Talk:Spinning (textiles)

message: The modern spinning of textiles is a highly technical process and there are two common and very distinctly different methods. Convention ring spinning uses a continuous band (for want of a better term) of fibres which are unbroken during manufacture. By contrast open-end spinning depends on that continuous band being deliberately broken down into a stream of fibres. They are independant of one another usually in a stream of air. The great advantage of open-end spinning is that to insert twist into the yarn only the end of the yarn needs to be rotated. Whereas in conventional ring spinning the whole package of yarn must be rotated to insert twist. This limits the speed of ring spinning to a maximum of approximately 25,000rpm, whilst open-end machines are capable of in excess or 100,000rpm. However the downside is that open-end yarns are not as strong as ring spun yarns and the fabrics are not as soft handling and usually not as hard wearing - but they are less expensive.
So in conclusion I believe there is a case to be made for expanding the section on textile spinning to include open-end spinning.
That is all.
Yes, and thank you! As so often with English-language entries, the article itself deals with the old handicraft and neglects the modern aspect almost entirely. I appreciate that the old crafts are interesting, and still relevant, but some of us also need information on - and terms for, I'm a translator - the modern industrial processes. 78.48.210.118 (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern spinning

message: The WP:LEAD could probably be doubled in size in order to adequately summarize the rest of the article.  Then we could use part or all of that Lead/Intro text, and add this article to Portal:Textile arts.  Drop a note on my talk page if/when this article's lead gets expanded a bit more.  Cirt (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:LEAD]] 

message: A lovely new image from the Tropenmuseum, but I can't find a place for it.  Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:    Image 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Ramallah spinner2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 1, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-07-01. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng  {chat} 23:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Ramallah spinner2.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: I've just added a small paragraph about current offerings in handspinning education. Does anyone know of other accredited programs other than the ones listed?--Vcmiller (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Very valid to an article on Hand-spinning in Alberta, but of zero significance to two centuries of industrialisation, in five continents. I can the historical reasons why this happened but I think we really need to do a split and take all the hand-spinning and hobby text into its own article- I would suggest Hand-spinning as a title, leaving this to be pared down and reformed into an overview. Is there a better title?  I am happy to do the legwork if this is acceptable. I'll leave it a week for a few comments. I am also concerned about the quality of article on Weaving, and Weaver which redirects there. --ClemRutter (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Looking further into it. It appears that this article was originally called Hand spinning but was clumsily renamed in 2006 --ClemRutter (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spinning Education 

message: As explained above I found that the level of detail on Hand spinning was hindering the development of an overview article on spinning textiles- a major industry in India- a major economic engine. The hand spinning material was good but in the wrong place. Research shows that a editor Melissab 00:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work, thanks very much. - PKM (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I deeply resent your completely false accusation against me.  You are totally misrepresenting the issue.  I did nothing more than to keep a consistently American spelled article American.  I am starting to think I bought a load of BS from you when I allowed you to change it to British. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting the article 

message: The flaw in this criticism, that the article is not worldwide but about the United Kingdom the historical “break-out” of the “First industrial Revolution.”
These textile machines and more were invented and developed in England and Scotland. They led to the UK as a powerhouse able to have world-historical impact. It is not Western European history, it dominated the direction of history for nearly 200 years and concentrated enormous wealth in England.
When a similar outbreak in the USA happened, with Samuel Slater’s mill in Rhode Island followed by industrial startups in Pennsylvania and New England and elsewhere, MANY historians say Slater broke the laws on intellectual property by stealing the English designs. 2601:14D:8A00:36C0:BCB7:3874:3F90:53A8 (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The spinning jenny criticism as mostly England