Talk:Duct tape: Difference between revisions
Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
As we know the army developed duct tape during the first world war but they called it DUCK TAPE because of the waterproof qualities of the tape, it was later called duct tape after the war because of its use on air ducts etc. 11:24 Sunday, July 25 2010 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.239.144.81|99.239.144.81]] ([[User talk:99.239.144.81|talk]]) 15:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
As we know the army developed duct tape during the first world war but they called it DUCK TAPE because of the waterproof qualities of the tape, it was later called duct tape after the war because of its use on air ducts etc. 11:24 Sunday, July 25 2010 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.239.144.81|99.239.144.81]] ([[User talk:99.239.144.81|talk]]) 15:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:If you've got a reliable source for this, that would be great. [[User:Rklawton|Rklawton]] ([[User talk:Rklawton|talk]]) 00:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC) |
:If you've got a reliable source for this, that would be great. [[User:Rklawton|Rklawton]] ([[User talk:Rklawton|talk]]) 00:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
True but also the original color is not gray it is dark military green. |
Revision as of 23:05, 10 March 2011
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Duct tape article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 180 days ![]() |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Duct tape article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 180 days ![]() |
Duct vs duct; article needs changes
If you look at the article's history page, you'll see that people keep changing the word "duck" to "duct" and visa versa, and the words are used interchangeably in some sections in the article (just search for "duck tape" and "duct tape"). The Duck Products company itself says the word "duct" was used at first - see the comment by Largo Plazo and also look on their website, plus it's a brand name. In other words, the word "duck" should only be used in the article when referring to that specific brand of duct tape. Anywhere else, including under the picture of duct tape, it should say "duct". And this is not enough: the article should start off with a clear note that 'in this article, "Duck tape" is used to refer to the specific brand, and "duct tape" to refer to the tape in general', because without it people will continue to change the article back and forth. In fact, some people will just think that the word "duck" anywhere is a form of vandalism and that the whole article should be reverted back to an old revision. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- What makes the Duck company an authority on the subject? It's obviously in their interest to claim that they invented the term, and to appropriate it for their brand, but why should we go along with them, ignoring all sources to the contrary? -- Zsero (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, according to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myfsp2BBAoM the earliest reference to it was as duck tape. She claims that the word duck in the name is from a dutch word doeck, a strong linen or cotten fabric. She references a 1902 article in the Brooklyn daily eagle about using 100,000 yards of cotton duck tape wrapped around the cable of the Brooklyn bridge. There's an ad in the 1940's New York Times for Duck Tape (used re venetian blinds). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.43.131.74 (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- The anon is right; duct tape is a generic term and Duck tape is a brand name of a specific product. Gaffa tape is a distinct type of tape that is primarily different in that the adhesive is intended for non-permanent adhesion and to not mar the surfaces it is used on. The article should reflect this. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Jack Merridew snobbishly referred to the anon as an anon, and not a Duck Tape expert. This kind of arrogance typifies the half wits who believe Wikipedia is an informed source of intelligent information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.57.167 (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Whether "duck" or "duct" is the original term is a matter hotly debated here, and Largo Plazo's argument from authority for "duct", adopted by the anon editor, is unsound. Gaffer tape, however, is irrelevant here, since as you just admitted it is a completely different item. One would not want to use duct/duck tape where gaffer tape was called for. -- Zsero (talk) 07:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm just looking here. Duct tape is the proper name of the generic item, so it's simply a matter of sourcing it. And yes, Gaffa tape (or gaff, or gaffer's tape) is a different critter. For most things people commonly use duct tape for (which is not ducts), they would be better served using gaffa tape; that they don't is due to its higher cost and the relative difficulty in obtaining it.--Jack Merridew (talk) 07:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- You are entitled to the opinion that "duct tape" was the original term and "duck tape" came later, though by the Duck company's own admission that term was in circulation before it started using it as a brand name. But you cannot deny that there are multiple reliable sources which say that "duck tape" was the original name. It's a matter of dispute between sources, and so far nobody here has come up with a killer argument for preferring one over the other. -- Zsero (talk) 07:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm just looking here. Duct tape is the proper name of the generic item, so it's simply a matter of sourcing it. And yes, Gaffa tape (or gaff, or gaffer's tape) is a different critter. For most things people commonly use duct tape for (which is not ducts), they would be better served using gaffa tape; that they don't is due to its higher cost and the relative difficulty in obtaining it.--Jack Merridew (talk) 07:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
It's called "duct tape" generically, because that is it's primary purpose: sealing the ducting in your home. Duck Tape is a brand name. Therefore, duct tape would be the correct usage. Should we call every pair of locking pliers by the brand name, Vice Grip?
Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The use of Duck or duck when referring to the subject of an entry entitled Duct Tape is inappropriate, yet it occurs repeatedly in this article. I propose that the article carrying the title Duct Tape limit its discussion of Duck tape to the mention of the product with that trade name and the confusion or arguments regarding its use. That will give us a clean article on duct tape. Those that would like to invest time and energy in the debate over the origin of the terms Duck tape or duck tape can do so on an article with that title. Jman53705 (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree: this article should address both 'duct' and 'duck'. The Jumbo Duct Tape Book published in 2000 says "The first name for duct tape was "duck". During World War II, the U.S. military needed waterproof tape to keep moisture out of ammunition cases. They enlisted the Johnson & Johnson Permacel Division to manufacture the tape. Because it was waterproof, everyone referred to it as duck tape (like water off a duck's back)." The names 'duck' and 'duct' are both valid. This is the exact article to address both terms, the exact article to describe the one category of tape that is variously called duck and duct. Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- More about the Permacel Division beginnings and the name can be found here in the Encyclopedia of modern everyday inventions published in 2003. With publishing dates of 2000 and 2003, these sources are free from the worry that the sources took their information from this article which first appeared March 11, 2002, without any mention of J&J Permacel. The original March 2002 version gave this URL as the reference, another source which describes the WWII J&J beginnings, with both terms explained. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Clarification of Aus/NZ section
I've been in various bits of the production industry in Aus for 12 years, I'm unaware of gaffer tape having an adhesive resistant to removing paint, etc. In my experience the standard Nashua 357 gaffer will happily remove paint, wallpaper and anything else it's stuck to, the last thing I would do is put gaffer tape up a wall that needed to stay looking nice. Saying duck tape here will generally get you an odd look and duct tape is for, well, ducts and has no cloth. What I don't understand is calling cloth tape "duct" tape, surely the cloth makes it not stretchy and hence unsuitable for ducts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.42.189 (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- US-centrism seems to have led to the removal of the Aus/NZ section again. Duct tape is completely different stuff in Australia! This article is misleading. Myk (talk) 06:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
It isn't, actually. We know exactly what Duct tape is, and we know the difference between Duct tape, and wide electrical tape - I've never heard of what amounts to wide electrical tape being referred to as Duct Tape. If anything, Duct tape is sometimes (wrongly) called gaffer tape here, lumping it in with actual gaffer tape. Churba (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- "Wide electrical tape" as you call it is labelled "duct tape" on actual rolls of tape throughout Australia and New Zealand! Just because you've never heard of it being called that doesn't make the photo of actual Australian duct tape included in the section a fictional creation. "Duct Tape" is not a universal term, and the article should reflect that. Isn't the point of Wikipedia to be a world-wide resource? Myk (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Also, please don't claim there is no citation in the section when there is a citation to a page that specifically mentions the difference between tapes in the US and Australia. Myk (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
MacGyver
The MacGyver link does nothing to add to this article. The MacGyver article only contains one sentence about duct tape and even then nothing about how it's used. It was probably added as a joke, and so I've removed it. Rklawton (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Several unrelated IP addresses have taken it upon themselves to add MacGyver to the "see also" section of this article. This may be due to a joke made on the "it made my day" website about this subject. While I appreciate a bit of humor, this encyclopedia is not the place for it (creative edit summaries and user pages notwithstanding), and it's my opinion that removing this repeated addition falls under the domain of vandal fighting and not subject to 3RR. If an editor disagrees with this assessment, please make note of it here. Rklawton (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Concur. Vandal, not subject to 3RR in its removal. Binksternet (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Uh, are you serious? I'm not a previous editor of this article, but duct tape was like a running meme in MacGyver. It's a trademark of the show that the central character always carried a Swiss Army knife and a roll of duct tape rather than a firearm - despite being a secret agent - which he over frequently used to knock together solutions for whatever life-threatening situation he got himself in. Sure you can debate whether it's worth including in this article or not, but don't just label it vandalism or a joke based on your own ignorance. --88.105.240.174 (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- The point is that anything about MacGuyver should be written in prose, a whole paragraph of information based on reliable sources such as this and this. You could write this stuff into the article yourself! Binksternet (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- I could, but I can't be bothered. And no that wasn't really the point, I don't even know what the article originally said about MacGyver exactly, I only read the comments here about people automatically assuming it was vandalism and decided to correct them. --88.105.240.174 (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- The point is that anything about MacGuyver should be written in prose, a whole paragraph of information based on reliable sources such as this and this. You could write this stuff into the article yourself! Binksternet (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
world war
As we know the army developed duct tape during the first world war but they called it DUCK TAPE because of the waterproof qualities of the tape, it was later called duct tape after the war because of its use on air ducts etc. 11:24 Sunday, July 25 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.144.81 (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- If you've got a reliable source for this, that would be great. Rklawton (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
True but also the original color is not gray it is dark military green.