Talk:Bobbin lace

I suspect the picture labeled "Bobbin lace of the Royal collection, Belgium" is either needle lace or mixed lace (probably needle lace with a bobbin lace border?), but the resolution of the picture makes it hard for me to be sure. I have appealed to the Arachne list for expert judgment. I plan to move the picture to the appropriate lace article if the consensus agrees with my suspicion.Julie E. 18:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I suspect you are right. Woould you like to join our wikiproject on Textile Arts? We could use more lace expertise. - PKM 20:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Bone lace

I am going to delete the phrase " because sometimes fish bones were used as pins" unless some can source it VERY soon. It smells, um, fishy to me. - PKM (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleting now. PKM (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's mentioned in Lace, ancient and modern, but even there it's presented in a hearsay fashion, ie "Some say that..." Better to leave it out. Krschreyer (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Bobbin lace & braid theory (topology)

see articles on braid theory and braid groups--for those familiar with making bobbin lace, the correspondence between how straight laces are made and this area of topology is striking. Also, since braids (in the mathematical sense) are non-commutative, that means by extension that specific straight lace designs might be useable for public key encryption! Lacemaven (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

structure

joedkins, When the sun shows its face again, I might be able to make better pictures of the Honiton filling sampler. Now I understand why most books usually show so little detail. As a non-native speaker I'm not going to meddle with braids and tapes, but may be we should leave that to the articles about the respective laces or groups of laces. You may need to correct a little more terminology. Jo Pol (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Jo Pol, my instinct is to avoid 'braid'. It's liable to get mixed up with 'bride' which means plait (or leg) - the thing that connects motifs in guipure lace. And you braid hair in Britain. We are now stuck with Tape and Bobbin tape, but I think that's OK. The comment on 'braid' above is quite old, and sounds like a mathematician to me!

Any terminology that you want me to look at specifically? Joedkins (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Joedkins, It is just a general request to review my changes. My books about Milanese lace by Read and Kincaid also speak about "decorated" braids. Readers might have encountered all kind of terminology from all kind of sources. Earnshaw used a glossary to disambiguate. We may have to deal with future wikipedians ignorant about our choices while we are paying no attention for whatever reason. So I'm afraid we should not avoid but need some "also known as" and "not to be confused with" or "intended use" or whatever keeps the text still readable. As for the math: Search the web for Veronika Irvine and lace to learn more about recent development. Jo Pol (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Jo Pol, I don't mind 'braid' being used as a synonym - the more of those the better! By all means put it in wherever you want. But I think that the article names should be Tape lace and Bobbin tape lace - which is what we have, and those are on in the Lace Types table. I haven't got a reference for 'braid', but if you have one, by all means - add it! Perhaps it could be in a glossary, but a glossary for every lace term - whew! Pat Earnshaw has written a whole book on it! I do know that some lace people use 'braid' to mean either bobbin tape lace, or the other sort of tape lace, but I can't remember which, so I don't want to meddle in this. Joedkins (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Contemporary

joedkins, The contemporary section needs also a subsection about art. Such as jewelry, sculptures and wall hangings of Lieve Jerger (quantum cube, lace-princess/coach), Lenka Suchanek and many other artists. But how to deal with links and copyright? Or should we leave the web-search to the reader? Jo Pol (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Jo Pol, surely you can link to an artist's webpage? or a section in a museum or something? We wouldn't be able to use pictures of course. But a written section would be enough. I don't know anything about the subject, I'm afraid, so won't be able to help. Joedkins (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Joedkins, are there related terms or professions for rebar plaiters? Jo Pol (talk) 07:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Jo Pol 'rebar plaiters'? I've not heard of the term. Google doesn't seem to have, either Joedkins (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Joedkins, please read the fence section of the article and follow the link. Jo Pol (talk) 11:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Jo Pol, no, I have no idea (of an alternate term). The general word for a creative person is 'artist', and then there is a 'craftsman' which might cover it. I have never heard of all this. I like what you've done (I've done a little simplification, plus one idea added) but I am getting uneasy about the length of this section. It is an article on Bobbin Lace - an overview, and you are going into a lot of detail in this one section. Measure the lengths of the sections - the contemporary is longer than the Origins (which covers history)! I think you should make some of this into a new article - these (splendid) fences by themselves, perhaps, or even a whole article on contemporary lace. I think that this article should contain the first paragraph of Contemporary (since it explains, very well, the current situation). Then there should be one or two sentences covers the other two sub-sections, with links to new articles covering them fully. I'm not doing it myself, as this is your bit, and you might be startled if it started to disappear! Joedkins (talk) 12:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

article length

joedkins, We seem to have different opinions about the article length. I don't like the number of stub-size articles that mostly repeat what is said elsewhere, sometimes I'm looking to merge some. In fact I merged the raschel article into the warp knit that used to have an even larger section on raschel.

So I checked the guidelines. It states a max of "about 30 kB to 50 kB of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 4,000 to 10,000 words". We reached not even 5 kB or 800 words. Remains the matter of balance. I'm rather tempted to extend the first sections (moved the traditional styles up) and/or add more history. But all in due time. Jo Pol (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Jo Pol, it wasn't the total length of the article that worried me, but the relative size of the different sections. Origin contains 11 lines, which covers 400 or more years of the history of lace. Contemporary is 16 lines, covering just the present day, with minute details such as several lines of the locations of one, very specific, type of contemporary lace. I wouldn't want to get rid of this altogether, but I don't think it belongs here. There SHOULD be a section on contemporary lace, but it should be shorter. I must admit that I don't like very long Wikipedia articles. I find them hard to read when I don't know much about the subject. I prefer an overview article at top, then links to different sections, so I can explore the area that interests me. A block of text just makes me feel I have to read the lot. If you put in details on modern lace fences in the main article, then why not put in details of every single lace style, historic or modern? Because that really WOULD make the article too long! Details, such as locations and dates, belong in an article about that specific type of lace. As we have done for all other types of lace. The articles are short, but we have tried to make sure that they aren't stubs. I am sure that is a better approach. But that's just my opinion! Joedkins (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Joedkins,

Splitting pages does not reduce the size of blocks of texts, rather increases as you have to repeat the context. Sections keep the blocks smaller as the context is at hand in the TOC. I don't see having a page for each type of lace as a requirement. For example Warp knit has all sub types in sections, lace machine also has sections per type with hat notes for those having an article of their own.

On one hand I see your point about the fences, but putting it on a page of its own could make it a candidate for deletion because of a commercial bias. So I'm not sure about your solution. For the time being I moved it to my lace art sandbox, any help in searching for archived reports of exhibitions or guild contests, some more textile oriented artists or whatever would be appreciated. I'm possibly not much more knowledgeable on the subject than you.

The traditional types section definitely needs elaboration, giving more balance. But remember me trying to count to ten after finishing the Mesh grounded article. Having just a sub list of the available lace types did not seem good to me. Possibly the list should be somehow merged back in and completed. On the other hand I don't want to repeat too much of the mesh grounded page. So not sure yet how to balance it.

Jo Pol (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Jo Pol, but if the lace fences article was a candidate for deletion because of a commercial bias, then it would also be a candidate for deletion as a section inside another article. Either it is important enough to stand alone as a style, in which case it merits an article of its own. Or it isn't, in which case why is it taking up space in an important overview article? Most people read articles linearly - they can't skip - so I think it's important not to put too many details in it - only essential ones.

I don't think that such an article WOULD be a candidate for deletion, in fact. We have styles of machine lace which are still being sold. And elsewhere in the internet, there are articles on pop stars, or actors, or films, or whatever. Lots of commercial stuff. The point is - is it trying to sell stuff? If not, and if of interest to a potential Wikipedia reader, then it's OK, I think.

I don't mean to repeat something in both an overview article and a detailed article. That would be silly. But - as an example - having written the article on lace grounds, I went back to check the relevant lace style articles, and they all mentioned grounds already! Mostly in passing, and someone who didn't understand lace wouldn't even understand what the article meant! But now there in a link inside each lace style, so someone who didn't understand what ground meant can click through to check. And find pictures and descriptions and so on. That means that we don't have to define ground on each and every lace style. That saves space. (There is repetition with the description of rose grounds in the Flanders lace, which I've left for now.)

This is really starting a discussion of how the lace articles should relate to each other, and what's missing. The structure that was there when I started was really just a list of lace styles (most of which were missing or stub). Well, we've filled that out a bit. I would really like to keep those as different articles, because someone hears about a type of lace, and wants to know what it is, and tries to look it up on Wikipedia. And now, hopefully, they can find it. That seems the obvious way in, so should be covered. Also, all lace historians of whatever age seem to start with these lace styles as a basic unit, which they then try to organize in different ways, by country or century or whatever (and usually end in a mess!) But they agree on the styles.

However, there may be (I think there IS) a need for other articles. I've done one on lace pillows, for example, and lace grounds. It could be that you can develop the Bobbin Lace page, by expanding the history, for example, and then finds that it puts the rest of the article out of balance, so make a new article called History of Bobbin lace, with just a summary on the main Bobbin Lace page. (Or you find that the history doesn't get too long, so you leave it in Bobbin Lace). That seems to me to be a very Wikipedia attitude, developing as we go, and readjusting things so they look accessible on the page. As far as I'm concerned, I can't see whether an article is at the right level, until I do it, then look at the result. Joedkins (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't be afraid I'm going to merge the traditional lace articles without consensus. But don't forget there is not just one type of audience. I'd rather have similar laces with little differences on a single page. I prefer scrolling between switching pages. On an I-pad switching is slow as the page refreshes. Returning to the top of the page and using the TOC is much quicker. Readers who prefer switching can open the page twice, the other way around is not possible. Jo Pol (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, stumbled on an exception: the article on Brussels lace does have multiple types, luckily all happen to be part laces. And another type of audience: someone just happened to obtain a stash of lace and want to sell it on ebay, not having a clue the main article would be the starting point, clues are required to drill down. But it should be possible to read each article on its own (your audience) so some things have to be repeated. Jo Pol (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

one liners

joedkins, I'm having trouble getting the bold 'mesh' at the start of the phrase in the overview of traditional types, and could not create a one liner for all the types. Jo Pol (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Jo Pol, I've had a go - is that OK? I've put the link to ground - hope that's OK. That means that we can remove all the synonyms for ground (unless you want them in). After all, you've just said 'plaits' for guipure, not brides and legs and the rest!

joedkins, of coarse, kill your darlings, how simple can it be. The synonyms in the referred page is enough. Thank you. Jo Pol (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Page organisation (continued from article size)

Re the idea of combining lace types a bit - I've got no objection. I just suggest that you take it slowly and combine obvious ones. Something like Beds Lace has so many antecedents (and continues to develop) so it might be hard to put it in a category. It wouldn't matter if some got combined and awkward ones left alone. But if you combine, could you put in redirects to the individual styles on that combined page? So if people search for a lace, they get taken to the right page, rather than looking through the results of 'Page not found' search, which might make some people give up. Joedkins (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

bobbins and pillows

joedkins, you linked the spangled bobbins to the bobbins article. But that article does not contain lace bobbins, let alone something about spangled bobbins. As the types of bobbins are closely related to pillow types I'd rather have them in a single article. You might guess: my preference would be to have it in a tools section on the bobbin lace page. The bobbins article would need some "see also". Until that is done I think it is better to drop the link. Jo Pol (talk) 07:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

PS: did not read the bobbin article carefully, I was misguided by the lack of images. Jo Pol (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Jo Pol, yes, I didn't link putting in that link. But I had noticed that the Bobbin article mentioned lace bobbins, as I had been thinking of doing such an article after doing the lace pillow one. Since it had been already covered, I decided not to do any more (although it obviously isn't perfect). It DID mention bobbins with beads on, so it wasn't an outrageous link. I just don't like missing links. The number of Wikipedia articles that I've seen with inadequate information and red links all over! It is odd to have a link to that article just for spangled bobbins, and not for the other bobbins, but the original only had a (missing) link for that. And I was trying to change as little as possible.

It would certainly be nice to pull together some info about lace tools. Of course I'd prefer separate articles for each tool! But I know you don't, and if you want to pull my lace pillow into the main article as mostly a gallery with comments underneath each one, or a brief intro, then get rid of the original article (or better - make it a redirect) I won't mind! (If you do, put the Lacemaker in the gallery - it shows an early Netherlands pillow, which is different to the rest. Or find another picture of a similar pillow.) In fact, that is an extending of the article that I'd like. One of our putative readership is people who want to see the equipment. Pillow and bobbins always fascinate people. So I think it should be in the main article.

The Bobbin article (for all bobbins) wants tidying up, as well - no references and we could add a picture. I could do that. It won't affect what you're doing on the Bobbin Lace page, as it covers a more general area. And you don't have to refer to it on the Bobbin Lace page if you don't want to !Joedkins (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Structure section

I'm not very happy with Structure of lace. We've been talking about ground a lot, and it isn't mentioned in the gallery (where people's eyes tend to wander, like you with the Bobbin article!) How about a nice Point ground? The Toile is lovely, but is a headside, and we are dealing with people who may not realize that it's often (usually?) inside the lace. There is no picture of a motif, either in part lace or continuous lace. I would like a headside and footside as well, to define the terms, and after all, they ARE part of the structure of lace. I'm not adding anything myself with discussing it with you, because I may have the wrong idea of what this section should cover. Joedkins (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Joedkins I saw better examples of toile combinations in your index of patterns than I have in my stash. I don't manage to pick the darlings to kill in the umbrella footer. Jo Pol (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Joedkins I see you've put some more up. I've loaded some of my pictures - feel free to use any of them if they are of use:

Image:Continuous lace motif.jpg|Mesh ground motif

Image:Part lace motif.jpg|Part lace motif

Image:Bobbin lace gimp.jpg|Bobbin lace gimp

Image:Bobbin lace footside.jpg|Bobbin lace footside

Image:Bobbin lace headside.jpg|Bobbin lace headside

I've cleaned up the Bobbin article a bit - put a lace bobbin picture there and some references Joedkins (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Joedkins, would you have a better resolution for the mesh motif for a clearer demo of net stitch and cloth stitch? Jo Pol (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bobbin lace. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.fibreartsonline.com/fac/lace/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)