![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2020 and 7 December 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Nldimick,
JStilwell.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 21:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the text of this article may have been cut and pasted from a copyrighted source. Most of the text was added by an anonymous ip on 6 Dec 2010 to create this version. The bracketed numbers are the inline citations. I haven't been able to identify the source. Aa77zz ( talk) 11:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm proposing that this page be merged with Islamic stone-paste. I am not aware enough about the subject to make this decision definitively. It seems that Fritware and Islamic Stone-Paste may be the same type of pottery, but developed through two separate traditions. That said, they should probably occupy one page that notes both names, and then explains the two different traditions. I don't think there is a need for two pages where the first line expressly acknowledges that fritware and Islamic stone-paste are the same thing. Magic1million ( talk) 16:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, a colleague recently asked me to look at the "fritware" page after I told them that there was no such thing as fritware. Just so you know, on the "fritware" page I'd say that I am the most cited author. My research has shown that this material is not and does not include frit, and "fritware" is a term that seems to be used by people that don't understand technology. Any technologically-aware author uses the term "stonepaste", including Goffer who is cited several times in the first para even though it is a tertiary source. I was thinking of starting a page on stonepaste, but I see there used to be one and it was rolled under fritware by you.
RBJM ( talk) 20:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with
Johnbod that sources are split as to whether to use the term "stonepaste" or "fritware".
Museum websites:
The printed sources are also split. Most of the books I own, admittedly written by art historians, use fritware. Here are some of them:
RBJM wrote above "My research has shown that this material is not and does not include frit ..." If this were true then much of the article would be incorrect as would most of the sources including Goffer 2006 who claims that stonepaste includes frit. It is not clear to me why RBJM believes that the material does not include frit. What does he understand by frit?
According to my Webster's dictionary the word frit can mean either "a) the calcined or partly fused materials of which glass is made, or b) any of various chemically complex glasses used ground esp. to introduce soluble or unstable ingredients into glazes or enamels." The Oxford Dictionary has: "1 frɪt ▶ noun [mass noun] the mixture of silica and fluxes which is fused at high temperature to make glass . mixture of silica and fluxes which is fused at high temperature material Glassmaking frit ■ a calcined and pulverized mixture similar to frit, used to make soft-paste porcelain or ceramic glazes . similar calcined and pulverized mixture used to make soft-paste porcelain or ceramic glazes material Pottery"
To summarise: I don't have strong arguments for whether the wikipedia article should be under fritware rather than stonepaste. I slightly prefer stonepaste to stone-paste but dislike Islamic stone-paste. The dictionary definitions above suggest that frit can either refer to a partly fused mixture when manufacturing glass or to crushed and powdered glass. The article uses the second meaning. - Aa77zz ( talk) 15:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- have taken the reader directly to this page since the merge. Johnbod ( talk) 15:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I hope I am doing this right, I haven't had much experience! I'd just like to thank you for your interest in this, I know you all are very active in creating this very useful resource. In the refernces above, I am Mason. I'm not sure a general dictionary is useful in this, but as it turns out Wikipedia's article on what frit actually is seems spot-on. Frit strictly is a product of sintering quartz and flux elements together, a process that is used in the solid-state creation of glass. What is added to stonepast is glass, not frit: 8 parts of quartz, one part of clay, and one part of glass. The mediaeval treatises say this, and my research confirmed this, as the inclusions represent recrystallised bodies that were originally entirely vitreous. I'm sure if Henderson wrote about it now, he would call it stonepaste. In my original paper with Mike Tite, we may have used the term "frit" in the abstract so people understood what we were talking about, but the text itself would have made it clearer. Goffer's book is actually very general, with only a paragraph on this, and this "9th century origin" I think comes from his text but the real source is not given, which is actually another paper by me. Stonepaste is actually a translation of the Persian term for this material. I would not favour "Islamic Stonepaste" as Islam is a religion, not a technology. By the way, the ancient material is distinctly different, not having clay in the composition.
RBJM (
talk)
17:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2020 and 7 December 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Nldimick,
JStilwell.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 21:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the text of this article may have been cut and pasted from a copyrighted source. Most of the text was added by an anonymous ip on 6 Dec 2010 to create this version. The bracketed numbers are the inline citations. I haven't been able to identify the source. Aa77zz ( talk) 11:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm proposing that this page be merged with Islamic stone-paste. I am not aware enough about the subject to make this decision definitively. It seems that Fritware and Islamic Stone-Paste may be the same type of pottery, but developed through two separate traditions. That said, they should probably occupy one page that notes both names, and then explains the two different traditions. I don't think there is a need for two pages where the first line expressly acknowledges that fritware and Islamic stone-paste are the same thing. Magic1million ( talk) 16:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, a colleague recently asked me to look at the "fritware" page after I told them that there was no such thing as fritware. Just so you know, on the "fritware" page I'd say that I am the most cited author. My research has shown that this material is not and does not include frit, and "fritware" is a term that seems to be used by people that don't understand technology. Any technologically-aware author uses the term "stonepaste", including Goffer who is cited several times in the first para even though it is a tertiary source. I was thinking of starting a page on stonepaste, but I see there used to be one and it was rolled under fritware by you.
RBJM ( talk) 20:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with
Johnbod that sources are split as to whether to use the term "stonepaste" or "fritware".
Museum websites:
The printed sources are also split. Most of the books I own, admittedly written by art historians, use fritware. Here are some of them:
RBJM wrote above "My research has shown that this material is not and does not include frit ..." If this were true then much of the article would be incorrect as would most of the sources including Goffer 2006 who claims that stonepaste includes frit. It is not clear to me why RBJM believes that the material does not include frit. What does he understand by frit?
According to my Webster's dictionary the word frit can mean either "a) the calcined or partly fused materials of which glass is made, or b) any of various chemically complex glasses used ground esp. to introduce soluble or unstable ingredients into glazes or enamels." The Oxford Dictionary has: "1 frɪt ▶ noun [mass noun] the mixture of silica and fluxes which is fused at high temperature to make glass . mixture of silica and fluxes which is fused at high temperature material Glassmaking frit ■ a calcined and pulverized mixture similar to frit, used to make soft-paste porcelain or ceramic glazes . similar calcined and pulverized mixture used to make soft-paste porcelain or ceramic glazes material Pottery"
To summarise: I don't have strong arguments for whether the wikipedia article should be under fritware rather than stonepaste. I slightly prefer stonepaste to stone-paste but dislike Islamic stone-paste. The dictionary definitions above suggest that frit can either refer to a partly fused mixture when manufacturing glass or to crushed and powdered glass. The article uses the second meaning. - Aa77zz ( talk) 15:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- have taken the reader directly to this page since the merge. Johnbod ( talk) 15:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I hope I am doing this right, I haven't had much experience! I'd just like to thank you for your interest in this, I know you all are very active in creating this very useful resource. In the refernces above, I am Mason. I'm not sure a general dictionary is useful in this, but as it turns out Wikipedia's article on what frit actually is seems spot-on. Frit strictly is a product of sintering quartz and flux elements together, a process that is used in the solid-state creation of glass. What is added to stonepast is glass, not frit: 8 parts of quartz, one part of clay, and one part of glass. The mediaeval treatises say this, and my research confirmed this, as the inclusions represent recrystallised bodies that were originally entirely vitreous. I'm sure if Henderson wrote about it now, he would call it stonepaste. In my original paper with Mike Tite, we may have used the term "frit" in the abstract so people understood what we were talking about, but the text itself would have made it clearer. Goffer's book is actually very general, with only a paragraph on this, and this "9th century origin" I think comes from his text but the real source is not given, which is actually another paper by me. Stonepaste is actually a translation of the Persian term for this material. I would not favour "Islamic Stonepaste" as Islam is a religion, not a technology. By the way, the ancient material is distinctly different, not having clay in the composition.
RBJM (
talk)
17:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)