Talk:Furniture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Furniture was the collaboration of the week for the week starting on June 28, 2006. For details on improvements made to the article, see history of past collaborations.

-

	Furniture is part of WikiProject Woodworking, a project to improve all aspects of the woodworking area. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, and to visit the project page, where you can join and see a list of open tasks to help with.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents 1 Time for a re-write? 2 hmm... 3 Lighting is furniture? How about coat stands? 4 Manufacturers 5 History 6 Furniture spammers, take notice 7 shaker furniture 8 Gjernes 9 Worldview 10 DMOZ

[edit] Time for a re-write?

Reading the comments by Astragal and Rusty2005, below, I wonder if this article would not be a good candidate for a complete rewrite. This article has far greater potential than what it presently is--a definition, a few lists, and a thought-provoking statement (Cromwellian vs. Queen Anne) that needs to be developed. A good article on this topic might include mention of the triclinium of Hellenistic society or the influence of the Shaker's spirituality on their furniture. Also, a few illustrations would be helpful. The online Encyclopædia Britannica devotes 74 "pages" to furniture. This article, like many on Wikipedia, just sort of happened--it started as a stub and grew as examples were added. Perhaps it's time to write a better article. Interested? --Tom Allen 20:24, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

I think the furniture types list should be in this article. H Padleckas 02:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] hmm...

what do you think about these lines: "Furniture, like architecture is a barometer of social, economic and spiritual change. Compare the austere furniture of the Cromwellian period to the graceful elegance of the Queen Anne period."

Of course much could be said about this, but isn't this a sort-of interpretive observation? Is it weird to give only one example? Particularly since it's an example that I assume is **visually** meaningless to most? --Astragal

Well, I agree, in general, with the idea that furniture reflects the values of a culture. (For example, consider Bauhaus or Shaker furniture.) On the other hand, I think there are probably better ways to illustrate this than with, "Compare the austere furniture of the Cromwellian period to the graceful elegance of the Queen Anne period." The statement assumes that readers would be familiar with both styles and time periods. Personally, without some research I wouldn't have the slightest clue whether a given piece of furniture was Cromwellian! Moreover, the Cromwellian period was relatively short. Anyway, I agree that this statement needs some work. --Tom Allen 20:24, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lighting is furniture? How about coat stands?

AFAIK, Lighting is not furniture. A search at OneLook supports me.

1. From http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/furniture?view=uk : "noun 1 the movable articles that are used to make a room or building suitable for living or working in, such as tables, chairs, or desks. 2 the small accessories or fittings that are required for a particular task or function: door furniture."
2. From http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=31819&dict=CALD : "noun [U] items such as chairs, tables, beds, cupboards, etc. which are put into a house or other building to make it suitable and comfortable for living or working in:"

While "movable articles used to make a room ... suitable for living ... in" might include lighting, the fact that the example list after does not seems suggestive. We should take lighting out of the list. JesseW 11:25, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Lighting is not furniture, it is a form of furnishing. I moved it the furnishings page. --Astragal

Thank you! I don't know why I didn't figure this out. Sigh. It's obvious when you mention it. I'll fix the other references. JesseW 05:18, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From this, I suppose I can assume any types of lamps, including tall stand-up lamps, are included under furnishings rather than furniture, unless they are attached to furniture. Are coat stands for hanging up coats furniture or furnishings? H Padleckas 15:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Manufacturers

Do we really need a long and under-linked list of American furniture manufacturers? It seems pointless when most of them don't even have their own pages. People outside of the US (and I suppose a lot of people in the US as well) neither know nor care about American furniture companies. How about a little more on furniture types, variations of furniture around the world, furniture in history, constuction and manufacturing techniques, and the socio-economic role of furniture as a status symbol? Rusty2005 14:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History

Should we place the movements chronologically or alphabetically, as they are now?ThuranX 15:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

actually, i think we should get rid of them altogether... just making a list - probably alphabetical - of different periods/styles/movements with links to their respective pages -- the current summaries are quite incomplete, and there's sorta a random and totally non-comprehensive assortment... thoughts? Astragal 17:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd think that a brief chronological overview, something in the format of:

Chippendale Furniture - (17xx- present) A highly ornate furniture style originating in Nation, during King X's rule, and characterized by beautifully lathed posts.

Would work. I'd suggest doing it chronologically, instead of alphabetically, so someone using this as a launching site to the development by reading the individual pages could follow a more organized path than jumping around in the alpha listing. ThuranX 03:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Furniture spammers, take notice

Wikipedia should not be considered a resource for shoppers, nor for sellers, no matter what the topic. Instead, it is an encyclopedia of knowledge about subjects, not a guide on where to shop for them or a catalogue of what's for sale. Commercial spammers who parasitically link to Wikipedia entries are doing so only for commercial gain. Others might feel that their commercial links are doing readers a favor, and in some cases that might be true. But a shoppers' guide to furniture, or a manufacturer's online catalogue page, appears to be only business-oriented marketing material and cannot in any way be considered encyclopedic knowledge. Please stop inserting such commercially oriented links in Wikipedia. Jack Bethune 17:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Like Jack said. A number of us are watching this page and any commercial links will be summarily removed. So don't waste your time. Or ours. Luigizanasi 19:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] shaker furniture

"While Shakers made furniture for their own use, many surviving examples of Shaker furniture originally were made for sale to the general public, including such popular forms as Shaker tables, chairs, rocking chairs, and bed frames."

This statement reads to be self-contradicting. if they made furniture for their own use, then they didn't make it for wider sale. Although you don't say 'exclusively for their own use, it reads that way. Using 'while 'A', many 'B' ' in this sense seems to be while all 'A', many exception to 'all A'. I think this needs a rewrite. I'm not doubting the factual nature, but the syntax. ThuranX 22:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

ThuranX, you raised a valid concern about the possibility of misconstruing the nature of Shaker furniture making. I've suggested a rewrite that I hope will clarify what we both wanted to say about this activity by the Shakers. Thanks for offering an excellent point. Jack Bethune 03:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Works for me, thanks for the rewrite.ThuranX 03:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gjernes

Is this really a whole style of furniture or is it the work of one designer? -THB 10:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Worldview

I had nothing to do with the globalize tag, but it was very apt. Other cultures than European have quite different furniture. Also, Shaker is under European whereas it is American. -THB 10:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

While there is a fairly western focus right now, that editor certainly could've put a prompt or request here. Tagging should be saved for times when talk pages aren't working. Further, nothiing's stopping that editor from actually doing some genuine additive editing himself. ThuranX 13:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DMOZ

Dmoz is repeatedly being added to this page by a number of editors with agendas to promote Dmoz and/or to promote their own companies. Having repeatedly visited the link before removing it, I can not Assume good faith in the editors who persist in adding and readding it. WIth numerous links to 'Thehome.com', which features numerous links to it's own 'manufacturer's catalog pages', numerous direct links to furniture sales sites and so on, DMOZ is thoroughly useless as anything BUT a commercial spam link. ThuranX 22:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100%. And when I removed it, the person who added it got snippy. Indeed. t h b 23:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Further: Although WP:EL suggests using DMOZ, it does NOT explicitly call for it. Further, as ' Directory of links related to the topic', There is little to no screening of what links are viable informative links, and which are commercial sites, or worse, the 'how to do it with OUR products Infotizing pages on a commercial site. Only viable informative sites belong. If DMOZ linked to a history of Nakashima's works, to the free project dorectory of Fine Woodworking Magazine's online site, or to a page on byzantine throne characteristics, DMOZ would rock. Instead, half of the page is to one commercial interior decorating site, Thehome.com. It's NOT a viable link in this case. If someone would like to go police the DMOZ page, that might help, but I doubt it. ThuranX 23:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)