Talk:Rug making

Explanation required

• Needs to have an actual explanation of rug-making, including a history of the procedure. Maybe working from the first rugs up to modern made machine rugs. The intro also has to change because it says nothing about what rug-making is, just that rag-rug making was common up until mid-20th century. Basically MAJOR editing is needed.

--Windfinder 15:31, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rag rugs can be woven (I've never done one but I know the trick). Is there a non-woven variety, or should they just be listed under woven? [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 01:09, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Merger of categories

There are two categories relating to rugs: 1. Category:Rugs which is a sub-category of Category:Textile arts which is a sub category of the Categories: Artistic techniques | Art media | Textiles | Crafts | Arts and crafts and 2. Category:Rugs and carpets which is a sub-category of Category:Textiles

I propose to merge Category:Rugs into Category:Rugs and carpets. Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Rugs_to_Category:Rugs_and_carpets --A Y Arktos 21:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Advertisement?

The section about hooked rugs does not appear to meet the criteria for neutral P.O.V. and appears to be an endorsement of a particular company, Grenfell Handicrafts. I move that this material be stricken from the article. Also, I note that Traditional_Rug_Hooking has similar content. Should we merge Traditional_Rug_Hooking into this article when the Grenfell stuff is removed, or does Traditional_Rug_Hooking deserve its own article? Would "hooked rugs" or "rug hooking" be a better name than "traditional rug hooking"? Alison Chaiken 04:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Rug hooking would seem a better name. However Wikipedia:Naming conventions (verbs) suggests do not use a verb when there is a more appropriate teitle. Perhaps it should then be called Hoooked rugs. I think the topic deserves its own article.--A Y Arktos 19:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the link to an online rug store as it provided no informational added value The real bicky 15:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Merger of Carpet and Rug making articles

• Oppose - they seem well-enoough developed articles in their own right. Please explain why they should be merged.--A Y Arktos 19:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Each article has enough potential to stay as it is. --A bit iffy 11:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Note: The main discussion about the merger proposal is at Talk:Carpet. --A bit iffy 08:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for external link

Proposal for a useful external link: How Oriental Rugs Are Made Today Overview of the modern Oriental rug industry and comparison to traditional techniques. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azeriana (talk • contribs) 23:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposing external link article about the history of the rag rug. It is located at the following url: History Of The Rag Rug

Removed Link

Removed external link because it did not work.

Photograph of embroiderers

Please remove the photograph of the shop or Azerbaijanee embroiderers. The art of embroidery is not the same as carpet and rug weaving. You were told about the picture in Russian Wikipedia article, and you know about the activity of the men at the pic. I hope, you will not make me to delete this pic myself. I will check in several days. Thanks in advance.--Zara-arush (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Rewriting

This article has been requested to be rewritten, in order to comply with Wikipedias quality standards. I think this request is fair, and the article should be rewritten. This is because, when referring to Wikipedias quality standards (Manual of Style) it states that the article should be user friendly, and consist of concise language and a consistent layout and format. In particular, the lead section is too brief (only one sentence). According to the manual of style, the lead section should be a concise summary of the article and its contents, which is not presented in the current lead section. --Elizad.ole (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The article also needs citations to reliable sources. I almost decided to delete the only source cited per WP:EL#ADV, but the site is dead. Nevertheless, it is a very poor source, and needs to come out, preferably soon. - Donald Albury 00:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)