Talk:Archaeometallurgical slag

Copper

What is a section on copper smelting doing in this article? Peterkingiron (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The original title for this article was Archaeometallurgy-slag analysis-non-ferrous metallurgy - Yeah, insane title. After giving a quick read through, I retitled to reflect what the article seemed to be about. If you have a better idea for a title, let me know. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

This is article is thus the result of an ill-judged merger of a ferrous article with a non-ferrous one. I am not clear who undertook this merger, but the combination is utterly inappropriate. I have just added a "seealso" for Bloomery which is another article on the same subject, though lacking the detail here. The non-ferrous material needs to be demerged from this article into a more appropriate one - perhaps Ancient non-ferrous metal production. I am also not sure whether the lead section belongs here. This is another area of scientific archaeology, but I am not clear whether this is at all related to ferrous metallurgy. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to go ahead and move that material to the new article you suggested. I have no objection. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Tags

The article is currently tagged for notability and referencing. I suspect that this is historic, from when the article was much shorter. If the person who placed these tags is still watching the article, can that person (or some one else) say exactly where the defects are? Peterkingiron (talk) 09:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I deleted those tags. You don't need to ask permission to delete a maintenance tag that obviously doesn't apply. This article has lots of good references and the notability of ancient iron production I would think should be unquestioned. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I know, ut was hoping the tagger might be watching and willing to say more. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Title Misleading

This is an article about slag and slag analysis, not Ancient Iron Production. There is one paragraph that concerns itself with iron production, and this paragraph simply says that slag is a great way to analyse ancient iron production sites. A title such as "Archaeological Slag Analysis" would be far more appropriate. The article seems quite authoritative, but the grammar and sentence structure is fairly horrible in spots. Some parts of this article were clearly written by a person who had a first language other than English. Resinguy (talk) 08:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that the title is not ideal. The issue is that the main source available to tell us about the process is the slag. the other one is the truncated bases of furnaces. If renaming, please ensure that the word "iron" or "ferrous" remains part of the title; there is a separate article on non-ferrous archaeometallurgy. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Ferrous archaeometallurgy? Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I also agree. Iron smelting archeometallurgy?Myrtlegroggins (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)