Talk:Openwork

A fact from Openwork appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 June 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that openwork‍—‌decoration or construction featuring openings or gaps‍—‌may be seen on everything from handkerchiefs to cathedral spires?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/June. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Openwork.

Wikipedia

1295 views

The Lead Sentence

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think you could just substitute "means" for "is", and leave the rest intact. BD2412 T 22:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly I think Isaac Rabinovitch's version of the lede reads better. DervotNum4 (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]