Talk:Polar fleece

fleece shedding synthetic particles washing?

There's no mention of this in the article but googling one of the top results says "Fleece is the worst shedder". Of course it's hard to say if this is really the biggest contributor to plastic in the ocean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14B8:100:2A9:0:0:0:2 (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Polar fleece vs. fleece

I'm skeptical of the idea that "polar fleece" is more common than "fleece" as a term to describe any brand of synthetic fleece.

Searching the web for usage doesn't help much, since most search results are product ads, which might deliberately use "polar fleece" for MM's products, or might deliberately avoid it for others products. So I tried a google books search, looking for "polar fleece jacket" (40 results) or "fleece jacket" (623 results). So it seems that 94% of the usage is just plain "fleece" without the polar. (I used "jacket" to be sure it wasn't other uses of the word. From the sampling of the 623 I did, those results were all the stuff that this article is about.) Another idea was to look for lists of what to take on a backpacking trip. So I searched for ("backpacking trip" list fleece) (13,700 results) and ("backpacking trip" list "polar fleece") and got 166 results. That means 98.8% of the use is just "fleece" without the "polar".

So unless there is some major evidence to the contrary it seems that we should describe the stuff as fleece in the article, with a mention that it is also called polar fleece or synthetic fleece. The remaining question is how to title the article and handle redirects/disambiguation/etc. Ccrrccrr 00:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Additional comment: Described as a “pile” fabric. Not correct. Pile is done by never ending treads going outside the fabric and then cut. Polar Fleece is a brunched fabric. Not the same. Or has anyone seen Piled Polar Fleece anywhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peroberg (talk • contribs) 23:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The original material appearing on the market in the late 1970s was both called and marketed as "Polar Fleece." While the shortened term, "fleece," is in common use, I observe Wikipedia has an entry for "automobile" but not "auto" or "car." Oh, wait... "Automobile" redirects to "car." Well, gee, that's nonsense! Anyway, I agree that "fleece" is too broad, and that "polar fleece" is an apt description for the contents of this article. As for it's manufacture, it is heated, melted, spun, drawn, crimped, cut, baled, dyed, knitted, napped, and yes, sheared! For a detailed description, please review Polyester Fleece.Clepsydrae (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Sweaty

Whats considered dubious--that it absorbs less moisture, or that that characteristic can lead to a sweaty feeling?Ccrrccrr 02:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Disadvantages

I would have thought the single most obvious disadvantage compared to wool or cotton is that it is generally unsuitable/unavailable for use in smart or formal clothing, and hence is restricted to casual use? DWaterson (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think of disadvantages as being for a given sphere of application. Its sphere of application, as described in the lead, is casual or high-performance outdoor clothing.

If the section were a comparison to wool, that would definitely be an important distinguishing feature to discuss, but my interpretation of the purpose of the section is to discuss its advantages and disadvantages in the type of applications in which it is used, relative to any and all alternatives for those types of applications.

That's my thinking, but perhaps that section shouldn't be as narrowly interpreted as how I am thinking about it. Maybe its purpose should be clarified. And maybe the content you are suggesting should be added or expanded in another section (perhaps the lead). (I just added a bit to the lead about high-performance outdoor clothing.)Ccrrccrr (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverted many edits

I just reverted a large number of edits. I'm sorry Ls09mba--I know you put a lot of work into that and there was some really useful information and there were helpful collections of references added. But some of it was direct quotes from the references, which is a copyright violation even with the attribution. And most of it was from Malden Mills PR stuff, and read like their ad copy (in some cases, because it was their ad copy, word-for-word). I know that it's not very welcoming to a new editor to revert all the edits, but copyright violations are not at all a gray area--see the policy page on this.

The other problems include the fact that the edit removed the proper lead section, and that it made the article into something approach an advertisement; if the article got to that point it might get deleted as such, according to this policy.

I hope I haven't scared you away and that you'll contribute to expanding and improving the article, while maintaining a neutral point of view.Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting note--that you need a screenshot for a school project. I hope you realize that that will document your copyright violations and, at many schools, would make you eligible for serious disciplinary action.Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Agree There doesn't seem to be any active disagreement here on the talk page, but, I concur with Ccrrccrr's analysis of the issue, and application of copyright principles while still acknowledging good faith of the new editor. Whether information is valid, it must be presented in a manner which doesn't violate copyright, and a school project is not an excuse for violating copyright, even for a brief period of time. - superβεεcat  05:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no disagreement so I'm going to repeat my revert.Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw this issue posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion. I agree that the removal of the copyvio content was absolutely necessary per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. — Athaenara ✉ 03:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV, OR tags

Although I agree that some rewording might help, I don't see any serious NPOV or OR problems here. If you see a specific problem, please discuss it here as suggested in the tag. Otherwise I assume the dispute (if any) is resolved and will remove the tag. Ccrrccrr (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

agreed, i will remove the tagScientus (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Advantages of Fleece, Polar or not

The primary advantage to fleece is that it is a great way to survive the elements encountered outdoors. Since the properties are mainly polyester, moisture passes through it rather than being absorbed by the fibers, such as cotton. What this means in the outdoor application is that water, vapor, and sweat are not held to your skin, thereby keeping you drier and thus warmer.

Any outdoor enthusiast can atest to sudden temperature changes, fast moving storms, and cold-weather survival requiring protection that enables moisture control. Fleece is a light-weight solution. Wool will do the same with addition weight. Fleece is a necessity on every outdoor adventure, even if you think you won't need it. Hopefully you won't. The best way to get into trouble outdoors, is wearing cotton and have a sudden storm roll up on you. Not only will you begin to shiver (wasted energy), but also your pack will be heavy if you use a fiber which absorbs the water. If it's raining or overcast, it may be a long time before it dries out. The only cotton item I take in the wilderness is a bandana.

Fleece is the answer to recycling plastic bottles into a functional, long-lasting, garment that has the potential to save you from hypothermia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AeroMoon (talk • contribs) 14:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Needs restructuring

The article as it stands has three basic sections: an intro, and a pros and cons list broken into a list of advantages, and a similar list of disadvantages. This is shabby; I'm sure a person who is curious enough about the stuff to look it up here can find more questions than "what's good or bad about it?"

It would be nice to agree on what exactly the advantages/disadvantages section intends to discuss, to spell that out clearly, and possibly to extend the discussion from there. This came up in another comment, above, about whether the list is supposed to list every conceivable disadvantage of the fabric, or only to compare it against other outdoor activewear fabrics. I assume it means the latter, but it's better not to have to assume.

On that note, some of the items in the list may require more description than comfortably fits into a bullet point. ( For example, the fact that fleece won't kill you like cotton is listed as a con, with a parenthetical about how this can be a good thing. ) I'm not sure how this should best be handled, but, I think if the article evolves a bit, these sort of questions might work themselves out.

Finally, under external links, the third has no text other than [1]. I'm not sure how to change this, but it's not very helpful. Nobody will click a link having to guess where it might take them. Perhaps somebody can add a decent description - or remove the link?

--SeattleHiker (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree completely: I'd be hesitant to label this as start-class, even. The pros and cons list really isn't encyclopedic, and should be formatted in complete sentences (with citations) rather than as a series of bullet points. Given the use of recycled fleece by stores such as Mountain Equipment Co-Op and others, there's really no reason for "made of petroleum" to be a con, either. SeattleHiker, I'd be happy to work with you to improve this article. In the meantime, I'll fix that external link!Jhfortier (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree. On the issue of absorbency vs. cotton, the killer effect of cotton is not that it absorbs moisture, but that it loses insulation capability when it does. Wool absorbs moisture but doesn't lose much of its insulation capability when it does, and that's why it's reputed to be a wonderful wilderness fabric unlike cotton. Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've re-structured the "Advantages and disadvantages" section to make it prose, rather than a list. Hopefully the links and citations translated well (I haven't actually checked the references, but I moved them when I restructured). Let me know what you think. Jhfortier (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a big improvement! Thanks! Would it make sense to change the section heading at this point, maybe to something like "suitability for outdoor wear" or something along those lines? You've transformed the section from a laundry list into, well, something more useful, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeattleHiker (talk • contribs) 19:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if specifying it as an outdoor fabric is really suitable. I have all sorts of polar fleece items, including bedsheets, blankets, shawls, pillow cases, etc., in addition to the vests, pants etc. used for camping. I do agree that perhaps a more descriptive subheading would be appropriate, but my exam-addled brain just can't think of one right now. I'll take another crack at it tomorrow, when I'm finished my finals for the term! Jhfortier (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It says "Regular fleece is not windproof" but the link says it "is windproof"

The article says that "Regular fleece is not windproof[6]." But if you click on footnote 6, the polartec webpage says that it is windproof. Type, perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.141.194.113 (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Helly Hansen fleece history

On the history page of Helly Hansens website it appears that they invented a product called Fiberpile in 1961. Given this seems to be a form of fleece I would think that this history section on this page would need to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DUStudent (talk • contribs) 12:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The word "fleece" describes many different things, including different types of fleece. The Hanson fleece mentioned above is not the same construction as polar fleece. So no. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I assume you mean this page. Yes, they call it "the first fleece" and as near as I can determine it is polyester. That said, reliable sources do not say that Fiberpile is otherwise related to polar fleece. There are multiple forms of Pile (textile) fabric. I do not know what innovation Helly Hansen uses to justify their claim. Wool fleece certainly predates their claim. Maybe theirs is the first artificial fabric with cut loops?

In any case, we do not have reliable sources comparing the two, leaving us nothing to say. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I've nothing in the way of sources to go on, but I doubt very much the Hanson fabric has cut loops, and since my comment above, I've been clicking around, and it looks like the Hanson version is similar to the polartec, and was manufactured earlier than polartec!! I had no idea. I don't propose any changes to the article in this regard. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Carpets?

Our article says "Berners-Lee reckons the average greenhouse gas footprint of European polar fleece carpets at 5.55 kg CO2 equivalent per kilogram." I have two questions. Who is Berners-Lee and what does a polar fleece carpet look like, and where can I buy one? -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 18:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC) (I know that's three)

Berners-Lee, it seems, Mike Berners-Lee. I cleaned that bit up a little.

A quick google shows that -- yikes -- polar fleece carpets are a thing.

That's your two questions. I will only answer the third -- where you can get one -- if you can explain why you would want to. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my questions. I have re-carpeted my house with Google indicated polar fleece carpets, and installed safety hand rails throughout at the same time, in order to deal with the new carpet induced tripping issues. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 07:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)