Talk:Textile industry

Confused structure

This article seems to contain information from one or two different perspectives. It includes general info on the industrial revolution.

Also, I can't find an article on textiles or the cotton industry in the UK: which seems to me an omission. I've just wrote an article on a couple of specific aspects of this decline and was hoping to link them in, but they don't really go with this, which has an international perspective (sort of).

Jim Killock (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow niccce Param3133 (talk) 06:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate content

Much of this page seems to be duplicated from Textile manufacture during the Industrial Revolution. Should this be removed? Jim Killock (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

not yet--wiki has to have some duplication between a broad article and a narrower one covering same topics. Rjensen (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Textile manufacture during the Industrial Revolution was my baby and it doesn't belong here. Neither does references to a TV trivia. I will start the cull now- and then we can build a new meta-article that addresses global issues that Dr Soundarapandian talks about in his Growth and Prospects of Handloom Sector in India, such as global production quotas, GATT, the largest producer nations.--ClemRutter (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Textile industry

Cyberbot II has detected links on Textile industry which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://newsletter.sgs.com/eNewsletterPro/uploadedimages/000006/sgs-safeguards-06012-draft-announcement-of-new-revised-product-standard-a4-en-12.pdf

  Triggered by \bsgs\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Article Focus

Article focus is upon weaving with no mention of knitting. Will begin to include some. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.81.84 (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Good- if you get a user name you can watch for changes too.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Textile industry

Cyberbot II has detected links on Textile industry which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.sgs.com/en/Our-Company/News-and-Media-Center/News-and-Press-Releases/2011/09/Softlines-Restricted-Substance-Manual-Softlines-Green-Pulse.aspx

  Triggered by \bsgs\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect Link

Citation number 33 does not match the description or relate to the textile industry.

1. 33 - http://www.itcb.org/

Alclark710 (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

History...UK...suggestions

The Industrial Revolution section has several paras starting “In 17xx ..... (inventions detailed). One of these makes little sense until the 19th Century subsection starts, when we can read “With the Cartwright Loom, the Spinning Mule and the Boulton & Watt steam engine, the pieces were in place to build a mechanised woven fabric textile industry.” I suggest that A. there be a few words before the ‘several paras’ I’ve mentioned to introduce them and what they’re about, B. there be some re-writing, perhaps in both areas, such that the reader can see the invention names mentioned in the quote above in those ‘several paras’. This should all aid flow a lot, and make this part of the article easily digestible. Don’t get me wrong, I think that the info presented is good, but it’s a bit disjointed. Boscaswell talk 22:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The citation removed without any edit summary

The user who is engaged in edit war with me, has removed the citation [[1]] from the lead without any edit summary. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, MOS:CITELEAD. Since the textile industry is vast, and deals with many areas. Justifying the complexities, one citation is required. Citations have several important purposes: to uphold.By citing sources for Wikipedia content, you enable users to verify that the information given is supported by reliable sources, thus improving the credibility of Wikipedia Is there any harm to add one reference. Kindly discuss. Thanks and regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 05:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

As I said in my edsum, WP:LEAD. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 07:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I reverted it. Your edit summary has to justify my argument. Or let other users decide. Stay away. RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 07:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bonadea: I am sorry to bother you here. Please help us to resolve this conflict. You can guide us. Thanks and regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 09:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with removing the citation. There are two reasons: the lead does not contain any complex or controversial information, it is a simple statement of a fairly self-evident fact, and so it is a very good example of a redundant citation, as described in MOS:LEADCITE. Secondly, I'm not sure if you noticed that the source you used actually has the exact same phrasing as the lead of the Wikipedia article. Since that lead has been in the article since at least 2016 and the book was published in 2018, the authors have apparently lifted the text straight from Wikipedia. That makes it a derivative work, and the reference is circular. Since the fact is, as I said, self-evident, it is the kind of information that can't really be phrased in a lot of different ways, but this is word-for-word identical. (In fact, it is word-for-word identical to a version of the lede that was still there at the beginning of 2018, but has been slightly rephrased since then.) --bonadea contributions talk 10:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate your immediate response and thanks for making it easy to understand. Regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 10:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://ipsnews.net/business/2021/01/06/the-rise-of-bangladeshs-apparel-and-textile-industry. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 09:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Merge with Textile manufacturing

I suggest that this article and the article Textile manufacturing be merged, as they seem to cover the same topic. Zaheen (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@ClemRutter and Rjensen: Your opinions are valuable since you are the two biggest contributors of this article. --Zaheen (talk) 10:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes I agree merger is called for. Rjensen (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

ps on 4 August 2021 Diannaa blocked ClemRutter with an expiration time of indefinite. Rjensen (talk) 05:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

ClemRutter asked me to pass along these comments of his: The debate about this area has been going on since 2011. The topic is vast and I welcome further attempts to improve the area- but it has to be done out of knowledge of Textiles not out of an aim to 'just clean up the structure of en:wikipedia'. I failed to make sufficient headway, and a lot of my work was just copied from one article to another with the intention of culling bits and paraphrasing at a later date. The more books you used for reference- the more you discovered that just had to be included. Words in common usage like manufacturing and industry do have very precise meanings. Each justifies a long article. Neither are all inclusive. For manufacture we have fibre m., yarn m., fabric m., (weaving, knitting) processing of grey cloth. When we have the cloth, we have making up, which leads to clothing m. Industry is more problematic- the development of the Textile Industry ( before it becomes the Clothing Industry (Rag Trade) and the (Fashion Industry)) is the development of civilisation. Egypt and the fertile crescent- the birth of religions- then triangular trade and slavery. The birth of plastics. Cotton was the origin of the industrial revolution, and indeed industry. Read the sources including Collier. Yes try and merge- but we will have a more valuable product (wikipedia) if new articles are spawned first and we cull chunks and keep both T.Manufacturing and T.Industry. Best of luck folks- forwarded from ClemRutter by Rjensen (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Rjensen: Thanks a lot for relaying the message from ClemRutter. However, I must admit that it is still not very clear to me how it is possible to have two different articles that have so much content in common at this moment. Industry and Manufacturing is nearly synonymous in their broadest sense. In order to justify two different articles, we need to clearly define their scope. I don't see how that can be done organically and without a lot of forethought and deliberation. Plus the wiki model does not work well in such a premeditated way. Usually we grow an article and then fork out into some specific aspect. I propose that we merge everything into Textile industry, for now, and maybe have a manufacturing section within it, and then, if needed, we could recreate a Textile manufacturing fork article which might delve deeper into different manufacturing processes. Zaheen (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Scope of article is currently the industry (mfg and distribution) since centuries ago

Scope of article is currently the industry (mfg and distribution) since many centuries ago. And therefore a link to the articles on drapers and cloth merchants in the "Commerce" section is not out of place, as a recent reverter misapprehends. The reversion needs better logical defense if it is to stand. Quercus solaris (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

To explain more plainly—if you misapprehend that an article on the textile industry across all centuries should not mention nor link drapers and cloth merchants even once, then you need to explain why you think that that linked mention is (quote-unquote) "commentary" and also why you think it needs a source despite WP:BLUE. Quercus solaris (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Jacquard Loom

Was presented in 1805 Paris Expo of Products of Industry. The loom's programmability using punch cards and faster production had an impact on national economies. Eventually, this textile innovation led Charles Babbage to create the first mechanical computer Jocelynorchard (talk) 04:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ENV H 453 Industrial Hygiene

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 September 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Robintay15 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Robintay15 (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)