Talk:Textile manufacturing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Textile Arts (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Textile Arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of textile arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

Merge proposal[edit]

Support The present Textile industry article is a rather poor one. This is quite comprehensive, but there may be something in the other that could usefully be added to this one. There is also a wider-ranging article Textiles, which should remain. Peterkingiron 22:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I see this article as more of how textiles are actually made, while textile industry has the possiblity of talking more about how the industry has changed over time, what it entails, and less on the how the actual manufacture of textiles is done. Loggie 22:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Support The current artilcle is not very informative, especially with info about the history of it. Mabey somebody could merge a timeline or some history into it? --Wavemaster447 22:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

How Many?[edit]

The three main types of fibers include natural vegetable fibers, man-made fibers, synthetic fibers and protein based fibers. I don't know whether to change to 4 or rewrite to indicate the 3? akaDruid 16:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the issue here is how we classify types of fibers- I think the groups here are supposed to be vegtable, protien, and man-made (of which synthetic is a subclass). But with different examples of each listed, I´m not sure what to do.
Also- the spelling in this article seems to vary between British and American- that should probably be fixed... Loggie 09:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of history stuff[edit]

Okay, so I removed the historical bits about Peter Wilson, not because I don't like him or anything, but because I think that this article is not really about the history of how these things came to be, but the current how they are done. Thoughts? There is probably an article where this would fit in very well... Loggie 09:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What is Liquid cotton.?[edit]

What is Liquid cotton.? Is it some Dyeing proceadure or some special cotton yarn called Liquid Cotton.? Add your comments feedback here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.77.30 (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge with textile engineering[edit]

The textile engineering article does not present sufficient information to stand on its own. It should be merged into the more comprehensive textile manufacturing article. Neelix (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not happy with this idea. The Textile engineering article describes the educational curriculum of college courses, whereas this article is attempting to provide a description of the processes involved. These are quite different in concept. I agree that they are parallel articles, something that is in principle to be avoided, but for the moment I would meerely suggest that the two articles be cross-linked. Certainly, before any merge can be permitted the other article needs to be properly wikified and referenced. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
My concern arose when I realized that Textile Technology is bolded in the lede of textile engineering as a synonym for that concept, but Textile Technology actually links to textile manufacturing. By cross-linking, do you mean placing a hatnote at the top of textile manufacturing noting the linguistic ambiguity and linking to textile engineering? Another option would be to create a parent article for textile manufacturing and textile engineering called Textile Technology. Neelix (talk) 12:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I had not formed any strong views as to how to link them. Hat-noting is certainly one possibility. I think the real problem is that textile engineering is largely about the syllabus for a college course. Another possibility might be to delete that article and redirect to textile manufacturing, on the basis that there is little or nothing worth merging. I think I should say that textiles are not really quite my field as an economic historian, so that I will do no more than monitor what you or others do, rahther than doing much myself. I would have expected textile engineering to be about the design of textile machinery (a branch of machine tools) and the application of textiles in engineering. Courses in the subject would be about training those who were to operate textile mills in a technical sense (as opposed to mere managament. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Disassemble?[edit]

I would suggest that this article focus on large-scale manufacturing; items such as weaving, knitting, spinning, crochet, and lace are better covered in existing articles on those topics. - PKM (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned that so much of this article is on hand processes not manufacturing. Cotton is my principle concern- no mention of the differences between mule and ring. Where is the section on weaving. Calico printing- one factory in Dinting produced 24 000 kilometers a year- sure notable process. The Cotton famine, politics of ownership? I would support a root and branch review of all the related articles to make them more focused. What are feelings of other editors.ClemRutter (talk) 11:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
It is good to have a general article, which will lead the reaser to more detailed ones on particular aspects. We thus get a tree of articles. This one should provide an overview, and needs to be guarded against expansion on particular topics where that ought to appear in the detailed articles. All the processes (except perhaps crochet) mentioned by PKM can be either handicrafts or manufactures. This article may need restructurign by merging the factory and handiscraft sections together. The article has a merge tag on it for Textile processing. This is a poor article and could probably usefully be merged here. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It is good to have a good general article and that is what this must become. It is has a good title. The textile processing article cannot be saved. It contains material paraphrased from its reference site that is written in broken English. It does not cover textile processing in anything but a technical sense- ie the processes between weaving and fabrication. It was a brave attempt by a newby. So Lets look in more detail at this article which needs to be the introduction to 4 groups of industrial processes on four/three classes of fibres.


The lead starts well:

The next paragraph is crucial and confused. The lead sums up the intention of the article so this must be done right. It says:

The three main types of fibers include natural vegetable fibers (such as cotton, linen, jute and hemp), man-made fibers (those made artificially, but from natural raw materials such as rayon, acetate, Modal, cupro, and the more recently developed Lyocell), synthetic fibers (a subset of man-made fibers, which are based on synthetic chemicals rather than arising from natural chemicals by a purely physical process) and protein based fibers (such as wool, silk, and angora).

Should it say:

There are three main classes of fibre: protein based fibres (such as wool, silk, and angora),natural vegetable fibers (such as cotton, linen, jute and hemp) and man made fibres (such as rayon, acetate and nylon).

That being established we have the framework for the article. It is not what we see below.

  • Firstly there are no references.
  • Secondly we see that this article has been a cut and paste- The manual processes were written (but not references) and then sections created to duplicate these headings so we get the suggestion that industrial lace making is of more importance than weaving.

Contents

   * 1 Hand processing: yarn formation
         o 1.1 Wool
         o 1.2 Flax
   * 2 Machine Processing: yarn formation
         o 2.1 Cotton
               + 2.1.1 Cotton Gin
               + 2.1.2 Picking
               + 2.1.3 Carding
               + 2.1.4 Combining the Slivers
               + 2.1.5 Spinning
               + 2.1.6 Plying
         o 2.2 Yucca
               + 2.2.1 Leaf to Rolag
   * 3 Hand Processing- Fabric Formation
         o 3.1 Knitting
         o 3.2 Crochet
         o 3.3 Lace
         o 3.4 Weaving
               + 3.4.1 Loom
               + 3.4.2 Process
   * 4 Machine processing: fabric formation
         o 4.1 Knitting
         o 4.2 Lace
         o 4.3 Weaving
   * 5 Decoration
         o 5.1 Dyeing
         o 5.2 Bleaching
         o 5.3 Embroidery
   * 6 See also
   * 7 External links

Firstly we declutter- by removing manual processes and build a second article.Textiles (manual methods)

  • 2 Machine Processing: yarn formation
  • 2.1 Cotton
  • 2.1.1 Cotton Gin
  • 2.1.2 Picking
  • 2.1.3 Carding
  • 2.1.4 Combining the Slivers
  • 2.1.5 Spinning
  • 2.1.6 Plying
  • 4 Machine processing: fabric formation
  • 4.3 Weaving
  • 4.1 Knitting
  • 4.2 Lace
  • 6 See also
  • 7 External links

But the problems don't stop there. Look at cotton 2.1.1: picking carding etc are processes as they should be, but a Cotton Gin is a machine. I am mocking up a page on Cotton manufacturing, where I have used some of the data from this page and verified it by finding references. Its headings are

  • 1 Processing of Cotton
  • 1.1 Cultivating and harvesting
  • + 1.1.1 Issues
  • 1.2 Preparatory Processes
  • 1.3 Spinning
  • 1.3.1 Measurement
  • 1.4 Weaving
  • 1.4.1 Measurements
  • 1.4.2 Associated job titles
  • 1.5 Finishing
  • 2 See also
  • 3 References
  • 4 Bibliography
  • 5 External Links

Even in just concentrating on cotton: I have learnt:

  • You tend to drift from process to machine.
  • Geographical difference
  • The historical progression changes the processes

I am missing chunks on wet processes, and fabrication- as I said it is a draft.

I would suggest that the framework we need to be use. Could be:


For History of Textile maufacturing from 1750 to 1950, see History of Textile maufacturing from 1750 to 1950.
For Hand processing techniques today and before 1750, see Textiles (manual methods).
  • 1 Processing of Cotton
  • 1.1 Cultivating and harvesting
  • + 1.1.1 Issues
  • 1.2 Preparatory Processes
  • 1.3 Spinning
  • 1.3.1 Measurement
  • 1.4 Weaving
  • 1.4.1 Measurements
  • 1.4.2 Associated job titles
  • 1.5 Finishing (Wet processes)
  • 1.6 Fabrication
  • 1.7 Economic, environmental and political consequences of cotton manufacture
  • 2 Processing of other vegetable fibres- other processes
  • Flax
  • Hemp
  • Jute
  • 3 Processing of Protein fibres
  • Wool
  • Angora
  • 4 Processing of artificial fibres
  • Discussion of types of artificial fibres.
  • Production techniques
  • Nylon
  • Acetate
--outside my area of expertise
  • Additional processes associated with artificial fibres.
  • See also
  • References
  • Bibliography
  • External Links


Nobodys work has been disregarded- just redirected. At every spot we leave links to existing articles and provide references. History is deliberately separated from this article which is about process.I still have to integrate statistical tables showing volume of production and provide links for events that have a strong causal link to mechanised fabric production: Cotton famine, Slavery, Child labour apprentice houses.




Then we cut and paste the following ito the new article Textiles (manual methods)

  • 1 Hand processing: yarn formation

o 1.1 Wool o 1.2 Flax o 2.2 Yucca + 2.2.1 Leaf to Rolag

  • 3 Hand Processing- Fabric Formation

o 3.1 Knitting o 3.2 Crochet o 3.3 Lace o 3.4 Weaving + 3.4.1 Loom + 3.4.2 Process

  • 5 Decoration

o 5.1 Dyeing o 5.2 Bleaching o 5.3 Embroidery

  • 6 See also
  • References
  • Bibliography
  • 7 External links

--ClemRutter (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

I fully support your proposal. I would suggest that you continue doing this in your sandbox (as for Cotton). I just wonder whether there may be a better title for your 1750-1850 article, perhaps History of textile manufacturing in mills. My reason for saying this is that industrialisation did not happen all at once: it was a gradual process, with weaving continuing to be largely manual into the 19th century, whereas cotton spinning rapidly industrialised in the 1780s, followed by flax and worsted from the 1790s. Some sections may need to be shortened with the detail forked off into separate articles. It may be useful to retain the present article (though much abbreviated) as a parent to them all, providing a general overview of the whole subject, but it will be necessary to defend this against those who will seek to add detail to it that does not belong. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

We are thinking on the same lines. I have done a few more hours in the sandbox. I have linked to existing article where possible, hence 1750-1850 article, when I actually wanted something that continued to at least Wye No2 in 1927. History of textile manufacturing in mills would be a better title. I have already written Lancashire Cotton Corporation article that covers one aspect of 1920 to 1960, and I am amassing the material needed to address the problem of Cotton Mill design.
All links need to checked and in most cases the articles need to edited to ensure correct terms are used, strengthened, referenced and copyeditted.
Correct use of the terms is vital. Having found my copy of Collier 1970 it make a lot of this clear, While the layman is happy to use terms like fabric and textile interchangeably this leads to a lot of confusion- and informs a lot of the debate earlier in this page. Textile processing was proposed for merger, but is technically correct and it may be used as one of the articles that are spawned/forked from this one, now.
While I am happy to develop this megapage, forking is inevitable, and in the process the stubs left will need to be rewritten from informed list format into GA prose
The more I look into this, I agree that the present article must be kept- but it needs a new title- and the one I have suggested Textiles (manual methods) is rubbish. If we can find the right title, we can strip out the industrial bits, and provide appropriate links, and we have a winner that will retain its B classification.
At the moment I am going back to play in my sandbox. --ClemRutter (talk) 10:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
(corrected a type in your proposal). The probelm of finding a suitable title for non-industrialised methods is that "manufacture" measn (literally) making by hand. The closest I can think of is "handicraft", but that also has the wrong implications. In saying that the existing article should be kept, I was not thinking of pruning out the industrialised hisotry, but pruning down all of it, into a brief summary article that would be only slightly fuller than a disambiguation page - see for example ironworks. How about History of textile manufacturing by pre-industrial methods? While adopting periods is superficially attractive, there would be a problem at its beginning due to pre-industrial (or proto-industrial) systems continuing in some places (and in some stages of production) after others had been mechanised. I have no view on an end date. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
That gives me some direction. I prefer Textile manufacturing by pre-industrial methods as it describes process rather than placing processes on parallel timelines. I will continue developing the detailed page in the sandbox- understanding that the text will be precised for the final article- (which will be similar to Iron works )and the detail will move to independant ;;main articles;;- I don't get precious about defending text. It may take a couple of weeks. --ClemRutter (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I have done the suggested fork, but say now that is can only be an intermediate solution. The topic is vast. In doing this fork, I collected far too much extra material. Some of this needs to be worked up into independent articles- some merged with existing, but deficient articles etc. The new article Textile manufacturing by pre-industrial methods needs to be forked into Hobby processing and a description of the hand loom industry in india. This article is too cotton biased, the other one, too wool biased. Still if we leave it a few weeks to bed down, and allow other editors to contribute we can revise it in the early summer. --ClemRutter (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Mending[edit]

what is mending process please write anyone with detaile how mendind is done.procedure plz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.158.254 (talk) 09:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that mending is literally that: as part of the finishing of a cloth, defects in its weaving are repaired. However I am not an expert. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Textile engineering[edit]

Hi all. I was looking for interwiki links for textile engineering from turkish wiki and i found myself here: Do textile engineering and textile manufacturing refer to the same thing? why Textile engineering redirects here? s.o help pls. --.ftkurt..M. 07:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion no. See: [1]. Textile engineering is principally about designing new fibres while Textile manufacturing is about taking the fibres and producing yarn and then fabrics. There is a need for a stand alone article on Textile technology/engineering. Of course there is an overlap. I think we are also seeing a shift in language: A computer programmer in the 1960s became the software engineer of the 1990s, and a new breed of coders then called themselves Computer programmers. I think that we see this here. As textile production moved to India, the language in the UK remained fixed in the 1940s, and the area adopted Indian English usage- which then trickled back into the UK. See also College of Textile Engineering and Technology. --ClemRutter (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

FTKURT - Germany used to have (maybe still does, in Bielefeld) degree courses in textile engineering, which approaches textile production in the same manner as a different kind of engineer would consider bridge building etc.74.15.42.191 (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

UK textile history[edit]

There could easily be an article describing the UK industry, especially cotton in Lancashire; and its ultimate decline, which is not well covered. There are a number of articles that deal with parts of this story, such as:

Would this make sense? Jim Killock (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

UK textile history[edit]

There could easily be an article describing the UK industry, especially cotton in Lancashire; and its ultimate decline, which is not well covered. There are a number of articles that deal with parts of this story, such as:

Would this make sense? Jim Killock (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry you erased this, as there is a need for several extra articles tying together the rise of cotton industry- and its collapse and fall. We do have Lancashire Cotton Corporation that deals with the Platt report and the 1936 act. We don't have anything on the Edwardian boom- Oldham Limiteds and very little at all on the weaving side. There is little on worsted and little on silk throwing. There are few people taking photos and we are very gratefull for he images we are getting from Chris Allen et al from Geograph.co.uk All of this would make sense- and I am glad to help you in any new articles. If you want to cut your teeth more gently then the template below lists Cotton related articles- all of which can do with improving.

.

I look forward to seeing your name around.--ClemRutter (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)