Talk:Lace tells

Sources

https://doi.org/10.5871/bacad/9780197262887.003.0003
https://akjournals.com/view/journals/022/47/1-2/article-p111.xml
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt46nrm0.26?seq=17
https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:739569ea-d68f-4f3a-bb22-d9ffab496fc8/files/rdf65v861p
https://www.jstor.org/stable/848277?origin=crossref&seq=1
https://laceincontext.com/category/lacemakers-in-the-english-midlands/lacemakers-northamptonshire/
https://laceincontext.com/category/lacemakers-folklore/
https://laceincontext.com/category/lacemakers-songs/
https://doi.org/10.1353/cor.2007.0011
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315467856-1/introduction-%C3%A9va-guillorel-david-hopkin
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2752/147800408X266572?casa_token=4q3gE8xCTw8AAAAA:r53LV4pQ9dbcJcFXhooGmVPFp1DFSipflyXirRJOambgDU-cufyhOML6zec3PMBt5BJkVvoabet1
Rhythms of Labour ch 6
https://ia801207.us.archive.org/27/items/cu31924014557122/cu31924014557122.pdf ꧁Zanahary꧂ 09:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/848277?seq=1 cited in the 2023 Hopkin article as an account of German tells ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:14, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

etymology

Worth mentioning that tell is an archaic synonym of count ? —Tamfang (talk) 03:45, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it's mentioned here on page 3, and here on page 7. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Image alignment

Hey @GhostInTheMachine, the sheet music is above the size threshold specified in MOS:IMAGESIZE, meaning that it should be centered. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Sort of. The problem with the article is the collection of images that run down the right side. The display gets troublesome for narrower screens and the music image being in the centre tends to "bump" the right hand images. Moving it to the left seems to resolve this. I have reduced the image size to 400 as per the guidelines at MOS:IMGSIZE and that may help too. The guidance at MOS:SANDWICH talks about mixing left and right-aligned images and the guidance at MOS:IMAGELOC talks about using left-aligned images. I suspect that there is no layout that is absolutely correct for all users and all displays, but the smaller image seems to be better overall. Like the peacock tails, by the way — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 18:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Ore Mountains

@Zanahary: Hi, there seems to have been a misunderstanding. "Historical context that should be preserved", as you write in Edit summary, refers to cases such as the use of the name Constantinople for Istanbul before it was renamed Istanbul. But this mountain range never changed its name. For consistency and to objectively determine which name is most understandable to the reader, the geographical names used for the page titles are used in the text. We are not guided by what is in the specific source used, as the use of sources can be selective. And by the way, as Ngram shows, Erzgebirge Mountains was never more common name than Ore Mountains.

And please – don't accuse me of edit warring. I haven't even come close to anything like that. FromCzech (talk) 07:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

a correctly processed ngram shows that there is not a clear common name. The discussions at Talk:Ore Mountains show that there is not strong consensus for the use of Ore Mountains and that Erzgebirge is very common in English sources, and that “Ore Mountains” is often used by German/Czech authors who are translating directly. Together with the fact that not a single source on lace tells makes reference to “Ore Mountains”, but instead to “Erzgebirge” (as a region and as a mountain range), the name should be left alone. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

If you think it is a better name for the mountain range, please suggest a move on the mountain range page. However, as long as there is consensus that the name Ore Mountains is used, there is no point in discussing it here. FromCzech (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Indeed there is, because the term “Erzgebirge” was historically contemporary to these lace workshops, and translating it to “Ore Mountains” breaks from sources and loses the context of the region’s lace tells. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I repeat, it doesn't matter which name the sources you choose use and what name prevailed a hundred years ago, if it is contrary to the MOS and established practice on enwiki. I already explained it in the first paragraph. FromCzech (talk) 08:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Your interpretation of MOS:GEO’s historical context clause as only referring to names of now-defunct polities is a fair interpretation, but it is merely an interpretation, and is not backed up by any text in the policy. Reference to “Erzgebirge” carries historical context that every source on this topic found important to preserve. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 11:58, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

My interpretation is based on common practice on Wikipedia. The contemporary name Ore Mountains is most understandable to the reader, as evidenced by the naming of the target page, and I see no context that is lost by using the name. As a compromise, I will keep the German name in parentheses, thus preserving your need for "context". If you disagree, request third opinion. FromCzech (talk) 10:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm surprised. I have heard of Erzgebirge before (in English!) but not of Ore Mountains before now. —Tamfang (talk) 00:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

It’s probably time for another RM on that page. The old arguments are, as old RM arguments often are, not really policy-based. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 23:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that workers in European lace workshops and schools chanted catchy, often gruesome rhymes while they worked?

• Source: https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:739569ea-d68f-4f3a-bb22-d9ffab496fc8

• • Reviewed: Saint Hripsime Church

Created by Zanahary (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 16 past nominations.

꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC).

• This fascinating article is new enough, long enough, well-sourced, and presentable. Hook interesting, in article, cited, and citation checks out. Will be a tick when QPQ provided (feel free to ping me then, Zanahary). Tenpop421 (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Zanahary: QPQs are required at the time of the nomination, and the nomination may be closed without further warning if one is not provided promptly. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

QPQ donated by myself. GTG. Tenpop421 (talk) 12:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@Tenpop421: Apologies, but I would suggest you save your donation for another nomination. The nominator is still active and we should give them a chance to provide a QPQ on their own. If the nomination fails due to a lack of a QPQ, so be it. We should not be liberal with QPQ donations and only do them as a last resort. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Jesus. I will do a QPQ today.꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. I had seen another nom I would've liked to see promoted closed for no QPQ, and the new rule about closing without warning makes it hard to find the right time to donate. Tenpop421 (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Just to make things clear Zanahary: in case you were not aware, several months ago the rules were changed, so now QPQs have to be provided at the time of the nomination rather than up to a week afterwards. As you may not be familiar with the new rules, you were given a warning and a grace period, but in reality such nominations can be closed at any time. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• QPQ done. GTG Tenpop421 (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

re: nomination

I can't commit to reviewing right now, but for the sake of whoever ends up reviewing, I would highly recommend converting any ciations more than a couple pages long into SFNs so one can reasonably check to see if a source checks out. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion 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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lace tells/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Zanahary (talk · contribs) 00:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) 02:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• I'll take this review, seems interesting. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 02:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is good.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead is a good summary of the article. Layout makes sense. No remaining WTW issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References are listed.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Citations are to academic sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article represents sources accurately.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig flags a direct quote.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article meets pretty much all of the key points.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article focuses on lace tells.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Statements are attributed, and there are no issues with favoring certain views over others.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stable, no disputes.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are out of copyright or freely licensed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images show lacemakers and their products from the relevant culture.
	7. Overall assessment.	A well-written summary of the academic coverage of the topic. Well done.

Initial comments

• The sources are reliable, but I have one concern about the sourcing. The statement Folk artists have recorded examples of some English lace tells. is cited to a source from a specific folk artist. It does not verify the more general statement, and a secondary source is needed.
• As someone has mentioned on the talk page, it would be best to include page numbers for the sources. This is not part of the GA criteria, so it is not required but I strongly recommend it.
• I'll be doing some copyediting myself.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 02:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Lead section

• Why is the German translation included in the prose, but the Flemish translation only in a footnote?
• I think awake and focused is redundant, but I'll accept it either way.
• The last sentence of the lead is a sentence that is included in the body as a direct quote. The sentence in the lead should be rewritten to avoid copying the sentence.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 02:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Is the first point still relevant in the article's current state? If so, I don't understand what it refers to. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:15, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I was referring to the fact that the lead section mentions the word "Erzgebirge" in parentheses. I think it should instead be a footnote. However, this is a small, subjective stylistic change, so you can do whatever you want.

Content

• I don't think "to emphasize the grave consequences of breaking rhythm or looking up before the count was completed" needs to be a direct quote. It should be paraphrased with more clarity about what the consequences were.
• I don't think "drawn-out executions" needs to be a direct quote; could simply say "executions".
• There is a mention of ideas in the works of Roger Caillois and Sigmund Freud, but it does not name these ideas. It is not useful to readers to have these names without context.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 03:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I rectified the first and third, but I disagree with the second point here. That the executions are drawn out is a relevant detail that benefits the reader. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:12, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Pinging you as I have finished this round of edits and await your comments. Thank you for your patience and care! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:16, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Zanahary: I see two remaining issues with close paraphrasing. As I mentioned above, the last sentence of the lead contains the phrases foundation of the industry in the sixteenth century and spread ... by migrant lace mistresses, which is very similar to a direct quote that is included in the body. This should be rephrased in the lead. And I noted during the source spotcheck that the list starting with Themes of death, violence... is too similar to the source, so this sentence should also be rephrased.
Also, I mentioned one important point that is mentioned in a source and should be included: Hopkin 2020 makes a statement about how lacemakers, as a group, are poorly documented. I believe this is important enough to include as it would provide context as to why lace tells are poorly documented.
These are the only remaining issue with the article. Well done; this is a good-quality overview of a unique historical phenomenon. Thanks for taking the time to work on these improvements during a difficult time. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 01:16, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Vigilantcosmicpenguin, I hope I’ve rectified the first two to your satisfaction? I changed the list of themes to be in alphabetical order. I will check out the 2020 source and integrate that bit soon. Thanks! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 10:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey VGP, I acrually can't tell exactly what passage from the 2020 Hopkin article you're referring to. Which is it? Sorry, and thanks! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:58, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@Zanahary: I was referring to the introductory passage, "Lacemakers as 'Missing Persons'". I suggest you include a statement noting that lacemakers were poor and mostly illiterate. However, this is just my opinion, so it's not a requirement. Otherwise, the article is comprehensive, so congratulations on the GA! — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Performance

• a period of enforced silence during which they could neither speak nor participate in lace telling as "enforced silence" is redundant with "could not speak"
• David Hopkin writes that both English and Flemish lace tells were chanted rather than sung. I don't see why this statement needs attribution.
• The W. H. Oakes quote would fit better in the "Spread and decline" section.
• The quote "heard the same pieces sung morning and evening for three or four years, under the strict surveillance of older workers who did not permit the slightest change in the way they were sung." should instead be a paraphrase.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 03:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Collection and scholarship

• I don't think the image caption about "gruesome tells" is relevant as this is not the section that discusses the gruesomeness.
• Hopkin is quoted as saying lace tells are the only documented lacemaker songs—does this mean that other genres are known to exist but not recorded, or that nothing else is even mentioned in the historical record?

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 03:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I think the Hopkin quote just means that they're the only English lacemaker songs we know about are lace tells, but he can't rule out that other forms existed. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Spread and decline

• Delete which may offer evidence for a Flemish provenance of the Midlands lace industry as redundant with the previous sentence

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 03:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Source spotcheck

• I'll be reviewing five sources. For each source, I'll check if the information is verified, then list any potential points that should be included for breadth, then copyvio issues. Citation numbers as of this revision: — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 01:08, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

3. (Hopkin 2020)
   Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Except I don't think we should specify that Flemish tells are similar to sea shanties, as the source makes this connection with tells in general. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Except I don't think the quote "meager" is necessary; it's stated as an objective fact. Y Y
   I think a key point from this source is that lacemakers were, as a group, poorly documented, which is the reason their songs are poorly documented; this statement should be included as useful context. There's also some details of the history of scholarship that could perhaps be mentioned (e.g. the work of Willems), but this is beyond the breadth requirement.
   The list starting with Themes of death, violence... is taken almost exactly from the source, so it should be changed.
4. (Porter 1994)
   Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Except I think this is a slight misrepresentation of Porter's opinion, as the source seems to emphasize the fact that the songs were sung by women and children, moreso than the lack of narrative.
   I think the phrasing of No known lace tells from the eighteenth century have survived. is a bit too similar to the source.
9. N This source cannot actually verify the statement that Hopkin compares... though it could be used for a similar statement about sea shanties.
14. Y
16. Y

• @Zanahary: Okay, a few issues with copyvio, but the verifiability requirement has been met. Breadth is pretty much good but I'd suggest adding the one statement I've pointed out. Otherwise, the article has fairly few issues, so it should be simple to bring it up to the GA standard. Putting this on hold for now. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 01:08, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
• Hi @Vigilantcosmicpenguin, thanks so much for these excellent notes! I have addressed the following:
  I think the phrasing of No known lace tells from the eighteenth century have survived. is a bit too similar to the source.;
  Delete which may offer evidence for a Flemish provenance of the Midlands lace industry as redundant with the previous sentence;
  a period of enforced silence during which they could neither speak nor participate in lace telling as "enforced silence" is redundant with "could not speak";
  David Hopkin writes that both English and Flemish lace tells were chanted rather than sung. I don't see why this statement needs attribution.;
  The W. H. Oakes quote would fit better in the "Spread and decline" section.;
  The quote "heard the same pieces sung morning and evening for three or four years, under the strict surveillance of older workers who did not permit the slightest change in the way they were sung." should instead be a paraphrase.;
  The sources are reliable, but I have one concern about the sourcing. The statement Folk artists have recorded examples of some English lace tells. is cited to a source from a specific folk artist. It does not verify the more general statement, and a secondary source is needed.
  I will continue editing and respond to your comments. For one, I believe the "gruesome" caption should remain, as the image is an artifact of the prose about that particular lacemaking tradition. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:10, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

  Hi @Vigilantcosmicpenguin, please pardon my delays. Shit is really going down in the country where I am. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:39, 12 October 2025 (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.