Talk:Potter's wheel

message: Anyone know anything about the BBC interlude?   — P Ingerson (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC interlude 

message: In the history part: The exact time and place of the first development of the potter's wheel is uncertain. Suggested dates range from as early as the 6th millennium BC to the as late as the 24th century BC. Some mistake here, surely? --Nick 12:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, "... in use around 4500 BC in the Near East, were turned slowly by hand or by foot while coiling a pot. Only a small range of vessels were fashioned on the tournette, suggesting that it was used by a limited number of potters.[2]" - in that article the tournette is described thousand years later!! Based on that I dare to change the datein the article.HJJHolm (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake in history section 

message: Early pottery built by coiling were often placed on mats.... Sigh. If you really must have this change of wording then please rewrite the rest of the sentence so that it makes sense. Regards, Nick. Nick 19:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In English, please 

message: Hi all. I have editted the words a little but more attention is still needed, including internal links, AND supporting citations. ThnaxTheriac 15:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted deletion and removed the how-to tag on this section -- not because I disagree with the complaint but because some of the material should be reworked and salvaged.  Anyone have a little time to spare?  WBardwin 06:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The whole point of the howto tag is that it categorises the page as needing cleanup and thus gives it greater visibility amongst editors who browse the cleanup categories for pages to improve. Please don't remove cleanup tags without addressing the issues they point out: doing so makes it likely the article will get less attention, not more. Chris Cunningham 15:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find such tags authoritative and impersonal and do not believe they are productive in any way.  They seem to lead to veiled commands, such as "Please don't remove cleanup tags without addressing the issues..." found above, rather than promote discussion.  I don't use these tags myself, with the exception of those like the merge which promote discussion, and so don't respond positively to them.  In my opinion, if you have time and energy enough to tag the article, you should fix whatever you see as the problem.  As to those editors that browse the clean up pages, surely there is a less agressive way of flagging an article for review.  WBardwin 04:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, all I can do is disagree. I primarily copyedit articles by first tagging them and then addressing the subject of the tags. I can't stop people from taking offense at having their work "marked" in such a way, but I can point out that no malice or personal judgement is meant by it. If I think an issue needs deeper discussion than a simple tag, I generally try hard to discuss it while editing, but in this particular case I don't think I could impart any more by a deeper comment than could be given by tagging it and directing interested editors to the category page for pointers on how to remedy the situation. As for the comment that if I have "time and energy enough to tag the article": again, no offense, but seeing as there's nothing offensive about tagging an article, I should be free to balance my time between editing articles of higher priority and tagging those in need of serious attention. Chris Cunningham 12:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tagging any article, in my opinion, is equivalent to the neighborhood toughs "tagging" the walls and fence of my business.  They want to leave a mark!  My guidelines are fairly simple:  if an article needs help, work on it.  If the opinions and input of others are needed, take the question to the discussion page.  People, however, do seem take offense when I remove tags.  Can't see why.  I think that if any editor can add a tag, any editor can remove it without censure or being commanded to desist.  WBardwin 01:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Spray-painting a wall is, as I'm sure you're aware, generally referred to as vandalism. I'm sure you're mature enough not to be comparing my edit here to vandalism, so I'll just ignore that comment. If you have a problem with Wikipedia's cleanup policies, take it to the relevant discussion forum and state your case. Don't make life harder on the rest of us by masking poor articles through the removal of the tags which place them in the required cleanup categories. Chris Cunningham 09:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Chris, you are taking, repeatedly, my objections to tags personally.  The only thing I object to is the insertion and reinsertion of these annoying and useless tags everywhere on Wikipedia.  I never said you were a vandal but, yes, it seem obvious to me that the psychological motivation for tagging in the article space (rather than on the discussion page) is probably analogous to the psychological motivation of spraying/carving/painting on a wall.  They say "I'm here!  Look at me!  Aren't my priorities important?"  Why should Wikipedia not use the discussion page for tagging, if it is really necessary?  Then active editors could discuss the pros and cons of each tag, and theoretically the "copy editors" you mention could monitor the articles.  Again, I remind you that you initiated this discussion on my talk page.  Why -- if you didn't want to talk about it?  WBardwin 04:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Techniques of throwing

message: It is not known when the potter's wheel first came into use, but dates between about 60,000 BC to about 20,400 BC have been suggested. Many modern scholars suggest that it was first developed in Mesopotamia, although Egypt and China have also been claimed as possible places of origin. A stone potter's wheel found at the Mesopotamian city of Ur in modern-day Iraq has been dated to about 30,000 BC, but fragments of wheel-thrown pottery of an even earlier date have been recovered in the same area.
This is way off. The dates need to have a zero removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.212.208.14 (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously not, because the entries in the "history" part contradict itself by 1000 years! 2A02:8108:963F:F853:7813:E0BF:BDF1:5848 (talk) 05:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: I think this section should be deleted it adds nothing to our knowledge of the potters wheel and the biblical quotes don't even refer to the wheel! Teapotgeorge (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If it is felt that such a discussion is needed, it would fit better in Pottery. Tim Ross 11:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The potter's wheel in literature 

message: Clear evidences of potters wheel and pottery is found from Mehrgarh II and III phase and maturity around IV phase, so i suggest mehrgarh to be mentioned as one of the possible places of origin.
http://books.google.com/books?id=GXzycd3dT9kC&pg=PA128#v=onepage&q&f=false
Nirjhara (talk) 07:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Mehrgarh and pottery

message: The Wikipedia article, “Potter’s Wheel” seems incomplete.  It opens with a short choppy introduction that attempts to summarize the article and provide insight but instead seems to just outline it.  The introduction tends to have too many details and too much jargon for the average reader.  This could be helped by moving the last part into the “Techniques of Throwing” section and going into more detail about the different techniques. 
The “History” section is the most complete part of this article, however it seems to be in two parts, one explaining the evolution of technique on wheels, the other the evolution of the wheel itself.  The first part feels out of place, as it is less about the wheel and more about the technique.  It would be appropriate to separate this first part into its own article for throwing technique.  Another way this area could be improved is if everything was relisted chronologically and the two parts were combined into one, complementing each other.
The “Techniques of Throwing” section is just a mess.  It begins stating there are many different ways to throw clay, and only describes one.  The description of the throwing technique is fairly complete, easy to follow, but has a very juvenile writing style comprised of  many short choppy sentences. 
The last sections lacks citations and should have been omitted.
Throughout the article there are many images.  There are two illustrations at the top of the “History” section that detail differences in potter wheel styles very well.  The lower pictures demonstrate the different technologies of the potter wheel well, although I would prefer a different example of a hand powered wheel.
The sources cited seem legitimate although most could not be viewed online.  There were also two in languages that I could not understand, although I appreciate that the information in them was translated into English.  The citations also seem incomplete as they lack dates the information was accessed and, in some cases, a place to view the material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HIST406-13ehecox (talk • contribs) 
:*"The Wikipedia article, “Potter’s Wheel” seems incomplete." Then help to complete it.
:*"This could be helped by moving the last part into the 'Techniques of Throwing' section and going into more detail about the different techniques." Then why don't you undertake these edits?
:*"The sources cited seem legitimate although most could not be viewed online." So what that they can not be viewed online? There is an incalculable amount of excellent sources of information not online; frequently there is better information offline than online.
:*"There were also two in languages that I could not understand" So? Should people only use sources that you understand?
:*"although I would prefer a different example of a hand powered wheel." And why is your personal preference noteworthy or significant?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.87.213.136 (talk) 11:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: General Critique

message: The fourth paragraph in "History" has dates stated with "BC", "BCE", and "bc"
--23.119.204.117 (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have fixed it. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  inconsistent BC 

message: Any mention of physical principles?  How does the wheel suspend itself and keep turning?  Is it precession? Are all non-motorized wheels the same in that sense, or do some work differently?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impfireball (talk • contribs) 07:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  So how does a potter's wheel actually work? 

message: I am trying to figure out when the fast pottery wheel was invented, I read this article and am just confused. That stone potter's wheel found in Iraq is not given an exact date in the source cited, at least I couldn't find it, so I don't know where "3129 BC" could have come from. Some of the other comments mentions it saying it was invented between 6000 and 2400 BC, which sounds reasonable but is not in the article currently. If that is the right answer, can someone please put it back in? 
73.253.105.53 (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Much later than that, I think, but the whole concept of the "fast" wheel as an important innovation is I think now in doubt. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  When was the fast wheel invented? 

message: — Assignment last updated by Ray3345 (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: English 1101 033

message: — Assignment last updated by Thecanyon (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Technology and Culture