Talk:Picture frame

message: I think this is worthy of BJAODN. Unsigned edit by User 68.72.175.142 02:34 20 October 2005
:...um, can I ask why? Because the article is quite accurate, it actually covers quite a few things that the average person usually doesn't know (like seperating art from the glass, glasses with UV coatings, etc.). It's no more pointless than a great number of other articles (and would be greatly less so once expanded to include history, modern status, etc.). I mean, seriously, you can't tell me it's on the same level as puddle, which is or was an article that surely deserved being included in BJAODN. :P Of course, then again, our comments are almost a year and a half apart, so I could be missing some old bit of pseudo-hilarity here. 4.235.60.22 00:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stuff

message: I realize it still needs expanding in general, but I was just thinking an important part of that would probably be the currently non-existant History section. I mean, I know the shop I work (part-time) in has restored frames several centuries old, I know it goes back at least as far as the Italian Renaissance and probably much further, but I don't know exactly how far back it really goes. For instance, did the Roman Empire have picture frames? When did the Japanese or the Chinese start using them? And so on. 4.235.60.22 00:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History?

message: With so little text, it seemed a bit overbearing and disorganized to have so many pictures right on top like that. As soon as I've added more text, I assure you I will try to find a way to add them in, so here they are:
They do show the kind of designs that were common in the past, so there's probably going to be a good place for them in the future of the article. Right now, though, the one of the two frames in the Louvre is more than enough. Runa27 20:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes here and there, moving of two pictures

message: The Picture Framing Magazine links are no longer active.Agent723 (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken Links

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Picture frame. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pictureframingmagazine.com/pdfs/FrameHistory/Aug98_pt1panelpaintings.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pictureframingmagazine.com/pdfs/FrameHistory/May00_Frameofobject.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is mentioned as a possible shape. But it is ambigous, and to most people it refers to association football, which would mean a round shape. But that is already mentioned as a possible shape. I assume american football is meant.
But would it then not be better to say rugby-ball shaped? DirkvdM (talk) 12:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  football shapes 

message: While the topic seems notable, the article has been completely unsourced since March 2007. It is better served as part of a more established article. Coin945 (talk) 11:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be sourced before merging. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've corrected the merge notices, which confused the non-article "Picture framing" (a redirect) with the article "Picture frame". Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Fillet (picture framing)]] into [[Picture frame]]