Talk:Craft

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Craft Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Craft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of craft 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.CraftWikipedia:WikiProject CraftTemplate:WikiProject CraftCraft articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Visual arts This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts 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.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles Textile Arts Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Textile Arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of textile arts 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.Textile ArtsWikipedia:WikiProject Textile ArtsTemplate:WikiProject Textile ArtsTextile Arts articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Arts

This article was selected as the article for improvement on 23 September 2013 for a period of one week.

Hello, fellow editors. I am faculty in the MA in Critical Craft Studies program at Warren Wilson College, and I will be guiding my students in some targeting editing of this page on Jan. 12, 2023. We intend to add citations and develop the scope of the article from a European-centered craft history to a more global view. Please feel free to reach out to me to discuss. Dilettante Army (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a not a free advertising service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.142.137 (talk) 08:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, please. Tim Stoner, or whoever, this is not a free ad service! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.142.137 (talk) 08:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah how pleasant it is to stumble across a place that seems blissfully unaware of the art/craft debate that has raged in the UK for the past 100 years. In fact it is such a treat that I'm not going to spoil the quaint anachronism that IS this article.

no not a word about the word stemming from the German word Kraft (power) and its subsequent vilification in the english language as the superstitious practice of the 'illiterate peasant'. or the political use made of the word by Morris and others to seperate a left wing agenda from the right wing use of Art, nor the modernist relegation of all things 'craft' to the domain of the feared lower classes, I shaln't quote from 'The Intellectuals and the Masses' by Carey about how conan doyle and h.g.wells epitomise that fear (along with the popular press and the bicycle) and how 'news from nowhere' was used as a rallying cry to rehabilitate a popular possesion of culture.

and what a relief not to have to outline british arts funding relating to the two strands, how they are defined and what it says about culture in britain today. After all wikipedia is american isn't it. lol DavidP 23:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is how articles start. Please add to an article rather than making derisive comments. Clubmarx 00:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies Clubmarx, if you found my comments derisive - I was attempting irony, true, but had hoped to provoke someone to attempt the article, sometime. Of course you are right I should gather my sources and write the begining of the page. The reason that I didn't is that I am weary of trying to keep arts based pages on track with current(ish) professional issues. It seems to me that unlike the good old empirical subjects that are eminently provable, arts based subjects are not only subjective but also subject to quite extreme cultural interpretation, and to be quite honest I dont think the machinations of a minor branch of the arts from a minority British perspective are something I want to spend time putting in context or justifying here. DavidP 00:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"shaln't"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.6.113 (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This entry should be linked to the German entry "Handwerk". The German word "Handwerk" both relates to "trade" and "craft" in English. Could anybody do this, please? I am new to Wikipedia (as a contributor) and don't know how to do this. Thanks!

By the way: The German entry on "Handwerk" links to "trade"; I'd rather link it to "craft", since trade both relates to craft and to the trading of goods, whereas "Handwerk" in its original, strict sense relates to craft, but not to the trading of goods. So this should be changed too.

193.192.244.44 (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to you, and thus I have changed it. But the present situation is still somewhat unsatisfactory because a Wikipedia article "craftsman" is still missing. And what has to be said about craftsmen, some of it has been put into the "

tradesman" article. Not every craftsman is an owner of a trade, especially in the learning phase of his career. This makes it delicate. I hope that somebody will make a start with a Wikipedia article "craftsman" so that things can be put right here. --A.Abdel-Rahim (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

God damn I'm not even a regular editor but holy crap guys don't add your minecraft servers and stuff here goddamn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.214.81.122 (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]