Talk:Polar fleece

message: There's no mention of this in the article but googling one of the top results says "Fleece is the worst shedder". 
Of course it's hard to say if this is really the biggest contributor to plastic in the ocean.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14B8:100:2A9:0:0:0:2 (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  fleece shedding synthetic particles washing? 

message: I'm skeptical of the idea that "polar fleece" is more common than "fleece" as a term to describe any brand of synthetic fleece.  
Searching the web for usage doesn't help much, since most search results are product ads, which might deliberately use "polar fleece" for MM's products, or might deliberately avoid it for others products.  So I tried a google books search, looking for "polar fleece jacket" (40 results) or "fleece jacket" (623 results).  So it seems that 94% of the usage is just plain "fleece" without the polar.  (I used "jacket" to be sure it wasn't other uses of the word.  From the sampling of the 623 I did, those results were all the stuff that this article is about.)  Another idea was to look for lists of what to take on a backpacking trip.  So I searched for ("backpacking trip" list fleece) (13,700 results) and ("backpacking trip" list "polar fleece") and got 166 results.  That means 98.8% of the use is just "fleece" without the "polar".  
So unless there is some major evidence to the contrary it seems that we should describe the stuff as fleece in the article, with a mention that it is also called polar fleece or synthetic fleece.  The remaining question is how to title the article and handle redirects/disambiguation/etc.  Ccrrccrr 00:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The original material appearing on the market in the late 1970s was both called and marketed as "Polar Fleece."  While the shortened term, "fleece," is in common use, I observe Wikipedia has an entry for "automobile" but not "auto" or "car."  Oh, wait...  "Automobile" redirects to "car."  Well, gee, that's nonsense!  Anyway, I agree that "fleece" is too broad, and that "polar fleece" is an apt description for the contents of this article.  As for it's manufacture, it is heated, melted, spun, drawn, crimped, cut, baled, dyed, knitted, napped, and yes, sheared!  For a detailed description, please review Polyester Fleece.Clepsydrae (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polar fleece vs. fleece 

message: Whats considered dubious--that it absorbs less moisture, or that that characteristic can lead to a sweaty feeling?Ccrrccrr 02:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sweaty 

message: I just reverted a large number of edits.  I'm sorry Ls09mba--I know you put a lot of work into that and there was some really useful information and there were helpful collections of references added.  But some of it was direct quotes from the references, which is a copyright violation even with the attribution.  And most of it was from Malden Mills PR stuff, and read like their ad copy (in some cases, because it was their ad copy, word-for-word).  I know that it's not very welcoming to a new editor to revert all the edits, but copyright violations are not at all a gray area--see the policy page on this.
The other problems include the fact that the edit removed the proper  lead section, and that it made the article into something approach an advertisement; if the article got to that point it might get deleted as such, according to this policy.
I hope I haven't scared you away and that you'll contribute to expanding and improving the article, while maintaining a neutral point of view.Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting note--that you need a screenshot for a school project.  I hope you realize that that will document your copyright violations and, at many schools, would make you eligible for serious disciplinary action.Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I saw this issue posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion.  I agree that the removal of the copyvio content was absolutely necessary per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.  — Athaenara  ✉  03:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted many edits 

message: Although I agree that some rewording might help, I don't see any serious NPOV or OR problems here.  If you see a specific problem, please discuss it here as suggested in the tag.  Otherwise I assume the dispute (if any) is resolved and will remove the tag.
Ccrrccrr (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed, i will remove the tagScientus (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV, OR tags 

message: The primary advantage to fleece is that it is a great way to survive the elements encountered outdoors.  Since the properties are mainly polyester, moisture passes through it rather than being absorbed by the fibers, such as cotton. What this means in the outdoor application is that water, vapor, and sweat are not held to your skin, thereby keeping you drier and thus warmer.
Any outdoor enthusiast can atest to sudden temperature changes, fast moving storms, and cold-weather survival requiring protection that enables moisture control.  Fleece is a light-weight solution. Wool will do the same with addition weight. Fleece is a necessity on every outdoor adventure, even if you think you won't need it. Hopefully you won't. The best way to get into trouble outdoors, is wearing cotton and have a sudden storm roll up on you.  Not only will you begin to shiver (wasted energy), but also your pack will be heavy if you use a fiber which absorbs the water. If it's raining or overcast, it may be a long time before it dries out. The only cotton item I take in the wilderness is a bandana.
Fleece is the answer to recycling plastic bottles into a functional, long-lasting, garment that has the potential to save you from hypothermia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AeroMoon (talk • contribs) 14:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advantages of Fleece, Polar or not 

message: The article as it stands has three basic sections:  an intro, and a pros and cons list broken into a list of advantages, and a similar list of disadvantages.  This is shabby;  I'm sure a person who is curious enough about the stuff to look it up here can find more questions than "what's good or bad about it?"
It would be nice to agree on what exactly the advantages/disadvantages section intends to discuss, to spell that out clearly, and possibly to extend the discussion from there.  This came up in another comment, above, about whether the list is supposed to list every conceivable disadvantage of the fabric, or only to compare it against other outdoor activewear fabrics.  I assume it means the latter, but it's better not to have to assume.
On that note, some of the items in the list may require more description than comfortably fits into a bullet point.  ( For example, the fact that fleece won't kill you like cotton is listed as a con, with a parenthetical about how this can be a good thing. )  I'm not sure how this should best be handled, but, I think if the article evolves a bit, these sort of questions might work themselves out.
Finally, under external links, the third has no text other than [1].  I'm not sure how to change this, but it's not very helpful.  Nobody will click a link having to guess where it might take them.  Perhaps somebody can add a decent description - or remove the link?
--SeattleHiker (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree completely: I'd be hesitant to label this as start-class, even.  The pros and cons list really isn't encyclopedic, and should be formatted in complete sentences (with citations) rather than as a series of bullet points.  Given the use of recycled fleece by stores such as Mountain Equipment Co-Op and others, there's really no reason for "made of petroleum" to be a con, either.  SeattleHiker, I'd be happy to work with you to improve this article.  In the meantime, I'll fix that external link!Jhfortier (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. On the issue of absorbency vs. cotton, the killer effect of cotton is not that it absorbs moisture, but that it loses insulation capability when it does.  Wool absorbs moisture but doesn't lose much of its insulation capability when it does, and that's why it's reputed to be a wonderful wilderness fabric unlike cotton. Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've re-structured the "Advantages and disadvantages" section to make it prose, rather than a list.  Hopefully the links and citations translated well (I haven't actually checked the references, but I moved them when I restructured).  Let me know what you think.  Jhfortier (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a big improvement!  Thanks!  Would it make sense to change the section heading at this point, maybe to something like "suitability for outdoor wear" or something along those lines?  You've transformed the section from a laundry list into, well, something more useful, I think.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeattleHiker (talk • contribs) 19:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if specifying it as an outdoor fabric is really suitable.  I have all sorts of polar fleece items, including bedsheets, blankets, shawls, pillow cases, etc., in addition to the vests, pants etc. used for camping.  I do agree that perhaps a more descriptive subheading would be appropriate, but my exam-addled brain just can't think of one right now.  I'll take another crack at it tomorrow, when I'm finished my finals for the term!  Jhfortier (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs restructuring 

message: The article says that "Regular fleece is not windproof[6]."  But if you click on footnote 6, the polartec webpage says that it is windproof.  Type, perhaps?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.141.194.113 (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  It says "Regular fleece is not windproof" but the link says it "is windproof"