Talk:Clothes line

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hill Hoist[edit]

Can anybody figure out if the Hill Hoist is a copyright violation? RickK 22:46, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

No sorry it is not

Well, you sure didn't write it, Nengli, it's beyond your level of spelling and grammar. RickK 19:38, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Someone needs to so some deeper research on this whole Hills Hoist issue. I know we all like to think that the rotary washing line is an Aussie invention but apparently it isn't. The ABC broadcast a doco last year that traced the development of the humble hoist. It seems it was pre-dated by several decades by a British patent and that too was pre-dated by an American device that was shown in Scientific American magazine in 1855. Basic programme info is available from the ABC.

Merge: clothes line /washing line[edit]

I say washing line, but my (Chambers) dictionary has the defn at clothes line. Anyone care? JackyR 18:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

costing less a disadvantage?[edit]

I am tempted to remove "Less revenue for those associated with the production and distribution of electricity/gas" even though it is cited as to be frank it seems a rather shaky excuse for a disadvantage, surely this article should focus on the advantages/disadvantages to the end user. so if there are no objections i will remove it. --UltraMagnus (talk) 08:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The advantage or disadvantage depends of your point of view. Since there is an advantage for the cost savings, there should be a disadvantage listed for those with an interest in the revenues generated by the use of mechanical clothes dryers (utility stockholders, clothes dryer repair shops, etc.). Template:Wiki:NPOV Perhaps it needs rewording. (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Isn't that like saying a disadvantage of stronger law enforcement means you will be cutting off revenue to thieves? --UltraMagnus (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Appliance repair and utilities are thieves? (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
No, I was merely giving an example of trying to take everyone's point of view into account by keeping it NPOV, and given that the only contribution from your ip has been to this page, i would question if you work for such a utility --UltraMagnus (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't work for either. I've contributed for some time, however, the ISP I have now changes IP's a lot. (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Since when is using less energy and not having to buy machines a disadvantage? Do we need to say that walking has the disadvantage that it is bad for oil producing countries and car manufacturers? This is taken the NPOV rules a step to far IMO. What's next? Peace has the disadvantage that people use less bullets? Doctors saving patients is bad for undertakers? (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Hicham Vanborm

Advantages/disadvantages to third parties[edit]

Greentopia, as you can see, this issue has already been discussed and settled. Advantages/disadvantages to third-parties (wildlife, environment, businesses, etc.) need to be included to maintain a NPOV. (talk) 13:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What about the disadvantage of UV damage from leaving colors in the sun? (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


See Enthalpy of vaporization for an explaination of how evaporating moisture from clothing can cool the air. (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

copied from Mr. Whatever's Talk page:

Mr. Whatever, your edits on the clothesline article are close to becoming disruptive. Please don't delete entire sections of the article because of style objections from unrelated areas. (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Those "sections of the article" are not established article content, but newly-added, improperly sourced material (Wikipedia articles cannot be cited as sources per WP:RS). I have removed this material as there are no non-article sources cited for these recent additions. I have also changed the wording from "clothes" to "laundry items" because towels, sheets, blankets, and other non-clothing items can be dried on a clothes line. Whatever404 (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
1. Of course WP articles may be cited, why do you think there is a link on each article that says "Cite this Article"? (see WP:CW for details)
2. Cites are not necessary for a priori statements. The above link and the link to evaporation within the article should be enough for those wishing to brush up on their high school physics. (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC) (aka
  1. WP:V states clearly: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia, or on other websites that mirror Wikipedia content, may not be used as sources" (on Wikipedia). WP:CW pertains to the practice of citing Wikipedia as a source in other published work, not on Wikipedia.
  2. To quote WP:V,: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Every editor has to provide sources.
There are many articles on scientific topics on Wikipedia. These articles contain statements which can be scientifically proven as true, yet these articles are not exempt from the requirement for sources. Please stop reverting and add sources. If you edit, please start from the current version containing the "laundry items" phrasing: your total reverts have not only removed that correction but restored a spam link; please don't be sloppy. Whatever404 (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
As I warned on your talk page, your edits are now disruptive. You continue to delete material in unrelated areas which diminishes the value of the article. (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
My most recent edit requests sources for the unsourced material you have added, per WP:V. The edit does not remove any unsourced material. The edit also changes the phrasing from discussing "clothing" to discussing "laundry items", because sheets, towels, and other non-clothing items can be dried on a clothes line. It also removes a spam link. If you have concerns about this edit, please respond here, rather than reverting. Whatever404 (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have corrected the figure for the heat required to evaporate 1 KG of water. This was stated at 440 joules. Since the heat of vaporisation is quoted in the reference at 2257 Kj/Kg, it should be 2,257 Kjoule. I have also corrected the KWh from .307 KWh to .625 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Environmental Impact[edit]

I have removed a section that makes claims to the habitable land loss per kg of co2, as it cited a webpage that cited nothing. Also, a calculation shows that if their claims were to hold, we would quickly loose all biodiversity on earth in about four years. is a Wolfram Alpha calculation of killograms of co2 emission per meter squared, with the co2 figure from wikipedia, as Mathematica is lacking a world co2 consumption value. This is the website: that claims to have formulas for calculating land loss, although they have no information about the authors or justification of the methods used to derive their formulas, much less a paper in any journal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob33322 (talkcontribs) 06:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

apologies for reverting your edit the first time, however this page has suffered attempted whitewashing before, and you didn't specify a edit summary. --UltraMagnus (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

American bias[edit]

The controversy section, in particular, seems to assume an American point of view without explicitly acknowledging it. For instance, it talks about national security (which nation?); contends that most people can afford a mechanical dryer (a contention startling in its inaccuracy -- unless one takes it to refer only to Americans); and even talks about reliance on 'foreign' oil. This bias should be acknowledged. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I would agree. Although not explicitly stated, citing "foreign energy" and "national security" seems perculiarly American in its perspective, as do appallingly parochial claims such as, "now that most people can afford a mechanical dryer..." Nick Cooper (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to know what on earth national security has to do with it, US-centric or not (or am I missing something about USA culture here, not having visited in 25 years?) sheridan (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Clothes line fresh[edit]

When I bring clothes in from outside, especially if still slightly damp, I get the fresh clothes line smell perhaps for days in my house. It is unclear what causes the fresh clothes line smell, but is perhaps like the smell given off by a room ioniser if arcing. This suggests that when clothes are hanging outside, Ozone or maybe other oxidising agents attach themselves to the clothes. If this is the case, it would tend towards a temporary bleaching effect. Breaking down bacteria and perhaps some oils. Research on this topic and adding to the article may be useful Nick Hill (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)