This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany 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.
Fiber is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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.
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa 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.
Re "Fiber (American English) or fibre (British English)": I would prefer to see "Fiber (often spelt fibre)". 'British' English is not just British: it is used also in many countries apart from Britain or the UK, and I dont believe it is entirely closed to use of 'American' spellings.
True all commonwealth countries use the Fibre spelling. As far use of US spellings outside of america . . . just doesn't happen, i've never seen fibre spelt fiber anywhere except on the internet. SynthesiseD 14:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
When I first came across the article, I thought someone had actually typed it in wrong! Look at all the colours! - 2o-DeMoN-o8t*c*a*wp 18:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't know where people get the idea that outside America English is only used in the commonwealth. Ireland for example has the same spellings as the UK but is not in the commonwealth. The truth is that the international spelling is fibre and the American spelling is Fiber.
so what is the difference, in last line of the paragraph both spellings are same..
As far as I know, "Fibre" is used in more english-speaking countries than "Fiber". Wikipedia should not be Amero-centric and should reflect the more popular spelling. Therefore I think this page should be changed to Fibre. --184.108.40.206 (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The spelling, fiber, used in the the first edition of the article will stay, period. This isn't arguable.
Says the guy who does not sign his comment (even though underneath the 'save page' button it indicates to do so, and in bold). I concur with 220.127.116.11 and the person who created the section 'Commonwealth', considering the words Latin origin, 'fibra'. Actually, I would argue that the vast majority of people whose first language is derived from Latin spell it with the vowel ('e' or 'a') after the 'r' (Spain, France, Italy and Portugal). It would be purely logical to title the article as 'Fibre' (and as an extension, list 'fiber' as an alternative form), and you would be irrational to think otherwise. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Bamboo Is Missing From "Natural Fibres" List
Bamboo is missing from the natural fibres list. Just thought I'd mention that.22.214.171.124 (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)BeeCIer
I think we need to be careful here. Some bamboo fibre is made by extracting the fibre and softening it, either mechanically or chemically, and as such qualifies as a natural fibre. But most (??) so-called bamboo fibre is actually a reconstituted cellulosic, an artificial fibre like rayon or viscose - and thus NOT a natural fibre. Natural fibre (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Can someone help sort out the terminology here - I do not have sufficient knowledge to do it. It is my understanding that man-made (artificial) cellulosic fibres such as rayon are not generally classified as synthetic. Under human-made fibres (is that term too ugly to use?) synthetics should (I think) be listed as a separate category to cellulosic fibres. Natural fibre (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
any grounds for objection? (I saw this sort of redirct done once, for appellate review, but I don't know if it's frowned upon?) Agradman (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
On first pass I would say do not merge, because it looks like there's enough information in natural fiber to keep them separated. I also have a feeling natural fiber could be greatly expounded upon. Wizard191 (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Whole class of matter. Bookshelvesa of books on both the general class as well as major subclasses. Bot of interest for natrual and artificial forms. Billions of dollars of industry. Major downstram industries from textiles to strcutural to basically everything (automotive, etc.) And we have fucking 5 refernces and two from a dictionary. Oh..and 35,000 views per month.TCO (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree WIKIPEDIA should not use American spellings since British spellings (Fibre,Colour,Favourite) are used in nearly every english speaking country and using American spelling only further promotes the dominance that the United States has over the rest of the world.
Countries that use British Spelling
England Ireland Scotland Canada Australia Singapore Hong Kong New Zealand Samoa Bahamas
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Reasonable arguments from both sides, votes roughly split. Jenks24 (talk) 11:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
– Simply put, the current setup does not seem to be helpful for readers when Dietary fiber gets almost 66% more page views than Fiber, and Optical fiber gets almost literally twice as many views as Dietary fiber (Optical fiber gets about 233% more page views than Fiber.) With these statics, I would almost say that Optical fiber should be the primary topic, but since it has been determined to be a subtopic of the broad concept article at Fiber, it may be inappropriate to deem it so, especially considering that optical fibers do not have as much historical importance as the other two articles. However, the subject of Dietary fiber is not a subtopic of Fiber (the fact that Dietary fiber is mentioned in Fiber is misleading since the former is not a material used to make items.) With that being said (specifically the comparison of Fiber vs. Dietary fiber), it is probably best to move the disambiguation page to the base title so that the reader can decide which topic the are trying to locate when searching for the term "fiber". Steel1943 (talk) 04:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 06:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Support no primary.--Iztwoz (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. The current fiber article is a CONCEPTDAB that sufficiently covers the various types of fiber with links to the sub-articles. Put a link to dietary fiber in the hatnote and the problem is solved. — AjaxSmack 15:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
The issue with this is that the premise behind a WP:CONCEPTDAB being at the ambiguous title is that it is also supposed to act as a primary topic for the main topic for the most common use of its term, with subtopics included. If a topic that is not related to the WP:CONCEPTDAB is getting substantially more page views (as shown here), the "concept dab" being the primary topic is not helpful. (Just because a WP:CONCEPTDAB exists doesn't by default make it the primary topic, which seems to be the rationale here.) Steel1943 (talk) 05:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Support, with new name "Fiber (commercial)" ArthurOgawa (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
This is not "commercial" fiber. Fibers exist in plants and animals and minerals regardless of whether they are commercially extracted or not. Indeed, almost all of them are not commercially used. -- 126.96.36.199 (talk) 04:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the comment (from an anonymous user) in the sense that "(commercial)" may not be the best choice of words to convey the intent of this article. Considering that this article concerns only those fibers that are used by humans to make fabric, rope, etc, perhaps a better choice would be "Fiber (traditional)". Maybe someone knowledgeable in anthropology might seize upon the bon mot. ArthurOgawa (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Following the move, I think that this article must be further edited. It need not refer to other articles that are on the disambiguation page: that function would be adequately taken care of by the hatnote. Therefore, the article should be edited to remove references to, e.g., "Dietary Fiber", "Nerve Fiber", and "Optical Fiber". AjaxSmack deems the aforementioned topics to be "sub-topics" of "Fiber". I would assert (with Steel1943) that they are not, that the word "Fiber" is simply extremely overloaded and possesses historical meanings that more recent, technical language has added to (this process is well known in linguistics). Note that metal wire and mineral (glass) fiber can be processed and utilized much the same ways (plied, woven, felted, used directly for sewing) as traditional (vegetable and resin) fibers, but for different purposes (rarely for, e.g., garments). This fact makes the topic difficult to treat in a coherent way. Some conundrums: what is the essential difference between a steel cable, rope, and thread? Between the fabric of a woven wool shirt and the Kevlar filling in a bulletproof vest? How do we classify a garment made of chainmail? ArthurOgawa (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per AjaxSmack ; just add dietary fibre to the hatnote. Optical fibres are a type of fibre, thus a subtopic of this current topic. -- 188.8.131.52 (talk) 04:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I disagree that Optical fibers are a sub-topic of this article: they are not woven, felted, matted, or used to sew things together, albeit they are customarily laid up in a cable. The use of the term "fiber" in that context is metaphorical. Given the way optical fibers are manufactured (by drawing), they could as well have been named "optical wires". ArthurOgawa (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm wavering a little in my opposition. This does not alter the validity of your arguments but your case would be helped with me if you had a target title. — AjaxSmack 00:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Many fibres are drawn or extruded. Low quality plastic optical fibres used in novelty lamps are extruded. Glass optical fibres are a type of glass fibre, another type being that found in glass wool, which is matted, woven, felted, etc. Hollow core glass fibres used in optical fibres are similar to hollow-cored insulating fibres used in clothing. Metal wires are turned into steel wool. And metal wire is woven into metal fabrics, such as the copper shielding in coaxial cable. Metal wire is braided into different gauge wire as well. -- 184.108.40.206 (talk) 05:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment As per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, it's not clear to me why this article exists at all; is there really a topic with this very non-specific title? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. the CONCEPTDAB belongs at Fibre. All specific uses, including dietary fibre, are derivative. In these circumstances, page views are irrelevant. The encyclopedia is better structured according to logic than by attempting to facilitate search engines (a complete waste of time, they don't need it). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Dietary fiber is not a derivative of the concept subject at Fiber. The subject at Fiber is about straight materials used in making items. I see what you mean, though. I could see the distinction you state working if the lead section was altered in some way (I'm not sure how to go about that at the present time.) But, in the current situation, Dietary fiber doesn't fall into the subject as explained in the lead. Steel1943 (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I would disagree.
Fiber or fibre is a natural or synthetic string used as a component of composite materials, ...
Dietary fiber includes significantly cellulose. Cellulose is a stringy material composed of interweaved/bonded polymeric glucose.
Dietary fiber is an example of a fibre that happens to be a component in food. As I understand all the difficult/impossible to digest dietary fibres, they are all microscopic composite of molecular polymers of one kind or another.
I see the article dietary fibre speaks of "so-called dietary fiber are not actually fibrous", and that some organisations are inventing definitions weakening the fiber aspect and highlighting resistance to digestion. Sort of fair enough, sort of intellectually fallacious. I maintain that the concept of dietary fiber is derivative of fiber, and understand that the derivation comes from observing fibres by microscope in poo. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.