This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glass, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of glass on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GlassWikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/GlassTemplate:WikiProject Glassglass articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
A fact from Roman glass appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 February 2008, and was viewed approximately 6,200 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I recognise that this page could do with a discussion of the typological analysis of Roman glasswares, although there is a seperate page dedicated to glass blowing, so a typology of blown object may belong there, and a typology of cast/slumped wares could be added here. Ruth Fillery-Travis (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I don't see the value of a large compositional table like the one in Anglo Saxon glass, and the literature argues against comparability of glass analyses at the moment, but are there other opinions? Ruth Fillery-Travis (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This article is so beautifully and thoughtfully illustrated that there's no useful place to put this, but I thought I'd point out this interesting depiction of a very large transparent glass bowl of fruit from Pompeii. Any Roman glass I've seen in person (not a vast amount) has been much smaller in scale, even if these grapes and pomegranates would've been nowhere near as large as specimens today. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I'm surprised by the claim that there was no Latin word for glass in the 1st century AD. Doesn't vitrum count? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
OK, apparently the word is not attested in this sense before Cicero ... how curious. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply