Jump to content

Talk:Textile

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Woven roving

Wikipedia has no article on woven roving, which predates the invention of spread tow fabric. I have seen it as fibreglass textiles used in layup fabrication. Are there significant differences between the two? Just plain Bill (talk) 12:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, not really, but then again I have no sources with which to help. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

poor citeation

Rajiv Please explain how this reference supports the text. Thanks. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly it is not citeation, It is citation. The citation was required for Wool refers to the hair of the domestic sheep or goat, which is distinguished from other types of animal hair in that the individual strands are coated with scales and tightly crimped, and the wool as a whole is coated with a wax mixture known as lanolin (sometimes called wool grease), which is waterproof and dirtproof.
  • Roxy You deleted[[<ref>{{Cite book|last=‎Vatin Nikolai Ivanovich|first=Alexandr A. Berlin, ‎Roman Joswik|url=https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Engineering_Textiles/Mt6YCgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=lanolin++is+waterproof+and+dirtproof&pg=PA142&printsec=frontcover|title=Engineering Textiles|publisher=Apple Academic Press|year=2015|isbn=9781498706032|location=|pages=142}}</ref>]]
  • [1]][The text on Page 142---Wool, commonly used for warm clothing, refers to the hair of the domestic goat or sheep and it is coated with oil known as lanolin, which is water-proof and dirt-proof making a comfortable fabric for dresses, suits, and sweaters. Now you tell me why it is not supporting. RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But Lanolin has no water proof or dirt proofing effect on wool garments, as it is all scoured out in processing. Lanolin in wool garments would make them more attractive to dirt not less. The citation does not support the text. for spelling, see here -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Roxy Do not manipulate and make out meanings of your interest. Who is asking about scoured wool? The text in the article is about Lanolin containing wool. READ IT AGAIN Wool refers to the hair of the domestic sheep or goat, which is distinguished from other types of animal hair in that the individual strands are coated with scales and tightly crimped, and the wool as a whole is coated with a wax mixture known as lanolin (sometimes called wool grease), which is waterproof and dirtproof. For spellings, I will clothe you, for now; otherwise, on Wikipedia, nothing is invisible, like you try to do from the talk pages after deleting the references and making other users demoralized.RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Roxy The reference is added to the content in the article. Not for your BUT.RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Roxy the citation actually does support the text, the section of the article the citation refers to are sources that textiles are made from, including wool, and does not refer to wool that has already been processed and woven, so it's possible that it may or may not contain lanolin. As you can see that section is a list of animal fibre sources. At any rate, a negligible amount of lanolin will still remain in the wool, even after it is woven. Coryphantha Talk 21:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou User: Coryphantha, for understanding the fact and restoring the citation/edit. I hope Roxy will realize and would not mind discussing on the talk page before reverting my edits. Best regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome. User: RAJIVVASUDEV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coryphantha (talk • contribs) 02:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piecegoods/(piece goods)

Before the 18th century, textile goods were synonym with piece-goods because of certain limitations of resources and trading systems. We can not forget the role of Draper, cloth merchants and mercery. I have added a section in the subject article with the name piece goods. Kindly review and advise to elaborate. Thanks and regardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 02:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In order to advise and elaborate I have decided that certain limitations of sources need to be lifted irrevocably and have removed it as adequately categorised without your WP:AGF contribution. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 06:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Roxy the dog Sir, Your recent edits are not acceptable, WP:NPA,WP:DE ,Wikipedia:Tendentious editingInformation is well sourced with reliable sources, you are repeatedly making personal attacks, and using false language wikipedia:RPA. This is not the first time you are engaging me and ultimately cause a block. Please WP: AGF avoid this and do not harm the project for your ego. Peace. Having any doubts please discuss them on the talk page and conclude. Thanks and regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 07:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit summary for reverting is poor. Please note there is no single article that explains what these piece-goods were besides mentioning. Hence the topic deserves a section here. And readers must know what they were and why they were produced. Thanks and regardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 07:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia maintains an inclusion threshold of "verifiability, not truth." Hence you can not delete any info/RS. ThanksRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 07:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please indent the messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 08:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RegardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 08:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Respected Sir Rajiv, you already know I am an expert. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 09:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, No sir, you are not, but you underrated yourself by considering yourself (as a self-appointed expert); you are high above the policies. you are allowed to use false language, can bite and allowed to override any Ps WP:5P.RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 09:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]
And you can revert the content even with verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources. So you are more than an expert. RegardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 09:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The section started out as a standalone article about piecegoods, defined as cloth sold in fixed lengths. This didn’t agree with the definition in the two definitions cited, which was cloth supplied in bolts and sold in lengths requested by the customer. The content of the article followed the unsupported definition, and was about cloth manufactured in small pieces. It implied that manufacture of piecegoods had ceased in the 19th century as a result of improvements in weaving technology, while citing a source discussing proposed tariffs on piecegoods in 1937.

Once the definition was changed to one supported by the cited sources pretty much all the content was irrelevant to it. The central premise of much of it, which was that manufacture of piecegoods had ceased as a result of changing technology, is clearly wrong, cloth is still supplied in bolts and sold in from them in lengths as required. As a result of this the article was redirected here, as an appropriate redirection for cloth sold by length. The article has now been copied and pasted to this article pretty much intact, and has now also been pasted to this talk page (is this really necessary, or even appropriate?).

The sourcing, as far as I can tell, is dubious in other ways. For example the source cited to support the sentence saying that the invention of Kay’s flying shuttle “led to wider width handloom woven fabrics” says nothing of the sort; it says that the flying shuttle speeded up the weaving process and enabled a broadcloth loom to be operated by a single weaver instead of two. Even if this could be sourced it’s not clear how an increase in width is relevant to the fortunes of cloth sold by length. This sort of incoherence is one of the reasons it was redirected, there just doesn’t seem to be a coherent article to be made here. It was mostly about changing manufacturing technology, not piecegoods.

It looks as if what RAJIVVASUDEV actually wants to write about is handlooming, and the effect on this of improved technology. It might be appropriate to have an article about this, from some of the sources I’ve seen cited it seems that handlooming is of cultural significance, and it has in the past been of economic significance, but the article would have to be carefully researched and adequately sourced. If RAJIVVASUDEV is to create such an article I suggest that it should start as a draft and only be moved to mainspace when ready. Brunton (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piecegoods the section which is deleted ( For a glance)

Cloth Merchant's Shop, Brooklyn Museum, depicts an establishment in India.

Before the 18th century, a maximum of textiles were produced and traded in the form of piece-goods only. (Piece goods, yard goods) were the fabrics sold by length.[1] The term was commonly used in the cloth trade for a various specified length (pieces) of cloth rolls. It comprehends several qualities mostly cotton[2] such as calicos, long cloth, etc.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

Limitations

There were various reasons for producing and trading textiles in piece goods; some were the infrastructure, resources, and trading system of that time, which was not allowing to produce the cloth in larger roll sizes what machines are producing today.

Handlooms

In pre-industrialization, most textile materials were handspun and handwoven and produced on handlooms, and unlike today the goods were then made in smaller pieces. The dimensions (length and width) was varied with the size of looms, material, and weavers.[10][11][9]

The flying shuttle invention by John Kay in 1733 had led to wider width handloom woven fabrics. [12] However, improvements in spinning technology during the Industrial Revolution created cotton yarn of sufficient strength to be used in mechanized weaving. The limitations of the vertical length size of the cloths overcame with early developments in looms such as warp-weighted loom and powerlooms.[13][14]

Trade

Exports of piece-goods is recorded since the time of the Mughals.[15] And it continued until the 19th century. In 1878, textile piece goods were discussed substantially as an item of export and Import from various destinations of India.[16] Drapers[17] and Cloth merchants were trading different textile in the form of piece-goods.[18]

References

  1. ^ "Definition of PIECE GOODS". www.merriam-webster.com. Retrieved 2020-12-14.
  2. ^ Schmidt, Karl J. (2015-05-20). An Atlas and Survey of South Asian History. Routledge. p. 100. ISBN 978-1-317-47681-8.
  3. ^ "Definition of piece goods | Dictionary.com". www.dictionary.com. Retrieved 2020-12-14.
  4. ^ Banerjee, Debdas (1999). Colonialism in Action: Trade, Development, and Dependence in Late Colonial India. Orient Blackswan. p. 68. ISBN 978-81-250-1697-7.
  5. ^ Malani, K. P. Sipahi; Soni, Hans Raj (1936). Indian Economics: A General Survey of Indian Economic Problems. Nand Kishore. pp. 688, 689.
  6. ^ Alexander Murray, President; Fazal Ibrahim Rahimtoola, Member; Dewan Babadur, Member; A. Ramaswami Mudaliar, Member; Rai Bahadur, Member; H. Mookerjee, Technical Adviser; C. M. Ker, Secretary (1937). Special Tariff Board Written Evidence recorded during enquiry regarding the level of duties necessary to afford adequate protection to the Indian Cotton Textile Industry against Imports from the United Kingdom of cotton piecegoods and yarn, artificial silk fabrics and mixture fabrics of cotton and artificial silk. New Delhi, Manager of Publications. pp. 1, 2.
  7. ^ The Eastern Economist; a Weekly Review of Indian and International Economic Affairs. 1981. p. 183.
  8. ^ Chatterjee, Ruma (1987). "Cotton Handloom Manufactures of Bengal, 1870-1921". Economic and Political Weekly. 22 (25): 988–997. ISSN 0012-9976.
  9. ^ a b "The Survival Of Handloom Industy". UKEssays.com. Retrieved 2020-12-15.
  10. ^ "Inca Textiles". Ancient History Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2020-12-14.
  11. ^ Textile Trends. Eastland Publications. 1995. p. 43.
  12. ^ "HISTORY OF TECHNOLOGY". www.historyworld.net. Retrieved 2020-12-15.
  13. ^ Jenkins, D. T (2003-01-01). The Cambridge history of western textiles. Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 13. ISBN 978-0521341073. OCLC 48475172.
  14. ^ Information, Reed Business (1977-06-16). New Scientist. Reed Business Information. p. 652. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help)
  15. ^ MISHRA, K. P. (1987). "Textile Manufacture and the Company's Trade in late 18th Century North India". Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. 48: 451–460. ISSN 2249-1937.
  16. ^ Report on the Trade and Resources of the Central Provinces - ''The imports of uprefined sugar were excessive as compared with its export , and the explanation afforded is that stocks were allowed to accumulate until prices should ... Salt and Indian piece - goods are shown as being the chief exports .page10, 12 of the report
  17. ^ '' a dealer in cloth; retail merchant or clerk who sells piece goods.Draper
  18. ^ The Warehousemen and drapers' trade journal. Vo.1-8. 1876.

Blends (Blended textiles)

It is more helpful to know about historical terms for a reader.@Roxy the dog , kindly do not remove the sourced information.RV (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your badly written lecture notes do not make any sense in English. By re-introducing them, you have edit-warred. -Roxy . wooF 09:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Something obvious to you, may not be to someone else.reader. BTW what is bad in it? Read guide lines hereWP:HISTINFO. Thanks RV (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What ?

@Roxy the dog You have removed a sourced information[[2]] with this ed sum Nonsense. textiles for transmitting info. hahahaha. Can you explain the reason? RV (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Textile

A textile is a flexible material made by creating an interlocking network of yarns or threads, which are produced by spinning raw fibres (from either natural or synthetic sources) into long and twisted lengths.Textiles are then formed by weaving, knitting, crocheting, knotting, tatting, felting, bonding, or braiding these yarns together.

Textile, any filament, fibre, or yarn that can be made into fabric or cloth, and the resulting material itself.[1]
  • Comment: Lead in the article limits textiles to the "fabrics" only in spite of the fact that the term "textile" is a broader term and includes fibers, yarns and fabrics, and technical textiles, etc. Can we have a discussion and make a consensus? Thanks RV (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "textile | Description & Facts". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2021-08-19.

fashion

Can you write fashion as a type of clothing 41.217.55.121 (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. -Roxy the dog. wooF 20:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2018 and 7 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Thoschis. Peer reviewers: Chris sarli.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Burn test of fabrics

Hi all! In an article Sulfur someone wrote a sentence: "The high disulfide bond content of hair and feathers contributes to their indigestibility and to their characteristic disagreeable odor when burned.[citation needed]" A little investigation on Google gave no citation which is suitable for that statement in context of the article. But there is a bunch of search results pointing on "Burn test of fabrics". Don't you want to add this information to Treatments subsection? I'm going to remove the mentioned statement from the Sulfur article. Tosha Langue (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Roxy the great dog, I'm that, who saves every any meaningful crap at Wikipedia. Would you magnanimously point at an appropriate place, within known limits, for the quick identification test of fabrics, that you didn't let be here?
Your humble servant, Tosha Langue (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I was to suggest an article, it would be the one on textile testing, in the fibre identification section. I do not know if such an article exists. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Significance of water in textiles

§ Handling of edit-warring behaviors. @Roxy the dog Your recent attempts to vandalize this page have been reversed. Stop your nonsense because there is no denying the link between textiles, wet processing, and water consumption. Keeping the readers in mind, the section deserves a place in the article. And let me do that. You are welcome to discuss this here. Do not revert the edits, especially when they belong to a reliable source.. RV (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC) or You may want to try WP:BRD to resolve your problem. Open a talk page section and justify how water, wet processing and associated impacts are not linked, to show why the disputed section is justified in that position. RV (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution

In section Health impacts, there is copy and paste edit Chemicals use, advantage and health impacts, copy and paste edit from Chemical finishing of textiles. For attribution see page history. Thanks RV (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Textile&oldid=1240721022"