Talk:Arts and Crafts movement

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateArts and Crafts movement is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
August 27, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
The above dreary notice reminds us not to suggest candidates for whimsical "features"

Old comments[edit]

I own a craftsman bungalow in Grant Park (Atlanta) and am attempting restoration with limited funds; a slow but steady process. I love the clean lines and simple artistry of solid heart pine carpentry. I'm looking to share resources, salvage goods sources, and tips and techniques with others out there. I'm learning as I go along, reading a book or two, and genuinely trying to get this right. Please post a response if interested. Michael Beavers

Does garden design form a part of this movement?KRS 17:59, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Gertrude Jekyll's gardens are Arts and Crafts classics. In fact the idea of a "cottage garden" is allied to the movement. Wetman 21:05, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There was a redirect at the beginning of this page before I started editing it. Now it is missing. It is not there in the previous version. Could someone look into it?KRS 18:02, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sorry its there when you come from Arts and Crafts MovementKRS 18:05, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"Sentimental socialism"[edit]

We're not permitted this recently-deleted phrase—too pat, anyway, just as it was— so would someone with a good grasp of the intellectual atmosphere of non-rigorous socialist-tending concepts and feelings espoused in the Arts and Crafts movement please give us a paragraph on Arts and Crafts and socialism? Maybe with some evocative quotes. It mustn't employ the word "sentimental". Thank you. --Wetman 22:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wrong annotation[edit]

quote: This article does not deal with the American usage of the term.

What is this good for? I mean, the "Arts and Crafts movement" to me has always been a British movement. There is a use of that term in the US, but that should refer to the article Arts and Crafts. There is no such thing as a American Arts and Crafts movement. Or am I wrong? -- 15:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There indeed was an American Arts and Crafts movement slightly later in time. It generally encompassed architecture and interior design. Think Frank Lloyd Wright in architecture and Gustav Stickley in furniture. Ironically, the Stickley article links back to this one which disclaims to discuss American A&C.
The Arts and Crafts Society has some very useful links. Perhaps I'll research some of this (I have several texts at home) and come up with a few paragraphs. Ruidh 21:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Are "Arts and Crafts" or "Arts and Crafts Movement" proper nouns?  Otherwise, suggest this and similarly-named articles/categories {{capitalmove}}d accordingly. Regards, David Kernow 22:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not a movement called the "Arts and Crafts", it's a movement called the "Arts and Crafts Movement" isn't it? So "Movement" is part of a proper noun, not a descriptor of a proper noun, so it should be capitalised?
JimmyGuano 07:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Currently this word appears twice in the article. I am not sure what it is supposed to mean in this context. Please elaborate. pmr 10:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Substituted "eclectic revival of historic styles". --Wetman 21:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Art Nouveau[edit]

In the beginning of this article it is stated that the term Arts and Crafts movement is often used to denote the style between the Art Nouveau and Art Deco eras, and in the Influences section essentially that ACM principles inspired Art Nouveau. Please clarify. Sergivs-en 00:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Sergivs-enReply[reply]

A thinly-disguised list[edit]

"Its best-known practitioners were William Morris, Charles Robert Ashbee, T. J. Cobden Sanderson, Walter Crane, Nelson Dawson, Phoebe Anna Traquair, Herbert Tudor Buckland, Charles Rennie Mackintosh, Christopher Dresser, Edwin Lutyens, Ernest Gimson, William Lethaby, Edward Schroeder Prior, Frank Lloyd Wright, Gustav Stickley, Christopher Whall and artists in the Pre-Raphaelite movement."

A thoughtful opening encapsulation of the Arts and Crafts movement and its progress could weave this thread of names into some text. --Wetman 19:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translation into Chinese Wikipedia[edit] The 13:28, 17 November 2007 version] of this article was translated into Chinese Wikipedia.--Philopp (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 1[edit]

 – Article was moved, but this was later undone because it violated MOS:CAPS.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arts and Crafts movementArts and Crafts Movement — The title is itself a proper noun, rather than the word "movement" being a description of a thing called the "Arts and Crafts" (which otherwise means something else - see Arts and crafts). Shouldn't it therefore have a capital M, like Oxford Movement, rather than a small one like Reform movement? —JimmyGuano (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

British and American?[edit]

The A&C style seems to have been pretty popular here in Australia. I think this needs some clarification, because the article then goes on to talk about A&C in Germany and other places, with illustrations from Sydney and Auckland.


The article states that there were "socialist undertones" to the movement, too vague a phrase. It should say who was a socialist. Morris was certainly a socialist but Ruskin most certainly was not, he was a conservative. Marshall46 (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed this: "There were also socialist undertones to this movement—most explicitly, and primarily, in Great Britain—in that another primary aim was for craftspeople to derive satisfaction from what they did. This satisfaction, the proponents of this movement felt, was totally denied in the industrialised processes inherent in compartmentalised machine production." It has no source and it makes no sense. Socialism is about public ownership of capital, not about opposition to industry. I have replaced it with a brief mention of Morris's socialism. Marshall46 (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

B class?[edit]

This article is a long way from B class. It lacks inline citations, is far from comprehensive and it needs a lot of cleanup. I have change it to Start Class. Marshall46 (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Negating historicism"[edit]

I deleted the statement that said the arts and crafts movement negated historicism. If historicism in art means the imitation of past styles, then the arts and crafts movement most certainly did not negate it. Marshall46 (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not happy[edit]

with 1910 as a starting date for the movement in the US. But am not sure that I can fond a source here (work). when I get home, if it is still annoying me, I'll do something. Unless YOu do it first. Einar aka (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, those dates would be completely wrong - although I think it's actually unclear wording, and the point intended was to illustrate the gap between Art Nouveau and Art Deco (vague, and obviously 1925). It needs fixing though. If "US Craftsman" is to mean "Gustav Stickley", then that's 1895(-ish) to around 1915. Earlier if you include Lloyd Wright's Craftsman phase, maybe a later start around 1900 if you're picky. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well I am not that picky, but if Boston had a A&C society in 1890, that's going to be what i change it to. After getting a good source, of course. Einar, signed on this time as Carptrash (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can we have some inline citations for the section on the USA? Marshall46 (talk) 08:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links - preventing link farms[edit]

I have just trimmed a couple of the external links in this article. More should be deleted as it is looking like a bit of a link farm. WP:ELNO has some good guidance on what shouldn't be linked. Of particular note is the first of the listed criteria - that the external link should provide extra information over and above what the article would contain were it to be of featured article standard. Just because a website has interesting info on it, it doesn't mean it should be linked. If external link is selling any product or service related to the subject of the article then it should never be linked - spam should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. --Simple Bob (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whilst I'd agree with you that there are bad links that need removal, there's no blanket policy against links to commercial sites. The relevant comment is only 5th in the lists, and even then it states "Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services," Note that it says "pages" and not "sites". If a commercial site that exists to sell products also has some background information on other pages, there's no reason not to link to those pages. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"British Isles"[edit]

I changed this to "United Kingdom". I see that the editor who put "British Isles" has been banned for it. Apart from WP policy on the matter, it's inaccurate in this context, which refers to England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland (the United Kingdom at the time) and not to the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, which are in the BI but not the UK. Apart from this, he has made some useful additions to the article: thanks. Marshall46 (talk) 09:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I can see the historical references are to England and Scotland so Great Britain might be more accurate. If there is material that includes Ireland then British Isles would be appropriate as it avoids explaining and/or pipelinking to different versions of the UK. Does anyone have access to The Grove Encyclopedia of Decorative Arts, Volume 1 who can check this?
The banning arose from this ruling of which you need to be aware. Ideally any insertion or removal of BI should be discussed first. --Snowded TALK 09:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The last paragraph contains a sourced reference to Ireland. Although Ireland was part of the UK at that time, "British Isles" might be best. If no objections, I will change it back. Marshall46 (talk) 09:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No objections from me --Snowded TALK 09:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Marshall46 (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was born and live in England and no one I have discussd this with here has any concepttion of what these distinctions are about. This is arid and meaningless pedantry - the sort of thing that might fascinate foreigners, politicians or trainee monarchs who have nothing better to exercise their minds about, but real people simply don't care about it. g4oep

Deletion of unsupported statement[edit]

I have deleted the following sentence from the section on the United States: "In the United States, the Arts and Crafts Movement took on a distinctively more bourgeois flavor than in Europe." There is no reference given to support this statement, which seems to be opinion or original research. Given William Morris' class background and the popularity of Arts and Crafts homes among working class and lower middle class Americans of 100 years ago, I don't think that this is an accurate observation at all. Cullen328 (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. The section on the USA needs more work. Marshall46 (talk) 09:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good. It's clearly a reference to the current Bungalow revival, which is mostly being applied to fancy country homes. This article can certainly cover that, but it's clearly not focused on what A&C is turning into today, but the formation and history of the movement. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 03:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Use of British Isles[edit]

TFOWR 16:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lead image replacement?[edit]

I noticed that the lead image was very dark and shadowy, and as a result, doesn't seem to convey much. I would replace it, however, the breadth of the movement means that there are quite a few options of good images, and many potential things to represent it. Any thoughts on what should head it? Morgan Riley (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, and in fact most of the objects that can be seen aren't Arts & Crafts at all, but Jacobean & Georgian furniture, or repro, an oriental rug, fussy Victorian china etc etc. Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In which case it doesn't illustrate the article, and I have deleted it. Marshall46 (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

North America[edit]

I have re-organised this section so as to bring together similar material in one section. It needs to be edited by someone who is familiar with the North American movement. Marshall46 (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)Reply[reply]

Arts and Crafts movementArts and Crafts – This is clearly the main topic (note the upper-case letters), with other uses being secondary and derived from this one, which dates to the mid-to-late 1800s and remains current, due to the A&C revival that's been ongoing for the last 50 years. The lower-case variants arts and crafts and arts & crafts redirect to Arts and crafts (disambiguation), and need to stay that way because of confusing American use meaning "handicrafts". The totally-unsourced-for-seven-years WP:REDUNDANTFORK (actually a WP:POVFORK) at arts and crafts I merged into handicraft. The capitalized variants, Arts and Crafts and Arts & Crafts, presently redirect to Arts and Crafts movement; after the move of Arts and Crafts movement to Arts and Crafts, Arts & Crafts should redir to Arts and Crafts, since when capitalized it can properly only refer to the art movement and its output (we do not capitalize when it's not a proper name, per MOS:CAPS). Obvious precedent for the move: Art Nouveau, Art Deco, Impressionism, Cubism, Bauhaus, etc., etc., etc., are not cumbersomely named with unnecessarily long verbiage like "Art Nouveau movement". It is WP standard operating procedure per WP:AT policy and WP:DAB to not use long-winded, disambiguatory phrasing in article titles unless absolutely necessary, but use the WP:COMMONNAME. The present title conflicts with its own text as well as the rest of the articles of this sort. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 02:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disagree. "Arts and Crafts Movement" is not "long verbiage" but an accepted phrase in art history, referring to what is described here: an influential art and design movement that emerged in the late 19th century and ran until the First World War, with remnants thereafter in the Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society and survivals in artists such as Eric Gill, Bernard Leach and Ethel Mairet. "Arts and Crafts" is too general and is more or less synonymous with "handicraft". It is not common usage to signify the specific, local and time-limited professional art movement, associated with certain personalities, that is the subject of this article. You talk about the A&C revival that's been going on for the last 50 years. Presumably you're referring to the interest in the crafts in post-industrial societies, which is not what art historians mean by "the Arts and Crafts movement". Your proposed name change will create confusion and drag into this article all sorts of contemporary activities that deprive the article of focus. Pelarmian (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Disagree. See V&A Museum or Cheltenham Museum web pages for examples of usage. Likewise the Lion Companion to Church Architecture, 2008, for example, uses 'Arts and Crafts Movement' in both the text and index. The disambiguation is needed in UK usage just as much as in US. (eg. Arts and Crafts as a term has a much wider meaning than the Movement, and there needs to be a page properly focussed on the Movement. So I say, keep as it is. RobinLeicester (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - Regional variations in the topic name are valid considerations for determining the article title but the conflict of "Arts and Crafts" with "arts and crafts" weighs heavily in favor of a disambiguating this page by appending "movement". Jojalozzo 00:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - "Arts and Crafts" and "Art & Crafts" should not redirect here. Readers don't normally expect case to matter in a search string so these should redirect to "Arts and crafts (disambiguation)" or "Handcrafts" since I think they are at least as likely if not more likely to be looking for handcrafts as for this page. Jojalozzo 00:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose – that would make the title completely ambiguous. The capitalization is not reliable as an indicator of anything, especially here since "arts and crafts movement" is not consistently capitalized in sources. A better title would be "Arts and crafts movement. Dicklyon (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose You have to have the "movement." it's like bowel and bowel movement. Different things. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notable examples[edit]

The architectural examples section ought to represent a concise list of the most notable examples, which is clearly not the case at present - it needs some work. There are of course thousands of buildings associated with the Arts and Crafts or loosely built in a related style, but the aim here is to give a clear idea of what the style actually consists of. Ideally every entry on the list should refer to an article on Wikipedia, or failing that at least be referenced to back up the claim to notability, and so that readers can follow it up to see what the building looks like. I'm not sure of the exact rule, but WP:Notability is a start. I removed The Lodge, East Suffolk Park because the only references I can find are mirrored from this article (Mindmeister, etc.) and give no details. A map search shows this building is probably in Edinburgh, but I could not find any mention of it elsewhere. ProfDEH (talk) 07:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I restored this per WP:REDLINK – we should include and link entries on this list whether they currently have WP articles or not. If you're sure that the building just doesn't warrant its place on the list, then I'm happy to see it go. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure because I can't find anything about it. But that rather tends to indicate it isn't notable. I'm not sure if your interest is architectural or semantic - do you have a lead to anything on the building (or live across the road and can describe it)? ProfDEH (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found East Suffolk Park, Edinburgh, on Google streetview. The buildings look neo-Georgian rather than Arts and Crafts, so in the absence of any sources it does not belong on the list. Pelarmian (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am coming to grips with this architectural style, and looking at St Brendan's Cathedral, Loughrea I am wondering about how this building is justified as being within the scope Arts and Crafts architecture. There is no justification for the assertion Melbournemason (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed, it's Gothic revival not A&C. Be bold - delete it. Pelarmian (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Pelarmian (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Buried Lede[edit]

I think this article really needs an encapsulation of what the Arts and Crafts movement was as the first paragraph. E.g., what sorts of objects it was applied to, what the aesthetic philosophy was in regard to the creation of those objects. As it is now, it is taken up mainly with names and dates and locations that dance around the heart of the definition, and will be as meaningless to someone without prior knowledge as the term "Arts and Crafts Movement" itself is. And then the first section is more history. It is quite difficult to find what "Arts and Crafts Movement" actually refers to in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Folding Chair (talkcontribs) 01:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links[edit]

I moved the following links here from the External links section. These might have use as sources to support article content but they are inappropriate for the EL section.

  • "Arts and Crafts Style Guide". British Galleries. Victoria and Albert Museum. Retrieved 2007-07-17.
  • What is Arts and Crafts
  • Research resources on the Arts and Crafts at the Winterthur Library
  • Hewn and Hammered dedicated to discussion of the Arts & Crafts movement in art, architecture & design

Jojalozzo 00:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The unity of the arts[edit]

One of the main ideas of the ACM, but not covered in this article. Needs doing. Pelarmian (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To do list[edit]

  • More about the ideas of John Ruskin and William Morris. Also something about Augustus Pugin and the Gothic revival.
  • The unity of the arts. The elevation of applied arts and Ruskin's influential idea that fine art had a moral purpose. The Art Workers Guild.
  • A section on architecture. The central place of architecture in the movement and the architectural training of many of those who designed in other media.
  • The connection to contemporary reform movements. Morris's socialism. "Merry England". The revival of traditions: vernacular architecture, folk song and dance. Link to "high mindedness and simple living", e.g. Edward Carpenter.
  • Belated influence on art education from the 1880s (e.g. Birmingham School of Arts and Crafts, Central School of Arts and Crafts, reform of the Royal College of Art, 1901) and the dominance of the Arts and Crafts approach in art education in Britain until the post-war reforms in the 1940s. DONE 27 July 2015

... please add to this list. Pelarmian (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The industrial revolution and the factory system as the context in which Arts and Crafts ideas flourished.
  • Connection to Romanticism. Pelarmian (talk) 12:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • More on the movement in countries other than Britain: better summaries with outbound links to longer articles about "Arts and Crafts Movement in xxxxx". Pelarmian (talk) 08:12, 29 July 2015

Casa Cuseni[edit]

I removed the passage without citation about Casa Cuseni, Taormina, which looked like advertising. Pelarmian (talk) 09:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Arts and Crafts movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 03:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

William Morse[edit]

There is a great deal of information here about William Morse. I realize his importance to the Arts and Crafts Movement, but couldn't this be condensed here and if readers want to know more about him they can go to his page? This article is already too long without putting duplicate information about Morse here as well. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 05:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I assume you mean William Morris. His contribution to the ACM is already condensed and couldn't be shorter. Is the article too long? It's about 8,000 words and is far from complete - see here . It was a coherent movement in Britain between 1880 and 1920 and if you split the article into sections about different periods, different media, different organisations or different artists, the reader won't get the sense of its profound influence on design and taste in that period. However, it could be split by country, since the story in Britain was different from that in the USA and on the continent. I'm reverting your tag re: inline citations because, although certain sections are lacking, the article as a whole is well referenced. I'll leave the tag about length subject to discussions here. Pelarmian (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looked again - some of the Morris info could be pruned, you are right. Too busy just at the moment. Pelarmian (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Pelarmian (talk)

Removed too long tag - article is only 60k, guidelines provide articles over 100k to be split and sections summarized. If anyone has an inclination to create separate articles for various A&C movements by country or to expand sections into separate articles, then they may summarize the section in this article with a main article link. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 05:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The duration of the movement was altered from "1880 to 1910" to "1850 to 1900". I reverted it. Such dates are approximate, but the source given for the latter dates (Triggs, "Chapters in the history of the arts and crafts movement" [1] doesn't mention them. Pelarmian (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arts and Crafts movement. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

american bungalow magazines[edit]

I have about 61 past issues of American Bungalow magazine, #2 up to #70. (some missing in the sequence however) is anyone interested? what are they worth? thank you.

DW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:6081:CF00:C817:31A:D3A3:3290 (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]