Talk:Cross-stitch

Textile arts High‑importance

	Clothing portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Textile arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of textile arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Textile artsWikipedia:WikiProject Textile artsTemplate:WikiProject Textile artsTextile arts
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Craft

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Craft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of craft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CraftWikipedia:WikiProject CraftTemplate:WikiProject CraftCraft
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Drlynnann (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New article

Since this fine article is about the embroidery style, I have started cross stitches to be a companion to chain stitch, satin stitch, couching (embroidery), and so on.

It will have a gallery of stitch diagrams like the others eventually. I see the two as being complementary, and do not recommend merging them. - PKM 01:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point of View

I removed this section, which was under "Uses": "Cross-stitch is the most popular form of hobby embroidery in the western world. It lends itself well to recreational use, as it is easy to learn and very versatile." It seems to be primarily POV. Is there is a citation for the first sentence? writingjen 16:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-existent word

Hello I hope this isn't wasting anyone's time, but I found a word in this article which does not exist. I'm not an expert on embroidery and cannot work out what the writer intended to say, consequently I can't edit the word. The word is 'Prostational', there is no such word in the OED (the 20 volumes, current, 2nd edition). Even if the word is a widely used form in the embroidery field, I would argue that its use is inappropriate because its meaning is not clear to the 'uninitiated'.

Many thanks,

Lou Fioravanti (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge University

Converting Photographs to Cross-stitch Patterns

I noticed that this is not mentioned on the main article page. This is a way to make some beautiful family heirlooms. I have not done any myself yet but I am going to convert a photo of my two nephews and build a portfolio of my finished cross-stitch projects. I'm hoping to start a small business of sewing and was doing some research on pricing finished projects. I think if anybody in the sewing world knows of a good way to do so it would be an important section to add to the article as would a section about converting photographs to patterns. e-bay and google images have many photos of finished photo-cross-stitch projects. On e-bay you will get some examples of pricing projects but it is difficult to do so as there are many factors to consider such as the price of materials and the length of time it takes to complete a project (cross-stitch is a time consuming hobby, the larger the project the longer it takes, sometimes weeks if not months). So far I have not decided on a good way to price as I have read in many places that sometimes people are not willing to pay for the finished product as the cost may be too high. In my opinion no price is too high as the customer may not understand the amount of time and work that goes into working on a piece and that the cost of materials must be added on. I hope this is a useful addition to the discussion page. Happy sewing everyone! Lavinleitrim (talk) 14:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

This article has "evenweave" as one word. The respective page has "Even-weave" Please check whether hyphenated or not and correct accordingly. 99.11.160.111 (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Cross-stitch/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

I feel the quality of the external links on this page are considerably lower than were a little while ago and I am concerned at the editing of these. The 3 links that are on the page now are, in my opinion, fairly low quality - do people really think that these offer the best cross stitch resources available on the web????

I have re-added a link that used to be on this page 3 times recently and every time it has been removed within a couple of hours. I have found the page I was trying to link to very useful and informative and up until recently it had been part of the external links for many, many months.

The link I added worked (I did check) and the page, a 'cross stitch a to z' is the highest ranked page on google for this search - so how can it not be worthy of inclusion????

I wonder who is doing this editing - I can only think that someone is trying to use the links section on this page to try to improve the visibility of their own website at the expense of the overall quality of the page!

Is this another example, like DMOZ, of a good idea going bad?????

Last edited at 11:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 12:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cross-stitch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]