Talk:Polar fleece

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Textile arts Portal This article is within the scope of the Textile Arts WikiProject. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks!
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article is on a subject of low-importance within textile arts.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
	The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Contents 1 Polar fleece vs. fleece 2 Sweaty 3 Disadvatages 4 Reverted many edits

[edit] Polar fleece vs. fleece

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)

[edit] Sweaty

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)

[edit] Disadvatages

I would have thought the single most obvious disadvantage compared to wool or cotton is that it is generally unsuitable/unavailable for use in smart or formal clothing, and hence is restricted to casual use? DWaterson (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think of disadvantages as being for a given sphere of application. Its sphere of application, as described in the lead, is casual or high-performance outdoor clothing.

If the section were a comparison to wool, that would definitely be an important distinguishing feature to discuss, but my interpretation of the purpose of the section is to discuss its advantages and disadvantages in the type of applications in which it is used, relative to any and all alternatives for those types of applications.

That's my thinking, but perhaps that section shouldn't be as narrowly interpreted as how I am thinking about it. Maybe its purpose should be clarified. And maybe the content you are suggesting should be added or expanded in another section (perhaps the lead). (I just added a bit to the lead about high-performance outdoor clothing.)Ccrrccrr (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted many edits

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)

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)

• Agree There doesn't seem to be any active disagreement here on the talk page, but, I concur with Ccrrccrr's analysis of the issue, and application of copyright principles while still acknowledging good faith of the new editor. Whether information is valid, it must be presented in a manner which doesn't violate copyright, and a school project is not an excuse for violating copyright, even for a brief period of time. - superβεεcat  05:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no disagreement so I'm going to repeat my revert.Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

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)