Talk:Staple (textiles)

1-2-3-4, lets begin an edit war

Having corrected the article a few days ago, innaccurate information has been re-introduced unsourced.

Where do we go from here? How can I convince you that you aren't improving the project by replacing all that nonsense? -Roxy the dog. bark 11:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I suspect you may have already committed an unpardonable offence. Once an article has been stable for a long time - and this one gets lots of visits - you have to produce evidence that your changes are correct. If you can't do that don't change it. Eddaido (talk) 11:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

You are suggesting that the text you introduced which isn't accurate or sourced, should remain, to impart crap to unsuspecting readers? Not very wikipedian is it? How many visits does it get btw? How many people are incorrectly informed by this page? I ought to know how to find out I suppose. -Roxy the dog. bark 11:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I see you introduced innaccuracy in another related article too. It is the same as here. Is it your intention to continue with this behaviour? I see you've been in trouble for edit warring in the past. --Roxy the dog. bark 12:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

"Discrete" is a problematic word to use in the start of this article because it has so many different, and sometimes contradictory, meanings. Suggest changing to "various" or "diverse", or something similar. I came to this page just to learn about what a "staple fiber" was and spend a lot of time confused, which is an unusual experience for me on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.213.146.102 (talk) 01:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Short description

Staple: A textile fiber (such as wool and rayon) of relatively short length that when spun and twisted forms a yarn rather than a filament. RV (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Roxy the dog Wikipedia is a reference work, we do not go by opinions. Do not dare to delete sources from the article.RV (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

But that is innaccurate, and the short description is unreferenced. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

If you are incapable of agreeing, it does not mean that it is wrong. You are not above the source. READ IT AGAIN. RV (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I have read your source. IT DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR EDIT. PLEASE STOP. Somebody who does not understand english like you, should not edit the en.wikipedia. Please stop - these edits are awful. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Roxy the dog BTW what is '''''innaccurate''''' ?. In the short description, you have to explain what is wrong? Self-obsessed scholar, please be kind to enlighten us on how you are above Merriam-Webster. And stop barking; oh sorry, stop harping the same. You lack many lessons WP:personal attack, WP:Etiquette and  WP:NPP. You are not above the source. READ IT AGAIN. Source is here in the reflist. RV (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

That shortdesc is a verbatim copy from Merriam-Webster. Does that website have a compatible licence? I can't see that it does, which makes it a copyright violation. In addition, the definition in the article is not the same as in the shortdesc, which in its turn means that the m-w reference did not in fact support the text where it was inserted. In any case, an article about a material should not be based mostly on dictionary definitions, beyond the etymology (which is also a bit of a mess, talking about one dictionary while using another dictionary in the reference, and not quoting the OED correctly either...) --bonadea contributions talk 18:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

That is sensible. Thanks RV (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

​ As per advice, i have corrected the same with the source. Kindly check. Thanks and best regards RV (talk) 02:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Roxy the dog Stop vandalizing the project. Rayon staple is a real thing. Read page no.496 You have removed it. In case of any doubt, you will discuss it on the talk page FIRST.Requesting senior editors​ to stop him. Thanks RV (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Short description

Just to note that the Mirriam-Webster definition is very poor, and unfit for our purposes. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed name change

Proposal Change the name of this article from Staple (textiles) to Staple fibre in order to more clearly define the topic. I believe that the name of this article stems from disambiguation attempts by Good Faith editers, but this has led us to the difficulties that we are now experiencing. Strictly speaking the first three sentences of the lead are glaringly ambigious, if not wrong entirely, and are begging for cleanup.

In over fifty years in the industry, I have never seen, and I do not believe, that the word 'staple' is used without one of the qualifier words, examples of which are 'length', 'fibre', 'crop', or 'wool'. Useage is normally as follows - "staple fibre", "staple length" "staple crop" or "wool staple" in relation to textiles. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Ha, I see that there is a re-direct from Staple fibre to Staple (wool) which I had not anticipated. I was going to bring the Staple (wool) article into this discussion later, as the lead there is just totally wrong, and much work needs doing. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Staple fiber redirects here only. Just sayin.RV (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Categorization of staple length

Does anybody else think that this section is WP:OR based on an innaccurately produced table used as part of the Indian Governments subsidy scheme for cotton farmers, suggesting this new, derivative table is the gvts scheme for categorization of staple length is WP:SYNTHESIS. I suggest that the whole section be removed until it can be sourced. Note that the Government table from which the data presented here has been scraped is itself not internally consistent, showing different length values, which in theory should be the same. An innaccurate source cannot produce reliable content. -Roxy . wooF 07:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

If this classification is purely to do with the Indian cotton subsidy scheme it’s probably undue in this article. It could be used in a discussion of the scheme in a Cotton production in India article, but as far as I can see we don’t have one (we do have articles for China, Pakistan, the USA, and Uzbekistan, but not, apparently, India). I see that the article already listed standards set by the International Cotton Advisory Committee in the section immediately above, but it suggests that these are from 1907; are they still current, or is there a current version? Brunton (talk) 08:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Brunton It was sorted out with a neighbor source. Kindly comment. Thanks RV (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

That’s substituted a slightly different set of lengths, with a different source, but doesn’t say who set the standards or what they are used for; I can’t see that page of the source. And it doesn’t address the issue of whether this table is undue in an article about staple in all types of fibre, not just cotton, when the article already mentions a set of standards for cotton. Brunton (talk) 10:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Brunton, Roxy, We can not go by opinions. Moreover, the table belongs to data from the United States Department of Agriculture and a reliable source. It represents the Staple length of cotton that is a very much requirement of the page. Considering a reader can understand the numbers more easily. BTW page number is 38 and 39 which is very much visible in reflist. RV (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The numbers are not really going to mean much to a general reader without some context, for example as is given in the section above the table. And, again, it seems undue detail in a general article about staple rather than one specifically about cotton.

I could see the page numbers in the reflist, I just couldn’t see those pages of the source, which only displays a limited number of pages. Brunton (talk) 11:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Numbers, graphs, and pictures are always easier to understand. Something obvious to you, may not be to someone else. Putting cotton is an example. Secondly, we can not add information for all textile fibers. Manmade fibers are cut to the desired staple length. Hence it is not fixed.RV (talk) 12:16, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

As you say, “something obvious to you, may not be to someone else”. This is precisely my point. An expert in the subject, such as Roxy, for example, might know what these numbers and grades mean; I don’t, and neither will the average reader. We have a note in the section above about the long and extra-long staple lengths being produced by particular cultivars of Gossypium barbadense; are the shorter ones produced by other species or varieties? I imagine that the longer ones are more desirable as the article says it is easier to produce yarns from the, but do the shorter ones have particular uses? What are the relative costs? Brunton (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes! Short fibers have their use. Most of the coarser yarns are spun with shorter fibers. The longer fibers are more desirable, but they are limited and costlier( Cost largely depends upon fiber length) used for superfine materials like shirting and bedsheets. In denim, they use shorter fibers. If you don't know(as you said), then why are you wasting my time and yours also. Let your expert come. We can wait.RV (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Relative cost, extra-long fibers are 1.5 times expensive than the regular ones. RV (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

We can say all this in a narrative form (as indeed the article already does, to some extent). The table is excessive, and not particularly informative, detail.

And the reader not being an expert is, once more, my point here (and it also seems to have been yours when you posted “something obvious to you, may not be to someone else”). We assume that the reader is someone who is capable of reading and understanding a text, but not an expert. If I can’t figure out the significance of some figures because I’m not an expert, then neither can they. We might conceivably need an expert to help put into context what the references are saying, but merely reading the article shouldn’t require particular expertise. Brunton (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

A staple in textiles is not an unfamiliar term. Hence do not underestimate the reader on your perception of the subject. I am not in a hurry and waiting for an unbiased expert. The table is simplifying the things. And the issues related to the same stands resolved. RV (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Let’s wait for a consensus, then. You’ve already provided a link to help us assess your opinion. Brunton (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Let me clear the hint for the Admin, it is WP:WIKIHOUNDING defines, Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.RV (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I see that following my comment above, the whole table (except the spelling error of course) has been changed, and a new source provided, making my comments above moot. Is this an admission of the OR and SYNTH that I mentioned in the OP? As I do not have access to the source, RV please could the text that the new table is based on be provided to enable WP:V verification. I wont bother correcting the spelling error. -Roxy . wooF 06:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: ​ Let me try that. Text copied and pasted from page 38 Grading and classing of cotton is done by hand and by machine, with machine HVI (high-volume instrument) systems becoming increasingly important. Inspection of staple length and color compare the cotton from the bale with standards prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture. Cotton classification describes the quality of cotton in terms of grade, staple fiber length, character, and fiber strength. Fiber length classifications for cotton include very short-staple cotton (less than .25 inch); short-staple cotton (.25 to .94 inch); medium-staple cotton (.94 to 1.13 inches); ordinary long-staple cotton (1.13 to 1.38 inches); and extra-long-staple cotton (greater than 1.38 inches).. Thanks RV (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Categorization of staple length

Wow! In all the time you have tried to edit this project, you have never ever answered a question I asked. Why have you decided to co-operate now? What are these definitions used for? Why does the USDA define them? We need better context. Thanks. (BTW I have corrected your spelling) -Roxy . wooF 12:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

ThanksRV (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

What are these definitions used for RV? -Roxy . wooF 16:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog For classification of cotton. . Thanks RV (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Dont you think you should explain that with your table? -Roxy . wooF 17:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog It is already there. The main section explains it in detail. See. Staple length. The table is a sub-set of that section. RV (talk) 02:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

References