Talk:Wood wool

Related talk archive: Talk:Excelsior (wood wool) (used to be at Talk:Wood wool)

Patent query

was there a pattent for "Excelsior" granted ca 1900? There were several water powered mills established here in central NH about that time to make Excelsior from poplar logs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haywardpentagon (talk • contribs)

There were many patents on excelsior-cutting machines in the 1800s; here is an article that lists some. Dicklyon (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the blatant patent advert (cooling pads) to only the show the image in the patent, since anyways the patent was only for illustrative purposes. If it is notable enough it can be mentioned in the article. -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Good change; but when I added that image for illustration, it was in no way intended as an advert, and I have no idea who might benefit from having that patent front page shown. Dicklyon (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You should, however, specify the source (e.g. patent number or link to the image it's cropped from) on the image page. Dicklyon (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, done that. Thanks for your positive feedback :) -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wood wool

I am not aware that the term Excelsior is synonym for wood wool worldwide. I believe that the more generic wood wool should be the actual article about wood wool, while the present article should focus on the Excelsior name and the use of this term.

Based on this line of thought, I went ahead with creating the article wood wool. It is certainly not "content fork", rather a more generic article.

Please note:

• Google search with wood wool without Excelsior 477.000
• Google search with wood wool with Excelsior 7.720

It was also indicated by User:Dicklyon that he can find no evidence that excelsior is a brand. I did not research this, so if I was wrong, I was wrong. I will have a look and report my findings, which, however, are not related to creating of a more generic article on wood wool.

--FocalPoint (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of sources from over a hundred years ago use the term generically. This google search suggests that your numbers above don't begin to tell the whole story. I would oppose a move to "wood wool". Dicklyon (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If you think a "more generic" article is needed, you need to share your sources for what it would cover. Dicklyon (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• UK commodity code: Wood wool
• US commodity code: Wood wool (excelsior)

The current title is marginally good for US & Canada (it would be better as "Wood wool (excelsior)"). For Wikipedia, an international encyclopedia, "wood wool" is more appropriate.

• EU TARIC, wood wool

--FocalPoint (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't put much weight on a few gov docs. Quick book search shows that "excelsior" is used in Canada, but "wood wool" in Europe. Let's say so in the article, but don't rename it. Dicklyon (talk) 02:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears that these documents are just "a few gov docs" in your opinion, however, they are official and their definitions are used everywhere. They are the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States and the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System. The present title is inappropriate and of local use (...and yes...the locality is a very large place, big parts of North America...but wikipedia is not an American encyclopedia).--FocalPoint (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I shall be sure to consult them when I next have a harmonized trade problem. Dicklyon (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious that you do not understand the importance of official nomenclature. This is fine. Furthermore, it is also obvious that you believe that a product should appear in Wikipedia with a name used in Canada, while you choose to ignore the generic name with which is is described everywhere else in the world and prefer to use it only as a redirection. This is fine too. For both issues, other editors will appear eventually (in one hour on in one decade from now) and the issue will be resolved in the way that all issues are (or are not) resolved in Wikipedia. What is not fine with me is the use of irony as an argument. This is unacceptable and I am really dissapointed with this part of the discussion.--FocalPoint (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, your edit making the wood wool a redirect again has removed content which is not replicated in this article. It constitutes removal of useful content. I am reverting your edit. If you think that these two articles must be one, then ask for a {{merge}} and do not remove useful content from wikipedia.--FocalPoint (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

So noted. I'll refrain from the irony, and stick to more woody arguments. Dicklyon (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

True. So why not go ahead and add that information here? Making a separate article is a content fork, as I pointed out, and is not justified. Now it appears that you're doing it again, and proposing a merge, as an awkward way to move this article. There's a mechanism to propose a move if that's what you want to do. Dicklyon (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I will study the issue and come back. Meanwhile, useful references to be used & assessed:

I agree there is not nearly enough content here for a fork. Furthermore, there is no confusion as both names are mentioned in the very first sentence. So there should be one page (I don't have a preference for which name) and all the other likely ways the user might look it up should be re-directs. This approach is the most common one used in Wikipedia when the same idea is referenced by different names. See, for example cosmic microwave background radiation and relic radiation. It's better than a content fork since most of the information is relevant no matter which name is used. LouScheffer (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Some references

• UK company, has Excelsior TradeMarked

Their claim of the term as a trade mark for their colored wood wool in not necessarily endorsed by any government agency via registration; nor can it cover the plain excelsior that was sold under that term for well over a century.

• American Excelsior Company

Yes, they do make excelsior in America, and named their company after it.

Does FocalPoint also believe that broadcasting is not a generic word because it is used in American Broadcasting Company? Or that steel is not a generic word (U.S. Steel)? The word excelsior is in dictionaries as a common noun for the wood product that is the subject of this article, which is definitive, so the trademark argument here is really a diversion. Further, Wikipedia should not have two articles on this rather small topic. Finell (Talk) 00:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I only posted some research. No arguments. There is no doubt in my mind that excelsior is the American name for wood wool. Is wikipedia an American institution or an encyclopedia of the whole world?--FocalPoint (talk) 08:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Founded in 1896, Jiffy was originally a company making excelsior (wood wool) products, but they branched out into padded shipping envelopes in the mid 1960s"

Yes, they made excelsior, under this generic term, in the UK.

--FocalPoint (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

with my interlinear comments. Dicklyon (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Merged

Having been unsuccessful at getting FocalPoint to add his new info here instead of at his new content fork at wood wool, I went ahead and merged it myself, since there was apparent unanimous support for the merge proposal he inititated and just seemed to need help. Dicklyon (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This behaviour is really sad. Not only Dicklyon is deleting useful content from an article with the use of a redirect, but also he is including material which I contributed to wikipedia without asking for a proper merging of articles, in which my contribution would appear in history. This of course originates in his conviction that his opinion is "unanimously" supported. This of course derives from his sarcastic attitude in which he actually tries to present me as "just seemed to need help", in which he does not acknowledge my different opinion.--FocalPoint (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You added the merge proposal, which seemed to be an agreement with me and LouScheffer who opposed a split. So I took that to be agreement. No content was lost. If you think it should go some other way, say so, focusing on content, not on me (review WP:NPA). Dicklyon (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with you. I am not happy with behaviour which in my opinion is not consistent with proper wikipedia editing. I am not happy with your actions. If you believe that my comments are directed at your person, please note that I have no such intention and accept my apologies for making you believe so.--FocalPoint (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I am copying here what I wrote in Talk:Wood wool:

For the record, Dicklyon has not acted properly by copying content from one article to the other, since that would require:

1. A proposal to merge wood wool with Excelsior (wood wool). This was not my proposal. My proposal was to merge Excelsior (wood wool), an article with a local name, with wood wool, an article with a name used world-wide.

2. Consensus for the merging. There is no consensus, because for consensus to form, time for discussion is necessary. The issue was not properly discussed. Dicklyon has reverted [1] [2] my requests for proposal for merging of that article with the present article wood wool.

Sad behaviour. --FocalPoint (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems that Dicklyon is contradicting himself:

• "You added the merge proposal, which seemed to be an agreement with me"
• (remove merge proposal; all the content is here already)
• (merging with a new content fork is a funny idea; just don't fork it)

Sad.--FocalPoint (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I expect that in the future Dicklyon will allow a proper discussion to take place and that he will not take action by himself again, allowing someone else to judge whether there is a consensus and what the actual consensus is about.--FocalPoint (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong, or contrary to Wikipedia policy, in Dicklyon copying content from one article to a second article, provided the copied content is relevant to the second article. Doing so is especially appropriate here, since it is clear under WP:FORK that there should be only one article about this substance, and the only legitimate question is what the article should be named. Nor is there anything wrong in Dicklyon making a clearly proper edit without awaiting consensus. Further, although phrased in terms of "behaviour," FocalPoint appears to be directing his remarks at Dicklyon's person, writes with a judgmental and condescending tone that is non-collaborative and inappropriate, and is exhibiting signs of ownership. This controversy began with the creation of an article that was a clear violation of WP:FORK. FocalPoint should stop behaving like a pot who calls the kettle black. Finell (Talk) 12:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for merging

I propose to merge the present article Excelsior (wood wool) with the article wood wool, making Excelsior (wood wool) a redirect pointing to wood wool.

That would be called a move, since all the content is here. You can make a move proposal, but nobody is likely to support it. Dicklyon (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You have copied here content which I added without doing a proper merge, without allowing a proper discussion. Allow the discussion of the merging proposal to take place and stop this line of arguments which is not about content. --FocalPoint (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason for the merging proposal is that excelsior is a local name (mainly used in the US and Canada) for the product called wood wool internationally.--FocalPoint (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Dicklyon (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If you accept this fact, then why you do not support this merge proposal?--FocalPoint (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I misplaced the "no problem" that was meant to aknowledge your last remark in the section above. My carelessness. As for the local name, some of your links and other refs make it clear that "excelsior" is also used in the UK and Germany. Furthermore, see these books: [3] [4] [5] which indicate that the term excelsior is more generic, and wood wool more specialized, at least in the US. These details can all be described, with refs cited. There's no need for a move, and you merge proposal is just a charade to avoid a move proposal. Please stop such nonsense. Dicklyon (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop making attacks characterizing my contributions. I happen to believe that your opinion is wrong as well as your attitude, but I do not and will not proceed to any characterization neither of your opinion nor of your attitude. Please stop it now and discuss (if you want).--FocalPoint (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Your references fully support my argument: All three are American books (and also all three happen to be published 1915, 1919, 1913). Furthermore, more recent but still outdated material from the US uses the term interchangeably: [6] Popular Mechanics - Jul 1944 - "Excelsior or wood wool", Jan 1944 "WOOD WOOL or excelsior". However, the current practice of US government is to name the product "Wood wool (excelsior)" US commodity code. But all that is from US. let us see what happens internationally:

• For European governments the product is called simply "wood wool" EU TARIC.
• World Customs Organization in the internationally standardized system "Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (HS)", "4405.00 wood wool" [7] (page 2)
• The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) uses the term wood wool ISO 9567:1989 Woodworking machines -- Horizontal shredding machines for wood wool production, quadruple effect -- Nomenclature
• British Standards Institution has standards issued for wood wool: BS 2548 Specification for wood wool for general packaging purposes
• World Bank Publications, 1999 also uses the term wood wool: See at page 25 in Evaporative Air-conditioning: Applications for Environmentally Friendly Cooling‎ by Gert Jan Bom - Technology & Engineering - [8]

The conclusion:

• Excelsior is a local name (the locality being a big place US or North America)
• Wood wool is a term also used in the US
• Wood wool is the internationally accepted name
• Excelsior is not used internationally as it is in the US

--FocalPoint (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

A US educational provider gives the definition of excelsior: wood wool [9] and then explains wood wool [10] --FocalPoint (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that this US educational provider is an on-line, for profit, school for contractors. It's not exactly formal reference material. LouScheffer (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I had never heard of either term, and ran across this discussion by accident. As an outside observer, I'd favor wood wool as more descriptive. By analogy to steel wool, I could guess more or less unambiguously what the topic is. On the other hand Excelsior has lots of meanings (see Excelsior) and to me brings to mind nothing but a saying in an old movie. So I'd favor making the main article wood wool, and having it start with Wood wool, also called Excelsior is a wood product.... The for people looking for Excelsior, make the Excelsior dis-ambiguation page say something like Excelsior is a also the name for wood wool, particularly in the USA and Canada... My two cents, LouScheffer (talk) 15:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Lou, I take it you're not from an area that used evaporative coolers. Excelsior was something we bought at the local hardware store every year -- my dad made his own cooler pads, rather than paying for the expensive pre-made ones or hiring someone to do it, so I got to help. Anyway, as the article says and the new refs mentioned above support, "wood wool" is a fine grade of excelsior, at least in the US, so "excelsior" is the more generic term, and has been for well over a century.

I had moved wood wool to excelsior (wood wool) back in 2006, primarily because excelsior goes to a disambig page, where it would look very odd to have a link to wood wool, but looked perfectly normal to have a link to excelsior (wood wool). Just because you and FP don't know what this stuff is called doesn't mean we should drop its main name from the article title. FP's claim that the name is local to North America is not supported by the sources; we have clear uses of it cited in the UK and Germany, too. Dicklyon (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Dick! You are certainly right that I never worked on a swamp cooler - I grew up where we were more likely to burn wood for heat than use it for cooling. And I certainly agree there should be one page, with re-directs and references to it - the question is just what the main page should be called.

I think there is no problem with having a link to wood wool on the Excelsior dis-ambig page. This happens all the time on other pages. For example the sage page (the first one I tried) has entries such as A profound philosopher, distinguished for wisdom and sound judgment, and Wise old man, a kind and wise, older father-type figure. Also, anyone who goes to the Excelsior page, would not (I think) be surprised by a link to wood wool, particularly if has a sentence of introduction. On the other hand I think someone familiar with wood wool might be surprised to be taken to a page with Excelsior in the title , even if that is more accurate.

My second choice would be to re-name the page Excelsior and wood wool. Then each person who got there would realize there is another name for a similar material. LouScheffer (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because LouScheffer and FocalPoint don't know what this stuff is called in North America doesn't mean anything at all. The references cited from EU,World Customs Organization, the International Organization for Standardization, the British Standards Institution and World Bank Publications, should mean something. --FocalPoint (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

But Wikipedia does not exist for the benefit of the EU, World Customs Organization, etc. Its purpose is to allow readers, typically non-specialists, to find information. There is a common usage in English to refer to a fibrous material made out of X as X wool. See for example steel wool, glass wool, bronze wool, cotton wool, etc. Therefore the least surprising place to put this, in my opinion, is wood wool. If the user types is wood wool, then sees Excelsior in the title, they may well be surprised. If they type in Excelsior, then they are going to the dis-ambig page anyway, which could say Packing material - see wood wool , again avoiding surprise and costing no more clicks. So by all means explain exactly what is going on in the article, explain the differences, etc., but I think the readers would be best served by making the page name the generic wood wool. LouScheffer (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to have this discussion and live with the result if someone makes a proper move proposal. I'll be against it, because as far as I ever knew, this stuff was never called wood wool; sources indicate that that term is used primarily for very fine grades, and more widely in Europe; in North America, it's excelsior. Dicklyon (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Consider for example the patents up through about a hundred years ago. You find a dozen or so mentioning "wood wool", and over 160 mentioning excelsior and wood; it's very clear what the dominant name is. When a thing has a name by which it's well known, we should use it. Dicklyon (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The example which you are mentioning is indeed wonderful. Indeed, between 1776 and 1908, in the US, there were a dozen or so mentioning "wood wool" and over 160 mentioning excelsior and wood. Maybe you would also care to consider 209 mentioning "wood wool" between 1989 and 2009 and 140 mentioning excelsior and wood between 1989 and 2009. You are still discussing the name in US, but even so, wood wool is used more often than excelsior during the last twenty years. But please remember, we are not discussing the situation for US. If this was an American wikipedia, the title Excelsior (wood wool) would be more or less OK.--FocalPoint (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If you actually want to try to make that case, you'd have to filter out the significant fraction of "wood wool" hits that are things like "wood, wool," or "wood (wool", etc. And even if usage is changing in that direction, it's not a clear-cut case. The name excelsior is still used about as much as wood wool. It would be interesting to see a corresponding search in Europe, maybe at the EPO. Dicklyon (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

One more reference, this time from a dictionary, characterizing it an Americanism. Ref: excelsior. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/excelsior (accessed: January 25, 2009). --FocalPoint (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

And another one: http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/dictionaries/difficultwords/data/d0005390.html "n. American, wood shavings used as packing, stuffing, litter etc." --FocalPoint (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-definitions/excelsior "excellent: used as a motto and as a trademark for various products, esp. in the U.S. for fine wood shavings used for packing breakable objects" --FocalPoint (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's another interesting bit: Dr. Goodword’s Language Blog says that:

The now common noun excelsior was not always a common noun. It originated as a proper noun, the name of the American Excelsior Company, which began manufacturing the curly wood shavings for packing frangible products in 1888. It is still the world’s largest manufacturer of this product but also produces a complete line of packaging materials in addition to being the eponym of excelsior.

Now, it's right that it's now common, but not right that it started as a proper noun. It was in dozens of patents as a common noun for about 15 years before the Ameerican Excelsior Company named their company after it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

For the time being I have restored the merge tags to both articles, with the discussion redirected here. Once a consensus is reached, then the articles can be merged, moved or whatever. Kevin (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about reverting this; your edit summary is correct that I meant to revert the article's merge tag, not your comments. I guess I better give it a rest for the day. But try to help us out here. The point of a move proposal is that it brings more eyes that understand article naming issues so we can have a proper discussion. He is circumventing that. Maybe you can explain it to him. Dicklyon (talk) 04:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem re the revert. Kevin (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

What I see here is a clear desire on one side have the article content at wood wool, and one side preferring Excelsior (wood wool). The fact that nobody went to WP:RM to properly propose a move back on Jan 6 seems a little irrelevant to me now, given that each of you have made your positions clear. A 3rd opinion would have been more useful. To both parties, reverting each other for 3 weeks is never going to solve the problem. As for helping, that is why I am here. I can either stay out of the discussion and take whatever action is required after a consensus is reached, or I can offer my opinion and we can then find another to do the move/merge. For your part Dicklyon, why don't you propose the move? It would be a great gesture of good faith. Kevin (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, but it will be odd to propose it and then as oppose as nom. Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Only because we don't have Wikipedia:Requests to leave things as they are ;). I would do it myself, but it would seem like I'm taking a side, which I'm trying to avoid, probably unsuccessfully. Kevin (talk) 05:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll do it. Hopefully I'll get through it before someone blocks me for being disruptive. Dicklyon (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved to Wood wool. Usually, move disputes are settled according to WP:COMMONNAME; however, that doesn't seem to apply here, as no one has shown convincingly enough that one name is much more used than the other; this debate has instead focused on different interpretations of WP:ENGVAR: out of two sections in the guideline, which one is primary in this instance? Wikipedia:ENGVAR#Retaining_the_existing_variety states that, in the absence of "strong national ties to the topic", the variety used by the original author or first major contributor should be used. There is no dispute that, in this case, the original variety used was American. There is no dispute that the article started under the American name, "Excelsior". There is also no dispute that the product originated in America with that name. If the product were still only used in America, then there would be no dispute. However, it has spread beyond America's borders, and Wikipedia:ENGVAR#Opportunities_for_commonality says that "Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English." There is no dispute here that both "excelsior" and "wood wool" are shared by all varieties of English mentioned here. If these were the only arguments presented here, then I would say that there was no consensus for the move. However, there was no refutation of the principle of least astonishment; people searching for wood wool will likely be surprised to find themselves at an article marked "Excelsior", while those searching for Excelsior will land at the disambiguation page, and easily find the link to wood wool, and not be surprised at all. Since we are optimizing this encyclopedia for readers over editors, the page will be moved to Wood wool.--Aervanath (talk) 09:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Excelsior (wood wool) → Wood wool — Personal preference? Stop an edit war over an improper move? Don't ask me, I'm against it. — Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose – As nominator, I oppose this move. I proposed it because another editor keeps trying to move it improperly; this way we can have the discussion and see what the consensus is, and move it properly if that's the thing to do. I prefer to keep it at Excelsior (wood wool), obviously, since I moved it here three years ago from wood wool. To me, it makes sense to call the article by the generic name of the material that I've always known. Admittedly, I grew up in the U.S., but so did excelsior. It was invented and made at large scale in the U.S. in the 19th century. The finest grades of excelsior are called wood wool, as numerous citations on this talk page and in the article show, which makes excelsior the broader term. We also have clear citations of excelsior being used generically in the UK and in Germany so it's not just a US term. The disambig page excelsior has an item for excelsior (wood wool), and wood wool redirects here unless FP has done his improper content fork again. This looks better than putting a link to wood wool on the excelsior disambig page, in my opinion. Lots of evidence is discussed above. Dicklyon (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - According to the steel wool, glass wool etc. argument, as well as other comments above by user LouScheffer, I think the result should be Wood wool. --Hordaland (talk) 10:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support. See discussion below. Andrewa (talk) 11:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - The two names are very different. A user familiar with the name wood wool might not know excelsior, nor could they deduce it from general principles, but someone who knows excelsior should not be surprised to see the article under wood wool. If renamed, then a user who types wood wool goes to just the page they expect. Since the user who types excelsior goes to the dis-ambig page anyway, that's a good place to explain the re-direct to wood wool, with no more clicks than current. LouScheffer (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Excelsior is the common name, and we should use it. We do not use less common names just to solve dab problems. LouScheffer is citing a non-problem as long as wood wool redirects here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'd just like to echo Septentrionalis' comment that we do not use less common names just to solve dab problems. I don't have much of an opinion over which of these two names is the better one to use, but if the move to wood wool is approved, I would expect excelsior (wood wool) to remain as a redirect to it, and to remain as the name of the link used in the excelsior dab page. So I see the dab issue as completely independent of the naming issue under discussion here. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Here in England I had never heard of excelsior as a substance, but I have seen wood-wool plenty of times. Did this meaning start as a genericized tradename? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • This would appear to be a proposal to translate the article from American to British English. We don't normally do that. (As best we can tell, it was a trade name for any form of the substance, more general than wood wool, before it was a company or brand name.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Good point, but it's not actually a case of WP:ENGVAR, see below. Andrewa (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, it's an ENGVAR issue. That's how it originally came up with FocalPlane's complaint. And this 2007 book Divided by a Common Language explicitly characterizes wood wool versus excelsior as a UK vs US language difference. The article was originally written from a US perspective, and per WP:ENGVAR should stay that way.

• • Exactly, a move would be counter to WP:ENGVAR; thanks for pointing that out. And no, it's not a genericized trade name; it was generic in 1873, and there's no evidence that it had been a trade name earlier. Dicklyon (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, but moving to wood wool would follow Wikipedia:ENGVAR#Opportunities for commonality ("Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English."). Wood wool is used in all jurisdisctions, USA included. Also it's intuitively understandable to someone who knows Excelsior, the opposite is not likely. LouScheffer (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Per Lou Scheffer's arguments above, fully agree that Wood wool is more known to more people in places where english is spoken. Further, I heard of Wood wool before excelsior, and I'm in the USA. ThuranX (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

But you haven't heard of WP:ENGVAR? In the US, wood wool is a much narrower concept than excelsior, as the cited sources show. Dicklyon (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Discuss the content, not the contributor, please. And it's not an ENGVAR issue, see below. Andrewa (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, but this 2007 book Divided by a Common Language explicitly characterizes wood wool versus excelsior as a UK vs US language difference. Respect WP:ENGVAR.

• Oppose for most of the reasons stated by the other opposers. In my opinion, this is primarily an WP:ENGVAR dispute. The article was written in American English, both terms are in the article's title, and finding the article has nothing to do with it because of the redirect and the dual title. There is no sufficiently compelling reason to justify changing the name that this article has carried since it was created 2½ years ago. Finell (Talk) 13:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: There is way too much heat being generated by both sides on an issue that is insignificant in terms of Wikipedia's usability by ordinary readers, which is what we are supposed to be about. It looks much more like a power struggle than a genuine content or policy dispute. Give it a rest, please! Finell (Talk) 13:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: You've got this backwards, I think. This started as an argument, with useless content forks, reversions, sneaky tricks, accusations of bad faith, complaints to authority, etc. Dick Lyon suggested putting it up to a vote, even though he opposed it, so here we are. This is *much* better - people are arguing the case on its merits. I agree it's not a big issue -see my reasons for caring below. LouScheffer (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Both terms are used in the US since the last decades of 1800, however, this material is not generally known as "excelsior" in other parts of the world. Even in the US, the dominant name is "wood wool" as indicated by the use from the US government both for internal purposes (Standard Industrial Classification Index SIC is 2429 "Wood wool (excelsior)"-mfg [11]) as well for external trade (HTS Number: 4405.00.00 Description: "Wood wool (excelsior)"; wood flour [12]). The same conclusion can be drawn from the time study of the use of the word in US patents (see Talk:Excelsior_(wood_wool)#Proposal for merging above). "Wood wool" is the main term used everywhere else, while the term "excelsior" is used only in a few cases. This is a clear application of WP:ENGVAR#Opportunities for commonality: Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English. In this case, this is the term wood wool.--FocalPoint (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Summary – 6 editors support changing to wood wool, because they don't know of excelsior, (or know it as wood wool in 2 cases). 3 support respecting WP:ENGVAR and keeping the hisotical American name of this traditional product. There is not sufficient agreement to conclude there's any consensus for a move in violation of WP:ENGVAR. Dicklyon (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a very interesting way to see consensus. I hope that this is a bad joke. --FocalPoint (talk) 08:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The name and history of excelsior/wood wool seems to be interwoven with that of the American Excelsior Company (AEC henceforth... not to be confused with the United States Atomic Energy Commission, which was commonly known by those initials until 1974... showing my age...), despite claims (true for all I know) above that the term predates the company. But somebody invented the term and the product!

According to the AEC website, In the United States excelsior has no other general name; however, in many other countries excelsior is commonly known and referred to as wood wool. That doesn't seem accurate; Many US websites use both terms. It seems to me that the international term is wood wool.

Regardless of the result of this move request, a section in the article on the history of the product, the name and the company would be an excellent idea IMO. Andrewa (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Dick's references, AEC was founded in 1888, but there is a patent for an excelsior-making machine from 1874. So the term does pre-date the company (at least this specific company.. Was there an earlier one??). So where did it come from? It's somewhat of an odd word (Latin meaning 'higher') for wood shavings. LouScheffer (talk) 12:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The OED cites several uses as a tradename (Excelsior Soap from 1851, Excelsior Playing cards, and so on, mostly but not all American) They claim the patent is from 1868; the machine was advertised in 1874. I assume the advertising use is from Longfellow. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a mention in an 1873 newspaper, in quotation marks, indicating that it's not yet a widely known term, but is in use; some others about that time quote it and also captialize it (excess capitalization was not uncommon at the time). As near as I can tell, it might be adapted from the name of the ASH tree (Fraxinus excelsior); it was also a common fancy or trademark name for high-quality products of the time, and was involved in more than a few trademark litigations as a result of its common/fancy status. Dicklyon (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Latin excelsus means "lofty, high, elevated", and excelsior is its comparative: "loftier, higher, more elevated". I here in England in my 66 years have come across various things tradenamed as "Excelsior", but not wood-wool. The word "excelsior" means too many other things. Move the page to wood wool. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

As a generic noun, it only refers to this one substance, I think. Dicklyon (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

What's going on here?? I feel like the guy who was watching a perfectly good fight when suddenly a hockey game broke out. People are quoting sources, weighing evidence, considering the reader's viewpoint and the role of Wikipedia as an international institution, all without a single personal attack, nor any accusations of bad faith! This has got to stop immediately, or no one will recognize this as a Wikipedia discussion. LouScheffer (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If you'll change your vote, I can heap some incivility on you. How come people who've never heard of this stuff are so willing to say what it should be called, anyway? Dicklyon (talk) 06:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think it's *because* I never heard of it, and the meaning of excelsior (as a word) makes no sense in this context. I sometimes consult wiki pages in other languages, and struggle my way through them (basically decoding as opposed to fluent reading). I ignore words I don't know, except where they look important by context. Now I imagine I'm a marginal reader of English, and I come to the page Excelsior (wood wool). Excelsior looks real important (it's the first word of the title) but I don't know what it means. Perhaps I look it up, which leaves me puzzled. In the worst case, I give up. But most likely I make a mental note and struggle on. Eventually I find this word (though it looks like latin) is just another name for the material. However, unless my question was "what's another name for wood wool?" this whole exercise is an unnecessary diversion. If the name was wood wool, these are words I may already know, and it's easier to find the information I seek. (This is not just a hypothetical situation. We have hosted exchange students for many years, and this happens all the time - students get sidetracked by some odd word or construction in English, and you need to explain that first to un-confuse them, before you can get to the real question they were trying to answer.) Since one of them main strengths of Wikipedia (in my mind anyway) is its availability to all, and this change (IMO) makes it better for the marginal reader without hurting the experience for the fluent reader (they are already re-directed through the dis-ambig page if they search for excelsior), I vote for it. Sorry for the long winded talk. LouScheffer (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, same with others it appears. Ignorance of the topic is a bad reason to not use its name, in my opinion. I went over 50 years knowing it by its name and never hearing of wood wool, but people who've never heard of it don't want to use its name. Weird. Dicklyon (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR

As has been stated above, this isn't simply a de-americanisation, which would be a violation of WP:ENGVAR. Rather, it's choosing between two terms for an article title, both of them current American English, one of them also internationally recognised, and both used in the article by its early authors. Andrewa (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the parenthetical wood wool was in the original article title when I started, because I found that as a disambiguating description; but "wood wool" did not appear in the article itself, since I had never heard of excelsior being called wood wool. It was also not called wood wool in the drawing that I found to illustrate the article. Dicklyon (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the history is a bit hard to follow but it seems that you started the article as Excelsior (wood wool) and it was a few months later while still a stub moved to wood wool. The talk page was started while it was at wood wool and you subsequently moved both pages back. But the point is, both terms were there right from the start, and both terms appear current in American English, so it's not an ENGVAR issue. Andrewa (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It has always been at the current name Excelsior (wood wool) since becoming more than a stub. Moving it is arbitrary and capricious, imho. Dicklyon (talk) 06:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This 2007 book Divided by a Common Language explicitly characterizes wood wool versus excelsior as a UK vs US language difference. The article was originally written from a US perspective, and per WP:ENGVAR should stay that way. Dicklyon (talk) 06:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

1868 patent in which "excelsior" was generic already

I found it: here. This 1868 patent "Improved capillary material for filling gas and air carburettors" is on a new use for this material that "may be used in mass as it is sold and used as filling for mattresses, its commercial name being 'excelsior'." This is the earliest description of the material by this name found by the OED. There's no suggestion that this commercial name was ever a trademark for this material. Dicklyon (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

And here is the 1842 patent "Machine for manufacturing wood so as to be used as a substitute for curled hair in stuffing beds" that looks like the origin of this material. Not called excelsior yet though.

It's a American topic, based on its history, so let's keep calling it by its American name. Dicklyon (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Generic in 1856 – bested the OED

Here (pages 83 and 139) is a generic use of "excelsior mattress" in 1856. Patents in 1854 and 1855 on improved machine (see my first link at top section of this talk page) don't yet call it excelsior, so 1856 may be about the start, though they're clearly assuming that the reader knows the meaning already. Dicklyon (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent research. I suggest to include in the "History" section (to be created).--FocalPoint (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2009 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Is the term excelsior sometimes used more generally?

In the text, there is the sentence: "In North America the term excelsior is sometimes used more generally, for any clean, loose material for shipment-packing of boxes or crates, such as styrofoam packing peanuts"

I attempted to find proof of this and I ended up with the following references[13]:

1. A site called Canadianmanufacturing.com which maintains what it calls "a comprehensive directory and search tool, providing information on Canadian industrial wholesalers, manufacturers, distributors and their products and services." In the "Search by product" it shows that a product category of "Paper Excelsior" exists Paper Excelsior Suppliers. This indicates the existence of the term "Paper Excelsior" in contrast with "Wood Excelsior".

The page says "Paper Excelsior Suppliers, Manufacturers and Distributors are listed below. Paper Excelsior is just one of 22,000 products and services sourced on FRASERS.com, Canadas Online Industrial Directory and Search Engine." This appears to be an automatically generated page based on some scraped words; the links there do not lead to any support for the idea that "Paper Excelsior" exists. It is not a reliable source for anything. Dicklyon (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not find it unreliable, but it is a very lonely source, for sure.--FocalPoint (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

2. A company, sellers of office products, are currently selling a product named American Excelsior Loose-Fill Peanuts [14], which is clearly not wood. In this instance, it appears that Excelsior is used generically for styrofoam packing peanuts (as claimed in the article)

The office depot page mentions excelsior only in the title "American Excelsior Loose-Fill Peanuts"; this appears to be their trade name; it does not support the assertion that the term is used generically. It might be, but this is not a reliable source for it. Dicklyon (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears that [15] Dicklyon claims "there's no actual useful content at either of those cites" and reverted this content addition.

I think that these references support the claim inserted in 2006 [16] about the generic use of excelsior for loose packing material, however, I am not prepared to insist. I am just pointing out here the issue. If someone else agrees, put these references back in please. --FocalPoint (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I too looked for support for this statement, but couldn't find any; excelsior seems to be always the wood shavings. Dicklyon (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand your line of thought, even though I do not agree with it. I believe that the two references weakly support the claim, not because they are weak, but because we could not not find any other sources. I suggest that it could find a place (including the references), phrased in a weaker way like: "There are indications that the term excelsior is sometimes used more generally, for clean, loose material for shipment-packing of boxes or crates, such as styrofoam packing peanuts".

A request (not part of the issue) - please consider not breaking down discussion text as you did above, it is OK if only you contribute, but if one more person writes something more, it makes the original text difficult to follow, despite the tabs. Still, if you really think it is necessary...go ahead.--FocalPoint (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

These are mere "clues", not "sources". They are content-free. Dicklyon (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a brief search shows that the Office Depot peanuts are just the ones made by American Excelsior. See this article, which says also, "American Excelsior, a 113-year-old Arlington, Texas-based company, produces a variety of packaging and cushioning, erosion control and specialty products. Its original products are evaporative cooling pads made from excelsior wood, from which the company name is derived." Dicklyon (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I note from the same source (for use in Trends):

Advances in air-conditioning technology and a decreased demand for evaporative coolers -- even in Arizona -- lead to the decision to shed that portion of the business, said president and chief executive Michael Tinsley.

"Evaporative coolers probably are not the way of the future," he said. "It's really not a growth business for us." "Evaporative coolers probably are not the way of the future," he said. "It's really not a growth business for us.

--FocalPoint (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Historical use of the term wood wool

As FocalPoint's recently-added history item makes clear, the product in Europe originally called wood wool was not excelsior, but something else entirely. I've added a source indicating that it was also known as pine wood wool and pine needle wool, as it was made from pine needles. Probably we should just take this stuff out, as it's unrelated to the article topic, which is excelsior by whatever name. Dicklyon (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That product was called wood wool. It is part of history of wood wool, which is the topic of the article, whether you are used to call it excelsior, wood wool, American moss or wood shavings.

Similarly, the material used for sanitary diapers was also called wood wool. Also part of wood wool's history--FocalPoint (talk) 07:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

See, this is what I was objecting to; the topic of the article is excelsior, not wood wool; by moving it to wood wool doesn't mean that we've necessarily expanded the topic to all things called wood wool; this is one reason I objected to the move; it confuses what the topic is. Dicklyon (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Production

The phrase "have been tried and not found to be as good" is using a reference where it is stated : [17] "other substances have been tried ... but none of these are extensively used". Since the "not found to be as good" is not adequately supported, I am removing it.--FocalPoint (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Balanced terminology

There is an adequate number of references here or more generally here showing alternative use of the terms wood wool and excelsior in the US. The current version of the text does not properly reflect this. My proposal is to improve the balance of the article and make mention of this.--FocalPoint (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

While there has been a drift in the US toward "wood wool" apparently, it's a term that I personally had never heard, and there are still sources (like the 2007 one that I added) that specifically say that term refers to the finest grade. I don't think we need a Brit to try to synthesize an alternative view of usage in the US to help push the language away from what's traditional here. Dicklyon (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason that I made the proposal here, instead of doing the changes myself, was to ask for your assistance, for a balanced, neutral point of view text and certainly not to push the language anywhere. If you would care to help, so that the text reflects today's status accurately, it would be great. If on the other hand you prefer to present what you see as the traditional point of view, I am sure that someone will come up eventually to complement your fine work.--FocalPoint (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Balance to me means not letting the term "wood wool" further displace the traditional name of this product. Just because we moved the article to keep you from screwing with it doesn't mean we ought to start saying wood wool where sources mostly call it excelsior. On the patent references, note that there are still more that call it excelsior without mentioning wood wool at all. Dicklyon (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Terminology

I changed from "The term wood wool is used in the US" to "was". The relevant reference is from 1918, with further references 1948, 1961. At the time of writing this text, 2009, it is 48 years after the last reference. More importantly, current usage of the term and references throughout the previous discussion do not indicate that there are such differences anymore.--FocalPoint (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A reference from a 2007 book has been presented, however, in order to avoid misinformation, I propose to present some commercial reference if any.--FocalPoint (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Please examine the references provided here:

• "sold by the bale in either coarse or fine grades" - no other term for fine grade
• "regular cut, fine cut - again no other name for fine grade
• "Wood Excelsior", Fine cut, Ribbon cut
• "fine grade aspen excelsior"
• Wood Excelsior .... This product is also known as "Wood Wool" or "American Moss"... Available in Fine or Coarse shreds - Mentioned together with wood wool, yet no differentiation
• page 8: "Wood wool (excelsior) is used", page 9: "Use a ‘fine’or ‘extra fine’ grade of excelsior" Again, wood wool is not used for any specific grade.
• Excelsior sometimes called wood wool....Finer grades of this material..., Page 16, Home Book of Taxidermy and Tanning, By Gerald J. Grantz, Stackpole Books, 1985, ISBN 0811722597, 9780811722599

In view of these references, I believe that the current text of the article ("wood wool is used in the US to refer to finer grades of excelsior") is misleading and has to be amended.--FocalPoint (talk) 08:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

After seeing no reaction, I made the changes in the article, but they were reverted [18], with the comment "This is absurd; refs throughout the period of its existnence support the stated fact, including the cited 1948/1961 ref.".

It appears that the references presented above are considered by the contributor who deleted them less valid than the references which he provided. My impression is that following this practice, we are keeping references which make one story, rejecting other references which present another view. In my opinion this is against WP:NPOV.--FocalPoint (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You can add any references you like, but there is overwhelming evidence that the product still goes by the name excelsior. It can also be called wood wool, but this is less common in the US. Dicklyon (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The references and the text which I added, do not change what you refer to as "overwhelming evidence that the product still goes by the name excelsior. It can also be called wood wool, but this is less common in the US."

The references and the text which I added, only present another view on the statement "The term wood wool is used in the US to refer to finer grades of excelsior". These references support that this statement is in doubt (even though there are references from 1900-2000 which support it).

Eventually the text there said (I removed a lot to leave only conclusion):

References from .... indicate that the term wood wool is used in the US to refer to finer grades of excelsior.... On the other hand, other contemporary references do not support this information and refer to "fine" or "finer grades" ..... while the term wood wool is not connected with these fine grades.

Please help me understand: Do you disagree with this text? Why? --FocalPoint (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you ignoring ref 3, from 2007, that specifically states the finest grades are called wood wool? If you want to add a statement supported from another sources, without putting this into past tense, that might be OK. But it sounds like what you're trying to do is synthesize a statement from usage in multiple refs, rather than finding someone else's statement about usage; this is less acceptable; see WP:SYNTH. Dicklyon (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that there are proper references from 1919-1948-1961-2007 which state that wood wool refer to finest grades (1961 clearly states it is based in the version of 1948, but nevertheless it is there). I tried to find some proof of this, hoping to find that a few companies would actually sell finest grades with this name. I found none. So I searched again. Nothing. If someone would selectively collect references supporting a specific point of view, I would think this would be a bad idea. I was not selective. I tried as best as I could. I found no supporting evidence whatsoever about reference to finest grades. So many people sell excelsior in the US, yet no one mentions finer grades by the name wood wool. I found nothing. I believe that the statement has to stand, but lack of supporting evidence has to be mentioned. I will give it a try and see how it looks.--FocalPoint (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you that most sellers of excelsior in the U.S. never use the term "wood wool"; it's a largely unknown term here. I think it's also the case that the fine grades that would go by that term are seldom used. But "lack of supporting evidence has to be mentioned" is not a concept I've ever seen before; how does that relate to WP:RS? Dicklyon (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I added more specific terminology info in the form of a table from a current US MIL-SPEC. Dicklyon (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You have a very good knowledge of process in wikipedia. You also have all the data. I believe that the text should reflect the data. The current version of the text gives the impression that the term wood wool means fine cut in the US and that this is widely acceptable and known. I think that the text should show that it is seldom used under this meaning, while it is used (not much, but more than "seldom") in several/some cases generically. If you want, go ahead and show this view as well.--FocalPoint (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This is your view, but can you show a source that takes this view? Dicklyon (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

That linked specification should be noted as a federal specification, not a MIL-SPEC, and my information [19] is that it has been cancelled, hence no longer in effect. Kevin (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Kevin, thanks for that clarification. I had seen it in a MIL-SPEC list, so I thought that was the applicable term, but maybe not. It's interesting that the government says they no longer procure such stuff. Dicklyon (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The saying and doing are often radically different. I still see drawings noting MIL specs superseded 30 years ago. i think it means they are no longer supposed to procure it. Kevin (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Some other references

• http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-59320533.html wood wool history in Europe
• http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1955/nov/02/wood-wool-duty Records from the UK, duties
• http://www.mum.org/collection.htm the 1880-1900 wood wool for menstrual pads
• http://rcnarchive.rcn.org.uk/data/VOLUME028-1902/page421-volume28-24thmay-1902.pdf medical dressings (The Nursing Record and Hospital World)

Some other references for the article. I might come at some point and use them, if someone wants to use them now, go ahead.--FocalPoint (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Your last two are pretty much off-topic, being about the other stuff known as "wood wool" or "pine needle wool", which is not part of the topic of this article, but is mentioned already as other things known as wood wool; it would be good not to confuse them. Dicklyon (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Consistency

Both Wood Wool and Excelsior are used interchangeably in this article. I suggest most uses of Excelsior be changed for consistencies sake... Smarkflea (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)