Talk:Mycenaean pottery

File:Kylix.jpg Nominated for Deletion
All (or nearly all) images in this article are copyvios and will probably be deleted very soon. Please think of other possibilites to illustrate this article. --FA2010 (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Impending deletion
This article is a noble effort and I admire it. It is going to need work however. For example, there are no pithoi here. The overview structure is interesting. For the images, well, let them take take their %$@!!! pictures. We don't need them. There are hundreds of Greek pottery pictures on commons. All it is going to take is the work to find and classify them. Big job I admit. Is it worth doing? There is one area that could profit by attention. Matching Mycenaean pots to classical pots has been a standard problem since deciperment of Linear B. There is not really an exact correspondance. This article should be based on Mycenaean, not classical. The editor probably does not have the major texts: Ventris & Chadwick, Furumark, and so on, which cost hundreds if not thousands, and are not located in any library usable by the public. This is to a prohibitive extent a rich man's game. In some cases even they have to bow out. However I recommend Google Internet searches specifying pfd format. That condition screens out the junk and turns up scholarly aricles made available by some scholars. Also I suggest an infobox. Infobox artifact can probably be made to do although an infobox pottery might be better if someone cares to define it. One indirect way to provide pics is to do a cite web in a footnote. I wouldn't give up. When I first got on here there were no pottery and other artifact pictures at all. Try writing an archeological article with that!Dave (talk) 08:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite impending
I'm starting in on this now. I shall retain whatever is retainable. The first thing I notice is a deficit of definitions. You don't get any clear idea of the meaning at all. Origin of term? Meaning? Second, the organization. The term four phases is tossed about without any statement of what they are. That does not seem to have anything to do with the structure in the contents, which lists a lot more than 4. It is taken for granted that Helladic means Mycenaean without any statement of the connection. So, here we go. Bear with me, or else do it better. Since the article already exists, I am not going to develop it offline and just dump it in, replacing everything. I do not think that is our way. You want the whys and wherefores.Botteville (talk) 11:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Take 5. I know I have left you with a cliff-hanger in this exciting tale of an archaeological suspense story. We are about to find out that Mycenaean pottery is really Minoan, the opposite of what they thought before. The Minoan code is hanging over us. However I need the Duncan MacKenzie article so I am taking 5 to work on that. Don't hold your breath, I shall be back in just a few days! If you worked on it before, don't feel bad. This is a complicated subject with a lot of tricky turns, and it goes on changing as the investigators get more scientific.Botteville (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)