Talk:Jack of all trades

Citation needed

The couplet "Jack of all trades, master of none, Certainly better than a master of one" is currently sourced to Wiktionary. That might be circular, because the Wiktionary entry apparently derives from this one (see template above). In any case, Wiktionary, being an open wiki, isn't a reliable source, so a better source is needed. Andrew Dalby 14:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Portuguese Translation

The translation in the article is "Wood for any building". Obra also means work or handiwork. Maybe the translation could be "wood for any work" or maybe "wood for any kind of work". The phase is most of the time used in the context of work. When I hear the expression the image that comes to mind is work, work-site or construction site (not a finished building). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.73.84.82 (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Beginners mind

"Master of none" can be interpreted in a way similar to "a beginners mind" - that is to say, someone who in fact is a master of a skill, but does not view himself/herself as such, but rather aspire to keep an open mind and never stop learning new things. In contrast, someone who consider himself/herself a master will often resist new knowledge and have difficulty looking "outside the box".

The article does not seem to reflect this view at all.

"It is impossible for anyone to begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." - Epictetus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.24.109 (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard that before, and it is not mentioned in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (which does mention the pejorative meaning of "jack of all trades, master of none" - ISBN 0-19-929635-9, p.757). Do you have a citation for your definition? --Rob Kelk 19:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Entire page needs a new title or a redirect

Why is there an entire Wikipedia page for the rarer and wordier statement "jack of all trades, master of none", when there is no page/entry for the original, simpler and more common "jack of all trades"? It doesn't make sense to me. By that logic, we could just as plausibly have a page for the alternative phrasing "Jack of all trades, master of none is oftentimes better than master of one." and get rid of this page. But of course, that would be moving further in the wrong direction.

I would suggest that all the later variations of the phrase "jack of all trades" be subordinate to the original saying. Specifically, instead of this page with this title, there should be a wikipedia page for "jack of all trades", including definitions, citations, foreign language variations, etc. And within that page there could be a section for "jack of all trades, master of none" and perhaps even one for "Jack of all trades, master of none is oftentimes better than master of one."

Here's hoping someone that is not as lost about how to edit wikipedia as I am agrees and hops to it. 45.72.193.198 (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the above. And I see someone else who is also in agreement added another section further down. Should this be put to a vote? Gcronau (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Russian translations

One particular russian translation of the phrase ("И швец, и жнец, и на дуде игрец") appears twice in the "russian translations" section with two different english translations and two different explanations. While both explanations look good for me (as a native speaker of russian), I think it would be a good idea to somehow unify this.

just plan jack of all trades

jack of all trades.. should be the title of this article not jack of all trades, master of none..

i dont know who added this negative aspect into it but it could be used both ways with adding this master of none is clearly negative.. and there are plenty of occasions, where only "jack of all trades" is used as a compliment. never have written anything into wikipedia but this article made me furious..

Full Phrase

the actual full phrase of it is:

"Jack of all trades, master of none,

though oftentimes better than master of one."

It is on the wikitionary page here --Krazio (talk) 03:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree, but I can't find anything that I'd describe as a reliable source discussing that (as opposed to just using the phrase). AJD (talk) 03:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Translations

It was inappropriate for a list of translations to dominate the article. This is English Wikipedia. Its purpose is to be an encyclopedia that describes subjects to an English-reading audience, not a phrasebook. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for being bold, but I think it would be useful to have a discussion first before this is blanked. Paisarepa (talk) 05:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

All right. The list is original research and WP:COATRACK. It's true, many languages have acknowledged the tradeoff of diversity and mastery, but many languages have also acknowledged other aspects of the human condition and those articles don't generally include an exhaustive list of examples by language and dialect. If it is argued that so much work has been done to build the list, I would say that misguided work is still misguided. But is it really work or just "tagging" by various editors interested in representing this or that culture? I encountered the same situation a while back at Huey, Dewey and Louie. My solution there was to trim to three examples (described inline rather than as a list). I'd be open to something similar here, but just look at how much of the article length is now taken by translations. Do you really want to say that this is an effective way to introduce the subject? 73.71.251.64 (talk) 05:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Nope, I agree. The long-standing nature of the content isn't a good argument for keeping it, just for talking about it. I reverted your edit because I misunderstood your edit summary to mean that you'd removed the full list just because there were some interwiki links within in. I'll self-revert my edit. Thanks, Paisarepa (talk) 05:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Various random IPs: it is disruptive to edit war this addition seemingly indefinitely, without even an attempt to join the discussion. Please bring your arguments here, to the article talk page. While this discussion takes its course, the status quo ante version should remain in place, per WP:ONUS. Thanks and good luck. El_C 14:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Category

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Giftedness

71.80.203.159 (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

absolute Johannes factotum

In Origins section the part about "absolute Johannes factotum" and John Florio seems to be out of context. I don't see how it relates to Shakespeare and Greene, and to the topic of the article overall. Is there a quotation from Greene missing? 193.102.79.14 (talk) 08:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Nine months later and this problem still persists. Maybe one should just remove the segment and see if someone shows up to explain it... 77.22.117.2 (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I oppose removal. The word factotum means "do everything". It's been added a long time ago: [Jun 29, 2012, 10:17]. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this seems out of place. It's not apparent from the current text what "absolute Johannes factotum" has to do with "jack of all trades", so the paragraphs read more as commentary on a dispute between Shakespeare and Greene. Did either of these two says "jack of all trades"?

I see Axonov mentions a possible link between the two saying. Could that information, if correct, be added to the section, if you don't want to remove the section? Kastchei (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 1 November 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: First page moved as requested. Second page moved to Jack of All Trades. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

---

• Jack of all trades, master of none → Jack of all trades
• Jack of all trades → Jack of All Trades (disambiguation)

– There are two problems with the current title scheme. The first is that all other uses of the phrase are a reference to the aphorism, which is immediately recognized and understood (and just as readily without the "master of none" portion), and therefore of immensely greater historical importance. The second is that all other uses are at the title case title, Jack of All Trades, which distinguished the aphorism from titles incorporating it. BD2412 T 01:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nomination logic and description. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom WanderingMorpheme 14:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, the current title uniquely identifies the primary subject of the article, something the suggested title fails to do. Mercy11 (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support first, but second should be moved to Jack of All Trades (without "disambiguation") per WP:DIFFCAPS since the idiom is not the primary topic of "Jack of All Trades". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support both per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral on the first but agree with King of ♥ that dab page should go to Jack of All Trades per WP:DIFFCAPS. It already redirects to the dab page. Station1 (talk) 05:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.