Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lace

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] MfD Result Notice

This page was the subject of an MfD discussion closed on 13 August 2007. The result was no consensus. Xoloz 01:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goals

On Wikipedia in general my understanding is that technique information is fine, but How-To articles are not so good - pcr 01:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Hmm. What is the distinction? I assume that a general description of the equipment used would be okay, but if we were to show the steps involved in the stitches, would that constitute How-To, or technique? -- Julie E. 02:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I think that the shuttle tatting description is a reasonable example, it discusses the equipment and in a general sense how it is used without getting bogged down in a detailed step by step how-to. -- pcr 02:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The How-to article has a good discussion about this and suggests that detailed procedural knowledge may be more appropriate in a Wikibook. A Wikibook about textile crafts would be a great resource. Coming from a software background where increasingly large amounts of high quality information are in the public domain I get frustrated at how fiercly craft related information is protected (information that was once handed down as part of a tradition) -- pcr 02:07, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • So, the Wikipedia lace pages would generally describe the textiles, techniques, materials, history, etc., and contain links to any Wikibooks for more detailed "how-to" type information? That makes sense to me. Does the Wikibook become part of the Wikiproject on Lace, or is it a separate project? -- Julie E. 18:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I think that it is a seperate project! Getting Wikiproject Lace to a level of "completeness" (whatever that is) is going to be a large project, writing a comprehensive how-to book on textile crafts would be huge. -- pcrtalk 01:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • A Wikibook ~ That's brillliant! (More like a whole shelf full!) I have had a longstanding habit of sending little notes to eBay sellers who misidentify their laces. Most of the advice is on the level of this is crochet, this is knitting, this is tatting (by far the most common misidentification, crossword authors have a lot to answer for). Sometimes I get into extended conversations. I do not see lace identification as a topic, except perhaps implicitly in the list of the types of lace. What was the intent? PattyD 06:11, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • Should lace identification be a separate topic, or should ID information be a part of each type of lace?--Julie E. 21:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have a nice collection of historic examples of laces. It is my intention to first upload as many examples of laces as I can. Since I own the laces in question, there shouldn't be any copyright issues. PattyD 06:15, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lace ID

Lace Identification
Names various names the lace type is known by
Construction handmade vs. machinemade
Technique needlelace vs. bobbinlace vs. knotted vs. etc
Features distinguishing or unique features of the lace type
Origin where it came from
Related similar or derived lace types
Sample
lace sample

Maybe it would be a good idea to create a template for lace id. Then we could put the template on each lace page and just fill in the blanks as it were. This way the identification information would be in the same format on each page.

What fields should be in this template? I have made a first guess, but I suspect that others may be needed. -- pcrtalk 18:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

[edit] Lace types

Some of these are not necessarily clear cut. I would say Armenian Needlelace, not Bebilla and categorize it as a needle lace (because it is generally made with a needle, all laces involve knots!). I also wouldn't know how to distinguish between Lacis and Filet - pcr 01:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • They are, indeed, not clear-cut. Many of these laces are categorized in conflicting ways in different references. I am hoping that experts in the various lace types will help with their categorization. I am inviting participation on the lace email list, Arachne, which I hope will enrich this project. Not all laces involve knots, by the way; bobbin lace, in particular, is a weaving technique! Would it make sense, do you think, to redirect the Bebilla page to Armenian Needlelace, or perhaps the other way around? -- Julie E. 02:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • My preference is to refer to it as Armenian Needlelace and redirect the other names - but that is only because I know it as Armenian Needlelace! other people will have other ideas. I suspect the easiest thing to do is to let people write the pages and see who gets there first! Maybe I should start an Armenian Needlelace page just to get the ball rolling! -- pcr 02:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes! (By the way, I just read on Arachne that OIDFA might be offering a bebilla class at the next convention.) -- Julie E. 03:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, that has the ball rolling on that one. I need to upload a nice picture! -- pcr 03:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Wow, that was fast! -- Julie E. 03:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Rosemary Shepherd has a rather interesting category for the knotted laces. She classifies them as knotted needle laces. I think that is a very good way to think of them. They are made with needle and thread and they are made with knots, as opposed to buttonhole stitches in needle lace. PattyD 06:12, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other

Much that has been written about lace has a Western European bias ("lace didn't exist before the Venetians invented it" kind of stuff) it would be good to get away from that viewpoint if possible! pcr 01:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is exciting! - pcr 01:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • The more types of lace we can include, the better--but documenting lace before 1400s Europe is tricky and rather controversial, as I understand it, so a Western European bias may be likely. I know of few non-Western European laces, bebilla being one, but the others I know about (Russian lace, Nanduti, Greek bobbin lace) all derived from the European, as far as I know. I would love to be enlightened, though! Isn't that what this is all about? -- Julie E. 02:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • After buying and reading several hundred lace books, I don't see any significant evidence that lace is anything but a Western pheonomena. There are a few sorties into independent thread work in China and other eastern countries, but lace does seem to have been a western thing. There have been openwork textiles in ancient Egypt, Peru and other places, but while their effect is lacy, there is no sustained development of the technique. The textiles in these places remained focused on creating a fabric with ornament. I would suspect that after the Crusades, when Europe received a lot of Arab cultural influence, that something between the two cultures jelled into lace. It may be that if we create enough interest in our work, people from other regions and cultures may be able to add some of the missing links. The known history of lace is about 450 years of the western experience of it. PattyD 06:12, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • I was thinking about a variety of things, Filet appears to have antecedents in ancient Egypt, Armenian needlelace has some archeological evidence of great antiquity and a culture that had steel needles a thousand years before Europe (Armenia is also a candidate for the origin of siticulture, as mulberry trees are native there), there are also remnants of lace-like materials from south-america. On the other hand there are also journal articles and books still being produced that consider only a European tradition of lace-making. I am not arguing that the known history of lace is incorrect, just that that is merely the most recent 450 years of the known history of lace. I do agree that the rise of european lace-making, the status of the Venetian trading empire, the interaction with Arab cultures and the growth of trade on the Silk-Road all are probably intertwined. -- pcrtalk 06:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The Wiki ideal is a neutral point of view. From that standpoint, our story goes something like this: The written history of lace covers blah blah and blah, mostly a Western tale with cross fertilization from the Silk Road and the Middle East. There are intriguing examples of open worked textiles from ancient Egypt, Peru, and other non-Western cultures. Their stories have not become available. So there are other open textiles, but not much history for them. PattyD 09:07, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] EB2004

I'm working on the the EB2004 project, and I thought I should alert you of a few types of laces that are mentioned in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, but don't seem to be in your template yet. It's possible that they're pseudonyms, and a redirect would take care of the problem. I know nothing about lace, so I'll leave it to the experts. I've also included a link to Brittanica showing what they have to say about the laces. (Warning: Some people think looking at the Brittanica link makes writing an original article without plagarism difficult. If you think that'll be a problem, you may want to skip the links.) -- Norvy (talk) 04:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  1. Application Lace [Brittanica]
  2. Buckinghamshire Lace [Brittanica]
  3. Burano Lace [Brittanica]
  4. Duchesse Lace [Brittanica]
  5. Irish Needle Lace [Brittanica]
  6. Spanish Lace [Brittanica]
  7. Torchon Lace [Brittanica]
  8. Venetian Needle Lace [Brittanica]
  • I think that all of these are going to be covered one way or another. Several of these are categories, for example: Venetian Needle Lace covers a number of laces including Punto in Aria, Point de Venise, and Reticella; likewise Irish Needle Lace would encompass Limerick lace, Youghal lace, and Carrickmacross lace. So to maintain parity with the EB2004 we would either need to create disambiguation pages, or overview pages that describe the category in general (where there is something interesting to be said about the category). It seems to me to be a reasonable proposition that the Lace project take on responsibility for the EB2004 lace related articles. -- pcrtalk 21:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inactive

Is this project completely inactive? I had added material to some of the stubs (reticella, Broderie Anglaise) and will probably add more. I'd also like to tweak the template (move Armenian lace to needlelace since the link goes to Armenian needlelace. Comments? - PKM 19:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 22:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New WikiProject?

Hi,

Several of us are exploring the possibility of setting up a more general WikiProject for the textile arts, including not only lace, but also knitting, crochet, weaving, spinning, fabrics, clothing, fashion and the like. Would you all be willing to join? The initial proposal may be found here. We would try to keep your projects going, while expanding into new areas and developing a larger base of editors. One key advantage of a WikiProject is the Mathbot, which allows us to evaluate our articles by importance and quality; such assessments may be important for including articles in future paper versions of Wikipedia. Regardless of your feelings about a new Wikiproject, it would be nice to hear from people here, especially if you have any suggestions for us! :) Willow 21:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)