Talk:Creative industries

message: I propose to delete the ==Measuring performance== section of the article because it contains nothing specific to creative industries. —Theo  (Talk) 13:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Measuring performance

message: Hi, a couple of suggestions on this useful page - 
(1) I think the DCMS definition has moved on a bit since the existing list. Couldn't locate the origin of this list and am reluctant simply to replace it - can you give a citable reference to establish the origin of this list?
* http://www.culture.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/70156235-8AB8-48F9-B15B-78A326A8BFC4/0/CreativeIndustriesEconomicEstimates2006.pdf
shows the categories used in the DCMS mapping framework which are Advertising, Architecture, Arts and Antiques, Crafts, Design, Designer Fashion, Video, Film and Photography, Music and the Visual and Performing Arts, PUblishing, Software, Computer Games and Electronic PUblishing, Radio and TV.
(2) Some comment on the DET framework http://www.culture.gov.uk/Reference_library/Research/det/ may be worth adding. This is an attempt to incorporate a value-chain approach 
(3) might be useful to mention the Creative Economy Programme?
(4) Should there be something in about Richard Florida's work on the Creative Class?
Alan XAX Freeman 07:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Updates to DCMS definition

message: This article is getting stronger, isn't it. I wonder if it's become a bit straggly though and now needs a good short back and sides to tidy it up? anyone want to take on the job? Sadly Dad duty doesn't give me the time to it! Infilms (talk) 10:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tidy up?

message: So using Harvard referencing on Wikipedia is a real pain in the ass, and seems to be inconsistent with most other articles. I'd like to change the article to follow the Footnote/Bibliography style as per this article. Any objections? Jnthn0898 (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree 100% go for it. Hugh Mason (talk • contribs 23:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: As a life long professional engineer, ever since I first heard the term Creative industries probably only in the past decade or 2, I have found it generally offensive, as it has most often been used to apply exclusively to artistically creative industries. Similarly in the past decade or 2 the term creativity has also been 'hijacked' by artists, effectively implying that other fields like engineering do not involve creativity.
Probably the most creative industry is engineering, where the term applies to technological inventing, manufacturing and the development of new products and technologies, but not train driving (North American term) or mending washing machines etc. (UK terminology).
The article makes some attempt to explain the exclusion of engineering, but in general the terms creativity and Creative industries are poorly defined and should ideally be abandoned in their current meanings, predominantly referring to artistic and cultural activities. 
Ironically part of my engineering field is included in the UK DCMS definition list IT, software and computer services. Embedded software development is most definitely engineering, yet it is also software and therefore creative. Whereas my qualification in the closely related Electrical and Electronic engineering (embedded software is taught as part of this), would not be classed as creative according to the DCMS list.
Just because a government has made a list attempting to define the term, does not mean that it is any good.
Lkingscott (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Potentially offensive term to engineers