Talk:Fabergé egg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. |
 |
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (comments) |
|
The article discusses only the Imperial eggs. The House of Fabergé also made eggs for the aristocrats. The role of workmasters, especially Michael Perchin should be mentioned, and the extraordinary range of materials and techniques referred to. --Wetman 20:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Two Faberge eggs stolen
Hi,
Just saw this on the internet, and maybe it should be updated in the article?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/6471389.stm for info about the robbery.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/6473417.stm that the Police are chasing the robbers.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.194.129.105 (talk) 10:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Vivian Alexander Site
Please let me know if others consider this a valuable external link. There is a large amount of information on imperial faberge eggs, especially in the knowledge center located at: http://www.vivianalexander.com/knowledge-center.html
This designer's eggs have are also featured in a Smirnoff commercial. These are not replicas and the site should seriously be considered as a valuable external link. Thanks for your consideration and comments.
- Done. User:Byorzinski 2 January 2007 09:14 (UTC)
-
-
- Byorzinski, the Vivian Alexander site is a no-go for three reasons: 1. Its primary purpose is to sell stuff, so placing that link here is kind of like advertising; something that the wiki-community super-frowns upon. 2. The eggs sold on the site aren't faberge eggs. they are vivian alexander eggs, inspired by faberge. that would make the products sold on the site, unrelated to this article. 3. The "knowledge section", doesn't appear to have any new information that would warrant it being linked to from an encyclopedia article. Even if it did, I think people would find that 1 and 2 above would outweigh it being placed in this article. Taco325i 15:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Redirects
"Faberge egg", "Faberge eggs" and "Fabergé eggs" should redirect here. But I don't know how to do it. Can anyone help?
- Done. LeoDV 5 July 2005 17:21 (UTC)
[edit] Word choice
"Masterpiece" is used quite incorrectly in the first section. A masterpiece is, literally, a work of art -- singular -- marking an artist's transition from journeyman/student to master. Artists only have 'one' masterpiece. R 03:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- Recheck your dictionary - the sense you're referencing is just one of several definitions, and not even the most common one nowadays. Stan 06:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the reference in here about Armand Hammer is necessarily true. According to Dossier, his biography by Edward Jay Epstein, he created numerous forgeries of Faberge eggs with tools from the workshop to sell in America to raise funds for Russia. It's unlikely that he actually bought any.
[edit] Inside
Just a question -- all the Fabergé eggs can be oppened, helding any surprise inside? 201.6.119.5 01:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] External links
While I think we're all in agreement that commercial links (particularly irrelevant commercial links) have no place in the article, I think placing prior restraints on them and requiring approval (i.e. "Do not add any external links here without first posting them on the talk page for discussion!") appears contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia that anyone can freely edit. We seem to be pretty vigilant in removing crap that's posted, so I think it's unnecessary to discourage people from posting links. Taco325i 14:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- I removed eight unnecessary links before putting that warning up, and I've seen similar warnings on other pages that are frequently spammed. But if you think it's not friendly, that's fine, we'll just watch the page. Tocharianne 00:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
