Talk:Carding

Redirect

Why is this a redirect for card-making machine. Wouldn't that be a machine that makes cards, not the processing of fiber? Loggie 02:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can you expand on your question, please? I don't understand what you're asking. Noisy | Talk 02:33, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

If you search for "card-making machine" you get taken here. That doesn't make sense to me. Loggie 02:56, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Right. Card making machine was incorrect. It should have been card teeth making machine, which is still pretty clumsy. The card teeth making machine is an invention of Oliver Evans, and was included in the incorrect form in the Timeline of invention. I've set things right now. Noisy | Talk 12:26, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Other languages: I followed the links for the other languages, but they go to Phishing and not wool carding as per this article - so I removed these inter-wiki links. Rklawton 02:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

A recent change that made only spelling "corrections" also introduced spelling errors. All of this change was a conversion from American spelling to English spelling. Such changes seem a waste of time and energy given that the meaning of the corrected words (with one exception) by either spelling is unambiguous.

The one change however that did apparently change meaning: meter changed to metre. The sentence (with spelling changes intact) is:

"Raw fibre, placed on the in-feed table or conveyor is moved to the the nippers which restrain and metre the fiber onto the swift."

The original spelling (meter) intended this meaning:

meter vt to supply in measured or regulated amount (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary).

Definitions that I could find on the intarwebs for metre did not include that definition but, rather, provided definitions for poetic and musical meter, for instruments that measure phenomena, and for the SI unit of length.

Perhaps it is better to refrain from making spelling changes simply for the sake of making the article look like one's own tongue.

Trappist the monk (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Assessment

I have revised this down, the criteria say

An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and may require further reliable sources.

More detailed criteria

The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.

Weak in Many ares: Text concentrates only on the craft aspect, and little on the industrial importance. It concentrates on wool- rather than cotton and other fibres. There are no statistics or talk about the health and fire implications in the blowing room. Sections missing on card dressing.

MOS:The style is instructional in parts rather encyclopedic.--ClemRutter (talk) 08:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Assessment and language use revisited

Is it about time that we addressed these issues. Language- ten out of the twelve references use European English spelling fibre fibre. Two use US spellingand could easily be replaced, but again the article has been recast to use US spelling. The article comes in two halves- the referenced bit about a manufacturing process- and the beautifully written entirely unreferenced how, which gives instructions on how to purchase and use hobby equipment. Do we attempt a split? Do we just erase the unreferenced text? Do we rewrite the WP:UNDUE hobby section. I have purchased and added the Nasmith 1895 tome that has 65 pages on carding- which can be used to boost up the details of the process and the ancillary processes of card cloth production and card grinding. We have worked together for 8 years- so certainly we need to do this together but when do we start and how? Sandbox? Draft space? Do we schedule it for January? Clem Rutter (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

How is it that this 'new' topic ended up in the middle of this talk page? Doesn't it belong at the bottom?

Here is the carding chapter in Nasmith 3rd edition at archive.org:

Nasmith, Joseph (1896). "Carding". The Students Cotton Spinning (3rd ed.). Deansgate, Manchester: John Heywood. pp. 141–194.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes- it started as a response in the topic above- and then I decided it needed a separate heading- then I was distracted... mm. Shall I move it or will you- thanks for the url. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Why was this moved from Carding to Carding (textiles)? Pinging User:Deku-shrub. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I've returned this to Carding. There seems to be no reason to move this to a disambiguated name and have Carding be a redirect here. (See also Carding (disambiguation)) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 10 August 2015

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: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

---

• Carding → Carding (textiles)
• Carding (disambiguation) → Carding

– Not the primary topic for Carding Deku-shrub (talk) 09:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose- I disagree with your assumption. The other uses of carding are minor or derivative. Carding is a process that every item you wear (barring acrylics etc ) has been through. It precedes urban civilisation by millenia- it has given employ to millions- though you may be so disconnected to production techniques that you have not heard the term. I can go on... See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, this article has around 700 incoming links. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 11:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I would not say anything to do with "card"s (rectangular pieces of firm flat things with information contained on them) are derivative, since this textile topic is not about cards at all. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: An amount of links going towards a primary topic doesn't assert a primary topic. It only proves that there are that many possible instances of bad incoming links. Steel1943 (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Leaning to oppose based on the above comment by User:ClemRutter In ictu oculi (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – No other usage is as significant as this one, which is essential to all worn items. RGloucester — ☎ 15:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Because "...it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term..." Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support "carding" the activities in relation to "card"s (ie. credit card, ID card, etc) are completely unrelated to this textiles activity, and the most common usage to the regular person. (ie. card-ing) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • What regular person is this? I don't think most people would ever use the term "carding" to refer to anything to do with plastic cards. It's not normal English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    • It is extremely normal English. If you remember when you were 16 (in much of the Western world, or 19/20 if in the US), then you should be very familiar with the term -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

So, you are referring now to "carding", as in "Carding, in North America, requesting a customer to show an identity document as proof of age"? Well, that's only North America, doesn't even have an article, and according to PRIMARYTOPIC, can't possibly be the primary topic. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. Certainly not a term ever used in my country (Britain). We would just say "requesting proof of age" or "requesting ID". Is it even common in North America? And isn't it 18 and 21? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Pretty sure this is the primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support. In my search results, the first non-Wikipedia result is for the Canadian police policy, and the second is for the North American age verification, third is the current primary topic, and fourth us for the Canadian policy again. So, I'd say move to avoid any type of systemic bias. Steel1943 (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC) (Changed from "support" to "really don't care anymore, so please move on to a different comment for consensus".) Steel1943 (talk) 06:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• In fact, to add on to my systemic bias claim, I'm from/in the United States, and I have never heard of the subject of the primary topic until today. Is this a topic that is popular specifically to the United Kingdom? Steel1943 (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC) (Struck-out to match the tone of my strikeout on my previous comment.) Steel1943 (talk) 06:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Certainly not. It's a process used all over the world. And one that has been important in the textile industry for many centuries. Clearly you haven't bothered to read the article, which would have told you this. But given the interests of many of those who post on the internet, it's naturally not going to come out top on an internet search. That means nothing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Steel1943, you support to "avoid any type of systemic bias". But the examples you cite are totally North America-centric, which is one of the most prevalent forms of systemic bias at Wikipedia. There are many countries around the world that know "carding" only in relation to textiles. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Anna Frodesiak: That's not at all how I interpret "systemic bias" as it says on the page, especially since I had no idea that the popular worldwide opinion, I guess, is that "carding" refers to this subject. But, I guess I'll never know the truth beyond who participates in this discussion. (By the way, I don't know if this was intentional or not, but if you were trying to Ping me, linking to my talk page didn't work.) Steel1943 (talk) 06:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Steel1943. :) Carding (this article) is about something that spans time and culture and gender and is very, very big. Carding (Hey, kid, show me your I.D!) is a term that is very North American and a situation that spans only a few couple of decades and makes me think of a doorman or barman asking a young man a question. The former reaches so far. The latter is very narrow and much ado with males, drinking, modern technology, money, law, and rules. Actually, this whole planet is rife with systemic bias come to think of it. :) (And sorry to ping you that way. I do that accidentally sometimes.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I probably should have added I'm still writing up Carding (fraud), which is what I think of when I think of Carding primarily Deku-shrub (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

But how is that supposed to change things? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Deku-shrub, That looks like a nice article- but I can't see one reference from before 2004, and none from outside the US. (The first carding stub dates from 2003). Though an important term in the Computer Fraud industry- it is geographically specific an probably transient. The last time I heard the expression spoken within criminal youth culture in about 1978- 'He was carding the door- when the caretaker caught him' it meant slide a sliver of card cut from a cornflakes box behind the latch of a Yale type lock. Another transient usage however and a damn sight less profitable than credit card fraud. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@ClemRutter: The earliest reference is now 1986, and there are references from outside of the US, but mainly focused on the english speaking western markets. A major area I'll be adding is the rise of the eastern european and Russian carding forums. Deku-shrub (talk) 18:55, 15 August 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.

History - Wrong hyperlink

The "Dolobran" hyperlink in the fourth paragraph links to the wrong "Dolobran".