Talk:Hobby

Come on everybody, pitch in here, please. Nancy Sculerati MD 16:32, 29 January 2007 (CST)

This article

The problem here is that it's difficult to see what more can be said; it's really only capable of being one of three things: a compendium covering all the (main) hobbies, a dictionary definition, or a portal page. The first is practically impossible (and undesirable), the second is possible, but the third is both possible and useful.

Also,I'm not sure what this was meant to say: "Often a hobby is seen as compensation of gainful employment". --Peter J. King  Talk  16:05, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

I deleted it, as an expedient manuever. Nancy Sculerati 16:06, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

Wow, you're on the ball. I came back to add more comment, and hit an edit conflict (did you get my e-mail, by the way?). --Peter J. King  Talk  16:09, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

yes, & answered. Peter, do you think you might be able to write this in a way that introduces the nature of the catch-all (or catch much) nature of the Hobbies workgroup? At this point it is going to include hobbyist breeder of animals, the dog fancy, cat fancy, etc, collecting of all kinds, gardening, cooking etc. Maybe there is a way to go about it that will lend itself to future subcategories of workgroups. Workgroups are, right now, our key to building communities of authors and editors in fields, and matching articles to the editors who will be able to approve them. also, see you around on tetanus. :-)Nancy Sculerati 16:11, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

We might want to consider that the things we'd say about the topic "hobby" are similar to things we might want to say about "recreation," "leisure," and "avocation." And perhaps we should (1) decide what we have to say about such things, and then (2) pick the title of the topic accordingly, and finally (3) if necessary, rename the "Hobbies Workgroup" (as Nancy wants to do). --Larry Sanger 16:15, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

I'm not happy with the name, but I have not come up with a workable group of labels to divide up Recreation, in other words-I complain but I'm not able to fix it. In terms of complaint: there are collectors who do not make a living by their "hobby" but devote their lives to it and gain so much expertise that they are consulted by museum curators, is it fair to ask them to be editors in "Hobbies"? Is it fair to expect that they will not be insulted by the very term? Can there be a name for this workgroup that recognizes a high level of committment? By the same token, professional atheletes are not exactly engaged in recreation, yet sports is categorized under that discipline. Peter, you seem quite qualified for solving this problem! (if anybody can), can you think of some solutions? Nancy Sculerati 16:20, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

Woefully unqualified, I'm afraid, but I can try. On the plus side for the current name, one commonly hears people say that they're lucky because their work is also their hobby. Still, it can have a belittling feel to it ("oh, it's just a hobby"). "Avocation" is too dusty, I'd have thought; I'm drawn to "enthusiasms", but perhaps not... "Leisure" isn't bad, but perhaps is most problematic with regard to experts. "Recreation" is better, though, and while it's not perfect, I suspect that no term is.

By the way, I have to confess: I started the article on tetanus purely so that I could write on my User page:

• Tetanus (from scratch)

Sorry. --Peter J. King  Talk  16:51, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

Expanded, and more needed

Well, I expanded this back in July, but it's been dormant since.

Surely some specific authors and editors can see room for improvement regarding their own hobbies?

Aleta Curry 17:03, 16 September 2007 (CDT)