Talk:Weavers' cottage

Scope

The article doesn't make it clear that the earliest weavers' cottages were for wool or fustians and silk which predated cotton for centuries. It rambles about mills and luddites which are surely out of the scope of this article which tries too hard to focus on cotton. What it should make clear is that weaving was usually carried on alongside agriculture and often whole families were involved in both operations. Some mention ought to be made of the putting out system that provided the yarn. J3Mrs (talk) 13:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

There is also a geographical scope problem here. I am waiting for Amazon to deliver a two books by Geoff Timmins- who devoted his academic life to issues of hand loom weavers and debunking myth and poorly collected statistics. That said, my focus is on vernacular architecture and separately cotton- which probably is better documented, though there are plenty of factoids remaining from pre 1960s primary education... a lot more to do. --ClemRutter (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Timmins has arrived and we have several new facts to integrate. We can make a clearer distinction between the rural and urban, and the three-story or attached loomshops of the wool and flax districts, and the groundfloor and cellar loomshops used for cotton. We also need to mention the urban weavers communities, and the surprisingly long struggle against the power loom. Subsequent separation and conversion of loomshops into houses. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

If this is about vernacular architecture why is "the surprisingly long struggle against the power loom" important? Yes there is a lot to do but it is important to stick to the topic. J3Mrs (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It really is a question of dating, if we could say that power looms were perfected in 1830, ending the putting out system, no cottages were built after 1835 it would be simple. But we can't, merchant/entrepreneurs were still building urban cottages until 1870 or later in central Lancashire. Timmins discovered the discrepancy between numbers of weavers and possible housing in 1977, and started to search for the cottages. He has examples of side loomshops, that have been converted into houses- and cellar loomshops that have been masked. Commons doesn't have a single illustration of any of these. I do think it is important to tie in the buildings to the technology. I am contented to move the more off scope bits to {{efn}}. I never mind a link, that may direct the reader to expand their area of research, so it becomes more multifacetted. I am a bit time short at the moment- so I am working on converting Timmin's line drawings of buildings into svgs to match the one I have done on the Macclesfield 3 storey terrace.

I always look at each of your edits as an improvement- so if I wander please correct me. I caution that Ashmore while essential, can be dated. Timmins cites him, and part of his research was based on questioning Ashmores data. Sometimes when I use the subjunctive or conditional it is because I doubt the material I am using for a reference and want to get later confirmation. You will see my prose is rather stilted so I rely on a good copyeditor.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)