Talk:Patent leather

Textile Arts Low‑importance

	Clothing portal 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.Textile ArtsWikipedia:WikiProject Textile ArtsTemplate:WikiProject Textile ArtsTextile Arts articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Fashion Low‑importance

	Fashion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion 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.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

X-Patent?

Did patent leather have an X-Patent number? --Damian Yerrick 17:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Patent or Patined?

I think that "Patent Leather" is a mis-interpretation of "Patined Leather"; that is, leather which has been patined (coated with a high gloss finish). Can any English/Etymology experts shed some light? -- Duckwizard 23:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It probably meant that the process was patented. Saxophobia 23:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Where did patent leather get it's name, from the patina'd surface or from the Patent it needed? -- 72.93.12.25 03:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I followed up the government invention patent idea, but the process seems to be very old and not originally patented. There are government invention patents on the process, but I don't think the term originated via invention patent. This website says patent leater came from: "After the Patten shoe which the young women wore in the buttery. When the cream spilled on their shoes, the fat would tend to make the leather shiny." Sounds good, but not sure whether it is true. -- Utmoatr (talk) 12:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's some discussion on patent leather at Wikipedia:Reference desk. -- Utmoatr (talk) 12:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US Centric

This article seems to present a US Centric view of the history of patent leather.190.42.149.218 (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA?

I think this is ready for GA. Then we can have the following DYK:

Did you know ... that there was no patent on patent leather?

Anyone think it's not GA-ready? E Eng 02:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Natasha Johnson has "all the vaseline tricks". Works with shoes, handbags.... even wiki articles!! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has citation needed tags, which qualifies for an immediate fail of GA review per WP:GACR#Immediate failure. Referencing is very thin all around in general. I don't think it's ready for a GA review at all. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I must be losing my mind. It was night, it was dark, I was tired... Maybe I'll see what I can do and start again. Sorry for the trouble. E Eng 22:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, I've removed the GA nominee template from this page based on the above. Feel free to renominate once the sourcing has been fixed, or revert now if you don't mind risking a quickfail. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I would have removed it myself but I wasn't sure if that would confuse some bot or something. E Eng 22:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bots?? "Sittin' in a lambo... I hear ya out talkin but you aint sayin' sh**. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These bots are made for walkin'. Thanks for the help, ME123. E Eng 23:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why the inclusion of the term, "poromerics"

Why the inclusion of the term, "poromerics" in multiple sections at the bottom of the article ?

First the article makes it clear that patent leather and poromerics are two different things, then it conflates them multiple times

This article states: "Patent leather is sometimes confused with artificial leathers such as DuPont's Corfam and Kuraray's Clarino, which are artificial materials with a similar glossy appearance."

Corfam & Clarino are poromerics.. so why after noting that "Patent leather is sometimes confused with artificial leathers"... the article includes them?

- "Patent leather and poromerics are cleaned in a similar way..."

- "special-purpose patent leather and poromeric cleaners on the market.."

- "Patent leather and poromerics are used in applications where..."

From the article noted below, "Poromerics are made from a plastic coating (usually a polyurethane) on a fibrous base layer (typically a polyester). The term poromeric was coined by DuPont as a derivative of the terms porous and polymeric. The first poromeric material was DuPont's Corfam, introduced in 1963 at the Chicago Shoe Show."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_leather#:~:text=Poromerics%20are%20made%20from%20a,at%20the%20Chicago%20Shoe%20Show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.235.42.201 (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]