Talk:Cotton mill

message: Textile mill redirects here. Is this correct? Are there not other kinds of textiles not using cotton? -- Centrx 20:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there were 'silk mills' (q.v. John Lombe) so there may be a need for a disambig page.  Noisy | Talk 23:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have converted Textile mill into a disambiguation page, but this merely reveals that more articles are needed.  Peterkingiron 17:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect?

message: Trying not to be biased (as it is my part of the world!), shouldn't there be a mention of (what is now) the Greater Manchester region (which was sometimes called "Cottonpolis", and "King Cotton"), specifically places like Oldham - which was the most productive cotton spinning town in the world, and Royton - which was the first town (though not settlement) where a cotton mill was built (and the place where the last was built in England). I realise there may be other regions which played a role in the evolution of the cotton mill, but I think these are fairly significant, even just for a passing mention. Thoughts? Jhamez84 13:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cottonpolis

message: The article is tagged as lacking sources, but I see a good amount of sources on the page and no discussion as to a complaint about sources missing. I've taken the tag out for lacking sources, but this talk section is here in case someone complains :) Silivrenion 11:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lacking Sources? 

message: I have added the following, if someone can think of a better way to integrate this please do, Roller Spinning machine was extremely important and the fact it gave rise to Arkwright's water frame even more so..
'In 1738 Lewis Paul and John Wyatt, of Birmingham, patented a Roller Spinning machine and a flyer-and-bobbin system, for drawing cotton to a more even thickness, using two sets of rollers that travelled at different speeds. This principle was the basis of Richard Arkwright later water frame.'
1757: Rev John Dyer of Northampton recognises the importance of the Paul and Wyatt cotton spinning machine in poem:
"A circular machine, of new design 
In conic shape: it draws and spins a thread 
Without the tedious toil of needless hands. 
A wheel invisible, beneath the floor, 
To ev'ry member of th' harmonius frame, 
Gives necessary motion. One intent 
O'erlooks the work; the carded wool, he says, 
So smoothly lapped around those cylinders, 
Which gently turning, yield it to yon cirue 
Of upright spindles, which with rapid whirl 
Spin out in long extenet an even twine."
see also: science and invention in Birmingham  Thanks Nick Boulevard 14:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roller Spinning machine 

message: I would stress that the jenny and mule were NOT initially powered machines and did not require mills.  I thus have grave doubts as to whether the jenny should appear in this article at all.  It certainly should not have been interjected into the middle of a discussion of the water frame, even if it might chronologically fit there.  I have tried to rectify this problem.  However, the article does not at present say enough about developments in carding, which Arkwright incorporated inot this second (but invalid) patent.  Peterkingiron 23:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must stress, with regards to Royton - that if you don't like, or don't agree with the paragraph, it's not grounds to remove/undermine it. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability; not truth and not point of view. There are now four seperate sources stating the first cotton mill was in 1764 in Royton. That it didn't employ certain technologies is irrelevant as it was still, verifiabily, the first cotton mill. Jhamez84 23:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spinning jenny and mule 

message: I have just removed the following recetn addition:
:There were many accidents in the cotton mills where many people lost limbs and even their own lives.
If the contributor wishes this to be part of the article, he (or she) needs to find a means of includign it without upsetting the flow of the article, and to cite an appropriate source.  The statement may be well true, but requires proper discussion, not merely a bland statement.  Peterkingiron 18:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent addition 

message: I've changed the title of the first section from "Great Britain" to "Development of the Cotton Mill", as the former implies that the section is only of local relevance. The story of the development of the cotton mill in Britain is that of the development of the cotton mill globally during the period under discussion. JimmyGuano (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: First section title

message: I am working on List of mills owned by the Lancashire Cotton Corporation Limited and you are all welcome to join me. In short I added 53 fair use images of Cotton Mills and them needed to populate each of the Notes boxes with something more than was printed in 1951 in this publicity. But is this supposed to be the article on Cotton Mills? Nice touch on Herefordshire- and a good unreferenced section on one of the six processes on producing cotton fabric- but were are the mills? Were are the links to Stott and Sons, the prodigious mill architects? Am I the only one to possess Joseph Naismiths book? Am I going to tread on any toes if I do a bit of surgery and refocus the article on Cotton Mills?
*See also :Category:Lists of textile mills in the United Kingdom --ClemRutter (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that the answer to the issue that you raise is to have another article to provide an expansion of the second paragraph of Water frames.  That paragraph could also usefully be expanded, but not by too much, otherwise it will unbalance the article.  I would suggest that you start a further article, such as Cotton mills in Lancashire.  There was (I think) a book in one of the archaeology series, possibly British Archaeological Reports, or an English Heritage series on Cotton Mills of East Lancashire to provide you with a source.  List articles have their place, but it is better if there are substantive articles, which can be placed in a category.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Going in cold would be the wrong way to do it. When I have done a major job in the past, I have built up the structure of the articles in my sand box so the articles development is not impeded by existing material- and the existing article remains undamaged until we have a consensus on what will replace it. I am sure that the task is big- and even before we start we need to write some supporting articles: but we do have some excellent resources Manchester City Councils Spinning the web Site has an archive section. Naismiths book is excellent, the references on List of mills owned by the Lancashire Cotton Corporation Limited gives many good leads. We can't limit the text to Lancashire, Stockport was Cheshire, Todmorden was Yorkshire, Dinting and Glossop and Masson Mill were Derbyshire but the final title is well down the line. So I have created a page, User:ClemRutter/Cotton and when real life events (end of UK tax year!) have been dealt with, I will start doing some work. --ClemRutter (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cotton Mills?

message: The present structure suggests that all mills were converted to steam power in 1800.  This is patently wrong and probably not what is intended, but the application of dates to the headings implies this.  Anyway, was the mill at Ancoats really the first to be driven directly by steam power? Watt devised a rotary engine in the 1780s, though the uptake of it was relatively slow.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  steam engines 

message: Where are all the Mills now?  What's all this about Japan? Janeyjo (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''MILLS''' 

message: I would not seek to diminish the importance of the American cotton industry, but having a long paragraph with detail of the history of the Beverley Mill in the middle of what is largely an account fo the techological developemtn of the industry seems out of place.  Perhpas we need to collect the American paragraphs inot a separate section.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: American mills

message: Mule-spinners' cancer often developed not just in the scrotum (and mouth), but in nearby skin (he scrotal area), and also developed in the vulvar region of female mule spinners. It is caused by the mineral oil used to lubricate the machines.  See Skin Cancer: Recognition and Management, http://books.google.com/books?id=X6CMGuQmQi4C&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=Mule-Spinners+Cancer&source=bl&ots=7u_YgECWSE&sig=FpN8c9xEE_ech5Z-u9ojUz-wxVY&hl=en&ei=Yye8Tdr7IZCbtweg9Oi5BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBDgU#v=onepage&q=Mule-Spinners%20Cancer&f=false, p. 55. Ileanadu (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is plenty of material, so Ive stubbed an article Mule spinners' cancer after the 1964 BJIM spelling. --ClemRutter (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Just need the the CC-BY-SA images- do you have any suitably qualified contacts who may volunteer. --ClemRutter (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mule-Spinners' Cancer 

message: If there are issues please explain them here.--ClemRutter (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globalise hatbox. 

message: This huge and massively prominent diagram doesn't seem to add much actual value to the article. It is full of obscure processes that aren't explained anywhere so is only going to confuse and frustrate readers, rather than really aiding anybody's understanding of anything. Additionally it would seem to be over a century old, and is thus unlikely to represent the modern cotton manufacturing process that ought to be the focus of this part of the article (even a cursory overview suggests that the "spinning" bit is out of date - mule spinning isn't used that much these days, but the diagram makes no mention of open-end spinning, which is now very common). Should it be deleted? If we need a better overview of the wider cotton manufacturing process more explanatory text in the "Cotton processing" section would seem a lot more useful? JimmyGuano (talk) 08:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absence of any protests i've removed this. As an additional consideration, it completely breaks when viewed on a mobile platform JimmyGuano (talk) 07:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Short of time at the moment- guests arriving. There is an issue that needs to be discussed, things move on. At the time I did the template it was because I failed to see how to express Cotton processing in succinct text. These guys were into making money, and if there was a market they would revise the process. I have not seen one clear description of why a Noble comber was necessary- or indeed how it was different from carding. It was important and it made money but only in a small sector. The diagram demonstrates the complexity of the industry and eventually each term should link to an article on that process. But in those days we didn't have to consider mobile phone rendering... a lot to discuss. ... -- Clem Rutter (talk) 09:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jimmy Guano, the diagram added nothing. I hope I can add some sourced material as the article develops, it's certainly heading in the right direction now. Although I have copyedited the lead I do think it will need to be redone when the article is more complete. J3Mrs (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The big Cotton Manufacturing Processes diagram 

message: I'm not convinced by the recent change of lead image - firstly it's not a cotton mill, it's a former cotton mill, and secondly it's not distinctively a cotton mill, it could be any big red brick building. The previous one seemed to give a much better impression of what it is to be a cotton mill. JimmyGuano (talk) 07:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Better images are available- it is the task of selecting one that represents 1780 to 2013. We must avoid cliche- which rules out using Masson, Cromford, or Quarry Bank and other museums. Personally Stott mills are a favourite. All cotton mills are former cotton mills- Redhill Street has the advantage of appearing in the quote- there are more spindles in one street in Manchester than in all of ..... (was it Switzerland). What I am against is using a Hine- a social historian who was documenting child labour in the States 100 years after UK factory acts had tacked the problem- (The Lib of Congress has mis labelled the image- it is a doubler.) It says nothing about the architecture- and it un-representatively late. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 09:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image 

message: Cotton mill design ==> Architecture. Good.
This is where it gets difficult. 
I have always had difficulty with that list but couldn't find a reliably referenced way to express it in prose. Looking back I cant even find the source of the list- I had assumed it was Farnie. We need a couple of strong paragraphs here to give direction and tie in the subsections.
I will have a look Monday night when I have some time, and have another go. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cotton mill design 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Cotton mill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090227063040/http://invention.smithsonian.org:80/centerpieces/whole_cloth/u2ei/u2materials/dublin.html to http://invention.smithsonian.org/centerpieces/whole_cloth/u2ei/u2materials/dublin.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305072635/http://invention.smithsonian.org:80/centerpieces/whole_cloth/index.html to http://invention.smithsonian.org/centerpieces/whole_cloth/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090517071603/http://www.cottontown.org/page.cfm?pageid=604&language=eng to http://www.cottontown.org/page.cfm?pageid=604&language=eng
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723183726/http://oneguyfrombarlick.co.uk/forum_topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7926&FORUM_ID=99&CAT_ID=3&Forum_Title=Rare+Text+(Book+Transcriptions)&Topic_Title=ARTHUR+ROBERTS+ENGINE+LIST&whichpage=1&tmp=1 to http://oneguyfrombarlick.co.uk/forum_topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7926&FORUM_ID=99&CAT_ID=3&Forum_Title=Rare+Text+(Book+Transcriptions)&Topic_Title=ARTHUR+ROBERTS+ENGINE+LIST&whichpage=1&tmp=1#pid81483
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100129083218/http://www.spinningtheweb.org.uk:80/ to http://www.spinningtheweb.org.uk
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cotton mill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090416222111/http://www.kentlaw.edu/ilhs/lowell.html to http://www.kentlaw.edu/ilhs/lowell.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://oneguyfrombarlick.co.uk/forum_topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7926&FORUM_ID=99&CAT_ID=3&Forum_Title=Rare%20Text%20%28Book%20Transcriptions%29&Topic_Title=ARTHUR%20ROBERTS%20ENGINE%20LIST&whichpage=1&tmp=1
*Added  tag to https://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/20100615155659/http%3A//www.spinningtheweb.org.uk/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The final paragraph links a cholera outbreak in Manchester, UK to conditions in cotton mills in that city. The following illustration is not in the UK and is not a cotton mill. I only edit text - someone who knows how to deal with images might put this right? Logicophilosophicus22 (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final inappropriate image and caption