Talk:Arts and crafts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

Additional information: ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

I have proposed the merge because the "Arts and crafts" article fails to distinguish between Handicraft "and everything else". Also: If you want "Handicraft" to define what "Arts and crafts" are, then also rename:

• The category
• The implementation in Wikipedia:Browse

and anything else that knows about "Arts and crafts". -- Fplay 04:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] edit "speed"

"to my knowledge" may be a clue why you see "speed" as an unfamiliar aspect to craft. an accomplished craftsman is defined as one who expresses artful qualities of skill and speed. to overlook this aspect would be akin to an automobile driver void of the ability to govern the speed of a vehicle. since satisfaction is an important requirement in hobbies, i believe "speed" would relate well to both professional craft and avocation. "craft" implies proficiency as an elemental aspect; proficiency and "speed" are coincidental to the ideal process involved ex. "the woman was good at her craft". ~~carefulcarpenter

[edit] merge?

I see no sign of support for the proposal. The one person who wanted the merge seems to have been removed. -- AuntySue 11:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just started a discussion on merging at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Arts. There I suggested merging this article along with handicraft, craft and useful arts into the article Applied arts. I thought I would see what kind of opinion exists before I start throwing out merge tags. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] links

After viewing the items under External Links, I don't understand why any of them needs to be there. If we include whatever is relevant, there's about a hundred I could add for balance. For each link, what purpose does it serve the article? and is it the best or a balanced representation of what is available? My answers to those questions caused me to want to remove the whole section. Its presence just attracts self-servers and directory compilers. What do others think about the external links section and/or the worthiness of any of the links that are there? AuntySue 11:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam is a real problem and you've summed up the external links page fairly well however, to keep on top of it (especially a bulk removal), requires someone to take an ongoing interest in a page and actively monitor any future additions.

Personally, I'd toss a coin on http://www.craftbits.com as it asks for nothing but seems to offer a lot in return, (although there should be a better subpage for it) but other than that I think they should all go, especially the charity link as it offers nothing to support the main article. — Graibeard 00:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone ever itemised the criteria for external links that are desired? I imagine it would include: international relevance, provides supplementary reference material, not a club or chat or seller unless that is what the article is about, not a personal page or blog, etc. - AuntySue 11:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)