From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Textile Arts (Rated C-class, Top-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Plain weave in colonial America[edit]

This business of American Colonials preferring plain weave is simply not true.

Many different weave structures were woven in colonial America, from plain weave to a variety of twills, dimities, huck, diaper and huckaback as well as the more familiar overshot patterns. Wh shannnon locally produced fabrics expanded. But many home weavers throughout early American history wove more complex structures than plain weave.

This text requires some additions: weaving in other countries, more on the history of weaving (weaving and the Industrial Revolution etc), types of loom and weaving (backstrap, frame, rugs, carpets etc). I will add something.

Jackiespeel 11:29, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please also add Weaving in India. -- Sundar 03:45, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Attention: Intro rewrite[edit]

There's been a couple of edits by Special:Contributions/User: The edits seem to be made in good faith but appear somewhat unencyclopedic, needing a major rewrite. Can some one watching this page look into that. -- Sundar 09:58, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks to Aranel and Noisy for the copyedit. -- Sundar 05:54, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Can someone explain what is "wire work" or make the right redirect? It seems to be a form of beadwork. Thanks. --Eleassar777 09:13, 14 May 2005 (UTC) P.S.: Please also include the disambiguation: Wire-work is also a hyper-active gun fighting that appears in the movies of the directors such as John Woo and Ringo Lam.

I heartily thank the contributors who rewrote the into. It was a mess last time I visited it.Lynxx2 (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Umm.. This isn't right![edit]

"In Colonial times the colonists mostly used cotton and flax for weaving because the English would not send them sheep or wool. They could get one cotton crop each fall. Flax was harvested in the summer.

In preparing wool for weaving, colonists would first shear the sheep with..."

That needs to be fixed, but I don't know how it should be fixed. -- 18:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Merger of Warp (weaving) with Weaving[edit]

  • should definitely be merged it realy needs to be merged now, as warp other than a weaving term is also a very popular tech warp, the weaving part will get its right place in the weaving section. Every time i make an entry about this club warp, it gets deleted sooner or later so i think to curb this, it should undoubtedly be merged with immediate decision should be taken.
  • Disagree I don't think it should be merged, as it is a common enough term that it deserves its own page. Also, the tech club is continuously removed because it doesn't belong in a discussion of warp with respect to weaving. There are several meanings of warp, and they have their own pages. See warp (disambiguation) Loggie
  • I think that warp should be left as it is. User:Noisy | Talk 01:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • merge it..afterall weaving is incomplete without a mention of warp...go ahead (This from Hexadude (talk · contribs))
  • Disagree a discussion of weaving is incomplete without a mention of warp, however there are different warps and wefts, and the nature of woven fabric is largely determined by what is used (this is why I'm on this page- that's all I know and I was looking for more information). the incomplete nature of the warp and weft side articles should not be mistaken for lack of validity, only recognized as lack of (current) content. Darker Dreams 17:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree Warp (in the weaving sense) deserves an article in its own right. We already have a disambiguation page in place, so the fact that there are alternate meanings of Warp as you correctly pointed out, is no reason to merge this article. UkPaolo/talk 15:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree with merging warp into weaving. Warp (and weft) would benefit from a proper write-up on their own pages IMHO, making it easier for editors to link to very specific information rather than the wider topic of weaving. There are many entries for warp on the disambiguation page, merging this particular definition will not change anything for the original editor who proposed this. Velvet-Glove 00:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I took the merge tag off. It looks to me like the concerns leading to the merge (disambiguation with a tech club and linking from Weaving article) have been addressed.Lisamh 02:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Where did the non-perpendicular weave go?[edit]

Some months ago, a came across a definition for a textile, that was woven but non-perpendicular. It seemed as if it were describing something other than non-woven. I have developed a new type of fabric with a new method of construction and was looking for the proper terminology to describe it.

I think a gauze weave involves somehow wrapping the threads around each other, and is not strictly orthogonal, although it is on the large over-all scale. 11:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

What about England?[edit]

The present articel seems to be too focused on Colonial America. There is a large section missing on weaving in England and Europe.

Furthermore, I suspect that the statement that weaving was prohibited in America is wrong. British policy encouraged the colonies to be producers of raw materials for manufacture in England and consumers of British products. The export of wool from England was illegal, but I see no reason why Americans (for example in New England) should not have spun and woven their own cloth. If they did not how has the term 'homespun' arisen - surely that is not purely post-revolutionary. Peterkingiron 22:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

A great encyclopedia article about Weaving would be very lengthy -- at least ten times as long as presently. See the eb1911 link listed, or look up the subject in a real encyclopedia in your local library, to get an idea of what is missing... 11:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Any one interested in another project[edit]

I have just started a new wiki at It runs on the same software as wikipedia, but the goal is a little different.

I am working to make it a central resource for all things related to crafts. A central, on-line repositiory of patterns, techniques, tutorials, tip & tricks, etc that people can use as a resource. It will be a place that encourages opinions. I'm (obviously) just getting started, but I'm reaching out to crafters to ask them if they'd be willing to contribute some of their expertise or help me get the word out.

I appreciate any help that you can lend. It's going to take a lot more people than just myself to get this baby up to its full potential.

Also, please let me know if this comment is unwelcome. It's my understanding from reading wikipedia's rule/terms of use that this would be an appropriate place for a post like this. Thanks!

The majority and efficienty of Jacquard weaving in the moder Western textile[edit]

"The majority of commercial fabrics, in the West, are woven on computer-controlled Jacquard looms. In the past, simpler fabrics were woven on other dobby looms" - this is really not truth. Most of the weaving factories all over the world are stilling to use both 4 types of shedding motions have been ever developed: inside cam motion, even inside crank motions (mostly for 1 -by-1 plane weaving), dobby (the newest development is Electronic Doby system, the most popular is stilling Electronic boddy produced by company of Stauebly). The selection of the type of the shedding motion for the loom really depends on the fabric type to weave on it. In any case the weaving of the simple fabrics on the looms with Jackuard shedding motion systen could never be reasonable from 1-st of all ecenomical point of view cause of - lower production speed of the loom with Jackuard shedding motion, - higher operation costs of the Jackuard weaving loom (cause of Higher energy consumption, higher maintanance costs, higher labour consumption for operation and service). So the weaving of the simple fabrics (which have the most share in the World-wide fabrics output) can never be reasonable from point of veiw of the economical effeciency. From other hand the modern weaving looms are really computer-controlled for all the operation (such as warp tension, weft insertion, pick-find and others) and all the looms could be combined with all 4 mentioned types of the shedding motion systems and in fact all this systems takes place in the weaving industry in fact. The share of the Jackard weaving (in the loom installed capacity Worldwide) according to my estimation is not more then 5 % (both West and East). The Jackuard weaving takes place mostly in some special purposes there it could not be avoided cause of fabric construction reasons, such as: some areas of the Home textile (curtains, upholstary (furniture) fabrics, tapestry weaving, production of some Juckuard-design goods: Jackuard terry towels, Jackuard fabrics for garments, carpets). So Jackuard weaving is mostly using for production of non-mass products there is necessary to produce wide-range of complicated-design fabrics assortment but with small production volume of every single position. For the most of mass products are mostly used and economically effective the looms with more simple shedding motion systems such as inside crank, inside cam and Electrinic Dobby shedding systems. Anyhow the mass textile is now dying in the West. So the companies which are stilling to continue in Europe and North America have to find their specialisation in the non-mass products so it results that the share of Jackuard is increasing in such regions but not too much till I think 10 - 20%. For example a lot of Jackuard-equiped factories are stilling to exist in Belgium and they produce good furniture velvet fabrics, tapestry and carpets. But for production of some kinds of fabrics such as some technical fabrics the Jacquard shedding motion was never been used.

Best regards, Dr. Alexey V. Silakov [1]

29.11.06 /10.52 (Moscow Time)/


I'm thinking about starting a WikiProject for Textile Arts that would include all the usual crafts (weaving, sewing, knitting, crochet, lace, etc.) plus clothing and fashion design. We basically need to find 5 editors who are interested in contributing. A WikiProject would allow us to use tags to monitor the progress of our field, using the [[Mathbot assessments. We could also make common templates, info-boxes and whatnot, and it might draw other textile-enthusiasts to us. I'd be willing to get it off the ground, programming-wise; are people here interested in joining? Thanks! :) Willow 10:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


I have sought to deal with the omission of Great Britain from this article. I have also altered the start of the section on Colonial America: I do not think the British prohibited weaving (as was stated). If I am wrong in this, please cite your source for this statement, preferably from a reputable academic source. However it is still not entirely satisfactory:

  • The section on America has a long section of the preparation of fibres, which is not part of weaving, but processes preliminary to it. This does not belong here.
  • As some one else has pointed out, information is needed on weaving in India, and no doubt many other countries.

Peterkingiron 18:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Finger weaving?[edit]

Is there a technique called "finger weaving" (for which an article has been proposed but not yet created at the time of this writing)? See my section entitled Culture:finger weaving in the discussion area of the Métis people (Canada) article. Mrnatural (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Clean up[edit]

I have done some general clean up on this article, rewriting the lead to be more easily understood, tweaking headings, and adding more illustrative images.

It still needs a lot of work for style and evenness of tone, especially in the Colonial America section (we could actually use a separate article Weaving in Colonial America if an expert wants to start it...) - PKM (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

photo "jacquard loom"[edit]

Hi, I think the photo of the loom has a wrong title. It's surely no Jacquard loom, because it has shafts. To me it looks more like a damask loom with harness. But still remains the question why you can see punched cards next to it. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

At the University of Bolton, they had (possibly still have) a power loom which had both a Jacquard and some heald shafts (eight I think). The Jacquard on this loom was quite narrow - only the central 15% of the fabric width was patterned by the Jacquard, the remainder by the heald shafts. The loom in question might operate on similar principles (somebody pinched my copy of "Principles of Weaving" (R. Marks & A.T.C. Robinson), otherwise I'd give a proper name for such looms), even though it's clearly a hand loom, not a power loom. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Still needs work[edit]

Both the Islamic and Dark Age/Medieval Europe sections are way off. Carpets are knotted, not woven. Drawlooms were in use in Sassanid Persia and Byzantium fairly early on - weft-faced compound twills date back to the 6th century (prior to the Muslim expansion), and very complex weaves were in use by the 8th and 9th centuries. Weaving in Sicily and Italy spread from Byzatium and the east, rather than from Spain... and so on.

Is there an expert who is willing to take this on? - PKM (talk) 07:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Carpets are actually wovern. The flat kilim is a simple eave with no pile. The knotted carpets have their knots tied on a plain weave base, and they are knotted on a loom.Lynxx2 (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Lynxx2 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I am concerned about specifying wool use in Egypt. Wasn't their cotton specifically renowned? Can't find documentation for cotton crops in Egypt. If they used wool it must have been trade goods, since Egypt seems rather short of pasture land for the flocks. Wouldn't we all rather wear cotton than wool in Egypt's climate? Lynxx2 (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Lynxx2

Major restructure[edit]

A couple of weeks ago I took on the Spinning (textiles) problem- and moved the entire text to Hand spinning, and wrote a neutral meta article in its place. I am looking at this article, which is well loved but limited to a very narrow aspect of the global industry. Above on this page we have 5 years of comments expressing frustration, so I suggest that we have the same problem here, and propose to do the same here- move this page to Hand weaving thus freeing the title Weaving, then I will write an entirely new article for that space using Collier as a reference. Weaving in general is poorly covered when compared with spinning. I am posting my intention here, inviting comment from interested editors- particularly if they see an alternative solution- I will leave it a week for responses. I am unsure whether there is a better title than Hand weaving which I will use. --ClemRutter (talk) 10:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

*I have started to rebuild the article. I have introduced inline references! I am shifting sections around and will next be removing pretty images that don't illustrate any of the points in the article. There will be new sections- giving statistic and looking at modern weaving in China and India. --ClemRutter (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
*Started to give descriptions of the life and role of a weaver and marking in referenced facts --ClemRutter (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I would encourage you to continue to improve the article, but to be wary of being too reliant on any one book, however good. I fear that I hasve less time to deveote to WP than I did, and will probably not be able to contribute much even if I felt qualified to do (which I do not). I would welcome a fuller account of the transition to machine weaving, focusing more on when it became the norm, with dire (and well-established) consequences for the hand loom weavers. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Geoffry Timmins wrote the definitive book on the transition in Lancashire. I don't have it yet- but met Geoffry socially about 40 years ago. So as I understand it: the transition was not clean- and outworking remained profitable for the millowners for specialist and short run work even upto 1926. The sector was boosted by the Hattersley Domestic Loom- which is still used by the Harris Tweed industry. But I need to have hold of the text before I put myself in the firing line.I have some interesting pdf from India somewhere on my hard drive that I will unearth- when reallife stops getting in the way. The first major hurdle is to separated out the topic of weaving from Tools of weaving (looms). The second goal is to write an 2011 article rather than one based on the easily understood and antique technology of 1911. The third goal is to have someone to actually critically read the new text- your contribution is invaluable. --ClemRutter (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Monthly report: I have cleaned up a lot of the history- and it is beginning to dominate the article and we have still not touched modern commercial weaving, there are no figures yet. I think I successfully separated out weaving from the development of the loom. My thinking is that there is nearly enough here to float into its own article with a title of History of Weaving in Europe or something similar. Similarly there seems to be some expertise in Pre Columbian weaving traditions in las Américas and we could think about building an article (In both cases the title needs to be researched to fit in with wikipolicies).--ClemRutter (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Wrong (or messed) sentence in Process and terminology section[edit]

I can not understand a sentence near the beginning of Process and terminology section, maybe it's wrong or it has been messed by a later edit:

One warp thread is called and an end and one weft thread is a pick

Is the name of one wrap called "and an end" (quotation marks, or other signs, may be useful here!)? I've looked at Warp (weaving) article and I found "Each individual warp thread in a fabric is called a warp end or end".

Is the name of one weft called "pick"? (I've found nothing in Weft article).

By the way, the full stop (.) is missing before the next sentence ("The warp threads are held taut and ..."), so I think that something went wrong in some edit. --La voce di Cassandra (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

ClemRutter has just fixed it. Thank you, ! --La voce di Cassandra (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

In the paragraph that begins with "The raising and lowering sequence" and contains the bullet points on types of weaves, there were several problems with white space around punctuation. I fixed these and one sentence that was probably intended to be two separate sentences. The sentence that introduces the bullet list of weave types contains the word "renderd" and does not actually introduce the bullet list. I am not sure of what the correction should be.--BillD1 (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Too many notes[edit]

These need someone to move them to the actual text in the article and make it available. Kortoso (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Or delete it, or move it to new articles - this is a level 4 vital article and needs to have a focus. The commented out text is interesting but not on focus-- all in all this article needs a lot of time and attention.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 09:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)