Jump to content

Talk:Lampworking

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cleanup

[edit]

Hi. I have trimmed this article considerably on account of the tags. "The tone or style of this article or section may not be appropriate for Wikipedia." I have formalized the tone of the article. For instance, I removed all mention of commercial suppliers, history of those companies, and details about commercial products. While this is valuable information for an instructional website, it is not encyclopedic in nature.

"This article or section contains instructions, advice, or “how-to” content. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter."

I have removed all instructions, advice, and "how-to" content. I have left a description of the process that, while of little use to beadworkers, is a clear and simple enough overview for the general public. DrippingGoofball 13:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please move all the stuff, or an instruction version to Wikibooks? They like that kind of thing there, and we don't like to lose information that is valuable to another project. Also, you cut way too much. The ppoint is to re-write it as prose, not just throw everything in the trash can. I agree with removing most of the commerical crap, but this was a merge from glass beadmaking and the cut you made was too drastic. I'm sorry to have to say that, and I thank you for your effort, but I'm going to revert so the article can be re-written. pschemp | talk 15:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The information is not lost because it has been removed from the current version. It is still documented in the history. Therefore, nothing is not in the trash can... more like the recycling bin. The detailed instructional material, history without proper citation, and commercial plugs can always be tranferred to Wikibooks even if it's not on the live version of the article. I have already re-written a proper article that is in prose and not a how-to, and I removed the commercial name-dropping, which was rampant. I have changed instructions into descriptions. As it now stands, it is much closer to an encyclopedic article than the version you are reverting to. Please do not revert it again, and consider seeking a third opinion. DrippingGoofball 22:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There. It's in Wikibooks now, where I am never going to touch it over there! Have fun with it if you have the time and energy... http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Lampworking DrippingGoofball 22:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm quite aware that info is never really lost, however you took the cuts too far. I already agreed that there was too much commercial stuff, however, the other things need to be rewritten, not deleted wholesale. pschemp | talk 22:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have respectfully moved the content you wished to preserve to Wikibooks as you have directed me to do. Now, I would like to ask you to respectfully not revert this article again until a third opinion/mediator. I am posting a request on the noticeboard right now. DrippingGoofball 00:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I politely asked you to re-write rather than cut, and you failed to even try to engage in a compromise. I am the person who tagged it to begin with. It is vital that this article retain the fact that this is an important process in beadmaking. A description of the technique is fine, it just needs to be written better. I beleive I can do a much better job than the indiscriminate hacking you've attempted, however you won't even pause to let me try. This is deplorable. pschemp | talk 00:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not jut cut, I did a lot of re-writing. Look again. I personally believe it's better to start from the trimmed down version, because it's a better, if not perfect, model for tone and style, than the longhand version. You might have considered, rather than to revert my edit in its entirety, and send me back to the drawing board wholesale, to selectively re-include the parts you considered too vital to trim down. Again, the entire text is now on Wikibooks, which I have done at your urging, to make you happy. I have formalized the request for a 3rd opinion. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements DrippingGoofball 00:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It is vital that this article retain the fact that this is an important process in beadmaking." What process, what fact? I am not sure what you mean. DrippingGoofball 00:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know that, you probably aren't the best qualified person to be cutting information. pschemp | talk 00:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While you agree that the article is full of commercial babble and company namedropping, you just reverted my edit in its entirety, and put the commercial stuff right back. I didn't see where to even begin discussion here. DrippingGoofball 00:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is how you work with people. If someones disagrees with an edit, the page goes back to before the edit, then you go to the talk page, have a discussion and work out an agreed version *before* the change is made again. You don't keep reverting to the disputed version. This is called getting consensus, and I advise you read WP:CONSENSUS. pschemp | talk 00:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK then, I am leaving it as "before the edit", it's now back to its former commercial how-to banter glory unmolested by me, and now Wikibooks duplicate content. I am going to walk away http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility. I think our poor "third opinion guy" is going to have enough to read, and I wish him/her best of luck, and he/she has my gratitude for volunteering for a thankless job. DrippingGoofball 00:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion

[edit]

What a lovely skewed version of the conflict you posted, DG. The question is not which version is better, like some petty schoolgirl dispute, but how can the article be best improved. I think there is a better way, yet you refuse to even consider it, or give me a chance to demonstrate it. Nothing is being hurt by letting the article remain while people work on it. It was also, me who tagged the article in the first place, so I'd remember to re-write. Blantant refusal to even attempt compromise is not an attitude that is acceptable on Wikipedia. All you've done so far is cut it to your version and then complain when someone disagreed, rather than trying to work it out. pschemp | talk 00:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reported the dispute to the best of my abilities, as fairly as possible. Feel free to edit the request for a third opinion if you like, and you are able to give a more fair description. DrippingGoofball 00:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't mediated in a third opinion before, but if the two editors concerned would like me to give a neutral opinion, please leave a brief description each of how you think the article should look, and I'll see if I come up with a reasonable compromise.
Please avoid
  • Personal attacks or slurs
  • Edit Warring
Please use
  • extreme civility
  • professionalism
  • kindness
  • respect

 – Tivedshambo (talk)

I want it the look the way I fixed it. All you need to do is look at the version that was reverted. Psechemp wants the version as it is currently displayed, with only minor changes such as removal of commercial names (at least, that's what I understand), and I want drastic removal of a great deal of what I consider to be inappropriate, unencyclopedic information. For example, the entire section entitled "Brief history of modern lampworked beads" should be removed because it is largely anecdotal, uncited, and quite possibly biased reporting, with gossip about forums and associations which is beyond the scope of this article. This information has already been transferred to Wikibooks, verbatim. A sentence or two in the introductory paragraph about how it's become a popular home hobby might be appropriate, but not much more. The "basic technique" is a talky, step-by-step how to manual but we are not trying to teach people how to make beads, but give them a simple, clear and general overview of each step. Most of the section describing "types of glass" is about this company did this, this other company used to supply that, but not anymore, use this substitute, that kind of info. The section called "General methods" is appropriate, but written in talky style. "Glass selection" is overly heavy on details.
I fixed all that, but maybe I was wasting my time. Live and learn. DrippingGoofball 01:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My third opinion, and reasons

[edit]

I've looked at both versions, and taken what I feel are the best of each, together with a bit of improvement of my own. See here and here for the variations.

I think that DrippingGoofball has made an excellent attempt at improving the tone of the article, but was a bit too over-enthusiastic with the shears. For example, I feel the modern history section is relevant, though it still needs some improvement in tone. Further expansion of this could be made, but I think this would be better in its own article, so I've added a redlink to it. I don't feel the glass selection section is too detailed, though it possibly contains a bit of jargon (such as devitrification) which should be explained. Other jargon words I've left include stringers and marvering - these should also be explained in the text.

I've left the Basic Techniques as DrippingGoofball edited it, but put the Additional Techniques section in as well. I've taken out all references to specific manufacturers and individuals (except where linked), as these will be meaningless to the average reader.

I put in the soda-lime glass subsection for the sake of completeness, though it needs expanding. For example, why is it the most popular?

There are still improvements to be made, and you'll probably both disagree with some of the changes I've made, but I hope this goes at least some way towards a good compromise. – Tivedshambo (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updates

[edit]

I have updated this article to include some additional data and better describe lampworking to the general public.

Changes include:

Changes in the first paragraph of the article to better describe lampworking and differentiating it from glassblowing (as defined in Corning Glass Museums dictionary).

Changes in the third paragraph of the article to better describe the art form, as it was originally described with an emphasis on bead making, which is only one of several forms of lampworking art. This expands the readers understanding of lampworking.

Changes to the tools section to describe what a marver is in both the noun function and verb function. (see definitions in Corning Glass Museums dictionary).

Changed the title of the "General Methods" section to "General Methods of Beadmaking" as this section is generally specific to bead making. Some of the terms, such as annealing, can refer to other forms of artwork.

Added a link to Art Glass Lampwork History by Robert A. Mickelson, a renowned glass artist. He is on the board of directors of the Glass Art Society and has many published articles in flameworking (lampworking), technical and historical arenas of glassworking. He is also listed as an instructor for the Corning Studio of Glass and has many of his works exhibited in collections worldwide.

References used: Corning Glass Museum website articles, Art Glass Lampwork History article by Mr. Mickelson.

Thank you for the opportunity to add to the article.

Allrias (talk) 05:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Allrias[reply]

Proposed outline for reorganization of the article

[edit]

Here is my proposed outline for reorganization and expansion of the lampworking article. I think this structure will make the article more organized, readable and make it easier for people to contribute without confusing the article and adding unnecessary sections or just adding information in random locations. So let me know what you think, I'm hoping we can work together to improve this article without having the changes reverted.

  • Definition
  • History - move history from the definition section and expand - this should include the various landmarks in the development of lampworking in addition to the origin information that is now in the definition. Also this could be a good place to talk about the various people who have been pioneers in the field although this could be a source of self promotion and controversy over who is/is not worthy of mention.
  • Process - a general description of the lampworking process
  • Types of Lampworking/Lampworked Products - mandrel, blown art/giftware, sculptural, marbles, scientific, pipes
  • Decorative Techniques? - raking, inside-out, wigwag, reticello, etc
  • Glass Types and Forms
  • Types - soda-lime, borosilicate, lead, dichroic. This would include an explanation of the differences and reasons for selection.
  • Forms - rod, tube, frit/powder, cullet, murrini, cane(latticino/filligrana/zanfirico), stringer
  • Glass Colorants - this may be getting off topic a bit and not contribute much to the value of the article
  • Additives - Mica, metals(leaf, foil, wire), sulfides, airtraps, fume, stones(gilson opal, tektite, etc.)
  • Tools/Equipment
  • See Also
  • References

I feel that the coldworking entry in Additional techniques for lampworked beads section should be removed as this is not lampworking. Maybe there could be a mention of coldworking in the Decorative Techniques subsection of the Process section.

The Basic "Wound Bead" technique section is too specific to beadmaking and should be removed and possibly added to the Glass beadmaking wikipedia article, however the last person that did this had their edit undone so this may meet resistance. I am not looking to undo people's contributions but I really don't think this section is needed if a general overview of the mandrel lampworking process is included in the Process section. Per1234 (talk) 05:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lampworking&oldid=1203477801"