| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ru ware article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | A fact from Ru ware appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 October 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
| A fact from Ru ware appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 September 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ru ware. 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/20130314094359/http://english.chnmus.net/Collections/2011-07/06/content_53129.htm to http://english.chnmus.net/Collections/2011-07/06/content_53129.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150408012547/http://exhibition.ceramics.ntpc.gov.tw/celadon/en/b_products_00-3.html to http://exhibition.ceramics.ntpc.gov.tw/celadon/en/b_products_00-3.html
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) 19:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Famousness edit
"Famous" removed from lede per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. There's no need to use the word in any Wikipedia article. If it is truly famous, then the writing should reflect the fact as the essay says. - Bri.public (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- Absoplute nonsense - there are many times when omitting this or a similar term is effectively misleading the reader. You should try reading the policy (not an essay), which begins "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia ...". Johnbod (talk) 04:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- WP:WTW is a guideline so it's stronger than an essay but weaker than a policy. It states emphatically that it "should not be applied rigidly" and so the suggestion that the word "famous" should never be used is too extreme. For example, Mona Lisa is "considered the most famous painting in the world" and that seems reasonable. That article also goes on to say that "but until the 20th century it was simply one among many highly regarded artworks". This seems to be an interesting parallel with Ru ware as I've just come across a paper which shows that the concept of the "five famous kilns" was also developed during the 20th century. Ru ware is the rarest and most precious of these and so it most merits the distinction. It is therefore right to highlight its special nature in the lead and the word "famous" is appropriate as it is now conventional in this context. Andrew D. (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Andrew! Interesting paper, which I'll add to Five Great Kilns. The books all say it goes back further, but he makes a very good case. Johnbod (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- FWIW, both Chinese and Japanese (and probably also Korean) tend to name groups of objects "[number] 大/名 [people/things]" and in this case the Chinese name uses both 大 (great) and 名 (famous). Translating it as a proper noun "Five Famous Kilns" would be fine, but extrapolating from a literal translation of a Chinese linguistic convention that we can ignore standard English Wikipedia writing style is a bit bonkers; it's a bit like saying it's "conventional" to refer to Cleopatra as one of the three great beauties of world history because some Japanese historians do that, grouping her with Yang Guifei and Ono no Komachi. I can even find a publication by the most prestigious university in Japan that mistakenly notes that she is
famous — if not most famous — as [one of] “the three greatest beauties of all time.”
without clarifying that this is only the case in Japan. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)- Well, there's a raft of Seven Wonders of Wales and the like (Wonders of the World (disambiguation)), and most Western books on Chinese ceramics are happy to mention the 5 kilns, so I don't think it's just an East Asian thing. Johnbod (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
- FWIW, both Chinese and Japanese (and probably also Korean) tend to name groups of objects "[number] 大/名 [people/things]" and in this case the Chinese name uses both 大 (great) and 名 (famous). Translating it as a proper noun "Five Famous Kilns" would be fine, but extrapolating from a literal translation of a Chinese linguistic convention that we can ignore standard English Wikipedia writing style is a bit bonkers; it's a bit like saying it's "conventional" to refer to Cleopatra as one of the three great beauties of world history because some Japanese historians do that, grouping her with Yang Guifei and Ono no Komachi. I can even find a publication by the most prestigious university in Japan that mistakenly notes that she is
- Thanks Andrew! Interesting paper, which I'll add to Five Great Kilns. The books all say it goes back further, but he makes a very good case. Johnbod (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- WP:WTW is a guideline so it's stronger than an essay but weaker than a policy. It states emphatically that it "should not be applied rigidly" and so the suggestion that the word "famous" should never be used is too extreme. For example, Mona Lisa is "considered the most famous painting in the world" and that seems reasonable. That article also goes on to say that "but until the 20th century it was simply one among many highly regarded artworks". This seems to be an interesting parallel with Ru ware as I've just come across a paper which shows that the concept of the "five famous kilns" was also developed during the 20th century. Ru ware is the rarest and most precious of these and so it most merits the distinction. It is therefore right to highlight its special nature in the lead and the word "famous" is appropriate as it is now conventional in this context. Andrew D. (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- Absoplute nonsense - there are many times when omitting this or a similar term is effectively misleading the reader. You should try reading the policy (not an essay), which begins "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia ...". Johnbod (talk) 04:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Did You Know edit
The page had a spike in readership yesterday of 5,334 views. This was due to its appearance again in DYK in the lead hook:
- ... that a sherd of pottery found by Ye Zhemin (pictured) led to the identification of the kiln site for the rare Ru ware of the Song dynasty?
Note that this article got the best result of the four blue links, even beating the nominal subject, which only got 4,983. See views. I suppose it's because the phrase looks odd initially and so people click through to find out what it means. Andrew D. (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)