Talk:Taffeta

Cleaning

How do you clean Taffeta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genejaco (talk • contribs) 12:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

by washing it. next question?66.80.6.163 (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Use in outdoors equipment

Taffeta nylon often is used in outdoors equipment such as tents. I think this type of use should be covered, since it is obviously not used for its aesthetic properties... --Ozhiker (talk) 09:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

File:OIMPalcost3.jpg

The caption does not match the image description. Racconish ^Tk 08:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite

heres a summary of the text from the 1915 text cited now in the article: Taffeta is a plain, closely woven, smooth fabric made from silk or synthetic fibers, with the warp and weft of the same or nearly the same thread count. It was initially a stiffer fabric, but is now available in the more pliable chiffon taffeta form. It was used as a clothing lining in the Middle Ages in England, as an alternative to the more costly cendal. It is often used as the foundation for velvet or gold brocades, and for the reverse side of satin ribbons.The name may come from the Persian word "taftah", or "twisted", referring to the hard twist yarn used formerly in taffetas. The earliest mention of the fabric dates from 14th century France.

I will try to incorporate this at a later date.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Flexibility

"They were less flexible than the Indian mills..." Were the fabrics or mills less flexible? -- SEWilco (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The mills. OR though.   Racconish ^Tk 19:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice photo

Sexy... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.2.104 (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

This sentence makes no sense

Modern taffeta was first woven in Italy and France and until the 1950s in Japan.

This doesn't make sense. It was first woven in Italy and France, and then suddenly "until the 1950s in Japan"? NotYourFathersOldsmobile (talk) 05:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Citation

The Production section of the article infers many but different things.. The recent citation[[1]] was with clear Edit remarks(→‎Production: Citation added but more citation required to verify the complete information.) but deleted. Instead of allowing more reference the provided one was also removed[[2]]. If it was not appropriate should not be discussed. . Thanks RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 01:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Roxy. i am doing it again[[3]]. Kindly discuss before reverting any edits. Thanks RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

For help in content dispute

The matter is about deletion of the sources

They were added with clear edit summary →‎Production: Citation again added still required more to verify the last part of the section.

Sources were not there since last 5 years(2015).{{cn|date=December 2015}}

Sources[[4]]

Deleted [[5]]

Sources deleted by Roxy with edit summary→‎Production: unsupported, ref 100 years out of date. .

The section which was cited. Production Today most raw silk taffeta is produced in India and Pakistan. There, even in the modern period, handlooms were long widely used, but since the 1990s it has been produced on mechanical looms in the Bangalore area. From the 1970s until the 1990s, the Jiangsu province of China produced fine silk taffetas: these were less flexible than those from Indian mills, however, which continue to dominate production. Other countries in Southeast Asia and the Middle East also produce silk taffeta, but these products are not yet equal in quality or competitiveness to those from India

Short excerpts from the sources (THE Book The Fairchild Books Dictionary of Textiles|publisher=|year=2013|isbn=9781609015350|location=|pages=313) support required wording in the article about taffeta production south India, the text states with heading jamavas Lightweight brocaded silk taffeta that was made in Madras region of southeastern India.

Short excerpts from the sources(Textiles and allied subjects|first=National information center|title=TEXINCON. - Volumes 3-4|publisher=Cornell University|year=1991|isbn=|location=|pages=52) support the required wording in the article China produced fine silk taffetas the reference [[6]] the text states silk products made from taffeta crepe de china.

Don't know where to go and discuss, as a volunteer with WP:CiterSquad I am keen to know what was wrong with these citations to avoid any conflict, kindly guide me. Thanks and regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 06:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

If you are adding a citation to support particular wording, it should be added after those particular words rather than at the end of the paragraph they appear in. These sources certainly don’t support the entire paragraph.

The comment about a source being “100 years out of date” is probably the result of the reference you added here. Saying it is 100 years out of date is not strictly accurate, it is an Illustrated London News story published in 1870 so is actually 150 years out of date, and the place you added it suggested that you intended it to support the sentence, “The most deluxe taffetas, however, are still woven in France, Italy, Russia, and the United Kingdom.” Roxy removed that with the comment about it being out of date; the summary of the edit in which you added the two references you are talking about here says “citation again added”, suggesting that you were adding the same reference again rather than a new one.

I don’t think either of the sources you are currently suggesting actually support anything in the paragraph you added them to. A source that describes a particular fabric as “Lightweight brocaded silk taffeta that was made in Madras region of southeastern India” does not support the material about production in India. A source that just says that various silk products from China, some of which are taffeta are “famous at home and abroad” does not support “From the 1970s until the 1990s, the Jiangsu province of China produced fine silk taffetas”. And I don’t think that was published by Cornell University (and neither was the Illustrated London News published by Princeton).

Basically, the references that you have tried to add here don’t support the text. Brunton (talk) 12:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Brunton Firstly, thanks for the help and detailed explanation, but kindly see the edit summary does not support the deleted references. It was not satisfactory since the references were not the same the user deleted earlier.

Maybe I should have used a note "I found some sources, and I would like to use them to support uncited content in this article." or a tag. Regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 09:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you should check that your alleged sources actually support the uncited content you say they support? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 09:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Roxy, Sources were useful but on partial level. Can you justify your edit summary 100 years? Do you you understand the meaning of this templatet{{Additional citation needed}} ? Maybe you are the only exception. You were warned to discuss first[[7]]. But you are always in hurry. Kindly avoid attacking me. RegardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I have received three pings for this single post today. Do not ping me again. You may assume I am watching any page I have previously edited. You do not seem to have grasped yet, after five years on the project at least, that a reference needs to support the text it is cited for. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

You say, “You were warned to discuss first.” I’m sorry, Rajiv, but that isn’t how it works: see WP:BRD. If you make an edit and it is reverted, then the onus is on you to gain consensus on the talk page for its reinstatement; it isn’t up to the reverting editor to get consensus for the revert. And can you please drop the business about the “100 years”? It doesn’t matter because the sources were most definitely not appropriate where you were trying to use them. Maybe Roxy should have been a little more careful about the revert, but it was clearly (at least as it appears to me) nothing more than a misunderstanding of your (not very clear) edit summary. The references you tried to include here were removed entirely appropriately because they didn’t support the text you attached them to; that’s all that needs to be said here. Brunton (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Brunton Noted. Thanks for correcting me. Regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

User: Roxy the dog You are a senior editor, and it is not appreciable to comment like you did in your recent edit summary). Wikipedia is not a battle, and you became the Alexander the great by deleting my two edits. It is part of our job. This is how Wikipedia works. Everybody makes mistakes and others correct it, even you are doing[[8]] it in your retirement age. But thanks for correcting the things in the interest of the project. From now on you stop harassing me, do not find ways to entangle with me.RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 09:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Rajiv, Did you understand what this means? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 10:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

User: Roxy the dog, Sorry, My bad copy-paste of the link, but you do not dance, see you also made mistakes and other users corrected the same[[9]],[[10]]. Understand the need of teamwork. For how long you will harass me for a block in which you trapped me. Do you knwo the user who blocked me also got revoked. Does it mean we make fun of his contributions and can comment sarcastically? At least I can not do. I still have same respect for his services. Wikipedia is about policies, We have to respect the policies unfortunately I could not declare a joint project and you took the advantage of the scenario and made a case of SP. And now becoming a hero, Even you may be blocked one day. Please work constructively, you are doing your job and I am doing mine. Do not attack me again and again. RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Rajiv, Did you understand what this means? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC) ooooopsy

Roxy, Yes, I understand why you are going off-topic now because you have no reply and want to escape by doing these tantrums or sometimes keeping mum (Mum is for silence, do not misunderstand it again). Reference Talk:Stenter. Please reply on my talk page now, because the discussion we are having is irrelevant to the Talk:TaffetaRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

References