Talk:Pottery

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Pottery. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.archaeology.co.uk/cwa/issues/cwa1/CWA_issue_1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120317142740/http://home.exetel.com.au/pottery/pottery/pottery.htm to http://home.exetel.com.au/pottery/pottery/pottery.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120707001548/http://www.stokemuseums.org.uk/collections/browse_collections/ceramics/research_resources/general/health_risks_pottery to http://www.stokemuseums.org.uk/collections/browse_collections/ceramics/research_resources/general/health_risks_pottery
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The poterry is classified in subheadings by regions of the world and not by the religion. Why do Muslim editors have this obsession with inserting Islam in every things, including in the secular topics. Really? Renaming  Pottery#Islamic_pottery subheading under the regionally-classified higher-level heading to Pottery#Far West Asia. Pottery in that region existed before Islam, Chinese influenced them and Islamist invaders might have taken taken it elsewhere, but it is essentially Chinese-influenced Middle-Eastern/Persian pottery that might have traveled elsewhere, in short Middlestern pottery or far west pottery. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that technically Chinese and Middle-Eastern/Persian pottery could not be more different, and the influence in the decorative traditions has travelled east as well as west.  Islamic decoration is distinctive.  "Far West Asia" is not a term with any currency, and certainly never applied to Islamic pottery. We follow WP:RS. Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You are completely right. Muslim editors are erasing all the cultures that predates Islam in regions conquered by them. It is a worrying trend in wikipedia as most of this so-called Islamic contributions were done by other cultures. --Pliers123 (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Excessive tendency to islamsie everything - Secular pottery has islamic religion? 

message: Definition of "solidity": the quality or state of being firm or strong in structure. Definition of "strength": the quality or state of being physically strong. If we take the primary meanings of these two words (one can split hairs about their secondary meanings) they cannot apply to or describe a "shape" as in the phrase: "increase the strength and solidity of the object's shape", because while a shape is abstract or subjective, it is neither structural nor physical. A user has stated incorrectly that the latter view is nonsense. Rather the phrase reduces the lede's prose to baby language. Sometimes as a shorthand people may say "a triangle is a strong / the strongest shape", but that refers to an physical body's resistance to deformation under external forces, due to its shape. As the pot's shape doesn't change during baking, nothing occurs to make it a stronger or weaker shape in that sense. Neither can the solidity of the shape change at all, because the shape hasn't changed to start with. It is the internal structure that changes from weak to strong, the rest is constant. JMK (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: In pottery, "shape" is always the term for the overall form of a piece. Pots are not buildings, and "structure" is only used in discussing microscopic or sub-microscopic levels of the material.  It is unhelpful to mix the two up.  And pottery is fired, not "baked" - no baby language please! Johnbod (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  strength and solidity 

message: The top of the "History" section says  while a little further down the "Beginnings of pottery" section says . I'm guessing this is the somewhat well-known confusion of "BP" with "BC", meaning that the latter is correct and the former is wrong, but would someone more familiar with this topic mind addressing this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article contradicts itself 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion