Jump to content

Talk:Do it yourself/Archives/2013

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spam links

Seems a popular spot for spam links, I just got rid of one.— ceejayoz ★ 23:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems like the two external links in this line: DIY personalized gift like Zazzle or Kadang are spam. They have very little to do with DIY, and more to do with ordering personalized gifts. --64.16.165.213 20:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


Oppose Most of the links are not spam. They are useful and interesting. Ironically the least useful links are the wikihow to's. Is wikipedia not supposed to collect external links that are valuable additions to the main topic? The links could be organized better, but please, stop deleting them.

On second thought, all of wiki-how is junk, useless junk

Hubs of DIY

This article has no mention hubs of DIY culture like Make magazine and Hack-a-day

-Seconded. The Electronics DIY and other similar hobbies are the first thing that come to mind for me, and are a growing sector of culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.203.229 (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Injuries

…although DIY has been responsible for an increase in injuries at home.

Can anyone cite a source for this claim? This really shouldn't be in the article unless it can be verified. - Orioneight 19:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I remember hearing about it on the news a while ago when renovation was big in Australia a couple of years ago but most links or shit like that would be dead by now. User:Michaelric217 16:31, 9 March 2009 (AEST)

Merge

DIY ethic and DIY Culture should be merged into this article.

  • Oppose DIY is about fixing up your home, DIY Culture is a social movement not far removed from Anarchism. A world of difference. --Salix alba (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Oops! I got this article mixed up with DIY ethic. I was meaning to suggest a merge of DIY ethic and DIY Culture. When I was putting on the templates I got Do it yourself mixed in without noticing the difference. I'm going to switch the templates. Ecto 10:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that DIY ethic and DIY culture should be merged, and the (significant) portion of this article which is in reference to 'DIY' as a counterculture philosophy should be removed and added to the culture/ethic article. DIY in reference to home improvement is closely related but there's a clear delineation between Bob Vila and underground music zines.

Cleanup

I removed the cleanup notice from the article as there is no indication here of what needs to be cleaned up. Hyacinth 08:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge DIY culture and DIY ethic into this

It seems that there are two other unconnected articles related to this one:DIY culture and DIY ethic. I suggest that they be merged into this one or at least that there is some mentioning and linking in between of them.--Mirabile Dictu 21:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I could understand merging DIY Culture and DIY Ethic together, but they deserve at least one seperate page. The ethic and culture that surrounds it is pretty important, especially within the punk subculture and the anarchist political movement (two things I am intimately connected with). It's important to other subcultures as well, and they deserve more than a mere mention here. They are pretty important. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 05:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Ungovernable Force that DIY culture and DIY ethic should be merged together, but not with DIY. However, a section refering it should be created in this article. -- Nmnogueira 11:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

just a suggestion

I saw cool images of DIY on the wikipage Duck Tape...Why not doing the same thing on this page and putting some examples of what impressive things people can make by themselves? The Duck Tape's page is very popular amoung my friends...They all think that it's a very cool and special page...I just think that it could be nice if people would say the same thing about this wikipage too...no?

Capitalisation of page title

Ok, so this maybe a little trivial, but bear with me. This article is called "Do it yourself" but the phrase throughout the article is "Do It Yourself" with capital I and capital T. Do It Yourself redirects here, but maybe it should be the other way round. Pelago 21:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

External links

I removed the external links:

spammy link to buy-a-DVD site
very immature wiki
immature wiki
illustrated articles on many topics: link placed in Do-It-Yourself#Guides_in_other_wiki
illustrated articles on many topics: link placed in Do-It-Yourself#Guides_in_other_wiki
fairly limited, basic and un-illustrated
moribund bb
illustrated articles on many topics: link placed in Do-It-Yourself#Guides_in_other_wiki
"The site is a total mess right now, but have no fear. We are working day and night to get this together. This could end up being the only place you need on the web for DIY plans of all types. From go-carts plans to houses and anything else you can imagine we are going to try and get it."
  • Do It Yourself, Time magazine article, Jun 30, 1952 (cited by the Oxford English Dictionary for the term's emergence)
seems to be reprint of Time article promoting a business
404
The requested URL /index.htm was not found on this server.. Parent directory is family snapshot album!
almost-empty BB
superficial
DIY projects with illustrations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.169.1.253 (talk) 09:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • [spam://www3.telus.net/findNchoose/HowToTips.html How To Tips For The Average Person]
small collectio of not-very-useful tips and howtos
Thoughtful articles (referencing Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance): link placed in Do-It-Yourself#Guides_in_other_wiki

I've listed reasons for some above: others were more-or-less useful as sources of info on doing DIY but don't (IMHO) add anything to an article about DIY itself.

From What Wikipedia is not:

Wikipedia is not a ... repository of links ...
1. Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article ...

These links didn't seem "content-relevant".

--John Stumbles 22:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

March 11, 2007

While Wikipedia is not censored, the edit tonight does not seem to fit in the spirit of this article. If another editor feels as I do, please revert. Ronbo76 06:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Common Tasks

The inclusion of a bulleted list of common tasks is not needed and definately lends itself to snowballing. I have removed it. The general ideas expressed in this list (home repair, motor-vehicle related, etc.) can easily be incorporated into the text if they have not already been. - House of Scandal (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Advs/Disadvs

How about mentioning some advantages/disadvantages to doing-it-yourself. Like pride vs voided warranties and costs etc..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.172.131 (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

DIY education

The DIY education movement should be mentioned in this article, including references to autodidacticism, Edupunk, and Anya Kamenetz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecompass (talk • contribs) 12:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

DIWO

There should be a reference to DIWO (Do It With Others), which is surprisingly absent on Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.7.245.219 (talk) 09:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Pasted from my talk page

I have adjusted my Bricolage image and One-Eyed Doll reference so they fit within the scope of the article. The sequence in the film is a detailed examination of the DIY process (in this case by a punk band), which illustrates the article quite nicely, and the art gallery/crafts store image is a nice counterpoint to Home Depot. I'd be happy to discuss this matter with you and/or to take to to Wikipedia: Third Opinion, as I'm not quite sure which section of WP:EL is applicable, savvy? Cheers! kencf0618 (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you must have a blog you can put that on, don't you? The picture does not illustrate DYI in any appreciable way and telling readers to watch part of a full length documentary on a band because part of it shows the band making tshirts is really stretching things a little too far. Sorry, but I'm taking it out again. You are welcome to seek a third opinion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request:
I don't think either of those are particularly "DIY"; I think Delicious carbuncle makes good points. Also, if a band makes tshirts for distribution to others then is it really DIY at all? A youtube video which was actually about somebody making their own tshirts might be more appropriate.—bobrayner (talk) 08:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Have either you watched the OED segment in question? The article's own subsection on DIY subculture mentions the self-manufacture of punk band merchandise; the One-Eyed Doll citation specifically documents both the DIY manufacture and the DIY distribution of such merchandise. And not to put too fine a point on it, it's Do It Yourself, not Do It Yourself Only For Yourself; commercial punk DIY is not an oxymoron, and indeed can be a successful business model as the OED rockumentary documents —all of which nicely fleshes out the article. (As for the Bricolage photograph, however, I have placed it in the article of the same name where it is I think more appropriate.) Is there a specific WP:EL objection to any of this? Thanks. kencf0618 (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
As for the Bricolage photograph, however, I have placed it in the article of the same name where it is I think more appropriate. And I, without being aware of this discussion, removed it from that article, as it really is not a good illustration at all. Is the label to the left of the image part of the "bricolage" or an instruction for it? If it's not part of it, then we cannot actually see the bricolaged item sufficiently at all. Without being able to see it, I can't judge it on its merits, but if you have a head-on picture of the item itself, that might be an better illustration of what bricolage is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

North America centric

This article is interesting. I thought the term "DIY" was chiefly a British term, for which the American equivalent was "Home Improvement". Odd that this article seems to cover only DIY in North America, and completely ignores the rest of the world. DIY (in its original meaning) was big business here in the 1980s and 90s, but is actually becoming less popular in the UK now - several major DIY chains have closed down recently, and the remaining ones are re-inventing themselves and focussing more on furnishings and gardening products, rather than traditional DIY products (screws, hinges etc.) I just think the article should at least acknowledge that the concept of DIY exists outside North America. 86.169.44.190 (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Blogs and Pinterest

I didn't see any mention of using blogs as a way to DIY. Blogs are a great way for someone else to share their pros and cons on how to DIY something that they have been able to do. More recently, there is Pinterest, which is also a great tool in finding new websites, blogs, etc. to use for DIY! BMusterman (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

original research and images

user:delicious carbuncle seems to think that the pictures of 'a hammer', 'a diy home improvement store' & 'a boy assembling a bookcase' constitute "original research" in this article

wp:or

does anyone else (who is not a sockpuppet) agree with him?

Lx 121 (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

as a supplementary question: how is it an 'improvement' to strip ALL photos from this article, leaving it as a mass of text?
(i would also note that the text itself is in need of improvement)
Lx 121 (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Lx 12, your first edit to this article came after I removed an inappropriate addition that you had made to Claes Oldenberg. You appear to be reverting my changes as some form of "revenge". I removed the images because they constituted original research and did not help the reader better understand the subject. For example, a picture of a hammer, with a caption "The hammer, an iconic image of DIY" is not a restatement of what appears in the article but a new, unsourced statement. That is original research. Your reinsertion of that image with a caption of "A Claw hammer, arguably the most common tool used in DIY projects" is pretty much a textbook example of original research. I'm going to remove the images one last time, in hope that you have calmed down now and will move on to other things. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
you are mistaken in assuming that this is some form of "revenge' for your actions on another article; i am undoing your reversion here because you are WRONG here.
i) you clearly do not understand what "original research" means (in the context of wikipedia-editing); your continued citing of this as the rationale for your actions only reinforces your misunderstanding and/or misuse of this rule.
ii) your objections as given above ONLY cover the caption on the first image; you have provided NO RATIONALE for removing the other 2 images at all.
iii) the net result of your action is to strip ALL images from this article; you have offered no alternative illustrations, & you have done no other, constructive, work on this article in the entire time that this exchange has taken (or at any time in the recent past, that i can find).
iv) you are now also CLEARLY in violation of the "3r rule"; whether i am also in violation, for undoing the 4th of your repeated reverts/removals of the images, is an interesting point of discussion, but clearly, since you are an expert editor, you should have known better than to remove the images for a 4th time. particularly since you are THE ONLY editor advocating for their removal, & there are de facto at least 3 editors who would favour keeping them.
Lx 121 (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

TO USER:DELICIOUS CARBUNCLE re: threats made in your latest edit comment: "stop it before you (i) get blocked" -- on what grounds? Lx 121 (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I do agree with DC in that the images of the hammer and the boy do not really contribute anything, and aren't particularly iconic, and the image of the DIY store smacks of brand placement. Andreas JN466 17:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
in that case, i invite you to suggest/provide alternative illustrations for the article :) leaving it blank is unsatisfactory. Lx 121 (talk) 07:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Medical DIY?

Someone in my family was an advocate of the Do-it-yourself thought (obviously, I am not the Ron Stoppable from Kim Possible), but he also extended this to medical help: That is, in addition to reading a lot about building and fixing things around the house, he also rapidly went through medical books, magazines, and encyclopedias. He believed that by reading enough and keeping up to date, it would not be necessary to visit a doctor and that people can take care of their own illnesses and injuries (or get assistance from non-professionals they know). He was so certain of it that the household had no health insurance or physician, which I noticed was odd growing up.

So I wanted to ask: Would medical DIY be an actual category of DIY as a whole? Is this even DIY or just delusion? I get the impression few people think this way. (Also, if a person, when legally challenged, would read up on the relevant laws and represent him- or herself in court, would this be legal DIY?) Ron Stoppable (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Irony

Am I the only one who finds it deliciously ironic that someone has added a tag requesting that someone else clean this article up? --Tysto 02:19, 2005 August 2 (UTC)

I agree. The article is not that bad, has some good references and adds historical content. Much better than many other articles I have seen. Why does it not show up in the "history that someone put that in there? Lgreen 04:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  1. (cur) (last) 14:13, June 18, 2005 Ashdurbat m (cu) was where it was added, cu standing for clean-up. (You may have looked at the history for this discussion page instead of the one for the article - I do that occasionally. I think it does need some cosmetic work, but I am against clean-up tags unless the article is REALLY bad. Yes, I do see the irony. :) Spalding 18:40, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Remove tags?

I think we can prob remove the tags for original research & citations. Does anyone have an opinion?Frederika Eilers (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC) (17 Aug 2013)

I dont think so. every single sentence needs to be sourced, and provide a neutral perspective. This reads a lot like an essay. images entitled "joy of DIY" from the 40's are pure editorializing.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Images

I sorted through various DIY categories at the commons, pulled out some nice images to place here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

i am trying to wire a exhaust fan, with a plug to a regular light switch and it keeps throwing the breaker. what am i doing wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbarabratton (talk • contribs) 22:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Do_it_yourself/Archives/2013&oldid=1090555860"