of wax" or crazing/crackle. There are some issues that need a little expansion and clarification for example "Tenryūji, from the Yuan and Ming" using a Japanese term, and Chinese dynasties. I imagine this is controversial, so I've tagged it, since expanding this would be beyond the scope of the copyedit. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a really poor effort. In places the copyedit removes meaning, and many of the queries are themselves puzzling or dumb. I'm minded to revert nearly all of it. It is unfortunate that a copyedit tag was placed here (entirely maliciously imo, by a difficult editor as part of a clash). Fortunately we do now have articles for ""resist of wax" or crazing/crackle", so I've added links. The article had already explained that the wares were exported in huge quantities to Japan and that some terms from Japanese terminology were used in the West. Why would this be "controversial"? Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree that tagging it was malicious, but there is a clear NPOV problem. It could be resolved through copy-editing but if it escalates to a dispute, I will tag it for NPOV instead. Anything that is disputed is controversial whether you feel you explained it well or not. It seems like food wars - one country thinks they invented hummus, and another one disagrees. The fact that the Japanese imported pottery does not mean the terms originated or can be tied to techniques from specific Chinese periods. I noticed this bias in multiple places in the article. I have no personal feelings on the subject and I've tried to correct it. These types of claims are 99% of the time controversial, even in scholarship. I don't feel the copy edit "changed the meaning" - there are parts where the article doesn't make sense. In one part porcelain is used, in another ceramics. Ming and Yuan are introduced without links and only linked to later in the article. You should improve it further, instead of reverting an improvement. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

If there are specific issues, raise them on talk but don't revert the entire copyedit, it is a large edit and corrects a lot of issues like the "Refers to" in the lede sentence. It also adds tags which you can not remove without discussion. Reverting the entire copyedit is out of the question, if you feel specific parts of it are a problem, then restore those parts—it would be nice if you could explain what the problem is and include an edit summary. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

As you say, there are many small changes, and I certainly don't feel like going through them individually. AFAIK this "POV" issue is entirely made up in your head, and I highly doubt that anything like that had ocurred to Gryffindor, who actually mainly edits on Japanese subjects. Of course he has never actually given any indication at at all as to why he added the tag, but that is rather typical. Your edits, I expect without realizing it, changed and made inaccurate the meaning at a number of points, plus a few plain typos, and a repeated grammatical mistake - you don't say "these celadon" but "these celadons". Can you explain exactly what you think this POV problem is? Frankly "The fact that the Japanese imported pottery does not mean the terms originated or can be tied to techniques from specific Chinese periods." makes no sense at all. What were you trying to say? Johnbod (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

"I don't feel like going through them individually" is not a good reason to revert another editors work. I did not know Gryffindor added the tag, I see someone above has said that the article needs revision by someone who can read Japanese. I will try to make it clearer - the way the article is written sounds like the Japanese words are terms for Chinese pottery. I just want to make sure this is correct. Are they also Japanese words for Japanese pottery or are they exclusively used for pottery from China (from the specific periods specified in the article.) The article says some of the Japanese terms have the advantage of being anchored to specific pieces in Japan - it also says Tenryūji, from the Yuan and Ming - I actually don't know what the article is even trying to say here. This is why I added a clarify tag. Even if I was going to edit it, I would need a source, so I would not do this as part of the copy edit, but as a regular edit. It is not something where I can just fix the grammar or wording, because I can't figure out what it is supposed to mean from the context. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

They are Japanese terms for Chinese pottery, and sometimes no doubt Japanese imitations of it, but these are not the issue here. No, if you don't have sources, and know nothing about the subject, it is indeed a mistake to try and adjust the meaning. Unfortunately, you have at various places. "Tenryūji, from the Yuan and Ming" - this is a type of glaze, and the Yuan and Ming are two consecutive dynastic periods, covering the period when they were made. WHAT IS DIFFICULT HERE???? The comment "This article is in need of a total revision by someone who knows about the subject or can read Chinese and Japanese. Literate and informed!--Iwanafish 06:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)" was made almost 10 years ago, about a version of which I think nothing survives. Johnbod (talk) 03:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

There were instances where I copyedited the language for the NPOV tone. For example "The finds made it clear that Song types had continued to be produced later than was thought" — made it clear is stronger language then we usually use when summarizing sources, especially when it is based on only one source, so I softened it to "The find suggests that Song types may have still been in production later than was previously thought" — I don't think this "made inaccurate the meaning" — I am perfectly willing to continue working on it and source checking in addition to the copy edit. The content of the article on the whole suggests a POV problem to me because there is not a single mention anywhere in the text about any disagreement in the sources. I have never encountered a topic where all the sources are in perfect harmony with one another. I think the best thing to do here would be to continue refining the text based on WP:RS. If you feel it made "inaccurate the meaning" then you should be specific and base what you are saying on sources. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

What sources were you planning to use? The many sources already used are very high quality, and you will need a very good library to better them. "The content of the article on the whole suggests a POV problem to me because there is not a single mention anywhere in the text about any disagreement in the sources." This is simply bizarre. There are of course many issues of debate among specialists, but none that need mentioning in a short introductory article like this - except the one I do mention, about what to call the stuff. I'm clear that the changes made have not been an improvement, and a full reversion, followed by a few tweaks, will be best. The problems with the "copyedit" are summed up with the change from:

"A sunken trade vessel was found in Sinan County off the Korean coast in 1976, whose cargo included over 9,600 pieces of celadon from the Yuan period, though not of the highest quality. These were probably bound for Japan; there was a single religious statuette.[34] Sunk in 1323,[35] the finds made it clear that Song types had continued to be produced later than was thought.[36][37]"

to: "A sunken trade vessel from 1323 was found in Sinan County off the Korean coast in 1976, whose cargo included over 9,600 celadon sherds from the Yuan period; a single religious statuette was found along with the sherds. This cargo was probably bound for Japan.[34][35] The find suggests that Song types[definition needed] may have still been in production later than was previously thought.[36][37]"

- the pieces have completely wrongly been changed to "sherds", and though you haven't seen either ref, you have decided to distrust them, and reduce their sense in a waffly weasel way, adding a silly tag. What do you think "Song types" might mean?? I can't reasonably be expected to wade through tens of changes of this sort. Johnbod (talk) 04:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually if there is debate in the sources it does need to be mentioned. I'm reverting your recent "No - yuck!" revert, I thought sherd was used in the original, but I will check. I have no idea what "Song types" means because it was never discussed in the article, and the entire relationship between Northern and Southern song could be explained better, as well as the official kiln and what this actually means. I've asked for the Gompertz pages at the Resource Excange and I will compare them to other sources, I have access to scholarly databases so adding more sources will not be a problem. There are actual errors in the original version, besides typos and run-on sentences like:

"There were also large quantities exported west to the Islamic world, and one of the most important collections today is the 1,300 pieces surviving from the collection of the Ottoman Emperors, most now in the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul. A few pieces reached Europe by trade of diplomatic gifts from Islamic countries, and were sometimes given elaborate metalwork mounts, turning them into goblets. Their worth was increased by a belief in the Middle East and Europe that the pieces would break or change colour if poison was placed on them."

Other sources give this number as "(over) 1350 pieces of Celadon" for the Topkapı collection alone. We usually confirm using multiple sources, this is all discussed in WP:NPOV. Editing Wikipedia is a collaborative process, an article is not finished just because you say it is. Anyone can edit it. You are demonstrating clear WP:OWN behavior by saying "I can't reasonably be expected to wade through ...changes of the sort." No, you don't have to, unless you want to make changes to it, or revert another editors work. Then you need to discuss and give reasons for the changes you want to make. Edits do not need your approval. I am still working on this article, so I will go over it for sourcing issues. I would suggest leaving the copy-edit alone, since I broke up several run on sentences and corrected typos that should not be restored because you don't want to "check" them. Also please read WP:INDENT, it makes it harder to read discussions when you randomly outdent. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Fine, go ahead. At least you will end a little clearer as to the difference and "entire relationship between Northern and Southern song" (sic). Or of course you could just read the linked articles. But let's be clear that the article is still worse than it was before you started, and liable to a wholesale revert on normal principles. Be sure you are counting just the right kinds of celadon in the Topkapi collection! I've removed the packed mode, which is clearly worse. An extensive discussion at the VA project concluded these rarely worked in art articles. I'm completely failing to see any "run-on" issue in the passage you've quoted, though of course there is a typo, as it should be "reached Europe by trade oR diplomatic gifts", not "of". You've neatly sorted that by omitting the more important trade altogether - wonderful, and typical of your editing!! I hope you are comfortable with the alternative Romanizations of Chinese, btw. You will need to be. Johnbod (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The article did not say anything about trade to Europe in that section when I edited it. What is said was "by trade of diplomatic gifts." I changed it to "as diplomatic gifts." I'm not a mind reader. I haven't seen you make any improvements, only complain. You seem to have time to do that on talk, but not time to go over the article and make actual improvements. I have tried to address all the specific concerns that you raised and I am going to keep working on the article with sources. This is the kind of writing I copy-edited:

• "A story repeated in many sources from the Yuan onwards, with uncertain significance, tells of two brothers called Zhang, both Longquan potters, perhaps in the Southern Song, though this is unclear"
• "The Southern Song period saw the finest quality, and a great range of colours, as well as a great expansion of production."
• "However even the stoutly potted celadons of the Ming period have had their imitators at Jingdezhen and in Japan."
• "Longquan celadon enjoyed a final period of high achievement under the early Ming dynasty, when it was an official kiln operated by and for the court"
• "Longquan wares were not from one of the Five Great Kilns later grouped by Chinese connoisseurs, and are rarely mentioned in early writing on the subject, although in the Qing dynasty careful imitations were made."

So the article is in much better shape then it was when I started, but it was just a simple copy edit. This article probably needs to be thoroughly source-checked as well. And when I used "these celadon" I followed the convention in the article, which you can see in the above examples. This was probably a mistake given the grammar problems in the article and I will check with sources which of these forms is correct (celadon or celdons).Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Yada yada, go on. I forsee a deeper hole being dug. Remember, if an earlier version is better, it should be reverted to. Johnbod (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not. Does it still need a lot of work? Yes. It was just a copyedit. I did the best I could on an article that does not even make sense in certain parts. I mean does not make sense like "Longquan celadon was an official kiln." There isn't much to debate about this. I don't sneak in substantive content or source-based edits when I'm copy-editing. In fact, I am careful not to, because I think that is distasteful and disrespectful to other editors. I prefer to add clarify tags and continue working on the article, or allowing other editors to work on it. There is no real consensus discussion here, beyond your WP:OWN issues, so I suggest we stop here, unless you are determined to waste community time over this by escalating. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The article now says: "... it was an official kiln operated of the court.[clarification needed]" That is YOUR phrase. Before you touched the article it read "... when it was an official kiln operated by and for the court." Check the history. Hopeless! I daresay you don't introduce these mistakes deliberately, but you are doing it all the time. Johnbod (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

What I need clarified is how are celadon are a kiln (official or otherwise)? Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

As the article makes entirely clear, Longquan is a kiln site, in fact comprising many actual kilns, celadon is (you KEEP getting that wrong) a type of ceramic ware. Johnbod (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm very concerned that you don't understand why the text of the article is unclear. It does not say "Longquan became the region where official court kilns were operated." It does not say whether there was one official kiln, or several. In fact what it says is Longquan celadons are an official kiln. So again how is cealdon a kiln site? Can you stay on topic? "Longquan celadon is a kiln site" does not really solve the problem. Maybe it would just be better if I wait for the sources and fix it myself. Have you reviewed these sources or are you just commenting here to be disruptive? Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

As you should know from the history, I have read the sources and written virtually all the former text. It is you who are being disruptive. It is becoming increasingly clear that what we have here is largely a problem with English comprehension. The article never said "Longquan celadons are an official kiln". It said "Unlike Northern Celadon under the Northern Song, Longquan ware does not seem to have been used by the imperial court,[21] although Longquan kilns were used to make the "official" Guan ware, apparently when the Guan kilns could not cope with orders.[22]" (and most of these terms were already linked). That was the only use of "official" in the old version. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• Examples of garbling and introducing inaccuracies:
• A) BEFORE: A story repeated in many sources from the Yuan onwards, with uncertain significance, tells of two brothers called Zhang, both Longquan potters, perhaps in the Southern Song, though this is unclear. The elder brother developed a very special type of ware; rightly or wrongly the later sources say this was distinguished by crackled glaze, and Ge ware (meaning "elder brother ware") is supposed to be this type. The younger brother also developed a fine" style of pottery, which is often taken to be the best quality early Longquan ware.[32]
• A) AFTER: "A story repeated in many sources from the Yuan period onwards, with uncertain significance, tells of two brothers called Zhang, who are both Longquan potters. The elder brother develops a very special type of ware; later sources say it was distinguished by crackled glaze and call it Ge ware, meaning "elder brother ware". The younger brother also developed a fine style of pottery; the best quality early Longquan ware.[32]"

B) "*"However even the stoutly potted celadons of the Ming period have had their imitators at Jingdezhen and in Japan." - this was just cut!

More examples when I have time. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

What it said was Longquan celadon enjoyed a final period of high achievement under the early Ming dynasty, when it was an official kiln operated by and for the court. — I need sources to correct this further. If you continue to be disruptive and use personal attacks, comments, WP:ASPERSIONS etc. we can take this to dispute resolution and try to work it out there. Maybe that will be more productive, I have given up on this discussion. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes, there was that, which you promptly garbled. What does "I need sources to correct this further" mean? Since you refuse to WP:AGF you should be able to find sources. Your editing, though no-doubt well-meaning, has been deleterious to the article from the start, and you should not expect people to refrain from saying so. Johnbod (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I am waiting for the Resource Exchange to send me the sources. I could just bulldoze over the article with other sources that I can easily access but that would be impolite, so I've requested the pages you used. And no, I did not garble it. If it is important that the kiln is operated for the court that can easily be added back in, what I can not easily do is decipher the meaning of the sentence. That makes copy editing difficult. If I had appreciated the extent of the problem, namely that there is a long-term editor here with WP:OWN issues who behaves disruptively when challenged, I would have declined the copy edit and started with a source check. You have already told me what you think and I disagree with you. You don't WP:OWN articles that you create. I have been very patient but in the time you spent pushing for a revert you could have checked the article and responded to the issues I raised productively. I suspect this has something to do with WP:OWN issues. This is not the first time I have seen a prolific editor display seriously disruptive WP:OWN behavior. I advise that you calm down and try to make your points in a WP:CIVIL way in the future. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

As I've said, I'll leave all your mistakes for now, and let you get on with it. But I repeat that the version to survive will be the best one. Other editors in this and other fields know that I have no problem with their edits when they are constructive, well-sourced and based on understanding of the subject. For anyone else interested in this (and comments are very welcome), I'll give a link to the last version before Seraphim System began his edits. Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC about Image Gallery

The consensus is to use the standard image gallery for this article.

Cunard (talk) 09:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should we use packed or standard image gallery for this article?

• Argument for standard is this RfC: Talk:Paul_Signac#Use_of_packed_gallery, which decided that standard format was preferable at another art article, with implications for others.
• Argument for packed is one editor feels that it looks better on this article, wasted spaced, and displays better on some screens (especially mobile). Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Packed:

• 
  Flask, Yuan dynasty, 1271-1368
• 
  "Mallet" vase with stylized animal handles, Southern Song, 12th century
• 
  Pair of funerary lidded vases with animals; left, tiger chasing a dog, right, dragon chasing a pearl, Southern Song
• 
  Dish with sprigged fish in biscuit, and effects from glaze collecting in the incised decoration, Yuan, 14th century

Standard:

• 
  Flask, Yuan dynasty, 1271-1368
• 
  "Mallet" vase with stylized animal handles, Southern Song, 12th century
• 
  Pair of funerary lidded vases with animals; left, tiger chasing a dog, right, dragon chasing a pearl, Southern Song
• 
  Dish with sprigged fish in biscuit, and effects from glaze collecting in the incised decoration, Yuan, 14th century

• Standard - much better. Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
• Standard - both versions are fine and it's purely a matter of personal preference. However, as Johnbod is the main author of the article, I think his preference should be respected. -Zanhe (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the closing admin should ignore the above comment. I should not have to start a new RfC after I have expanded the article because of votes like this one. The above comment should be counted as neutral because explicit support for an editors claims of WP:OWNing an article against our policies should not be counted towards consensus. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

So essentially no one is allowed to agree with me? Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• This is not about WP:OWN. It's about letting prolific editors such as Johnbod devote their time to writing more useful content, rather than being bogged down by minor disputes over cosmetic issues like this. -Zanhe (talk) 09:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

That is exactly what WP:OWN is about, no one is forcing Johnbod to spend their time on any particular article, I certainly don't think stalling improvement on an article is a good use of his time or mine. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Packed Standard is an eyesore in general, but especially on mobile it's no contest, it's not really a matter of personal preference—packed mode should be preferred unless there is a compelling reason not to use it, as in the above RfC where the extremely colorful images were difficult to distinguish from one another in packed mode. Anyone who compares these on mobile can easily see that packed is the superior option (NOTE: I modified the gallery size slightly from the original posting so the captions would display better) Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
• Standard is the norm that I see in most Wikipedia articles. That is the one that I would go with. (P.S. I see no value in going with the views of the person who happened to write much of any Wikipedia article. Use the approach that makes most sense or gets the most support in the Talk page discussion = collaboration and consensus.) Peter K Burian (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Standard is still used (as is pixel) but it should be changed unless there is a very compelling reason not to change it. The reason for this is obvious if you view the difference on a mobile device, as I am. Packed is the future, and it makes a big difference on mobile and smaller screens - I'm guessing it was introduced in the hopes that we would consider using it. I update to packed whenever I can and I think this is eapecially important since more people are e using smart phones to view wikipedia (though as editors we have a different perspective, we should keep this in mind)Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• Standard (Summoned by bot) I don't use Wikipedia on Mobile, so I cannot speak for how that works or feels. I think that standard is good enough, because people can see all the pictures and if they want them enlarged, they can click them to get the larger resolutions. I feel that Packed just makes the images look crowded. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 13:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Crowded it better then the ugly borders. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the borders neaten up the gallery. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended Discussion

Yes, you certainly did. THIS is the version you added to the article, and reverted to maintain: Johnbod (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• 
  Flask, Yuan dynasty, 1271-1368
• 
  "Mallet" vase with stylized animal handles, Southern Song, 12th century
• 
  Pair of funerary lidded vases with animals; left, tiger chasing a dog, right, dragon chasing a pearl, Southern Song
• 
  Dish with sprigged fish in biscuit, and effects from glaze collecting in the incised decoration, Yuan, 14th century

• When I narrow my desktop browser and look at the alternatives given in the presentation of this RFC, I prefer the Packed arrangement since it uses space efficiently, putting the first two images side by side, each wide enough so that the caption of each is also laid out reasonably. It gives the impression that we can count on the browser to lay things out smartly. However, looking at the rendition immediately above, provided by Johnbod, of the gallery as it has originally been laid out in the article, in my desktop browser at regular width, I'm seeing:

The caption under the second is ridiculously narrow, with line breaks inserted within words. While the Standard arrangement isn't optimal, it's better than this. Largoplazo (talk) 10:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment Can editors please limit themselves to comment on the version actually presented in the RfC so the closer can evaluate consensus? I don't know why Johnbod is posting only after I modified the gallery to commodate caption length. The issue raised in his reverts was standard/packed based on a previous RfC — he hasn't said anything about caption length before now. It doesn't seem productive, if he had raised the issue in a civil way, modifying the gallery to accomodate the caption length would have been an easy fix. Does this mean that we agree on the packed version as it is presented in the RfC? Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Your question was whether we should use Standard or Packed. Your presentation implied that Standard Looks This Way and Packed Looks This Way, as this presentation is what you were asking us to base our responses on. It turns out the that's a false dichotomy because either or both of them doesn't look one way. So I could say, "I prefer Packed" based on the one presentation only to find that someone has gone off and made it Packed but not looking like what I thought I'd expressed a preference for. So your request involves a bit of handwaving: "I've given you one example of what Packed might look like that I meant to be appealing, so please don't go off and discover that Packed can also be unappealing depending on other factors that I omitted from consideration." Largoplazo (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

This is entirely unecessary, the gallery size can easily be modified, but I don't see any need for an extended discussion on this since I've already modified the gallery size. This shouldn't have escalated to RfC but it has because discussion does not seem to working. I'm not trying to trick anyone into agreeing to the packed version so I can circumvent it and modify the gallery after the RfC. The RfC is for the gallery as posted, I don't think there is anything ambiguous about that. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

"Should we use packed or standard image gallery for this article?" was the question. You're correct that it's unambiguous: it unambiguously doesn't specify that the question concerns the gallery as posted. Largoplazo (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I can leave a note for the closer to note this in the close the result is "packed" would that satisfy you? Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Source check

At Wikipedia's Resource Exchange, an editor requested copies of about 50 pages of Gompertz's Chinese Celadon Wares, 2nd ed. They stated that their initial purpose is to check citations in this article against that source. I have the book, but am not comfortable copying so many pages of it within the limits of fair use. So I have offered to check some or all of the citations, posting the results here. We'll see how it goes, but I hope this plan will substantially reduce the number of pages that the requester needs copied. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

p. 26 #1

Source

Lung-ch'uan celadon became so famous ... that exports from China reached staggering proportions ... at the opposite extremity of Asia an incredible number of celadons were collected by the Sultans of Turkey, some thirteen hundred of which are still kept at the Topkapu Palace in Istanbul.

Article

Celadons were also exported westward to the Islamic world; one of the most significant porcelain collections in the world is at the Topkapı Palace in Istanbul.

Analysis

• Page 26 does not describe the Topkapi collection as one of the most significant. However, p. 182 says "In the Topkapu Palace at Istanbul there are some 1,300 celadons mainly of this type [Longquan of the Uyan and Ming periods], probably the most important group remaining in existence."
• Saying "most significant porcelain collections" (emphasis mine) overstates the source, which talks only about a subset of porcelain, namely Longquan celadon.
• The text indicates a connection between westward exports and the collection by using a semicolon, but weakens the connection by omitting the size of the trade, size of the collection, and who was collecting it when

Recommendation

Large quantities were also exported westward to the Islamic world; one of the most significant collections today is the 1,300 pieces at the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul, collected by the Ottoman Emperors. (cite pages 26 and 182)

Comment Really you need to look at the version before SS started messing the article up (linked above). The original said: "There were also large quantities exported west to the Islamic world, and one of the most important collections today is the 1,300 pieces surviving from the collection of the Ottoman Emperors, most now in the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul" - ie almost exactly what you recommend! But not all the Ottoman collection is still at Topkapi. Some is certainly in other Turkish museums, perhaps on quasi-loan. Note he has changed to describe celadon as "porcelain", but also changed the lead to call it stoneware! More on that issue here, about 6 inches down. Johnbod (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I checked other sources for this, and I used porcelain because the article has consistently and incorrectly used porcelain throughout. The sources I've seen for Topkapi use the 1,300 to describe only the Topkapi selection. The original version is wrong, and it is more misreading of the source (like porcelain/stoneware) which is why I asked for this. I've also asked this editor numerous times to stop making personal attacks. My version isn't perfect but it's an improvement over what was here when I started, and it was the best I could do without the sources. It seems the sources don't matter unless they say what Johnbod wants them to say. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The version before you arrived never described Longquan celadon as porcelain at all. This far into the argument, you are still coming out with very easily checked untruths - why bother? You were the one who introduced this description. What are these mysterious "other sources"? Johnbod (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Under WP:SPECIFICLINK the article should link to Stoneware, not Chinese ceramics. The Topkapi Collection includes far more then Celadon, but it may be better to change this because it is unclear. One of the most significant porcelain collections in the world is at Topkapi, (it has more then 10,000 pieces), but this article should be clear that Longquan Celadon are not porcelain, the way I wrote it was not ideal. I was trying to correct the unsourced and clumsy statement that part of that "most of that collection is now in the Topkapi palace" - this should be rewritten to reflect that the Topkapi celadon collection has about 1,300 pieces. Ideally there would be a source added for how many of those celadon are Lonquan celadon (some may be high-quality Japanese pottery, etc. currently called "imitations" in this article - this language should also be cite checked.) It should not make unsourced assumptions about whether some of the pieces are on loan, or located outside the palace (as this situation changes frequently, and this statement is currently based entirely on unsourced assertion.) I've templated for these problems, but I think it would be better addressed by an uninvolved editor. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll just say that Stoneware is a far more general term than Chinese ceramics - I ate my dinner off some today, as perhaps did you. You are the one who wrongly added "porcelain" to that sentence, as already pointed out. Johnbod (talk) 02:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

What I wrote wasn't incorrect. It is less misleading then saying "1,300 celadons" because we can't know the origins of all the celadons, and the inclusion of that number in this article without more specific sources would strongly imply that all the celadons were from the Longquan kilns- I know it's not ideal, but additional sources are needed for further precision here. You seem to have the source in front of you, so if I were you, I would focus on fixing the problems with the article, which must be very embarrassing. I'm not interested in continuing to escalate this, especially as you seem deadset on disputing every source that contradicts what you originally wrote. As for stoneware, last night you refused to accept it was stoneware at all, and said "OUP" was a non-expert source. There are numerous sources for this, and OUP most certainly does not have articles written by "non-experts" (who are named, and usually include citations, making OUP a very high quality encyclopedic source for evaluating due weight). I think the stoneware link is more precise because it has information about what stoneware is, and also because Longquan celadons are stoneware and Chinese ceramics is a very broad article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

What the old (and now current) version said was: "In traditional Western terms, celadons are strictly counted as stoneware, since the fired clay body is neither white nor translucent. In the traditional Chinese classification, which divides pottery into low-fired earthenware and high-fired porcelain, they count as porcelain. Compromise terms such as "porcellanous stoneware" may be used to describe the pieces, and some Western writers consider the wares should be "regarded as porcelains".[5]" It then refrained from describing them by either term, which is the best way. The article already used OUP's Grove, which is the big brother of the Decorative arts Grove you managed to find. Johnbod (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

What you said on your talk page was "Longquan Celadon is on the border between stoneware and porcelain, and is often called both. The old version was careful not to call it either, but explained the situation. The new reference, from a short entry by a non-specialist, contradicts his fuller account elsewhere, not to mention the 4th para of the lead" — I don't see it as "explaining the situation" or accurately following the sources, which don't say "it is on the border" - as I said, I consider OUP to be an excellent source for evaluating due weight. There are other sources and nothing is stopping you from improving the body in a way that is WP:NPOV based on WP:RS that follows our basic policies for how to write an article including WP:LEDE for example there is considerable material that could be added like this [1] but there are also many sources like this [2] what you are describing as "was careful not to call it either, but explained the sitation" is an unbalanced lede that hasn't explained much of anything, but has cherrypicked quotes to create an perceivable bias in the article (including the prominence of placement, and the length at which the paragraph explains that alternate classifications exist, and de-emphasizing all sources that call it stoneware.) Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

p. 26 #2

Article

A few pieces reached Europe as diplomatic gifts from Islamic countries; these were sometimes given elaborate metalwork mounts that turned them into goblets.

Analysis

• Page 26 does not mention diplomatic gifts, metalwork mounts, or goblets.

Recommendation

{{citation needed}}

• Comment Again the original is: "A few pieces reached Europe by trade of diplomatic gifts from Islamic countries, and were sometimes given elaborate metalwork mounts, turning them into goblets" Here "of diplomatic" is a fairly obvious typo for "or diplomatic". Gompertz, 26 mentions "the celebrated Warham bowl" which 2 secs on google shows you is a Longquan bowl "given elaborate metalwork mounts that turned them into goblets". Trade, which was most important, and SS has cut, can I think be assumed from Gompertz, but another ref is needed for diplomatic gifts (easily done if you have the sources). Clunas for example has a German example, also here; the Katzenelnbogen Bowl. The text there is also a ref for "diplomatic gifts", and the anti-poison idea. See also Gompertz, 147, which should be added to the ref, as should the Ashmolean and Katzenelnbogen links. Possibly "goblet" is not the best term, though acceptable, as these were probably used for drinking ceremonial toasts. Johnbod (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

"Trade, which was most important, and SS has cut, can I think be assumed from Gompertz" - do I really to say more about why a source check was necessary. I think the editor should stop trying to blame others for the poor quality of this article. I didn't have the sources, and because of the disruptive and non-collaborative tone of this editor, I had to go to Resource Exchange and ask for about 50 pages, which has created more work for other editors. This is really disruptive behavior, and poor quality work, but I am glad we can finally get started on fixing the many issues in this article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

p. 26 #3

Source

The mysterious beauty of the celadon glaze gave rise to various fables: ... in the Near East and Europe it was believed that celadon dishes would disclose the presence of poison in food.

Article

Their value was increased by the belief that a celadon would break or change colour, if poison was placed on them.

Analysis

• The source is not specific about how celadon would react to poison. Possibly this falls under Wikipedia:Common knowledge. If anyone objects, make the text more vague or find a source that goes into more detail on the matter.
• The sentence wraps up sentences about exports to the Ottoman Empire and to Europe. It would do a better job if it mentioned where this fable was believed, as the source does.

Recommendation

Their value was increased by a belief in the Middle East and Europe that the pieces would break or change colour if poison was placed on them.

• Original "Their worth was increased by a belief in the Middle East and Europe that the pieces would break or change colour if poison was placed on them.[27]" Once again, almost exactly what you recommend! There are other refs to this in sources already used, which could be added. Here's a not very high quality one a quick google search turned up, covering "break or change colour". Johnbod (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

---

If there is agreement or no discussion after a few days, I will implement the recommendations. I'll move on to other pages as time permits. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your patient efforts here. I think a clear pattern is emerging! In two cases, what you recommend is almost word for word what was in the article before SS began editing. In the other, knowing (or finding out) what the Warham bowl is solves most of the problem. To save you reading all the arguments in the sections above, my contention is that SS's many edits, without the sources in front of him, have so messed up the article (in far more important ways than these examples have concerned) that the only practicable course is to revert to the version before he began, for me then to read through & try & explain some things better, and then see what people think. Johnbod (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

All this source check proved is that in many places the article text misrepresents the sources, so this is really just an editor trying to protect his version, which is full of statements that misrepresent the sources that the editor did have in front of him by making personal attacks against another editor, which is more difficult now since I finally have proof that this article drastically misrepresents the sources and needs a full source check and rewrite (not just a copy edit.) - and I am adding templates for this. Usually, I do have a pretty good eye for where sources are being misrepresented (much as some editors have a good eye for COPYVIO, and can do a better job then Earwig, this just comes with experience I guess.) I probably should have GOCEreviwed this article, declined and templated it since I didn't have access to the sources, and that is what I will do from now. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Amazing! What it shows is that that all the problems with the text were introduced by you, editing without any sources. Does this mean that you are bowing out? Johnbod (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Editors here aren't stupid, and they will see this through this frankly pathetic distortion. For example the original text said The celadons were located at "topkapi and other museums" without a source, and conflicting with other sources I've seen. The reason given for it is "But not all the Ottoman collection is still at Topkapi. Some is certainly in other Turkish museums, perhaps on quasi-loan." It said porcelain, which it's not, I've seen numerous sources describe it as an extremely high quality stoneware that is almost of the quality of porcelain. This is a misrepresentation. In another place complaining that I removed trade, because it "can I think be assumed from Gompertz"...the only question is how does someone without the sources in front of them have such a deadshot for where the problems are. Can't get them all, I only found porcelain/stoneware yesterday after consulting OUP, which contradicts the article. In fact GEDA calls into confusion more then one claim in this article, including the characterization of the major kilns. It doesn't follow WP:LEDE but Johnbod thinks the problem is that I removed his POV, and content that we now know is unsourced. I am templating it, because I can't deal with this editor, but hopefully someone else will fix it, and I strongly object to restoring "his version" and rewarding these kinds of personal attacks and disruptive behavior. (But he has started following me to other articles now to make personal attacks about my editing, so I really want to just cut this escalating drama short.) I think we can revert and I can GOCEReview decline and leave the appropriate templates instead. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

GOCE Review

I am going to revert back to the original version and decline this review. After the first read through of this article, I did think it needed a source check, but since I could not access the sources, I probably should have declined, instead of copyediting. This was done in good faith. I did not expect to be attacked and yelled at for it - (and now followed to multiple articles where the personal attacks have continued). I asked for the pages at Resource Exchange, but there are too many, and the editor has shown an unwillingness to follow WP:RS when confronted with them (now it has been shown that the content I changed or removed was in large part not supported by the source used, which the editor has tried to justify by saying it is obvious, or it can be assumed.) When I have done checks with other sources, such as OUP, I have found other numerous and significant problems, which the editor has said is a "non-expert source." When I copyedited, I did not sign up for a major content dispute with a disruptive editor who can not follow our standards for WP:CIVIL conduct, and who makes these kinds of disagreements personal and brings them into other articles. I am sincerely appalled, and I have decided to self-revert the copyedit, and instead to GOCEReview-decline and add appropriate templates, so other uninvolved editors can work on the issues. Because of the extent of the sourcing problems, and the fact that even the source check is being challenged, I don't think this article is suitable for a copy edit at this time. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

New version

I have replaced with a new version, expanded at the points SS has raised, and incorporating some of his changes, and introducing new sources. If there are further specific changes wanted, please raise them here, rather than going to GOCE, whose editors won't have subject knowledge and sources available. Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Worldbruce:, perhaps you could kindly revisit and comment on the new version. Johnbod (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The article is reasonably good, and better than the version of 12 July. It could be improved further by a collegial collaboration between a subject matter expert and someone unfamiliar with the topic (and no, I'm not putting myself forward as either), but of course that's easier said than done. If you are minded to take the article higher, to GA or FA, I recommend such a peer review first.

The only observations I'll make are two general ones. Clear and precise inline citations make an article more resistant to merciless editing. To best serve the general reader, be careful not to over-summarize or assume knowledge.

I enjoyed reading the article, and Gompertz. Those of us at WP:RX stand ready to assist if anyone needs access to sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)