Talk:Goldsmith

Old
Trying to get this topic in shape - I'm a goldsmith of many years. I expect it will be revised, but any suggestions or desired sections from any would be welcome, too. Jjdon (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

is it me or does certain parts of this article look that they have been lifted from a book?

i.e

'What is it that goldsmiths do? Goldsmiths do many things: Located in a social network, they must relate to clients, design, manufacture, sell, and otherwise engage in the host of activities which constitute their social being' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rage1750 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

i think a section sould be added about how the bank system originated from middle age goldsmiths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.126.24.2 (talk) 11:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I clicked the link to the project page listed here and ended up on the project page for "Woodworking". Can somebody correct this link? Kyle Thomas 19:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean; I can't find any such link. Can you be more specific? There is a link to wikiproject woodworking on the metalworking project page, but the links above should take you directly to the metalworking project. --Eyrian 19:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The link (project page) is working now for me, though at the time of my first post, it wasn't. Kyle Thomas 07:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I would argue the statement that a goldsmiths commonly made items would include: flatware, platters, goblets, decorative and serviceable utensils. If you took a poll of 1'000 "Goldsmiths", and asked if their skills include flatware, platters, goblets, decorative and serviceable utensils, I'd be suprised if you got more than one or two responding yes, if even that many. These skills, for a "goldsmith", would be the exception, without a doubt! Clearly these skills would fall under what used to be called "silversmithing", though nowdays handmade flatware, platters, goblets, decorative and serviceable utensils is a lost art. Most of theses items, though possibly requiring some hand assembly and finishing processes are now mostly machine stamped and fabricated. Kyle Thomas 08:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This article covers a whole, if vaguely defined, historical period. Goldsmithing included silversmithing (as well as jewellery) in most places during the middle ages & even after. But yes the article is pretty crap & if you can please improve it - if you are mainly covering current practises then just stick a section in called "modern goldsmithing" or something. Johnbod 16:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
The section on "The Modern Goldsmith" is factually incorrect throughout, does not have a NPOV, and does not belong in a wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.133.123 (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

How is it factually incorrect? Elaborate, please. In rereading the passage I see nothing that is not completely factual. I see nothing that is not neutral. That is the work of the goldsmith, that is the purpose of the wiki, to describe that. I don't get it.....Explain, please. Jjdon (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, unless more cogent reasoning is added the tag should be removed - was the editors first contribution (of 4 to date) Johnbod (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm very proud of this writing - proud mostly because I took pains to be factual and NPOV to begin with. My feeling is that 74.12.133.123 wandered through and dumped on it without any real cause. I propose giving the tag one month from it's insertion to permit 74.12.133.123 time to elaborate and delete it if they haven't in that time. I have no objection to good editing by others, but this isn't that.Jjdon (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I wish to thank 74.12.133.123 as his tagging this page, and a few other experiences in WP, have set me off on a tag cleanup crusade, which has a huge backlog and can be accesses here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:NPOV_disputes, if anyone else is inclined to help. So:

This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, or perhaps there is a consensus on the discussion page, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. Do not undo this edit, but put a new tag and new comments so it will have a current date. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted. No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge from goldwork
I'm really adding this as another user previously noted in an edit summary at goldwork that it should be merged with this page. So I did the legwork and added the merge temps. I don't know much about the topic, but it does seem like a logical merge. Wizard191 (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ideally there would be 2 articles, but the other is so pathetic it should just be redirected here, with template & cats added. Johnbod (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Jeweler
Since somebody added a sentence about jewelers being essentially salesmen, I'll put this here on the discussion page. The statement is sort of true but not really. I was a union goldsmith at one time, and the classification on my union card was "jeweler". All of us in the department were referred to as jewelers. Within the trade it is common to refer to goldsmiths as jewelers - "workers who do jewel-ing". I don't feel any need to alter the main text as it's near enough, but I do want to clarify the point. Jjdon (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Last Change (Revert)
Why was this considered vandalism?

I removed original research, uncited material, peacock words, impertinent and irrelevant material, essay style discourse, off-topic rhetoric, confusing & ambiguous language and contradictory material.205.206.8.197 (talk) 08:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Generally, if you find something as vague/uncited you're encouraged to elaborate or reference it, not remove it. It was removed as vandalism because you provided no rationale for deleting the content, and when someone is monitoring Huggle and finds large removals of content from a page they don't have time to read through all of it and judge the intricate merits of the content removal, as there's a good 100 edits a minute they have to sift through. In future, provide a detailed edit summary and the edit is far less likely to be reverted. Sellyme Talk 08:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Awesome, Thanks.205.206.8.197 (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)