This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Textile arts High‑importance 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 Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

I have removed the anal bead see also. It has the barest of ties to this topic. People seraching fo it will look under sex related topics, and since this is purely about arts and crafts, it has no place on this page. rahter than reverting any more, please use this page to discuss. pschemp | talk 15:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although right now this article is only about arts and crafts, the article title is not "arts and crafts beads" or something similar. Rather, this article deals with the more general concept of beads, and thus it is perfectly reasonabel to expand it to mention other types of beads, as I have done. This is a completely legitimate type of bead. Remember, wikipedia is not censored for minors. Interestingstuffadder 15:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted at 15:22. I posted my comment at 15.21. The discussion was here. pschemp | talk 15:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really this is the craft article, as set out in the first paragraph. Any other use belongs on a disambig page, which I have made, that includes the other things referred to as beads that were formerlly at the top of the page. None of them belong in see also. pschemp | talk 15:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does it occur to you that I possibly hit edit before you started this discussion and it took me a minute to write my edit summary so by the time I hit save you had started this discussion. Also, you will see that I posted my comment here soon thereafter, when I saw that you had started this discussion. Please, please assume good faith. Also, it is unclear to me why this one type of bead has a monopoly on an article about such a general topic. Interestingstuffadder 15:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear to me why you are so obsessed with this topic. The disambig page has been made. pschemp | talk 15:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear to me why you are so dead set on censoring wikipedia. Interestingstuffadder 15:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not censoring. I'm putting information in its proper place. Also, your removal of slave beads is showing your ignorance of this topic, as they were used for decorative purposes and making them was a craft. Please stop. pschemp | talk 15:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a disambiguation page, is it really so much to ask? If we didn't need to seperate pages, there'd be Main Page with no need for others. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 02:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that we move this page to decorative beads or something along those lines. "Bead" alone is a much broader term content-wise than just arts & crafts and decorative beads. The main article for "bead" should thus reflect this diversity. An alternative solution would be to move back from the decorative beads only stance that some users have maintained on this page in favor of a more inclusive stance that would permit content regarding other types of beads. Interestingstuffadder 22:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have heard no response to this proposal, I am assuming that it is unopposed. I will give it one more day to be certain. I know mine is just one opinion and I want to act in accordance with user consensus. Interestingstuffadder 16:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the matter, but I would prefer to see a full week pass before moving the page. This would ensure a reasonable amount of time for any interested editors to be aware of the change. ScottW 16:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just went ahead and moved it. I think the above user made a strong argument supported by clear evidence of the restrictions that have been placed on this page, a page dealing with a general topic. Cooldude02 16:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object to this move. Interesting that you are a sock of Interestingstuffadder. I have moved the page back as consensus was not reached or even allowed to be discusssed. pschemp | talk 18:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When most people type bead, this is what they want. Therefore the main information should be at this title. Since a perfectly fine disambig page exisits already, a move is completely unnecessary, as anyone who is looking for other meanings can easily find them there.pschemp | talk 19:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Move I support this move. I do not agree that people necessarily think of arts & crafts when they think of beads. There is a perdsuasive argument for a more general page, stated above. Hopefully whether this page is moved will be decided by consensus rather than by one administrator with a clear bias regarding the matter. Thanks. Interestingstuffadder 22:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object to move - I agree with pschemp that the decorative beads described in this article are the most common idea of "beads." The disambig page linked clearly from the top of the article leads easily to other kinds of beads. FreplySpang 23:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typically in other consensus discussions (AfD, RfA, Prod) the discussion period seems to be five days. I personally prefer to have "anal bead" be its own article, referenced from the disambig page, and leave this article here, as-is, with relevant updates to the article as needed. Consensus has to be reached, not teleported to. :D ~Kylu (u|t) 23:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also object to the move. I think it is plainly clear when someone types 'bead by itself that they do not mean anal bead. Mapetite526 17:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the header and links you recently removed were actually quite appropriate in this article. While the links may have been to 'commercial sites' I think there's a couple of important points you might not be aware of:

1) The links were to sites very closely related to this article.

2) Those sites provide useful and detailed information to anyone with an interest in seed beads.

3) While the sites in question are commercial in nature, they are not retail sites and they do not sell to the public. There is certainly no 'profit motive' in linking to those sites.

I hope that you would consider replacing them. I do think that they are important and useful links. Thanks for taking time to consider this. --Doc Tropics 22:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, ok. I went back to take a closer look at the sites, and I see your point. I think I was being a little overly vigilant from seeing the amount of linkspam that gets added to this page. I'll go ahead and revert my changes. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. ScottW 22:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, I understand your concerns about linkspam and I really appreciate you revisting the issue. I was sure you were acting in good faith and didn't want to revert anything myself. I was actually prepared to get flamed for asking (I've seen it happen), so it was a pleasant surprise that you were so reasonable (and speedy) in responding. I love it when editors work together to make a good article better :) Thanks for everything and keep up the good work! --Doc Tropics 23:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we could work it out so easily. In retrospect, those links have been on the page for awhile, and I should have requested consensus before removing them. It was sloppiness on my part, but this will serve as a reminder for me next time. Thanks again for explaining the problem and giving me a chance to correct it. ScottW 00:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that many people would rather argue than admit to a mistake, even an unintentional one. You're obviously not that kind of person and I'm glad. I think this was a great little example of how things should be handled. Well done all around :) --Doc Tropics 00:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being new-ish to Wikipedia, I have a concern/question about this article but I am unsure how to proceed. Many of the examples/categories for types of beads have their own articles and links (Chevron beads, Cloisonné beads, Dichroic beads, etc.), but (for instance), "seed beads" does not. However, there is a LOT of information about seed beads contained in this article. Is is OK to just copy and paste the seed bead info from this page to create a "seed bead" article? Thanks! Mutableye 03:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its neccessary. This article is not long enough that sections need to be spun out. Lots of the others that have articles had them before this main one was created, or have some historical significance. Right now people come to this article to find out information about beads, and I bet at least 50% of the time they want to know about seed beads. Its logical to leave that information here. pschemp | talk 04:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I also wondered if the article concentrated too much on seed beads. I am a bead jewelry artist and if I am looking at a bead article, I want information about all different kinds of beads for jewelry making, not just seed beads. Mapetite526 14:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The length of the article is not big enough to break out seed beads. pschemp | talk 14:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little confused. I don't think the article is too long, but if seed beads are so popular/common (I don't disagree with that assertion), shouldn't they have their own article? Also, if items such as chevron beads or dichroic beads are not-so-popular, why do they have their own articles? Should the other bead articles be deleted/redirected/merged, then? Typing "seed beads" into the search box redirects you to this page, and it just seems an inconsistant and kind of clunky way for the information to be presented. I am having a bit of difficulty understanding Wikipedia policy/guidelines in this particular situation, so I would appreciate some clarification (either here or on my talk page, whichever is most appropriate). Thanks for your patience! Mutableye 01:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point is to keep the relevent information in one easily accessible place. Some of the others have articles, but they were created before all the bead stuff was reorganized. We don't delete what could become an article someday, but as you can see most of them are just stubs, however, the point of wikipedia is not to get rid of information unless it isn't true. we don't as a policy, kill innocent stubs. You as a bead jewelry artist are not an average user who just wants to type bead and get all the information. Average joe doesn't even know what a seed bead is, so our policy is keep main information at the main article. If you want an example of an article that is too long, go see Pornography. Until this article becomes unweildy, there is no reason to remove useful information. Let me repeat, the other articles exist because they were created before this one. Seed beads are a main type of bead. Every catalog has a huge seed bead section and as they are one of the most common types the information should remain here. The point is not to confuse average joe and redirects are common and appropriate usage. pschemp | talk 01:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 months later, the seed bead section was getting out of hand... I split it out into Seed bead. Seed beads are actually quite interesting to bead lovers and have quite a history; there's more than enough possible material for a new article. cheers, -- phoebe/(talk) 03:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, seed beads were taking over the article, with a specialist size table, etc., that's not really relevant to other types of beads. I agree that this article should be a generic discussion of all types of beads. Of course, if there's strong opposition feel free to undo the split. -- phoebe/(talk) 03:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why these changes were reverted. I had changed "seeds of the Bead tree" to "seeds of various trees" because beads are often made from various seeds, not just the seeds of the "Bead tree." I had also changed "Beads range in size from under a millimeter to over a centimeter in diameter" to "Beads come in many different sizes" because I think the previous sentence is limiting. Just wondering what was wrong with my changes. Mapetite526 14:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well instead of removing the units from the size descriptions it would have been more useful to expand it including the units so people get an idea of the true range. You replaced a specific sentence with a completely vauge one. The goal is a better description, not one that could be describing a whale. Also, you removed a wikilink to a certain kind of bead that is applicable. It is ok to add informaiton, but removing specifics and things that are linked is not helpful. Try to expand information rather than delete. pschemp | talk 14:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully my current changes are better. Mapetite526 14:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much. Thank you. pschemp | talk 22:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi & apologies - I read your comment re short additions only after I had uploaded text and 3 images. Is it possible to move the whole Chevron bead section, i.e. add to existing Chevron bead article? I shall leave in your capable hands. Thanks. EvelynS 13:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it would be best to move that info to the chevron bead article. Summaries only should remain here. pschemp | talk 17:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to add an external link to a page on shapes of beads here:

https://www.azfindings.com/spacers-beads

GaryHelwig 17:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)GaryHelwigGaryHelwig 17:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be an appropriate external link? http://www.rings-things.com/glossary/bead-shapes-glossary.html It's the result of hundreds of hours of work, and years of experience with beads. Thanks for your consideration! 18:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)optimatordaveoptimatordave

..some information about Hama®/Perler® beads. I came looking to find out what they were called and how they melted together. I don't know if it belongs in this article under Bead. They are small beads laid flat in a pattern and melted together with an iron. It is a craft especially for children. Bodhi.peace 08:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

11/9/2013 I'm new here so I hope this is in the right place to ask this. I have been seeing beads called "Drawbench" beads and they are made out of different materials like glass and acrylic. I have looked all over for a definition... does anyone know what Drawbench means? Thank you!

The language that people keep deleting is not promotional, it is simply informational. I have deleted any text that sounds like it may be a recommendation of Czech beads. How is it promotional to talk about the products of a particular country, when no brand names are mentioned?--Caleb Murdock (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have removed the spamlink that was the main problem before. The previous material with the spamlink was quite blatently promotional. Vsmith (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't insert the link. However, if you didn't like the link, then you should have deleted it yourself and not reverted the wording of the entire paragraph to a previous version which was less informative.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 07:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, bead-lovers :) I'm a button collector working on buttons on the wikis at the moment but came across the following that I thought you might be able to use: [1]. (See Periodization_of_the_Indus_Valley_Civilization for dating.) Thanks. --TyrS (talk) 02:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects here, correctly, but isn't mentioned in the page. Pleas add. Thks. 99.11.160.111 (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that beads are poured into a tray and then fire-polished, but I am fairly sure that they are drawn through an oven while on strings or strands. A close examination of fire-polished beads will show that one or two facets on the beads are bulging slightly because molten glass has pooled on the underside of the beads. If beads were fire-polished while sitting on trays, the anomalous facets would look quite different from what I'm seeing. Has anyone actually witnessed the process?-Plum90 (talk) 05:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.12.13 (talk) [reply]

All the beads mentioned in this section are mentioned by name, if not also with the material with which they are made. The only beads that are mentioned only by material but not by name are the ones made from cinnabar in China, in the second sentence. If someone knows the name of these beads (in an English transliteration of the Chinese name), it would be good to add it so that it will parallel all the other sentences in the section. – CorinneSD (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 2 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MarvinKano011 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Uncg24 (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]