Talk:Kiln

General

Thank you for your message. As you note Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopaedia, however the changes I have made to the entries have been to correct errors in what have most certainly not been “existing accurate information”, and these have included: 1. Cones are made of "chemically refined clay" This is meaningless and shows ignorance of how ceramic raw materials and processed and used 2. More than clay is for cones. A range of compositions of different minerals dependent on their rating 3. The entry only mentions Orton cones where other manufacturers exist 4. There is no mention of other pyrometric devices 5. Your messages describes “Wedgewood” .. at least spell the name correctly: Wedgwood 6. I corrected an entry on earthenware, not least to replace the suggestion that potash is an ingredient. Have you ever formulated a body ... if you had you would know that the use potash, or potassium carbonate, is unknown 7. Earthenware again: classically most is not red as many examples are white or off white Kiln entry: they do not ‘chemically refine clay objects’ For a start the objects will be comprised of more than just clay, and again “chemically refine” is a meaningless. Although not definitive something better would be ”To induce permanent physical and chemical changes that converts a relatively weak and porous material consisting of innumerable particles into a strong, single mass composed on a glassy phase interspersed with pores and crystalline material.” 8. Change entry on soft –paste porcelain. The original entry suggested the glass was used .. correct for the early developments but with the very occasionally exception, such as Belleck, its not been used for 200 years. Similarly for soapstone and lime

And with respect your statement "as a working potter, I can assure you that I will evaluate and discuss your contributions and that worthy material" is arrogant. To refer back to your statement that Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopaedia" Have you ever considered that others may have better understanding of the subject than yourself, yet you deem yourself to a worthy moderator?

I’m sorry that my contributions are not welcome, not least as I thought Wikipedia was an open source. How many other knowledgeable contributors do you wish to exclude?

-- well, I'm glad to see you did sign in and get a log on ID. Please see my long response on Pyrometric cone. I will continue to revert until we move toward concensus, but please feel free to add material in a more selective fashion. Please see the discussions Nick and I are having at Porcelain for an example of how Wiki policies encourage changes to be made. Wholesale deletion of material, images and references is considered vandalism according to Wikipedia policies. FYI - you can sign your new name by using four tildes in sequence. WBardwin 00:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Removed "chemically refine clay objects" as 1) not why kilns are used. 2) the phrase is pretty much meaningless, and 3) the entry reads better without it

Again I have strong reservations in including the Hamer & Hamer reference Regards, Andy

"Kilns are used to transform a clay based article into a ceramic material."?? In my opinion, pretty much "meaningless" as well. And we would have to differentiate clay and ceramics in the article for the average reader. The first sentences of each section should be clear and strong and guide the reader into the section. How 'bout somethinglike: "Kilns are used to heat and transform articles made of clay. Raw clay is transformed by the application of heat into a ceramic material which ............."?

So, why not Hamer? Although somewhat dated, it is still used as a standard reference in a number of college level pottery classes and is considered a better than average source for art history/historical pottery information (which may be of more than limited interest on articles like this one). It is also still available in libraries and bookstores, if our readers seek more information. More recent college level reference books are less readily available. WBardwin 04:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Hello Wbardwin, Thanks for the message but some confusion: You stated that "Kilns are used to transform a clay based article into a ceramic material." is pretty much meaningless. Why?

And differentiating between clay and ceramics is essential ... before firing the item is not ceramic, but after firing the clay and most of the other minerals no longer exist as they have been permantly changed into somethig else.

Whilst I’ve no argument with your suggested "Kilns are used to heat and transform articles made of clay. Raw clay is transformed by the application of heat into a ceramic material which ............."this is just rewording mine and splitting into two sentences. I think though a slight modification as "Kilns are used to heat and therefore transform ...” is better

My reservations with Hamer and Hamer are not related to its age but its content, and therefore your observations that in your experience it’s used as standard reference for teaching is concerning. Whilst this is not, for want of a better phrase, a place for literary critism but as I noted the book contains errors and perpetuate myths. As I have not had difficulty in obtaining a selection of books, either for purchase or lone, I can not comment about respective availability.

This also highlights that a difference may need to be drawn between Reference, where some information for the entry may have originated, to Suggested Reading which points the interested reader towards further study. If the entry does not contain information for a book surely it should not be references, listed as Suggested Reading perhaps

Regards, Andy

---

This page is sorely lacking in information about wood dry kilns. I know a fair bit about wood drying technology today, but I am not paticularly good at writing. I was thinking of using the sandbox to draw up a rough intial version, and then let someone else make it pretty on the main page... G

Go for it. I'll be glad to help. But it would be better to put it here on this page - less apt to get deleted. Pollinator 17:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

not current?

is it just me, or is this article weak? where is info on modern day kilns and wood drying kilns?

I'd like to see info on hobby kilns & industrial kilns. if someone can put down some thoughts, I can wikify it. Stuph 18:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Types of Kilns

Hello all, Can anyone supply references to support the claims regarding Alan Williams / Vulcan Kilns / more effective heating as at the moment these seem just to be unsubstantiated claims. Also I guess these relate to small craft type kilns .. if so this should be noted

Regards, Andy

Although Vulcan Kilns are a well known brand, research would be needed to separate advertising hype from actual performance. I would hesitate to give prominance to any brand name, unless they have a demonstrated technological edge. We should probably also add a section about Electric Kilns -- including info regarding their relatively recent development, techno innovations and use by both professionals and hobbyists. Most modern potters have one or more electrics, and usually bisque fire in them. They reduce costs and allow a smoother working process. And, in finished firing, they have allowed the expanded use of specialized glazes as well. If we add information, getting more specialized, -- is it time for a separate article Kiln (Ceramic)? Always lots to do --- sigh. WBardwin 20:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This claim seems to be a bit weak. No date, no source. I say remove the reference, allowing to be added if proven. Stuph 14:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Stuph, WBardwin ... agreement to remove the reference? Regards, Andrew

---

Hi WBardwin, I don't fully agree with all your last addition "The majority of modern pottery kilns, whether producing industrial ware or handmade pottery and sculptural work" In my experience whilst most industrial kilns use natural gas the vast majority of studio potters fire in electric. I'll not changing anything now but think your statement is a little too absolute. Oh, I've just seen a slightly old comment by you on another page saying you were off Wikipedia due to some problems ... hope everything is OK now Regards, Andy

Sorry -- it was late and I was just putting things in as place holders. I want to make a couple of points:

• wood, dung and other "natural" fuels are used less frequently today, due to the ease, convenience and relative cleanliness of natural gas.
• Industrialization led to technical innovations in kilns which allowed this change.
• And electric kilns, developed in the 20th century, continued the trend.

as to firing -- well, I guess I would be a studio potter (whatever that means) and I bisque fire in 2 large round electric kilns (rated to cone 10) but high fire (to cone 10, usually) in a medium size commercial gas kiln. So I take advantage of both newer technologies, and they allow me lots of flexibility. Thanks for the good wishes -- lots of serious illness in my family. Better now, but still not completely resolved. Will try and work on this over the weekend. Do you agree it's time to break it loose into its own article? WBardwin 19:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

---

This article is referenced by the article on Portland cement among others, but I note that only ceramic kilns are discussed here. Since other sorts of industrial kilns have little in common with ceramic kilns, or each other, there seems no good reason to pile them all together in one article. I am therefore inserting a brief reference to other articles, for the benefit of those who might get mis-directed here.LinguisticDemographer 15:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Ceramic or Pottery kilns

Hi all, The reasons for last change to attempt: 1. Reflect that not all ceramics are clay based 2. Change ‘clay’ to ‘clay body’ where this is more accurate 3. Tweaked the 600-900oC reference

Regards, Andy

cremation

crematoriums use high temp furnaces, not kilns. can i remove this incorrect references? Stuph

Modern crematoriums are pretty high tech. Although I know nothing about their history, were kilns ever used to cremate the dead? If so, are they currently used in areas were modern technology is generally unavailable? If they were ever used, or are still used, as cremation chambers, I would place that information here. Sounds like another little research project. Sigh! WBardwin 06:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi WBardwin & Stuph. I'm personally OK with removing crematoriums, however to pose a question: What differentiates a kiln from a furnace? I always talk about kilns but others I know say furnace ... is there a difference or is it just semantics? (Oh thanks WB for correcting my recent typo)

Regards, Andy

a furnace is a enclosed structure in which the inside can be heated to a very high temperature. a kiln is a type of furnace, it has a more specific use (baking or drying a material). an oven is also a type of furnace, it's specific use for cooking or heating food. while grammatically I don't think you'd be wrong if you said "I baked a cake in my furnace" or "my house is heated by a kiln" it certainly doesn't make sense in conversation. Stuph 17:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Stuph ... I'm OK with that classification system but is it yours or based on attributal sources? If I was being picky I'd comment on you're example: kilns for baking or drying a material as: 1. Firing in kilns is neither baking nor drying 2. Ovens can bake (bread etc) 3. Furnaces for drying material are sometimes called ovens rather than kilns

However perhaps the early part of the kiln entry could include a classification section, and reference the wikipedia entry on furnace where classifcation has been attempted. I think such would be of help to readers (and help me when I, jokingly, refuse people use of kilns when they ask "Can I use your furnace?")

Regards, Andy

the classification was out of my head, so let's try again, this time from the New Oxford American Dictionary:

• furnace-an enclosure in which energy in a nonthermal form is converted to heat, especially such an enclosure in which heat is generated by the combustion of a suitable fuel.

• kiln-a furnace used for hardening, burning, or drying substances such as grain, meal, or clay, especially a brick-lined oven used to bake or fire ceramics.

• oven-a furnace or enclosed compartment for heating, baking, or roasting food, as in a stove.

this reiterates my thoughts of kilns and ovens beings types of furnaces, each with a specific use. Stuph 18:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi WBardwin, Only a slight tweak of your last edit: 1. Artists to users to reflect wider application 2. Added terms dwell and soak Regards, Andy

Modern Kiln Design

Hello, I apologize if this is not in typical Wikipedia format (this is my first use of this site). Jeff Williams, my brother-in-law, came across this site while doing a Yahoo search for his company-Vulcan Kilns. Jeff is one of Alan Williams' sons (mentioned in a previous version of this page) and is the President of Vulcan Kilns. Jeff would be happy to provide any information on Oval kilns that you might wish to add to this site. He is also very curious as to where the initial mention of Vulcan Kilns and his Dad originated. I am helping Jeff in setting up a website (still being updated)-but some information is available there along with contact information, www.vulcankilns.com. His email is vulcankilns@sbcglobal.net or mine at heymick@sbcglobal.net. Best regards, Jill Williams Jkwilliams 13:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Isn't this word pronounced the same as 'kill', in other words, the 'n' is silent?Cameron Nedland 13:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cameron - I can not speak for every regional variation in the English speaking world but in many the 'n' is pronounced, and so 'kiln' does sound different to 'kill' Regards, Andy

Okay thanks.Cameron Nedland 19:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

My father often says kill, I always say kiln, and I have no idea why!

I've heard that final -ln often changes to -l. For instance, mill used to be miln.Cameron Nedland 20:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• This has arisen again and is being repeatedly added. [1]

This new addition is simply wrong. The pronunciation is "kiln", with the n.

There is a highly archaic pronunciation with a silent n. It's medieval in origin, it's documented in 18th century England as a provincial mispronunciation, as seen by city industrialists, amongst rude mechanicals in the Potteries. It survives (probably the largest use) amongst some US placenames written as "kill" ("kills" is Dutch and different). It belongs in this article as a footnote.

It is quite wrong, as is happening today, to claim that this is the only pronunciation, and to say so in the lead. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The Collins English Dictionary gives the pronunciation as 'kiln' ie with the 'n' pronounced. It's perfectly reasonable to describe the word as once having been pronounced 'kill' and indeed for that pronunciation to be a variant which is in continued use. It is unreasonable to describe the pronunciation with an 'n' as being a mispronunciation - it is simply the rather more common modern pronunciation. Language is not a fixed thing - not spellings, not pronunciation, not grammar - otherwise we'd all still be speaking in the way which our ancestors did. So please let's drop this mispronunciation thing! cheers Geopersona (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Coming new to this, I have to say the etymology section won't do. First of all, there is no place for linguistic prescription here - we can describe the pronunciation, and how it has changed, but should not evaluate it, by saying one is better than the other. Older does not mean more correct in language. (After all, the <n> was pronounced in the Latin word, it dropped out of the pronunciation in Middle English, and has reappeared in modern English - by what logic do we say that the first change is correct and the second one incorrect?) Secondly, we don't need to spell out linguistic concepts - for example a whole sentence on what a homophone is. Keep this briefer. --Doric Loon (talk) 11:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Restored a version without the prescriptivism. Let any future versions stem from this one. Espreon (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

On the pronunciation, Daniel Jones is the (descriptive, not prescriptive) authority, and changes in different editions show changes in the language. I have cited here from the 14th edition, which we should keep because it is interesting. Someone else cited from the 18th edition, which I have not seen, but they say it has dropped this information, which is also interesting. It would be super if someone can check the 15th to 17th editions to narrow down the date when that was changed. --Doric Loon (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

wood kiln links

why so many external links regarding wood kilns? Can this be edited down to just the 1 or 2 most relevant?

Stuph 23:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ceramic kiln typse

The list could do with attention to avoid confusion, for example 1.) Modern kilns is not a type in itself (compare to bottle which is a distinct design) 2.) Car kiln, is not a name normally used for any kiln. Infact the description could be equally valid for both intermittent and tunnel kilns, which are of course very distinctly different. Teh photo of the 'car kiln' appear to be a gas fired intermiitent kiln; if so this is a better title Also is a Kazegama significant enough to deserve mention? At the moment it reads a little bit like promotion for the listed individual, Steve Davis Theriac 16:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Microwave Assisted Firing

I was very interested to see this as I've never heard of it before - is anyone able to expand on this method please?Amandajsheridan 11:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Kazegama & Steve Davis

Hi all. This does not seem significant enough to be included, and to me smells a little bit of self promotion. Any comments? ThanxTheriac 20:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Any comments before I delete? ThanxTheriac 17:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete it, looked like self promoting fluff to me too, sorry, I shoulda said something before, guess I was just waiting for you to be bold. : ) IvoShandor 21:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I would agree -- one person's innovative technique but not a type of kiln. WBardwin 03:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

it would have been nice to see more detailed information regarding exactly what it consisted of 68.63.108.124 15:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible articles

Some possible kiln related articles to write:

• Perpetual kiln - Heap kiln - Fire box - Draw out - Vertical kiln

I have a few others somewhere, I will post more as I compile them. IvoShandor 11:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed

Electric kilns - kilns operated by electricity were developed in the 20th century, primarily for smaller scale use such as in schools, universities, and hobby centers. As these electrical appliances improved in dependability, they became a valuable tool for artists as well. I removed the highlighted as it adds nothing to the article, and it is unsupported. As it is currently written it indciates that schools, universites and hobby centers were using electric kilns but they were initially unreliable and artists waited for them to become reliable before using them. Where is the evidence for this? When did this happen? What reliability issues were they waiting for? Also why should artists be separated from the other users? Was the original author themself an artist and somehow sees themselves as separate to other users? If so Wikipedia is not the place for such ego bolstering. Without support the sentence is an unsubstantiated claim and a single person's opinion. Also it is irrelevant whether or not this sentence has been here for 1 day or 1 year: it either needs supporting references or it should not be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.65.9 (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Concur that some support for that statement is needed or it should be removed if there is no support for it. And strongly concur that a long-standing editorial problem is still an editorial problem—now that someone noticed this problem, it needs to be resolved. DMacks (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I opppose -- vocally and repeatedly-- the current trend to "source" each line. It does not improve the encyclopedia. Ultimately, articles will disappear and Wikipedia could become simply a list of quotes relating to a given topic. The encyclopedia would contain no weighted opinions, no alternative viewpoints and so no insight into the topic. As to the material above, talk to any ceramic artist who uses electric kilns (not me, I use gas) and they will support the statement. It is common knowledge among artists, and there was a boom in sales to studio potters when electric kilns became more dependable and allowed a more varied firing pattern. The persistant anon above appears to be an appliance technician rather than an artist and so sees the concept as "irrelevant". When does the usage pattern of an appliance become irrelevant to an article about the appliance? Again, an example of how "sourcing" changes the focus of the article. Of course, consensus doesn't mean anything either, does it? Only the strength of authority -- but isn't an admin just another editor? This kind of weighted nuance is why, despite invitations, I have decided against becoming an administrator. WBardwin (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

More unsubstantiated claims! No I am not an appliance technician. I have used gas kilns, I have used electric kilns. I use electric kilns nearly ever day. I do not recognise "common knowledge among artists" and "talk to any ceramic artist who uses electric kilns (not me, I use gas) and they will support the statement." These do not tally with my experience, but then I would not include this without supporting reference - otherwise it's just voicing personal opinion or original research. Anyway this is not about "source" each line it is about ensuring that claims are supported by valid references, which is not talking to "any ceramic artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.154.226 (talk) 23:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Usage patterns may indeed be very relevant...nobody's arguing that this information isn't viable. Adding citations does not alter the focus of the article (or even alter the article at all). It's quite possible to write articles on controversial topics and include multiple viewpoints precisely because each of them can be traced back to who said what about what, and readers can clearly find out more about any particular one of interest. WBardwin, if you feel Wikipedia policies, goals, or the current trends in how they are being applied need to be changed, there are talk pages associated with each of them—by all means start a discussion there (remembering that attacking editors for their position detracts from others taking your position seriously). DMacks (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

From edit history: 17:04, 19 December 2007 81.153.65.9 (Talk) (12,228 bytes) (Unsupported claim that is completley irrelevant). So the anon first asserted that the usage pattern of the tool was completley (sic) irrelevant." I reverted once, then simply asked the anon to retain the material and begin a discussion on the talk page. Our anon, in turn, denied this simple request by reverting (you note his version still in place) -- thereby demanding that his "opinion" dominate and that no concensus be sought. Then you trumped, by asserting your "power" as admin rather than contributing as an editor. Who attacked - I've been griping rather than attacking anyone? As for recent changes in procedure on sources and inline cites, my name is on a number of talk pages "opposing", as are the names of a number of my acquaintances here, all long time editors. Many of us would like to see a procedure supporting standard academic reference systems, rather than editorial sourcing demands. But the current paranoia about Wikipedia's reputation trumps all reasonable objections. In effect this policy implies that a source, any source is good "enough", as long as Wikipedia cannot be blamed for any errors in the encyclopedia. So, we are driven by media reports and mad press rather than by quality standards, academic, scholarly, or common sense. Rant completed (sigh). WBardwin (talk) 06:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC) WBardwin (talk) 06:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

So, where are we going to find a good source on the history, demographics, and usage statistics for electric kilns? It might be written in the 21st century or maybe the 22nd. You want a source for anything you disagree with -- ultimately that will mean every line, as somewhere, someone will disagree. Nothing but a list of quotes -- most from unreputable sources. Garbage in and garbage out! WBardwin (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If claims can not be supported how does anyone know they are not garbage?

Any source can be used in Wikipedia -- any source -- no matter how reputable, how self-serving, how fantastic. A source does not distinguish garbage from opinion -- it simply documents opinion. WBardwin (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to be a member of any club you have to play by the rules. And for Wikipedia these include "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." [[2]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.154.226 (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

By documenting the source, readers can determine how fantastic, self-serving, quoted-out-of-context, misconstrued, industry-funded, or trade-group-published it might be. Further just any source cannot be used, it needs to be a reliable one. For the case at hand, Wikipedia's target audience isn't just clay-workers, so it needs to support statements in a way that others will believe them (and if it were just for clay-workers, why bother writing it at all if it's common knowlege that everyone already knows?). To devil's-advocate here: wouldn't artists also happy with an art medium that had less-than-perfect control and reproducibility...variation is what distinguishes hand-made from an assembly-line of industrial machines? I'm not taking a position and I'm not asking for a debate about this issue, merely pointing out that it is not obvious nor the only reasonable way things could be, thus the importance of references. So let's stay on topic here. Are there no trade publications available about this? Some universities have whole departments of Art History, surely someone has written some scholarly work on the modern history of ceramics? DMacks (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You will find that those studying the technology of ceramics rather than Art History have more knowledge and information on the subjct.

Ware?

As someone who knows very little about this topic, I am wondering exactly what is meant by the term "ware" as found in this article. Is this just another way of saying "material"? Such as earthWARE, silverWARE, softWARE, or the ubiquitous "wares", etc. I ask because I believe I have heard this term ("ware") used in reference to smelting (steel in particular), and I got the sense that "a ware" was perhaps actually a separate receptacle used in the process. My understanding was that material goes within a ware, which is then placed into a kiln. Is there such an application of the term in kiln related industries? Or is the term "ware" meant to be interchangeable with "material"? The italicized ware in the article is also throwing me, and there is no link or clarification to indicate exactly what is meant by the italics. Almost sounds like jargon, because ware by itself (in singular) doesn't seem to be a commonly used term nowadays in my part of the world. Just an outsiders perspective. Thanks in advance. --Trippz 08:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Unabridged.Merriam-Webster.com provides the answer. It shows the word "ware" stretching across multiple senses, including a mass sense, a count sense, and even what might be called a collective sense. But in general (nonspecialist) usage most of us don't normally use the count sense, which you pointed out in your question. In other words, (1) "ware" can mean ceramic material and/or products in a massified sense (like "cutlery" or "furniture" [mass] instead of "forks and knives" and "chairs" [count]); or (2) it can be used in (what I guess one might call) a collective sense where the plural inflection deemphasizes the discreteness of the individual pots, i.e., "wares" as in "sample his wares" kind of similar to "go through his papers", but more fossilized than that—being an archaic sense that survives only in set phrases (see "fossil word"); or (apparently) (3) it can have a straightforward count sense, wherein one ware is one pot, or 3 wares are 3 mugs. But, again, this sense of "ware" is rarely used in general English usage today (in other words, it is "archaic" as opposed to "obsolete" in the way that lexicographers distinguish those terms). Unabridged.Merriam-Webster.com senses "b" and "d" specifically shed light: "b : an item offered for sale : an article of merchandise <a favorite ware is a Bible -- Henry Lee> […] d : pottery, dishes, or other items of fired clay <ware which comes from the kiln cracked -- Daniel Rhodes> <a yellow ware with mottle glaze -- American Guide Series: Maryland>" Note that the latter example could easily be taken in either a straightforward count sense (i.e., one yellow mug) or in a countified mass sense (i.e., "Acme brand ceramic is a yellow ware" analogous to "Acme brand oil is a high-grade oil"—countified mass). As for the connection that you sensed with metal smelting, see "crucible" and "crucible steel". Crucibles made of refractory ceramic have been used for eons, whether in chemistry class to melt lead or in a smithy to melt iron to create steel. To finish up the answer to your question, apparently a crucible could be called a "ware" by a potter when it was being heated in a kiln during its own making, or even also by an alchemist or metallurgist when it was later being heated in a forge during the making of a metal product, especially given your having come across such a usage where the context suggested that that sense was intended. Thus the same word "ware" could be used to refer to one discrete object or to the material that it's made of. The context of someone's speech would (usually) let you infer which sense of the word they had in mind when they said it (although sometimes, as in the "a yellow ware" example above, it retains a degree of ambiguity, i.e., out of 3 possible senses, you can narrow down to 2 that they might have meant). I would say that between Merriam-Webster and your own reading experience that you mentioned, the corpus data clearly indicate that the above explanation is true. Frequent ambiguity of word senses and phrase meanings is a hallmark of natural languages (as opposed to, e.g., programming languages, which have little to no absolute-reference ambiguity and no context-reference ambiguity). — ¾-10 23:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Awesome answer! Thanks. --Trippz 05:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Major problem with the above is the use of Merriam-Webster. This may be acceptable for the niche variant of English used in the USA, but for English it is not authoritative; the definitive reference for English is the OED.
• 'Ware' is still used in different parts of the World.

Structure, references, WP:UNDUE and copy editting.

I am coming at this from bottle kiln- and before I could go much further there- this needed to be tamed. I am doing so basic work- but assistance is welcome. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I was surprised how little emphasis is placed on bottle kilns in this article. Most of the world's ceramics were fired in bottle kilns before about 1955. --Ef80 (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kiln. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060505171147/http://www.stoke.gov.uk/ccm/navigation/leisure/museums/gladstone-pottery-museum/ to http://www.stoke.gov.uk/ccm/navigation/leisure/museums/gladstone-pottery-museum/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Welsh origin

Another theorised origin of 'Kiln is that it descends from the Old English cylene (/ˈkylene/), which was borrowed from Old Welsh 'Cylyn' which was in turn, borrowed from the Latin culīna, kitchen, cooking-stove, burning-place.

For one; how does it make sense that the word derives from old English (which is around 500 - 1200AD).. but what about the dates between the collapse of the Roman Empire and then the English invasion? who kept using Latin phrases after the Roman occupation ended? The Welsh (or even the Brythonic Celts) were here before the Romans, here during and after, and through Roman occupation the Brythonic language/s changed and loaned Latin phrases.

I'm adding this here because at least it will be documented, this way, when Artificial intelligence does a better job in the future, it'll be able to scoop up where I left it, Oxford Dictionary does not use sources in their findings and this should worry researchers.Hogyncymru (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

References