Talk:Doccia porcelain
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Doccia porcelain. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111021003926/http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/a/ceramics-t-is-for-transfer-printing/ to http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/a/ceramics-t-is-for-transfer-printing/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715111026/http://www.pozzi-ginori.com/storia-2/mc_4.swf to http://www.pozzi-ginori.com/storia-2/mc_4.swf
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: 5 June 2024).
- 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) 04:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Title should be changed
editThe Title is misleading. The company was named Doccia Porcelain, but now is called Richard Ginori, so the title should be changed to the latter (actual) name.
This has to be done also to improve the indexing in search engines. It's more probable that a user searches for Richard Ginori instead of Doccia Porcelain.
- Ipsoquam (talk · contribs), the company is apparently now called Ginori 1735 (although the entity is still officially listed as Richard Ginori s.r.l.). Agree that the name of the article should be changed to one or the other. Which is the better of the two? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
I've brought this question to the Help desk too (as it is actually not so obvious how to proceed). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Hardly any of the article is about the current Gucci-owned production; redirects are fine for this. We are not here to help Gucci's marketing department. Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I see your point and don't particularly care about Gucci either (or Kering, which appears to be more precise). Having looked at the way the other language wikis handle this, I now think that we should create a separate article for Richard-Ginori (with hyphen). The new article would in essence start with our current "Later history" section and include other details related to the post-1800s merger through to the current Kering owned brand. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- When does that actually start? We say "Following its merger with Società Richard of Milan in the late 1800s, the company was renamed Richard-Ginori." Does "late 1800s" mean, say, 1808 or 1888? Johnbod (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, 1896, per the Italian wp. That's not the way we typically handle long-established ceramics businesses on en:wp though - Vienna porcelain, Wedgwood etc. To be clear Richard Ginori srl is the company name, Ginori 1735 the brand name. Johnbod (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Johnbod, a glance at your user page indicates that you have deep knowledge of the field and the way we typically handle such things (which I certainly do not), though it's not clear to me what you recommend in this case. Re: the option of splitting this into two articles, I simply meant to point out that all of the other wikis treat the historical entity and the modern-era company (post 1896 merger) as separate, closely related subjects (as does Wikidata: Doccia porcelain (Q1061931); Ginori 1735 (Q48800364)) – which might actually be the best solution here too. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, 1896, per the Italian wp. That's not the way we typically handle long-established ceramics businesses on en:wp though - Vienna porcelain, Wedgwood etc. To be clear Richard Ginori srl is the company name, Ginori 1735 the brand name. Johnbod (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- When does that actually start? We say "Following its merger with Società Richard of Milan in the late 1800s, the company was renamed Richard-Ginori." Does "late 1800s" mean, say, 1808 or 1888? Johnbod (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I see your point and don't particularly care about Gucci either (or Kering, which appears to be more precise). Having looked at the way the other language wikis handle this, I now think that we should create a separate article for Richard-Ginori (with hyphen). The new article would in essence start with our current "Later history" section and include other details related to the post-1800s merger through to the current Kering owned brand. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)