Talk:Openwork
Add topic | A fact from Openwork appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 June 2015. The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
1295 views
The Lead Sentence
[edit]The lead sentence currently reads:
Openwork or open-work in art history, architecture and related fields means any technique that produces decoration by creating holes, piercings, or gaps that go right through a solid material such as metal, wood, stone, pottery, cloth, leather, or ivory.
This obviously violates WP:REFERS. It could also be a little more concise. I changed it to:
In art history, architecture, and related fields, openwork or open-work is any decorative technique that creates holes, piercings, or gaps through a solid material such as metal, wood, stone, pottery, cloth, leather, or ivory.
@Johnbod reverted this with the comment "better before." When I asked him for a proper explanation, he responded:
Your pedantic edit was NOT an improvement. Please explain YOUR revert, since I have bypassed "refers".
I don't understand what he's saying here. Does WP:REFERS not apply? If not, why not?
— Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 00:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- Tagging other contributors. Please chime in if you have any thoughts: @Ceoil, @DervotNum4, @Pbmaise, @Artemis Andromeda, @Hoof Hearted, @BD2412, @Materialscientist. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- I think you could just substitute "means" for "is", and leave the rest intact. BD2412 T 22:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- Quite frankly I think Isaac Rabinovitch's version of the lede reads better. DervotNum4 (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)