Talk:Knitting/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

The first knitting guild was started in the 16th Century, but is there any idea of when and where knitting was used prior to that? What are the earliest known examples of the craft?

What this page tells us about Wikipedia

Knitting and other textile handicrafts are the kind of thing you could write bolshy great gobs of text about; just descriptions of various tricks (ways to cast on, to bind off, to make braids, make buttonholes, fair-isle stuff, dozens of different stich patterns, etc.) could make for a hierarchy of pages as big or bigger than e.g. the one for Star Trek. But it doesn't surprise me that at the time of writing there's not much here (though some people have put some work into it); I suspect that Wikipedia is mostly edited by male geeks who wouldn't be caught dead knitting...

10:20, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I finger knit sometimes. No, this is not a blatant attempt to increase awareness for my orphaned article. - Vague | Rant 09:35, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Another male knitter here, and I fully intend to work my way through the Knitting category, fleshing it out. :) The tricky part is keeping the descriptions encyclopaedic in nature---there are lots of pattern and technique sites elsewhere. But yes, there's still a lot more to be said. /Blahedo 07:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Stitch Names

If you have Yarn Names as a category, could you also have a Stich Names category.

I'd like to see definitions/uses of different stitches as well as diagrams.

Knit, Purl, Kitchener, Ktog, etc.

I think the description of what you can do with purl stitches is wrong -- it lists garter stitch as a function of purl stitches, when garter is actually the product of pure knit stitches on both sides. I couldn't figure out how to fix the paragraph without completely rewriting that section of the article, so I'm hoping someone else can do better.

knit -v- purl - are the descriptions wrong?

Surely if you consider the "right side" to be the front, as is normal convention, then the knit stitch is where the needle is put in from the front to the back and the loop pulled through, whereas the purl is done by inserting the needle from the back to the front and also pulling the loop through. The fact that the purl is knitted when the "right side" is at the back makes this all really confusing. Should all this be modified for clarity somehow? (BTW, I'm a male pseudo-geek and have been caught knitting many times in public, very much alive!)

I suppose you could call it the front of the stitch if you look at the stitches as moving from right to left across the needle. When you're knitting, the needle is inserted from the left side of the stitch, which from the right-to-left perspective could be called the "back". At least one of my knitting books refers to "the front of the stitch from left to right" and "the frong of the stitch from right to left". It's a matter of perspective.

You're right. It's confusing. I tried to clarify it a little. (Also, I've never heard of "pushing" the yarn anywhere while knitting. You always pull it with the needle.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:58, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It was still a little strange when I got to it a few days ago, but I think the description is a little better now. What I (or someone) really needs to do is make up some diagrams. /Blahedo 07:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Importing foreign-wiki diagrams?

The Japanese knitting page has a great diagram, which can be found at http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%94%BB%E5%83%8F:Meias.png, but I can't figure out how to use it directly. Do I have to download it and then reupload it to the English wikipedia? That seems like the long way round. Anyway, I'll spend more time on this later, but I figured I'd mention it here in case someone knew the system better. /blahedo (t) 06:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's what you have to do. Or, perhaps even better, upload it to commons, where it can be accessed from any language Wikipedia. -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Finally got around to learning my way around the Commons. This is such fun! Anyway, the diagram has been uploaded to the Commons as Image:Knit-schematic.png and now appears in the somewhat-revised main article. /blahedo (t) 02:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

In Movies section

Do we really need to list all the movies knitting appears in? I'm sure the list would be endless, and what purpose does it serve? Unless knitting is integral to the plot, but even then I don't really see the use. Loggie 01:55, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It might be interesting to do a more generally "knitting in popular culture" or similar. (Actually, more general than "popular culture" would be nice. It could include, for a start, a reference to Madame Defarge, whose knitting is classic and also downright sinister. Which is an accomplishment, for knitting.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

While I do like to see knitting making appearances in movies and on TV, I prefer finding it in books. Based on what I've read in current knitting magazines, it appears that other knitters like to read about it, too. Novels like Agatha Christie's Miss Marple series, and mysteries written by Patricia Wentworth emphasize both the meditative qualities of knitting, as well as its ability to help its practitioner focus his/her mind. A list of other books that have characters who knit would, in my opinion, be a nice feature. Merryt 16:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Linkspamming?

There is some evidence of linkspamming (people posting links to their own sites) on this and other knitting-related WP pages (such as history of knitting and knitting needle). "Free patterns and history of knitting shown through patterns" was posted by the maintainer of that site, and the site itself does not live up to its description -- there's very little content there. And the KnittingFiend link was also probably posted by the site's owner, based on the account name and activity. It's another knitting blog -- one of hundreds, though there is some useful content on it.

It is frowned upon to add links to one's own sites, and I am concerned about this. Of course, if the sites warrant being listed, that is one thing -- but these don't seem to be notable sites, at least, not more than the many other hobbyist knitting sites out there. (There may be a couple of others in the list of links that would have this problem as well -- I didn't go through all of them.)

I think it would be best to remove these links. What do other editors think? ManekiNeko 22:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

By all means, remove them. The only reason I haven't removed them is that I'm trying not to get a reputation as a mean old link-removing grinch. ;) I don't think any article really needs more than two or three external links except in extraordinary cases. A helpful guide, if you're trying to decide between a handful of links that offer the same kind of services (e.g. fairly generic knitting instructions and fairly typical patterns), is to check out relative Alexa ratings. -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Listing knitting guilds is not spamming! they serve hundreds, if not thousadands of people!

An individual local guild is not likely to serve thousands or even hundreds of people. A national or international guild, on the other hand, might. Aranel, I went ahead and pruned the links quite a bit. I left the Meetups link as it is not one particular Meetup, but a link to the main Meetup page for all the knitting meetups everywhere. (I added a link to the Stitch 'n' Bitch worldwide knitting groups page for a similar reason.) I kept the magazine links, though I think they could possibly be pruned as well. The link to the site with knitting instructions and videos seemed the most useful and notable of the other links, so I kept that one. ManekiNeko 07:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

links to guilds

why are you deleting the links to our guilds? they serve hundreds if not thousands of people! why is http://knitting.meetup.com/ justified? it is just one organization. are you a knitter and part of that group? and why do you delete my contribution about knitting today? is is no longer a man's job, or a job at all,. it is for fun and meditaion.

Unless your guild is somehow the most important or significant knitting guild, then it hardly seems reasonable to list it, and not others. (And Wikipedia is not a web directory for knitting guilds.) See Wikipedia:External links. Also, in general, adding links to your own page or a page for your own group is discouraged because it's extremely hard to be objective about your own stuff. Is your guild really so important that it is automatically of interest to anyone who reads an encyclopedia article on knitting?

I actually agree with you that there may be some less notable links included and I'd like to see them removed as well. (It's not just you. I'm grumpy about almost all external links. ;)

That said, I'm delighted to see another knitter contributing to Wikipedia. I hope you'll consider registering an account and sticking around. -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

In that case, the two blogs are really out of place, as well as the meetup, why are they still up there, when our guilds are deleted?

I don't feel it is my place to X them but- there should be one rule for all. I will get together a note about knitting today, not just history, it would be about all of "us" knittes, and post soon.

See my note above. I deleted the blogs; they shouldn't have been there. I think the Meetup site has some justification as it is a site combining hundreds of Meetups rather than one for one particular group. I also added the SnB link for the same reason, and because it is notable. These are really the most notable listings of knitting get-togethers that I am aware of. (I am not part of any group affiliated with either org. I am a knitter, though.) ManekiNeko 07:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

ok. thanks. I looked at the guidlines, and in this topic, there are many things that can be interpeted either way. if we want people to know more about knitting, they need to try it- and may need to be directed.

I'll add a link to the Open Directory knitting page, as that is a directory of knitting links, and it's a non-commercial open directory and hence more suitable for Wikipedia. ManekiNeko 20:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

By the way -- you can add links to the Open Directory, if the knitting site you are interested in is not already listed there. ManekiNeko 20:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

thanks but we (Big Apple Knitters Guild) are already listed there under Organizations. and just a note to Aranel, our guild has more than 300 members, and growing, and so does The Knitting Guild Association, which is a national organization.

Please sign your posts. You can sign them by typing "~~~~" at the end of each post. Anyway, I would be OK with having TKGA linked, as it is a national organization for knitters. I would definitely be against a link to the Big Apple guild, though -- because that opens the door to having to link to every single local knitters' group there is, which is not what Wikipedia should be doing. That is what the Open Directory should be doing, and so I linked to them. (And what relevance does a Big Apple guild have to most of the knitters in the world who don't live anywhere near New York? It doesn't -- which is one of the reasons it shouldn't be listed here.)

Just out of curiosity, why did you add the link to the Learn to Knit page? The knittinghelp page seems to cover that territory pretty well already. I'm not entirely against the new link, it's just that I am worried about opening the floodgates to every single knitting tips page on the web. :) ManekiNeko 23:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I added it because I read people were looking for good illustrations, and it has good drawings, and it comes from the Yarn Council of America, another national organization dedicated to the growth of knitting. I really don't see why you deleted it. It has relevance, it does not promote one individual or even small group, and it is very helpful to all! I understand why you feel BAKG is not appropriate but TKGA is very appropriate, and will help readers find info all over the country. It seems you do not want anyone else to contribute here, and I feel you are depriving people from some very useful links. Why??? hilpal

I didn't delete it. Please look at the page again. I moved it upward so the two "learn to knit" sites are together in the list, which seemed to be a nice sensible way of organizing it. I also did not delete TKGA; that was another editor. As for why I deleted stuff, see my post above about Linkspamming. People were editing the page to add links to their own material, which in most cases didn't belong in an encyclopedia article. They would belong just fine in a link list like the Open Directory, but Wikipedia pages are explicitly not supposed to be link lists. That's all. ManekiNeko 20:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

External Links

Now I see Knitty has been added again. I love Knitty! But I am still not sure it belongs here. Because if you add Knitty, then a case can be made for adding MagKnits. And if you add MagKnits, then a case can be made for adding all the print knitting mags, or any website with free patterns, etc. Which would be too much. Now, Knitty is a notable site in the knitting community, but does it belong here? I'm not deleting it, but I would like to hear consensus from other editors. I really would like to not see that list of external links keep growing bigger again. My opinion is that it is not making the article better. But of course, that is my opinion. ManekiNeko 20:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

knitty does not belong, it is a one individual's take on knitting, and as much as it is a fun site- does not make the cut in my opinion. rules shuold apply to all. hilpal

I notice the external links keep growing again... I just deleted a couple of them. I am iffy on the "Men who knit" link but left it for now. Basically, though, we can't link to every magazine, every forum, every blog... etc. That's not what Wikipedia is about. ManekiNeko | Talk 20:44, 23 September 2005

Hi, Could anybody tell me if this page would classify for listing as an external link? http://www.craftbits.com/viewCategory.do?categoryID=NED#Knitting. There are several 100 links here and looking at all the other external links, I think it classifies strongly. Thanks!

Looks like a bunch of links to patterns; I'm not sure I want to set us up to provide a link to every such site in the world.... /blahedo (t) 06:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you are incorrect here. This site is NOT a "bunch of links to patterns" but has patterns within the site. It is not linking to other sites, but providing step by step instructions for several patterns. As the webmaster of this site, I strongly urge you to review it again. If you can have sites like knittingfool.com then our site strongly qualifies to be listed here, otherwise this is hypocritical. 203.171.83.30

Yes... if one site with lots of pattern links gets added, then we end up having to add just about any site/blog with free patterns. Wikipedia isn't meant to be a link directory. It seems to me that just being a site with lots of patterns isn't what it takes to be listed here. (If you haven't submitted the link to the Open Directory knitting page, though, you should definitely do that! That site is a link directory.) Thank you so much for asking about it in here! -- ManekiNeko | Talk 21:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

New link posted; I've commented it out on the main page for the moment, but what do you think about http://www.KnittingNewsCast.com ? /blahedo (t) 20:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd sort of like to see it become more notable first... there are already several other knitting podcasts, so why would this one be the one to get listed here? It's brand-new and it's really hard to tell yet whether it will catch on, whether the creator will lose interest and stop doing the podcasts, etc. So I think a link might be premature at this stage. Anyone else out there have any opinions on this? -- ManekiNeko | Talk 00:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems totally reasonable to me especially since KnitCast is much more well-establisehd ~

Knit Knack is a unique resource for wannabe and improver knitters. It is the only structured interactive tutorial available for beginners and not just a bunch of video clips by an enthusiastic amateur. It is very high quality, has detailed reference material, excellent troubleshooting sections and expert tips. I was wary of putting it on here because it is a commercial product but you list books as useful resources which are also commercial products.--Dimli 18:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know why a Doctor Who scarf pattern is in external links? It seems a little out of place to have a specific pattern. Gloriana232 13:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed external links to discussion forums as they are a violation of WP:EL. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 08:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

For similar reasons, I am deleting the links to knitting organisations, as they seem to fall under the description of "networking site," which is a violation of WP:EL, as well. DroEsperanto 15:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm also thinking that the external links to instructional sites should be removed. The article itself is not about how to knit as much as it is about its importance and place in culture, as well as what it is. Since the external links are only loosely related to the topic, I don't think they belong. DroEsperanto 00:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Instructional sites are generally not considered appropriate links per Wikipedia is not a how-to-site, but many articles apply ignore all rules to this when there is agreement from editors that the encyclopedic nature of the article is enhanced by one or two well chosen sites. I tend to think a single good site would be good for the article (I have no preference among the sites we have, in fact I'm not that keen on any I've seen). If we can find a site with good illustrations, especially video, and a large compendium of basic and advanced techniques, I think that could be a great addition. -- Siobhan Hansa 23:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

And when we find that site, we would then put something like <!--Please do not add any more instructional site links; please see talk page --!> down there, right?

There are different schools of thought on that, but editors on many articles find it to be a good way forward. I think it is a worthwhile approach for any EL section that has been refined by concensus. It's important not to let such an approach get in the way of improving the section over time though. -- Siobhan Hansa 01:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Do you know of any sites which you think are particularly informative and professional? DroEsperanto 23:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I wish. If I'd found that site I'd have added it already! I'm full of good ideas but less practical help sometimes. Still, articles are always evolving, so we can discuss which of the sites we know about is the "best" and, if we think it is good enough, use that one until a better one comes along. -- Siobhan Hansa 01:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Entrelac

I feel like this should be added to the Process section but as I am hardly an expert on this technique, I hesitate to put it in myself. Knerq

I am not either. :) Yes, it just needs to be a brief mention, so it could fit in the Process section. Maybe when I have time I will add that, or someone else can. Maybe Entrelac should have a wikipedia article, too... I'm not sure. ManekiNeko | Talk 00:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Entrelac is a technique I haven't tried yet, but I get the basics enough, I think. I used this as an excuse to rework the Process section to be a little more organised, and included a mention of entrelac in the new Texture subsection. (Do make sure I haven't gotten it wrong!) I left an open link, so feel free to stub or write a whole new article just about entrelac---Category:Knitting definitely needs more items. :) /blahedo (t) 03:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Entrelac article created, though it could probably use some judicious editing, if anyone wants to step up to the plate. /littlemousling (t) 08:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yarn names

The recent edit of the page added a whole bunch of information about novelty yarns, etc. This is good. However, for each type of yarn, it cited a couple of yarn brands and names -- which concerns me, because if this is included, we are likely to have people from every yarn company there is editing the page to add their yarns to promote themselves. I don't think the article should be a list of yarns in that sense! (Also, the yarns listed were heavily European-biased, so we'd have to add more yarns anyway to make better examples for those who live elsewhere.) I removed most of those yarn names, but I did leave a couple in for now. I would like to hear what others think about this. Examples of yarns aren't necessarily a bad thing, but the page should perhaps be more universal, not listing brands that may be discontinued, or be geographically irrelevant for many readers. ManekiNeko | Talk 01:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The current version seems reasonable; the only ones with specific brand names are ones that seem unique enough to justify it. We can revisit it if a link war starts brewing. /blahedo (t) 06:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Stitch 'n Bitch links

141.155.56.134 deleted references to the Stitch 'n Bitch books without comment, though the text of the edit in the article itself claimed "trademark infringement". I reverted; please keep an eye open for this sort of thing. There is a company claiming trademark rights to the phrase "Stitch and Bitch Cafe" but this does not mean Wikipedia cannot cite Debbie Stoller's book. (Also, as far as I know, there has been no determination in court or otherwise at this point that the book is officially an infringement.) 141.155.56.134 also deleted Debbie Stoller's name entirely from List of feminists which implies she/he has an issue with Debbie, rather than any legitimate attempt to avoid trademark infringement. 141.155.56.134, if you are reading this, please feel free to discuss your changes on the talk page here. ManekiNeko | Talk 22:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added a link to Stitch n Bitch UK It has a very good knitting forum online with easy access to information about various knitting groups. There is no evidence that the trade mark is registerd in the UK so none of the argumetns about infringement apply. --Dimli 18:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Knitting machine

I've added three links to the knitting machine article, maybe that's too many. First day here, not sure of conventions, if it's done wrong please change/spank ad lib. AuntySue 21:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I changed it, but don't consider it a spanking. :) Basically you generally only wikilink the first occurrence, and only put the link in See Also if it's not already linked earlier in the article, so I left the first link in. Thank you for adding that, by the way! :) -- ManekiNeko | Talk 23:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikicities

It's not at all ready to link up from this article, but I've just discovered http://knitting.wikicities.com/ . Someone else created it a week and a half ago but didn't write anything for it, and I've been writing articles in the last day or two. Much more work is needed! I figured here would be a good place to troll for people who liked writing articles for free and GFDLing them. :) /blahedo (t) 03:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I LOVE KNITTING

Details on material

The "materials" section seems a bit sparse, and mashed together. I thought perhaps separating it into sub-sections would make it easier and quicker to read and scan.

"Weight" - the importance of gauge, and how the thickness of yarn affects appearance, drape, quickness to knit, etc.

"Fibre" - explanation of different fibres and their natures: animal, plant, synthetic, which would then lead to ..

"Novelty" - since it is such a large chunk, it warrants its own space

I may move forward on this, but figured I'd share this with other users. Newbie here :-) Thanks! Gloriana232 13:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I also think an image of novelty yarn would help if anyone has one available. And hi I'm new! Clutter 12:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

History and Culture section statistic

I've replaced the History and culture section statistic with a citable one, which, though a little less impressive in terms of raw size, has the benefit of being sourced!. I'm pretty sure the old 400% increase stat. came from the CYCA too, but it was ill defined in the article, and CYCA no longer seem to have it on their website, so it's hard to cite except from fairly poor second hand sources. --SiobhanHansa 07:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Interested in another project?

I have just started a new wiki at Craftacular.com. It runs on the same software as wikipedia, but the goal is a little different.

I am working to make it a central resource for all things related to crafts. A central, on-line repositiory of patterns, techniques, tutorials, tip & tricks, etc that people can use as a resource. It will be a place that encourages opinions. I'm (obviously) just getting started, but I'm reaching out to crafters to ask them if they'd be willing to contribute some of their expertise or help me get the word out.

I appreciate any help that you can lend. It's going to take a lot more people than just myself to get this baby up to its full potential.

Also, please let me know if this comment is unwelcome. It's my understanding from reading wikipedia's rule/terms of use that this would be an appropriate place for a post like this. Thanks!

List of Knitting Pattern corrections?

Would it be possible to have a section for known knitting pattern corrections? There doesn't seem to be a central repository anywhere on the web, and with Wikipedia it would not be dependent on one person to keep track.

Clumberknits 13:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC) Clumberknits

Featured article candidate

Hi, I'd love for Knitting to become a Featured Article but, speaking just for myself, it doesn't seem ready yet; judging from the initial reactions, the FAC reviewers agree. If we're serious about this, let's get together in January and make it happen systematically. Speaking as someone who's worked on several FA's recently, I guess that it will likely take a month of devoted work before we're ready for Peer review, which should always be the first step before FAC. I'd love to do it, though, if we're all together on this. :) Willow 12:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• My apologies, I'm relatively new to the whole FA process (and to wikipedia in general, to some extent), and didn't fully understand the procedures and whatnots when I FA'd it. I would, however, like to work on this article, seeing as how there seems to be some good information on it and room for improvement. DroEsperanto 19:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Editing to be consistently B.E.

Currently, the article is inconsistent as far as which English it uses. The first edit that showed one English over the other used British English, so I'm going with that. However, since I'm from the United States, I'd appreciate any help I can get from people who are more familiar with B.E. than I am.=3 DroEsperanto 01:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject?

I'm thinking about starting a WikiProject for Textile Arts that would include all the usual crafts (knitting, weaving, crochet, lace, etc.) plus clothing and fashion design. We basically need to find 5 editors who are interested in contributing. A WikiProject would allow us to use tags to monitor the progress of our field, using the Mathbot assessments. We could also make common templates, info-boxes and whatnot, and it might draw other textile-enthusiasts to us. (More knitters, yeay!) I'd be willing to get it off the ground, programming-wise; are people here interested in joining? Thanks! :) Willow 10:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, WikiProject Textile Arts has taken off — please join us there! :) Willow 21:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Knitting/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

maybe an inclusion of a table of weights of yarn (wool in the UK) e.g. weight  : medium yarn (cat 4 yarn) examples: worsted, afghan and aran) needle  : 7-5 (UK) 7-9 (US) 4.5-5.5 (metric) guage per 4: 16-20sts except neatly in a table, with references to various books I'll do this but someone will have to build me a table/ I can give someone more wiki literate the info because I'm not adept at the wiki format generally I think this is an essential bit of info that should be on a page about yarn, El.numbre (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 15:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)