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

China Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Knots This article is within the scope of WikiProject Knots, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of knots 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.KnotsWikipedia:WikiProject KnotsTemplate:WikiProject KnotsKnots Textile arts Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-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.

I guess the use here of an external image 'inline' may be against policy.

Charles Matthews 19:39, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I was wondering whether it would be correct to change the "China" in

This is because the colour red symbolises good luck and prosperity in China.

to "Chinese culture" --Astrangequark 04:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the midst of fixing up this article, can someone suggest what exactly "Bong Sool tassel" looks like?? Benjwong 22:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "Bong Sool" is a Korean name and that knot is mentioned in the Chinese section. Arghc 00:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a previous edit, names of the knots were taken from http://www.chineseknotting.org/. Those names are based on "knot family" names which are unique to that site and not common usage. As Lydia Chen is quoted as the authority (completely proper) the text has been corrected to her names as found in the English translation of her book. Arghc 00:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added an alternate name column, because there really is more than 1 name. Benjwong 01:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but keep Lydia's names in the main column. Of course for each knot there are unending numbers of alternate names... Arghc 01:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the title of the article should refer to the art form (Chinese knotting) rather than the object itself (Chinese knot)? Pretzelpaws 19:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "Malaysia" section doing in this article? I can understand Korea and Japan, since the artform has been traditionalized (acculturalized), but what is "Malaysia" doing there?

A sole craftsperson (Corra Liew) does not represent an entire cultural adaptation of Chinese knotting. There has not been any traditionalization or acculturalization of Chinese knotting into Malaysian culture.

Is this another case of "Malaysian" Batik and "Malaysian" Balinese dance?

Surely there are many other craftspersons all over the world adopting Chinese knotting into their work other than Corra Liew? Shall we include the nationality of every craftsperson adopting Chinese knotting into the article? Even if Corra Liew is currently the only one, "Malaysia" does not properly belong into the section.

I am deleting "Malaysia" section from this article.

--Archestrategos (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally, is the work of Corra Liew properly included in the article as a development in the art of Chinese knotting?

Again, is she the only craftsperson who adapts Chinese knotting into her work? And how is her adapting Chinese knotting into her work construed as a phase of history in Chinese knotting?

The part mentioning Corra Liew is best included under a new section termed "Contemporary Adaptation", and deleted from "History" section.

I shall do so now.

--Archestrategos (talk) 02:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL i haz no idea wat im doin :)

In answer to your question from 2009, the sole inclusion of Corra Liew's work here is effectively link manipulation. There is much new work being done by lots of people, even in the area of wire alone.

Further, the book "Knot Another!" is linked twice and is a Korean knotting book (maedeup), not Chinese (while the disciplines are similar, the tying methods are not, and there is a Korean knot page where it can go which is more appropriate).

Speaking of which, Korean Knot should be Korean Knotting in the same way that this page was changed from Chinese Knot to Chinese Knotting.

I was going to suggest that Korean Knot could be changed to Maedeup but on second thought, Maedeup (and Maedup) should be aliases to Korean Knotting. Jie Yi an alias to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arghc (talk • contribs) 02:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting article! I corrected only some words in English and reworded small sentences to make them clearer and more fluid. In some parts of the text, especially in section "Regional" and "Types of knots", references are missing. Unfortunately, not being an expert on the topic, I don't know where to look for them.--Mauri polimi (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC) (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauri polimi (talk • contribs) 13:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it is a very good introduction for Chinese knotting. A few sentences are too long to be understood.--Warren C.Chen (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The opening sentence reads: "Chinese knotting, also known as zhongguo jie (simplified Chinese: 中国结; traditional Chinese: 中國結; pinyin: Zhōngguó jié) and decorative knots in non-Chinese cultures, is a decorative handcraft art that began as a form of Chinese folk art..." Bold emphasis added.

The phrase "handcraft art" is off. "Handcraft" is a noun, but it's being used as an adjective. The solution would be to change it to "handcrafted". I also wonder about the term "art". The online Cambridge dictionary defines art as the making of objects, music, images, etc. to express feelings. Some suggestions for accuracy and clarity:

A) "Handcrafted form of art"

B) Change "decorative handcraft art" to "decorative handicraft".

C) The word "decorative" is unnecessary as all art is decorative by nature. Change to "...is a traditional handicraft that began as a form of Chinese folk art..." I would love to hear thoughts on this suggestion before I make the change, since this is not a topic of which I have limited personal knowledge.Sergeant Curious (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any of these would be improvements. The article is greatly in need of WP:Bold improvements, so please go ahead. StereoFolic (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lead paragraph is too long. I suggest relocating to the last two sentences on the usage to a different section. However, the information of usage might be fundamental to the topic and should be left where it is. Thoughts from someone who hast read the lead 30 times in a row? Sergeant Curious (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another strategy for downsizing the lead is to move some of the historical information to the History section. I've read this paragraph so many times I am too close to see what information would be missed.Sergeant Curious (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just reviewed the intro, and I think it's great actually! StereoFolic (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]