Talk:Spelter
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
2007-02-9 Automated pywikipediabot message
edit | This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
Status
editPossibly this article should become a redirect to zinc, but that leaves the problem of the places called Spelter (at present only red links). I do not know how to deal with this. On the other hand, if zinc has been used for sculpture there should be an articel on it. Peterkingiron 14:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Picture is pretty useless
editThis picture is pretty useless for an article on Spelter. If there is any spelter at all in the picture it's by coincidence. It's just one of millions of British fields, with some slag in it. It's not enlightening, educative, informative or even fun! A picture of a spelter works would be very interesting WHILE IT ACTUALLY EXISTED!!! A pic of a site where there used to be something relevant..? Is this a joke?
I hope the guy didn't make an expedition out just to photo this site, and was walking his dog. Just take a look, see what you think. Is it what you'd imagine in an article like this? It's like an article on cotton with a cornfield in it, cos they used to grow cotton in that field 80 years ago.