Talk:Wood wool

message: was there a pattent for "Excelsior" granted ca 1900? There were several water powered mills established here in central NH about that time to make Excelsior from poplar logs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haywardpentagon (talk • contribs) 
:There were many patents on excelsior-cutting machines in the 1800s; here is an article that lists some. Dicklyon (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the blatant patent advert (cooling pads) to only the show the image in the patent, since anyways the patent was only for illustrative purposes. If it is notable enough it can be mentioned in the article. -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good change; but when I added that image for illustration, it was in no way intended as an advert, and I have no idea who might benefit from having that patent front page shown. Dicklyon (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You should, however, specify the source (e.g. patent number or link to the image it's cropped from) on the image page. Dicklyon (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, done that. Thanks for your positive feedback :) -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Patent query

message: I am not aware that the term Excelsior is synonym for wood wool worldwide. I believe that the more generic wood wool should be the actual article about wood wool, while the present article should focus on the Excelsior name and the use of this term.
Based on this line of thought, I went ahead with creating the article wood wool. It is certainly not "content fork", rather a more generic article.
Please note:
*Google search with wood wool without Excelsior 477.000
*Google search with wood wool with Excelsior 7.720
It was also indicated by User:Dicklyon that he can find no evidence that excelsior is a brand. I did not research this, so if I was wrong, I was wrong. I will have a look and report my findings, which, however, are not related to creating of a more generic article on wood wool.
--FocalPoint (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Plenty of sources from over a hundred years ago use the term generically.  This google search suggests that your numbers above don't begin to tell the whole story.  I would oppose a move to "wood wool".  Dicklyon (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

text: If you think a "more generic" article is needed, you need to share your sources for what it would cover.  Dicklyon (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't put much weight on a few gov docs.  Quick book search shows that "excelsior" is used in Canada, but "wood wool" in Europe.  Let's say so in the article, but don't rename it. Dicklyon (talk) 02:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks.  I shall be sure to consult them when I next have a harmonized trade problem. Dicklyon (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

text: So noted.  I'll refrain from the irony, and stick to more woody arguments. Dicklyon (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

text: True.  So why not go ahead and add that information here?  Making a separate article is a content fork, as I pointed out, and is not justified.  Now it appears that you're doing it again, and proposing a merge, as an awkward way to move this article.  There's a mechanism to propose a move if that's what you want to do.  Dicklyon (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree there is not nearly enough content here for a fork.  Furthermore, there is no confusion as both names are mentioned in the very first sentence.  So there should be one page (I don't have a preference for which name) and all the other likely ways the user might look it up should be re-directs.  This approach is the most common one used in Wikipedia when the same idea is referenced by different names.   See, for example cosmic microwave background radiation and relic radiation.   It's better than a content fork since most of the information is relevant no matter which name is used.   LouScheffer (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wood wool 

message: *UK company, has Excelsior TradeMarked
:Their claim of the term as a trade mark for their colored wood wool in not necessarily endorsed by any government agency via registration; nor can it cover the plain excelsior that was sold under that term for well over a century.
*American Excelsior Company
:Yes, they do make excelsior in America, and named their company after it.
::Does FocalPoint also believe that broadcasting is not a generic word because it is used in American Broadcasting Company? Or that steel is not a generic word (U.S. Steel)? The word excelsior is in dictionaries as a common noun for the wood product that is the subject of this article, which is definitive, so the trademark argument here is really a diversion. Further, Wikipedia should not have two articles on this rather small topic. Finell (Talk) 00:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I only posted some research. No arguments. There is no doubt in my mind that excelsior is the American name for wood wool. Is wikipedia an American institution or an encyclopedia of the whole world?--FocalPoint (talk) 08:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, they made excelsior, under this generic term, in the UK.
--FocalPoint (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

text: with my interlinear comments. Dicklyon (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Some references

message: Having been unsuccessful at getting FocalPoint to add his new info here instead of at his new content fork at wood wool, I went ahead and merged it myself, since there was apparent unanimous support for the merge proposal he inititated and just seemed to need help. Dicklyon (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This behaviour is really sad. Not only Dicklyon is deleting useful content from an article with the use of a redirect, but also he is including material which I contributed to wikipedia without asking for a proper merging of articles, in which my contribution would appear in history. This of course originates in his conviction that his opinion is "unanimously" supported. This of course derives from his sarcastic attitude in which he actually tries to present me as "just seemed to need help", in which he does not acknowledge my different opinion.--FocalPoint (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You added the merge proposal, which seemed to be an agreement with me and LouScheffer who opposed a split.  So I took that to be agreement.  No content was lost.  If you think it should go some other way, say so, focusing on content, not on me (review WP:NPA). Dicklyon (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with you. I am not happy with behaviour which in my opinion is not consistent with proper wikipedia editing. I am not happy with your actions. If you believe that my comments are directed at your person, please note that I have no such intention and accept my apologies for making you believe so.--FocalPoint (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

text: There was nothing wrong, or contrary to Wikipedia policy, in Dicklyon copying content from one article to a second article, provided the copied content is relevant to the second article. Doing so is especially appropriate here, since it is clear under WP:FORK that there should be only one article about this substance, and the only legitimate question is what the article should be named. Nor is there anything wrong in Dicklyon making a clearly proper edit without awaiting consensus. Further, although phrased in terms of "behaviour," FocalPoint appears to be directing his remarks at Dicklyon's person, writes with a judgmental and condescending tone that is non-collaborative and inappropriate, and is exhibiting signs of ownership. This controversy began with the creation of an article that was a clear violation of WP:FORK. FocalPoint should stop behaving like a pot who calls the kettle black. Finell (Talk) 12:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
* Oppose – As nominator, I oppose this move.  I proposed it because another editor keeps trying to move it improperly; this way we can have the discussion and see what the consensus is, and move it properly if that's the thing to do.  I prefer to keep it at Excelsior (wood wool), obviously, since I moved it here three years ago from wood wool.  To me, it makes sense to call the article by the generic name of the material that I've always known.  Admittedly, I grew up in the U.S., but so did excelsior.  It was invented and made at large scale in the U.S. in the 19th century.  The finest grades of excelsior are called wood wool, as numerous citations on this talk page and in the article show, which makes excelsior the broader term.  We also have clear citations of excelsior being used generically in the UK and in Germany so it's not just a US term.   The disambig page excelsior has an item for excelsior (wood wool), and wood wool redirects here unless FP has done his improper content fork again.  This looks better than putting a link to wood wool on the excelsior disambig page, in my opinion.  Lots of evidence is discussed above.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But you haven't heard of WP:ENGVAR?  In the US, wood wool is a much narrower concept than excelsior, as the cited sources show. Dicklyon (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Discuss the content, not the contributor, please. And it's not an ENGVAR issue, see below. Andrewa (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, but this 2007 book Divided by a Common Language explicitly characterizes wood wool versus excelsior as a UK vs US language difference.  Respect WP:ENGVAR.
*Oppose for most of the reasons stated by the other opposers. In my opinion, this is primarily an WP:ENGVAR dispute. The article was written in American English, both terms are in the article's title, and finding the article has nothing to do with it because of the redirect and the dual title. There is no sufficiently compelling reason to justify changing the name that this article has carried since it was created 2½ years ago. Finell (Talk) 13:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Comment: There is way too much heat being generated by both sides on an issue that is insignificant in terms of Wikipedia's usability by ordinary readers, which is what we are supposed to be about. It looks much more like a power struggle than a genuine content or policy dispute. Give it a rest, please! Finell (Talk) 13:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Note: You've got this backwards, I think.  This started as an argument, with useless content forks, reversions, sneaky tricks, accusations of bad faith, complaints to authority, etc.  Dick Lyon suggested putting it up to a vote, even though he opposed it, so here we are.  This is *much* better - people are arguing the case on its merits.  I agree it's not a big issue -see my reasons for caring below.   LouScheffer (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments:
The name and history of excelsior/wood wool seems to be interwoven with that of the American Excelsior Company (AEC henceforth... not to be confused with the United States Atomic Energy Commission, which was commonly known by those initials until 1974... showing my age...), despite claims (true for all I know) above that the term predates the company. But somebody invented the term and the product!
According to the AEC website, In the United States excelsior has no other general name; however, in many other countries excelsior is commonly known and referred to as wood wool. That doesn't seem accurate; Many US websites use both terms. It seems to me that the international term is wood wool.
Regardless of the result of this move request, a section in the article on the history of the product, the name and the company would be an excellent idea IMO. Andrewa (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at Dick's references, AEC was founded in 1888, but there is a patent for an excelsior-making machine from 1874.  So the term does pre-date the company (at least this specific company.. Was there an earlier one??).   So where did it come from?  It's somewhat of an odd word (Latin meaning 'higher') for wood shavings.  LouScheffer (talk) 12:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The OED cites several uses as a tradename (Excelsior Soap from 1851, Excelsior Playing cards, and so on, mostly but not all American) They claim the patent is from 1868; the machine was advertised in 1874. I assume the advertising use is from Longfellow. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Here is a mention in an 1873 newspaper, in quotation marks, indicating that it's not yet a widely known term, but is in use; some others about that time quote it and also captialize it (excess capitalization was not uncommon at the time).  As near as I can tell, it might be adapted from the name of the ASH tree (Fraxinus excelsior); it was also a common fancy or trademark name for high-quality products of the time, and was involved in more than a few trademark litigations as a result of its common/fancy status.  Dicklyon (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

text: As a generic noun, it only refers to this one substance, I think.   Dicklyon (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

text: If you'll change your vote, I can heap some incivility on you.  How come people who've never heard of this stuff are so willing to say what it should be called, anyway?  Dicklyon (talk) 06:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  I think it's *because* I never heard of it, and the meaning of excelsior (as a word) makes no sense in this context.  I sometimes consult wiki pages in other languages, and struggle my way through them (basically decoding as opposed to fluent reading).  I ignore words I don't know, except where they look important by context.  Now I imagine I'm a marginal reader of English, and I come to the page Excelsior (wood wool).  Excelsior looks real important (it's the first word of the title) but I don't know what it means.  Perhaps I look it up, which leaves me puzzled.  In the worst case, I give up.  But most likely I make a mental note and struggle on.  Eventually I find this word (though it looks like latin) is just another name for the material.  However, unless my question was "what's another name for wood wool?" this whole exercise is an unnecessary diversion.  If the name was wood wool, these are words I may already know, and it's easier to find the information I seek.  (This is not just a hypothetical situation.  We have hosted exchange students for many years, and this happens all the time - students get sidetracked by some odd word or construction in English, and you need to explain that first to un-confuse them, before you can get to the real question they were trying to answer.) Since one of them main strengths of Wikipedia (in my mind anyway) is its availability to all, and this change (IMO) makes it better for the marginal reader without hurting the experience for the fluent reader (they are already re-directed through the dis-ambig page if they search for excelsior), I vote for it.  Sorry for the long winded talk.  LouScheffer (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, same with others it appears.  Ignorance of the topic is a bad reason to not use its name, in my opinion.  I went over 50 years knowing it by its name and never hearing of wood wool, but people who've never heard of it don't want to use its name.  Weird.  Dicklyon (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: As has been stated above, this isn't simply a de-americanisation, which would be a violation of WP:ENGVAR. Rather, it's choosing between two terms for an article title, both of them current American English, one of them also internationally recognised, and both used in the article by its early authors. Andrewa (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the parenthetical wood wool was in the original article title when I started, because I found that as a disambiguating description; but "wood wool" did not appear in the article itself, since I had never heard of excelsior being called wood wool.  It was also not called wood wool in the drawing that I found to illustrate the article.  Dicklyon (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the history is a bit hard to follow but it seems that you started the article as Excelsior (wood wool) and it was a few months later while still a stub moved to wood wool. The talk page was started while it was at wood wool and you subsequently moved both pages back. But the point is, both terms were there right from the start, and both terms appear current in American English, so it's not an ENGVAR issue. Andrewa (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It has always been at the current name Excelsior (wood wool) since becoming more than a stub.  Moving it is arbitrary and capricious, imho. Dicklyon (talk) 06:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:ENGVAR

message: I found it: here.  This 1868 patent "Improved capillary material for filling gas and air carburettors" is on a new use for this material that "may be used in mass as it is sold and used as filling for mattresses, its commercial name being 'excelsior'."  This is the earliest description of the material by this name found by the OED.  There's no suggestion that this commercial name was ever a trademark for this material.  Dicklyon (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  1868 patent in which "excelsior" was generic already 

message: In the text, there is the sentence: 
"In North America the term excelsior is sometimes used more generally, for any clean, loose material for shipment-packing of boxes or crates, such as styrofoam packing peanuts"
I attempted to find proof of this and I ended up with the following references:
1. A site called Canadianmanufacturing.com which maintains what it calls "a comprehensive directory and search tool, providing information on Canadian industrial wholesalers, manufacturers, distributors and their products and services." In the "Search by product" it shows that a product category of "Paper Excelsior" exists Paper Excelsior Suppliers. This indicates the existence of the term "Paper Excelsior" in contrast with "Wood Excelsior".
:The page says "Paper Excelsior Suppliers, Manufacturers and Distributors are listed below. Paper Excelsior is just one of 22,000 products and services sourced on FRASERS.com, Canadas Online Industrial Directory and Search Engine."  This appears to be an automatically generated page based on some scraped words; the links there do not lead to any support for the idea that "Paper Excelsior" exists.  It is not a reliable source for anything. Dicklyon (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not find it unreliable, but it is a very lonely source, for sure.--FocalPoint (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

text: The office depot page mentions excelsior only in the title "American Excelsior Loose-Fill Peanuts"; this appears to be their trade name; it does not support the assertion that the term is used generically.  It might be, but this is not a reliable source for it. Dicklyon (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I too looked for support for this statement, but couldn't find any; excelsior seems to be always the wood shavings. Dicklyon (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

text: These are mere "clues", not "sources".  They are content-free.  Dicklyon (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Actually, a brief search shows that the Office Depot peanuts are just the ones made by American Excelsior.  See this article, which says also, "American Excelsior, a 113-year-old Arlington, Texas-based company, produces a variety of packaging and cushioning, erosion control and specialty products. Its original products are evaporative cooling pads made from excelsior wood, from which the company name is derived."  Dicklyon (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the term excelsior sometimes used more generally? 

message: As FocalPoint's recently-added history item makes clear, the product in Europe originally called wood wool was not excelsior, but something else entirely.  I've added a source indicating that it was also known as pine wood wool and pine needle wool, as it was made from pine needles.  Probably we should just take this stuff out, as it's unrelated to the article topic, which is excelsior by whatever name.  Dicklyon (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See, this is what I was objecting to; the topic of the article is excelsior, not wood wool; by moving it to wood wool doesn't mean that we've necessarily expanded the topic to all things called wood wool; this is one reason I objected to the move; it confuses what the topic is.  Dicklyon (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical use of the term wood wool 

message: The phrase "have been tried and not found to be as good" is using a reference where it is stated : 
"other substances have been tried ... but none of these are extensively used". Since the "not found to be as good" is not adequately supported, I am removing it.--FocalPoint (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Production

message: There is an adequate number of references here or more generally here showing alternative use of the terms wood wool and excelsior in the US. The current version of the text does not properly reflect this. My proposal is to improve the balance of the article and make mention of this.--FocalPoint (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While there has been a drift in the US toward "wood wool" apparently, it's a term that I personally had never heard, and there are still sources (like the 2007 one that I added) that specifically say that term refers to the finest grade.  I don't think we need a Brit to try to synthesize an alternative view of usage in the US to help push the language away from what's traditional here.  Dicklyon (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Balance to me means not letting the term "wood wool" further displace the traditional name of this product.  Just because we moved the article to keep you from screwing with it doesn't mean we ought to start saying wood wool where sources mostly call it excelsior. On the patent references, note that there are still more that call it excelsior without mentioning wood wool at all.  Dicklyon (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Balanced terminology

message: I changed from "The term wood wool is used in the US" to "was". The relevant reference is from 1918, with further references 1948, 1961. At the time of writing this text, 2009, it is 48 years after the last reference. More importantly, current usage of the term and references throughout the previous discussion do not indicate that there are such differences anymore.--FocalPoint (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You can add any references you like, but there is overwhelming evidence that the product still goes by the name excelsior.  It can also be called wood wool, but this is less common in the US. Dicklyon (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Are you ignoring ref 3, from 2007, that specifically states the finest grades are called wood wool?  If you want to add a statement supported from another sources, without putting this into past tense, that might be OK.  But it sounds like what you're trying to do is synthesize a statement from usage in multiple refs, rather than finding someone else's statement about usage; this is less acceptable; see WP:SYNTH. Dicklyon (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, I agree with you that most sellers of excelsior in the U.S. never use the term "wood wool"; it's a largely unknown term here.  I think it's also the case that the fine grades that would go by that term are seldom used.  But "lack of supporting evidence has to be mentioned" is not a concept I've ever seen before; how does that relate to WP:RS?  Dicklyon (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I added more specific terminology info in the form of a table from a current US MIL-SPEC. Dicklyon (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

text: This is your view, but can you show a source that takes this view? Dicklyon (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Kevin, thanks for that clarification.  I had seen it in a MIL-SPEC list, so I thought that was the applicable term, but maybe not.  It's interesting that the government says they no longer procure such stuff. Dicklyon (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The saying and doing are often radically different. I still see drawings noting MIL specs superseded 30 years ago. i think it means they are no longer supposed to procure it. Kevin (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: * http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-59320533.html wood wool history in Europe
* http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1955/nov/02/wood-wool-duty Records from the UK, duties
* http://www.mum.org/collection.htm the 1880-1900 wood wool for menstrual pads
* http://rcnarchive.rcn.org.uk/data/VOLUME028-1902/page421-volume28-24thmay-1902.pdf medical dressings (The Nursing Record and Hospital World)
Some other references for the article. I might come at some point and use them, if someone wants to use them now, go ahead.--FocalPoint (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your last two are pretty much off-topic, being about the other stuff known as "wood wool" or "pine needle wool", which is not part of the topic of this article, but is mentioned already as other things known as wood wool; it would be good not to confuse them. Dicklyon (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Some other references

message: Both Wood Wool and Excelsior are used interchangeably in this article. I suggest most uses of Excelsior be changed for consistencies sake... Smarkflea (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistency