Talk:Bracelet

Gemology and Jewelry: Jewelry Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gemology and Jewelry 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.Gemology and JewelryWikipedia:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryTemplate:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryGemology and Jewelry articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Jewelry subpage.

Fashion High‑importance

	Fashion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion 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.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

move description of 1980s fad

I don't think a description of a single fad in the 1980s (in what country or region? Among what people?) is reasonable for the introductory paragraph, so I moved it. Chester320 00:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boycott's purchase of a tennis bracelet

There should not be any mention of it because it's completely trivial information with no lasting importance to the subject of tennis bracelets. The section ought not to turn into a general list of people who've bought them, because this is an encyclopedia, not an extension of the BBC test match commentary. Bencherlite ^Talk 13:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis bracelet meaning?

OK, we've all seen tennis bracelets advertised on TV, but why are they called tennis bracelets? This article has a picture of one, and "Tennis bracelet" redirects here, but no definition. MeekMark (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section - definition

I think that the lead section should state that a bracelet is worn around "the" wrist as opposed to "a" wrist. It's pretty standard to use the definite article when referring to a body part, even if we have more than one of said body part. Yes, bracelets can be, and are, worn on either wrist depending on personal preference, but I don't think that negates using the definite article. Plus, this article has used the definite article in the lead section for many years, and the anklet article (closest comparison) has also for many years. Merriam-Webster also uses the definite article in its definition of "bracelet". My instinct here is to maintain the status quo. I'm not looking to start an edit war here, so I'll just leave the definition be for now, but it just seems "wrong" to me as is. Input people? --Seven of Nine (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionaries are weird. Webster's Canadian says a bracelet is worn on the arm, and makes no mention of the wrist! The Concise Oxford manages to avoid using either article. I suspect there may be some variation in national usages. I was raised in England, and although I've lived for most of my life in Canada, and have been influenced by Canadian usages, my British upbringing still affects me. Maybe that's why I find "a wrist" more natural in this context than "the wrist". Anyway... Okay. Let's have a vote. What do people think? DOwenWilliams (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! All right. Most of the dictionaries I've looked at are wrong, so I suppose Wikipedia might as well be wrong too. I've made the change. I've also added a sentence about the slang use of "bracelets" to mean "handcuffs", since several dictionaries include it.

Two dictionaries don't use the article "the" in the manner we're discussing. One is "The Official Scrabble Players Dictionary" (with no apostrophe), which is an immense list of words with minimal definitions. It calls a bracelet "a wrist ornament". The "Concise Oxford Dictionary" calls it an "Ornamental band, chain, etc., for wrist or arm; (sl) handcuff." I can imagine the editors in Oxford, England (where I spent four years as a student), having the same kind of argument as we have been having, and eventually deciding simply to omit the article altogether. Maybe we should do the same.

Most dictionaries talk about the ornamental aspect of bracelets, without mentioning the utilitarian ones. There's no such thing as a perfect dictionary.

DOwenWilliams (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unwanted advertising?

My wife and I noticed one of the photos looks like an advertisement for Pandora brand bracelets. I'm no wikipedia expert, but this seems out of place. Suggest we simply remove the word 'Pandora' from the caption 'Popular Pandora beads silver bracelet (2008).'Joeplex (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bracelet. 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:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120506085739/http://www.marketwatch.com:80/story/cycling-champion-author-and-cancer-survivor-lance-armstrong-to-keynote-americas-sap-users-group-annual-conference-2012-05-03 to http://www.marketwatch.com/story/cycling-champion-author-and-cancer-survivor-lance-armstrong-to-keynote-americas-sap-users-group-annual-conference-2012-05-03

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Standardise spelling of jewelry

On this page, the following spellings are used:

jewellery
jewelry
jeweller

Since the rest of the page appears to use American spellings, would it be appropriate to change "jeweller" to "jeweler"? The use of "jewellery" links to the page with the same spelling, so should it be left as is regardless of localised English?