Talk:Lace machine


 * Tripping over the originally wrong leavers link, I thought it would be better to make one article for all the lace machines in the template.
 * I know where to find native speaker with affiliation on the subject. With the provided references I might convince someone to improve/complete the article.
 * For now I copied the existing bobbinet article into this one, the pusher paragraph is my job. I guess I should paste this new article into the bobbinet article and rename that one. Either way it seems one history gets lost or at least less accessible. Don't care about my own history here, but I suppose the talk-page matter. Quite a fuzz for a newbee.

Jo Pol (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Jo Pol, I hadn't seen your comments since usually people don't use the Talk page of Drafts. Not disallowed, just reviewers don't tend to look there since it's not commonly used at that phase. In any case, when you copy from one article to another, best practice is to use the WP:Edit summary at bottom of your editing window to say "Copying 'Tahitian ukulele' sub-section from Ukulele over to this article" or similar so folks know where you're drawing from and can check the origin article for credits. If you want to sort of catch this up now, just leave a general comment on this Talk page saying "this page has some content copied over from X, Y, Z articles". MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello MatthewVanitas, I naively expected comments on missing references in the copied bobbinet section, and thus it would be seen. Meanwhile I added a dummy edit about the copied content. Changed the bobbinet link and some wanted pages on the lace types template to link here. I guess now the bobbinet article should be changed to redirect here. Jo Pol (talk) 09:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Second thoughts: bobbinet is made by various machines so it stays on its own page, see reference. Jo Pol (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Bobbinet
Hello Jo Edkins, as you can see above and i the history, I struggled with leaving the existing bobbinet article alone, or merge it. Linking to the article that covers a broader subject is a third option. More about the lace category on my user page. Jo Pol (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * PS: Thanks for completing my stub. One issue with the last phrase of my section: I had to translate Earnshaw's id back to English. I might have done that clumsy and could not specify a page number.Jo Pol (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I put a link to the Bobbinet page from Machine laces. That sounds reasonable - people can look at the article on all lace machines and click through to other pages for individual machines. I know that only Bobbinet exists at the moment, but perhaps other people will add more pages.


 * To tell the truth, I looked up Barmen machine on Wikipedia, found the empty section, said "Bother", found the necessary information elsewhere in a pdf online, then decided to go back to Wikipedia and put a sentence or two in each empty section, copying it shamelessly from the pdf (which has the V&A as co-publisher, so reputable).


 * Should I add a page number to the Earnshaw book (on Machine Lace, not her Identifying Lace book)? There's a chapter on Barmen machines, and it's in that - so easy to find, I would have thought. It's a small point (the maximum width of Barmen lace) but diagnostic of the lace, which was why I added it. And the whole book is a very important reference for people learning about lace machines.


 * --Joedkins (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The other Earnshaw book is fine with me. I could not use it because I do not have as you can see from my booklist linked on my user page.
 * -- Jo Pol (talk) 07:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

citing
Hello joedkins,

Possibly a useful hint for this subject, and perhaps others: named cite with different page numbers

-- Jo Pol (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Apprentice
Who is here because of the Apprentice? 213.52.129.132 (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Main Illustration
Why is there for a picture of Carrickmacross Lace to illustrate an article entitled "Lace Machine"? Yes, it uses machine-made net as a basis for hand-made appliqués, but there is no explanation of this, the net is hardly evident from the picture, and a more appropriate picture would be either of a lace machine, or the type of imitation of hand-made lace that can be made on such machines. I propose to make such a change. Socialambulator (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)