This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 |
I added this article to Category:Ceramics because that category's description states:
I recently edited that description, but I didn't add the definition or the reference to this article. Melchoir 03:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
More information worth of addition [1]. pabouk 15:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I am not sure why you revert the decription [of this figurine] as pottery. I agree the item is ceramic but this is a very large group of materials. Pottery is more specific: it is a subset of ceramics. Pottery is fired clay, with cermaics including many others such a silicon nitride, silicon carbide and alumina - hardly the type of material from which the Venus is made. unsigned, by 81.153.70.31
I agree that the figurine should be described as Ceramic and not pottery 81.153.70.31 has now reverted the description to pottery 4 times. Teapotgeorge 20:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
A few points>
There is no reference as to how the piece was dated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.31.7.9 ( talk) 17:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Venus of Dolní Věstonice. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
At the time the Venus was found, there was no independent Czech Republic. Would not be better to use the word Czechia instead? Czechia was a part of Czechoslovakia at that time. -- Martin Tauchman ( talk) 17:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 |
I added this article to Category:Ceramics because that category's description states:
I recently edited that description, but I didn't add the definition or the reference to this article. Melchoir 03:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
More information worth of addition [1]. pabouk 15:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I am not sure why you revert the decription [of this figurine] as pottery. I agree the item is ceramic but this is a very large group of materials. Pottery is more specific: it is a subset of ceramics. Pottery is fired clay, with cermaics including many others such a silicon nitride, silicon carbide and alumina - hardly the type of material from which the Venus is made. unsigned, by 81.153.70.31
I agree that the figurine should be described as Ceramic and not pottery 81.153.70.31 has now reverted the description to pottery 4 times. Teapotgeorge 20:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
A few points>
There is no reference as to how the piece was dated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.31.7.9 ( talk) 17:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Venus of Dolní Věstonice. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
At the time the Venus was found, there was no independent Czech Republic. Would not be better to use the word Czechia instead? Czechia was a part of Czechoslovakia at that time. -- Martin Tauchman ( talk) 17:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)