Talk:History of cardistry

History of cardistry has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: April 19, 2016. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of cardistry article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Card flourish#Card Fans|Thumb Fan]] The anchor (#Card Fans) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.
[[Card flourish#Techniques|Revolution Cut]] The anchor (#Techniques) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Why a separate article?

I understand that this article has been promoted to Good Article status— why isn't the entire article part of the article on cardistry to begin with? This seems like an unnecessary splitting of the cardistry article, and while I grant that many Wikipedia articles have a "history of..." article separate from their subject, I am not convinced of the practicality of such a split in this instance. The cardistry article even HAS a "history of" section which then links to this article— why not put it there to begin with? Length? I do not understand. KDS4444 (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have astutely observed that History of cardistry is linked in the Cardistry article.

They could be combined. There is a difference between the history and the craft.

The more relevant question is whether they should be merged/combined. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose merging the two! The history of the performance art is quite comprehensive, as clearly demonstrated. Many art forms have a "history of..." article and cardistry should have one too, IMO. Best, Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 15:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, when it got the GA we should have posted it on WP:DYK. Which was a benefit of having a separate article. Unfortunately, I was out of communication at the time, and missed the opportunity/deadline. I regret that. Sorry. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]