Talk:Yoga mat

Undue coverage of futon mat

Clarisyren: thank you for your thoughts, but I don't agree. I know you're new, but the procedure is Editor1 proposes a change boldly (you); Editor2 evaluates it and reverts if need be - this was a partial revert, in fact (me); then we discuss - it's wrong (edit-warring) for you to have reverted a second time, and indeed very boldly to have gone ahead and added more of the same. What is more, you (aggressively?) removed cited material, for which you would get a formal warning on your talk page if this wasn't your first editing outing; and you wrongly asserted that the existing material was salesy, it isn't in the slightest. I have reverted your deletion, but your repeatedly-added material needs now to be discussed.

The futon mat seems to be one of the less common types. That does not mean it cannot be mentioned, but it does certainly mean it should not have more coverage than any other type, which you've now given it. That is called WP:UNDUE coverage. I also appreciate that you are not an employee and are not directly involved in selling yoga mats, I will take that in good faith. However, the material is much too detailed for the context; if it were the number 1 kind of mat in use across the western world, it might perhaps be an appropriate level of detail, though even then the discussion of biodegradability and chemicals seems to be frankly off-topic. The new citations are in principle welcome but I haven't evaluated them yet. However given the unbalanced amount of coverage of this minor subtopic, we should cut the paragraph down substantially. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Unless there's an actual justification of the need for much larger coverage of this specific subtopic - we agree a brief mention at least is justified - then I propose to cut down the paragraph to match the coverage of other materials mentioned in the article. I see no reason to single out one (rare) type and describe it more than any other type, indeed it seems quite indefensible. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Clarisyren: you are continuing to add to the contested paragraph, and are not replying to my serious concerns about it. It would be better to reach some sort of consensus rather than continuing to edit against consensus, let alone making patronising remarks (below) about my not needing to comment or edit if I didn't want to. The problem is that I see you damaging the article and I'm not happy with that, so unfortunately you have my attention. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I have only added citations to the paragraph, not added to the paragraph. In fact, I have shortened it considerably. I don't see what "serious" concerns I have not replied to? I also think it's great that we now agree that a brief mention could be in order, even though you completely removed the paragraph and marked it "salesy" at first. I don't think it is undue coverage - it is a small paragraph and other yoga mat styles, including those than can have customs prints etc. - dominate the article and the pictures. The article is generally not that comprehensive, so maybe elaborating on other yoga mat styles could be a way to make it more balanced? I'm also very open to suggestions on how to shorten the paragraph, maybe by removing one or two sentences or moving the remarks about material considerations?

Almost true, there were additions apart from citations; but the paragraph remains much too long. No other type has anything like as much coverage, even the types used by tens of millions of people. There was no moment at which I thought there should be *no* coverage of futon mats; I thought, and still think, that very brief coverage would be appropriate, and at most the same amount of coverage as more widely-used types. I actually find it hard to understand how you might think, objectively, that a minor type should be covered in such depth; it is exactly not small compared to the coverage of the other types, and Wikipedia is not a catalogue. However, rather than waste even more time on arguing, I propose to take up your suggestion of demonstrably balancing the coverage by refactoring the material into a table comparing the main types of mat, in which the futon will get a row like all the rest. What it will emphatically not get is a mega-row five times as detailed as any other entry. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't like you calling my remarks "patronising" etc., please stay content-oriented. I understand you dislike what I have added, but I would love if we could keep this discussion about the content and not about each other. I think I have added value to the article, both with my mention of a new style and with my remarks about other parts of the article that were biased or at least wasn't supported by citations. I have looked into this (not only the futon style mats, but material and styles in general) a lot and would love to share what I have found. I'm perfectly fine with the attention, it is only unfortunate if you would like to do something else, as you previously said. If you think I have "damaged" something, let's have a discussion about what you think could be improved. I really hope we can get get a good collaboration out of this.Clarisyren (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I thought it important to let you know. Believe me, I understand you intend to add value, having assumed good faith from the beginning, or I would have issued formal warnings. I think it remarkable you have managed to cite sources so carefully for a beginner, by the way, it must have taken considerable effort. That doesn't mean I don't think the effort is misplaced, which I still do having slept on it, always a good guide. In particular I think the list of chemicals inappropriate; it might be as well to reflect that cotton is an exceptionally pesticide-heavy crop, with a large environmental impact, while sheep are widely treated with insecticides in sheep-dips, so wool isn't necessarily environmentally beneficial either, i.e. the claims are readily disputable, not proven fact. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Futon mats

To Chiswick chap: Why did you completely remove a paragraph about a mat style not mentioned or write it off as "salesy" (despite a link being to a yoga studio who mostly does teaching and doesn't ship the mats they sell internationally)? A lot of the content on this page no doubt seems salesy. I have added more references. Wikipedias protocol is: "When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. " This article made it seem as though there was a smooth transition from tiger and deers skins to PVC mats, which no doubt serves those who sell PVC mats, but is should be clear that cotton and futon style mats (resembling those used in tai chi practice) have been used before the rubber or plastic mats.

See the thread above, and please reply there. I removed most of it - not all, I merged the rest, with the only citation - as WP:UNDUE, which I still believe it is, and as I said in my edit comment, so please read first. Please reply there, not here.

You undid the entire paragraph at first. I am sorry to bring this up, and I am happy if we now agree that it has some relevance. I believe we made the threads simultaneously (but I am new to the interface), but we can use whatever thread you like. Clarisyren (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I kept the cited sentence, as I said. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

This is not cited material, as far as I can tell: "Some companies print custom images on mats, especially the more expensive ones. " The link is to a specific manufacturer, who makes custom prints on yoga mats. However, they do not state that they are usually more expensive, and they seem to be in the middle price range when compared to the mats mentioned in the customer tests. So shouldn't it be deleted?

I'll check... I've adjusted the wording and added two recent mat-comparison sources from the rapidly-rising number of such pages available.

I might just be too suspicious, but I can't help but get a gut feeling that you are associated with the Gaiam brand or similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarisyren (talk • contribs) 13:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

You are being way too suspicious; you should not jump to conclusions on the basis of a momentary acquaintance with a single article. I am not associated with any yoga or manufacturing company of any kind, and you should please Assume Good Faith of experienced editors. If you had looked, you would have found that I have written dozens of yoga articles including this one, bringing many of them through a formal review process. I have no bias to any company, school, or style of yoga; I've covered all sorts; and many non-yoga topics. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I will assume good faith then. Clarisyren (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe health and environmental issues should have it's own parahraph? Clarisyren (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

If it were a major concern and specially about mats, possibly, but honestly it's a tangential issue for anything as simple as a yoga mat - the concern applies across the whole of industry, especially mining, manufacturing, and agriculture, and you will find it covered amply in those sectors. There are literally thousands of products made with the kinds of materials (rubber, plastic, ...) used for yoga mats, and they don't all need their separate environmental sections repeating the same thing over and over again. It really isn't an appropriate topic here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I see your point about not repeating information. I am not sure I agree with this being a tangential issue for yoga mats though, as different materials can be an important attribute when deciding on a mat. Yoga practicioners are usually conscious about health and environmental issues, and you can have extensive skin contact with your mat daily. To some degree, material has already been mentioned. I agree that it should not bee and in-depth paragraph on all the environmental issues with or chemical properties of different materials. But maybe a somewhat comprehensive list of the most common materials used for yoga mats (PVC with or without glass fibre reinforcement, NBR rubber, natural rubber/latex, TPE, cork combinations, jute combinations, cotton etc. ) and the most obvious pros and cons, including performance and environmental issues - with a link to the more in-depth articles about specific materials - would be beneficial. This could include a mention that some PVC mats are Oeko-Tex 100 certified. I will not add it to the article now, but I think it is an idea worth considering. I look forward to any input on this. Clarisyren (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm very glad to hear you won't. In the unlikely event of a scholar writing a book or detailed analysis specifically about the contamination of yoga mats, as opposed to rubber, plastic and other common materials used more generally, then of course we can include it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The article doesn't only include citations of books or detailed analyses made by scholars as it is. Is there any reason this should be demanded when it comes to material? Clarisyren (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Alignment mat

Is there any confirmation that alignment mats actually help with alignment? Or is it possible that correct alignment/placement of body parts is individual and depends on body size? Clarisyren (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Could you please stop creating threads, this is becoming frankly tendentious. I'd be glad to get on with a different project, and I'd also be glad to close down the futon thing which is frankly overblown by an order of magnitude. No claim is made that the mats actually help; all that is said is that they are supposed to. We are not supposed to use our own reasoning here, but of course if there's a line to put your feet on, it can hardly make alignment more difficult. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I see you made an edit about alignment mats that makes it more neutral, thank you.

Why should I stop making threads? Are new threads with new discussions not encouraged? I thought this would benefit the quality of the article. This is an open question from a new member.

This thread is not about futon style mats, I don't know why it is brought up in a question on alignment mats. I don't think a paragraph on futon style mats are "overblown by an order of magnitude", but this is probably due to my different experience and living in another part of the world where this style is not uncommon. This thread is not even about futon style mats, though, so I won't comment further on it in this thread.

If you would like to get on with a different project than this article, I really hope I haven't given you the impression that I would like to hold you back. At least "Most situations are not actually urgent; there are no deadlines on Wikipedia, and perfection is not required. " (This is a quote of the wiki dispute resolution page.)

We have different experiences, and we contribute with different perspectives and knowledge. Thousands of people practice yoga (with mats) all over the world every day, so of course we have different ideas on what information would benefit this article. I am very open to any calm, meaningful and content-oriented discussions about it. Yes, I am a new member, and I am trying to learn how to use the interface. I joined to contribute with the knowledge I have, and I would like to do so through meaningful discussions if needed. I guess and hope this is probably something we really agree on, but I also 100% respect if you or any other specific member do not wish to take part in a specific discussion. I genuinely wish you a nice day. Clarisyren (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Noted. I don't think any further action is needed here, despite the profusion of words expended. Brevity is a valued quality on talk pages, as in articles; many editors write "tl;dr" when confronted with a screed of text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)