A fact from Cut glass appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 May 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that
John Ruskin wrote that "all cut glass is barbarous; for the cutting conceals its ductility and confuses it with
crystal"?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glass, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
glass on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GlassWikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/GlassTemplate:WikiProject Glassglass articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[Received Pronunciation#Conservative RP|Received Pronunciation]] The anchor (#Conservative RP) is no longer available because it was
deleted by a user before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors
Did you know nomination
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.
... that
John Ruskin wrote that "all cut glass is barbarous; for the cutting conceals its ductility and confuses it with
crystal"?Source: page 32 in Sparke, Penny, "At the Margins of Modernism: The Cut - Crystal Object in the Twentieth Century", 1995, Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester, 1995 , 77 ( 1 ) : 31-38,
PDF
Johnbod, thanks for creating the article, but I am a bit puzzled by your reverts (
[1],
[2]) of my edits to bring the lead into conformity with our guidelines. You have not addressed why you believe that the version you reverted to, which is at odds with
WP:REFERS and contains an overlong and non-capitalized
WP:SHORTDESC, among other issues, is preferable. Could you do so here? Sandstein 20:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)reply
As usual, as well as fiddling with the prose to no good effect, you considerably overstated what the policies actually say. For example
WP:REFERS actually says: "Phrases such as refers to, is the name of, describes the, or is a term for are sometimes used inappropriately in the first sentence of Wikipedia articles". As the article explains, what is meant by "cut glass" today is a bit fiddly, so use here is appropriate. Someone else kindly corrected my caps slip when improving your shortdesc.
Johnbod (
talk)
21:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Hi, 3O guy here. I'll have to agree with
Sandstein here with his
first revision. The current revision makes it sound like cut glass is primarily a historical concept, "In fact today" feels like it's out of place, the "Today" sentence (note the repeat of "today") is a bit complex, and "prominent users" is a lot more simpler than "leading exponents". Cut glass still exists and is still produced, so "refers historically" should come later since the historical method of production isn't the main method used nowadays. Formal writing doesn't require us to be super complex with these things.
AdoTang (
talk)
15:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)reply
No, in fact
this was his first rewording, which runs into problems straightaway by using
glassware - a chandelier is not that. His
second attempt begins with "Cut glass or cut-glass is glass shaped by grinding or drilling techniques applied as a secondary stage to a piece of glass made by conventional processes such as
glassblowing." which is not true in at least two ways ("shaped" is wrong). There is a lot to pack into the first para here - in particular style vs technique. Perhaps you would like to attempt a draft? I am not especially wedded to "refers", except that Sandstein's entirely erroneous bullying and over-statement of what policies actually say should be resisted.
Johnbod (
talk)
01:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Made an edit using elements of yours and Sandstein's, let me know if that's fine. Also, if you have this much of an issue with Sandstein (you mentioned "bullying"), shouldn't you, like, take this somewhere? Like, I dunno,
WP:DRN?
AdoTang (
talk)
13:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)reply
A fact from Cut glass appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 May 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that
John Ruskin wrote that "all cut glass is barbarous; for the cutting conceals its ductility and confuses it with
crystal"?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glass, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
glass on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GlassWikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/GlassTemplate:WikiProject Glassglass articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[Received Pronunciation#Conservative RP|Received Pronunciation]] The anchor (#Conservative RP) is no longer available because it was
deleted by a user before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors
Did you know nomination
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.
... that
John Ruskin wrote that "all cut glass is barbarous; for the cutting conceals its ductility and confuses it with
crystal"?Source: page 32 in Sparke, Penny, "At the Margins of Modernism: The Cut - Crystal Object in the Twentieth Century", 1995, Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester, 1995 , 77 ( 1 ) : 31-38,
PDF
Johnbod, thanks for creating the article, but I am a bit puzzled by your reverts (
[1],
[2]) of my edits to bring the lead into conformity with our guidelines. You have not addressed why you believe that the version you reverted to, which is at odds with
WP:REFERS and contains an overlong and non-capitalized
WP:SHORTDESC, among other issues, is preferable. Could you do so here? Sandstein 20:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)reply
As usual, as well as fiddling with the prose to no good effect, you considerably overstated what the policies actually say. For example
WP:REFERS actually says: "Phrases such as refers to, is the name of, describes the, or is a term for are sometimes used inappropriately in the first sentence of Wikipedia articles". As the article explains, what is meant by "cut glass" today is a bit fiddly, so use here is appropriate. Someone else kindly corrected my caps slip when improving your shortdesc.
Johnbod (
talk)
21:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Hi, 3O guy here. I'll have to agree with
Sandstein here with his
first revision. The current revision makes it sound like cut glass is primarily a historical concept, "In fact today" feels like it's out of place, the "Today" sentence (note the repeat of "today") is a bit complex, and "prominent users" is a lot more simpler than "leading exponents". Cut glass still exists and is still produced, so "refers historically" should come later since the historical method of production isn't the main method used nowadays. Formal writing doesn't require us to be super complex with these things.
AdoTang (
talk)
15:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)reply
No, in fact
this was his first rewording, which runs into problems straightaway by using
glassware - a chandelier is not that. His
second attempt begins with "Cut glass or cut-glass is glass shaped by grinding or drilling techniques applied as a secondary stage to a piece of glass made by conventional processes such as
glassblowing." which is not true in at least two ways ("shaped" is wrong). There is a lot to pack into the first para here - in particular style vs technique. Perhaps you would like to attempt a draft? I am not especially wedded to "refers", except that Sandstein's entirely erroneous bullying and over-statement of what policies actually say should be resisted.
Johnbod (
talk)
01:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Made an edit using elements of yours and Sandstein's, let me know if that's fine. Also, if you have this much of an issue with Sandstein (you mentioned "bullying"), shouldn't you, like, take this somewhere? Like, I dunno,
WP:DRN?
AdoTang (
talk)
13:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)reply