Talk:Ravelry

Cleanup
This article has been seriously cleaned up. Please do not re-insert all the irrelevant details and nitpicky facts about the site. They are not needed in an encyclopedia article, which is intended to give an overview. They were the chief issue with this article, making it sound like an advertisement. Additional sources have been added and cited. Please do not add additional unsourced facts, or facts that can only be verified from internal Ravelry pages. pschemp | talk 06:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Links
Collection of press links: http://del.icio.us/casey/ravelry+press (lots of blogs, but also CNN.com, WSJ, and other sources that Wikipedia usually likes)

Alexa rank in US (as of Jan 1 2010): 2,140 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.116.139 (talk) 05:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Closure of Remnants
To the anonymous IP who wants to mention the closure of Remnants in the "Features" section—

I understand that you're sad Remnants closed. I miss it a lot too. (That's actually what got me back into editing WP, that I can't spend my Internet-browsing time reading Remnants any more. I'm not kidding.) But this simply is not important enough in the scheme of things to be mentioned in a 3-paragraph description of the site. Everything on Ravelry is in flux and has been since it was created. The article doesn't mention the new search features, or the Search Party event, and those were big events to Ravelers too.

Casey has said that there will be some sort of new forum to take its spot on the main boards, and Remrants and other groups are taking over other pieces of Remnants' functionality. Obviously, nothing can ever completely replace Remnants, but I think that in a couple months we might not miss it as much as we do now.

It appears to me, based on my knowledge of Wikipedia's rules, that the statement should not be re-added unless you can find a reliable source outside Ravelry. (Since Rav requires an account, we try to avoid using inside-Rav sources on this article. The Ravelry Blog is fine though, and anything else that's accessible without logging in.) Also, I think other expansion would be necessary to avoid giving this one topic undue weight.

Thanks for reading. I'd like to hear your thoughts...you can reply here, or if you want to discuss it more privately, feel free to message me on Ravelry. My username there is "lirin". Princess Lirin (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Political censorship
The company run site apparently has banned Trump support as white supremacy advocacy. This is, objectively, nuts for a crafting site which would normally take all ideologies but that's not appropriate language for an encyclopedia entry. Here's a source text on the new policy https://pjmedia.com/trending/8m-member-craft-site-ravelry-bans-support-for-trump-undeniably-support-for-white-supremacy/

Here's the policy page: https://www.ravelry.com/content/no-trump

This entry into politics is notable and needs to be neutrally covered. I'm just not the person to do it. TMLutas (talk) 11:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Already done. DS (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that declaring the current administration as being openly for white supremacy is a bit controversial with plenty of people declaring not only that it's not obvious that they support white supremacy but also that they don't support it, period. Nothing in the article despite my giving a perfectly good sample for the controversy section that should be there. Already done? i don't think so. TMLutas (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're objectively wrong, and citing an objectively biased source to support your objectively stupid argument. (I asked you to redact your misuse of the word 'objectively', and you declared that you would not, so this is what happens now.) a) Is it mentioned in the article? Yes. b) Is it neutral? That's what scare quotes are for: we're not passing judgment on whether their announced reason is valid, we're only saying what their announced reason is. Any declaration on our part that "obviously they're [correct/incorrect], Donald's administration [is/is not] full of fascists, authoritarians, bigots, and white supremacists, and his policies [promote/do not promote] genocide" would be taking sides. Is it important to you that the article include a passage about "conservative media sources were briefly outraged at a privately-owned business expressing a political stance with which they disagreed, even though they had never previously taken the slightest interest in fabric arts"? If yes, we can work on that. DS (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2019
For clarity and fairness, I recommend the insertion of the words identified in CAPS below.

2019 ban of support for Donald Trump On June 23, 2019, Ravelry announced via a blog post that it would ban the support of U.S. president Donald Trump and his administration.[14] The reason given was an incompatibility of Ravelry's ERRONEOUSLY SELF-STYLED policy of inclusiveness with WHAT RAVELRY REFERS TO AS 'the Trump administration's "support for open white supremacy",' DESPITE LACK OF EVIDENCE. The details of the policy were adapted from a similar policy established by tabletop role-playing community RPGnet in October 2018.[15][16][17][18] 2603:900B:329:A200:B05C:CDC5:80B7:72D0 (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The quotation marks already indicate that the bit about white supremacy is lifted from the blog post, and the post is cited. Calling Ravelry's policy "erroneously self-styled" is neither clear nor fair, it's just adding someone's random personal opinion.Cortador (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC):
 * Marking this answered as ❌, per the above. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 04:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Reference re Ravelry redesign
I've reverted the removal of a reference to Psychology Today about the Ravelry redesign, here. I understand the concern about the point the article makes, but it looks like a valid reference. Tacyarg (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding that there is a slightly different version of the article here. Tacyarg (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also adding that most of the discussion about this has been in blog posts, which are no good for references. This, from CraftGossip, may be usable. Tacyarg (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would also emphasize that I made very clear that this is Psychology Today's opinion. Are they right, who knows, but this is what they said, in their exact words, and it would be intellectually dishonest to omit that. DS (talk) 00:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It's still not clear to me why this is a relevant reference. I would offer a small correction to the above:  it's not Psychology Today's "Opinion." In fact, it's a "Psychology Today Blog" entry (if you click on the author's name, you will see that it is labeled as such). The author apparently specializes in mass psychogenic illness (and note that most of his recent publications are not academic, but for the popular press).  This blog entry is his opinion.  Though he cites references, many are not relevant to the topic, and he does not have a specialty in or a particularly good understanding of epilepsy or of photosensitivity.  On the other hand, the Epilepsy Foundation is a trustworthy source. (For context, I am a neurologist -- and obviously *not* a Wikipedia expert!)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:100:AA30:6D03:DE7B:68B5:5209 (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Anyone can claim to be a neurologist on a Wikipedia talk page. Please raise your issue on the "Reliable Sources" noticeboard. DS (talk) 06:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me, but why is that necessary in this case? It's plainly a blog entry, and as far as I can tell the noticeboard is for the purpose of ruling on classes of evidence or sources in general, not specific blog entries, unless I am mistaken? Above on this very page, I read "most of the discussion about this has been in blog posts, which are no good for references" so I figure this applies here as well. As you point out, my being a neurologist is not pertinent to my ability to check the "Psychology Today" website and to see that the cited source is a blog entry. Anyone can do that as well as I can! (Though I am a neurologist and academic and good at determining what constitutes reasonable evidence in my domains of expertise, you're the editor here, certainly!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:100:AA30:843A:AD77:95DE:6079 (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

What is an icord edge?
Edges 92.239.167.47 (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)