Talk:Weaving

message: I'd like to add a short paragraph about the modern handweaving revival (1930s to today) as a jumping off point for other Articles / Categories
smIsle (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Handweaving in History Section? 

message: The paragraph on Industrial revolution says: in the uplands weavers worked from home on a putting-out system. Where are the uplands? I think it should be linked. Does it refer to Southern Uplands? --Ettrig (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uplands 

message: I'd like to add a section about tablet weaving to the history section, but I'm not sure where to put it. It was pretty much all in Europe, but it started well before the medieval period. Should that header just be changed to Europe in general? Bufobuff (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Card weaving? 

message: — Assignment last updated by Weeniedoglover13 (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Sexuality in World Civilizations I

message: Would a section about notable weavers, especially women, be beneficial to the page? It might be good to begin a running list to prompt others to keep learning about weaving and the different practices in the world. We can make an intentional effort to include non-Western weavers.  Weeniedoglover13 (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable weavers list? 

message: *The conversion of the reference from Collier to Lydon (since removed) doesn't appear to be warranted. However we do not currently know whether the text is an author's acceptable paraphrase of the material in Collier, or a copy paste.Updated below after reviewing the book.
*One concern I had was whether the IP editor in 2004 copy and pasted the material from the source, in which case we would have the challenge of appropriately paraphrasing it. However, I have now seen the second edition of the book page 114 and can confirm that it is not a copy paste. In fact, I'm concerned about whether the statement in the article logically follows from the book. The word "weft" and "repp", and "weave" exist, But I don't see anything about spacing or covering the weft, or warpfaced textile or or tapestry or killim rug. I immediately concede to lack of knowledge of the subject matter but it isn't at all obvious to me that the source document supports this three sentence paragraph.
:: , I also  but it looks to me as though the original 2004 edit and the 2005 edit were done by editors who weave themselves. I looked at some YouTube videos which confirm what our text says about warp and weft-faced weaves (warp-faced weave, weft-faced weave). According to WP, tapestries and Kilim rugs are weft-faced weaves, so our text appears to be correct. I added a couple of "verify citation" tags to the paragraph. I don't have access to the cited source yet; if it doesn't support the text, we should be able to find better sources elsewhere.  - is this sentence even necessary? Different types of looms are mentioned in Weaving#Types and Weaving#Other_cultures.  Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes (to my knowledge, seeing the source is required for that kind of verification, no?). I don't have access to the full source right now -- it's in print at my partner's school's library and they're not off of break yet -- but I was able to find excerpts and while I see what that user is saying, the examples and elaborations make sense to me and are not something I would consider in need of additional citation. Rather, from what I see, it looks like more of a paraphrase of the general knowledge from that source, and there is not necessarily a specific page or quote that will capture that information perfectly. In other words, it's more of an academic-style citation than a Wikipedia-style citation, but feels sufficient to me. Edenaviv5 (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current status