Talk:Sweater design

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-01-08. The result of the discussion was Keep.

[edit] Purpose of this article

Is this really an encyclopedic article? It seems more like a "how-to" guide for making sweaters. A worthy subject to be sure, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I'm tagging it as proposed for deletion. Delius1967 17:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you. What is wrong with this article? It has references. it is well written. It is interesting. It is not about making a sweater or instructions about how to make a sweater. --Filll 21:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this is too weird. Looks like you copied my edit summary,but we wrote it at the same time. David D. (Talk) 21:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both very much. I'm radiantly happy and very relieved. :)

That said, Delius, I would like to listen to your concerns and try to amend the article. Could you please articulate what you think needs improvement? No article is perfect and we can always learn from each other. :) Willow 21:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the article per se, the way it's written or presented. But it isn't encyclopedic. It isn't about facts: the history of sweater design, or the current designers of fantastically overpriced sweaters, or the 2006 sales numbers of different types of sweaters, any of which would be OK.

References by themselves don't make it NPOV. In fact, I don't see anyway that it could be made NPOV, which is why I claim it isn't encyclopedic. The article on cooking doesn't talk about how the aim of gourmet food is to delight the palate and engage the senses. The article on haute couture, to use a closer example, talks about the history of it and some of the key people involved, not the methodologies used to create the garments.

Tell you what, show me another article which has the same general bent as this one, and I'll withdraw my contention that this should be deleted. I've not seen one, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong corners of Wikipedia. Delius1967 02:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Further stuff from WP:NOT:

"That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply: [...] While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions [...], suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. [...] The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach a subject matter."

This page, interesting though it may be, seems to me to fit this exactly. And David D., while you have every right to disagree, you should not remove the deletion tag prior to the completion of discussion. I've reattached it, though I've changed it to an AfD tag since there is disagreement. Delius1967 08:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought the idea was to remove the template if you disagree. If you read the template it says "You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason." Removal did not and has not precluded discussion. I am fine with AfD at least that means a fair review by peers. David D. (Talk) 13:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hah, you're right, it does say that. My bad. Delius1967 21:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for making article more encyclopedic and other improvements

I invite all interested people to edit the main article or to offer suggestions here; thanks very much for your help! :) Willow 13:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Some other areas.

• Design considerations for mechanical looms and mass production.
• History of the fashion industry's impact on sweater design.
• Famous sweater designers, or famous fashion designers particularly known for sweaters.
• Impact that changes in materials have had, with particular emphasis on the impact of artificial fibers on design.

Hope this helps. TimVickers 20:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

My main suggestion for expanding this article is to include information on commercially mass-produced as well as handmade sweaters, since the design constraints are presumably rather different, but I don't know if there's much literature on that. The matter of designing sweaters that specific people want to wear may be a bit beyond our mandate as an encyclopedia (in particular, the psychological color relationships, I think, are a bit problematic, unless there's been studies specifically on clothing color and mood. Hey, you can get a grant to study anything, right? :)

The tone, as has already been suggested, needs some work; there are entirely too many 'shoulds', and the lead reads like the intro in a knitting magazine article. (Or maybe, reads like my stereotype of one; I don't read about knitting very often....) Opabinia regalis 01:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty much been said, but taking the topic title and detailing the different aspects around it (history of sweater design, materials used, home-made VS sweat shop etc.) should turn it around. As many sources as possible would also help. Thanks for creating these articles, they're just the sort of thing WP needs desperately. QuagmireDog 13:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sweater design in a wider context

Sweaters and knitting are a component of textile and fabric creation, which is one of the oldest forms of manufacturing on planet earth. Textile creation (and its related activity, cord manufacture) might very well be the one main thing that is associated with a jump between animals and humans.

• Many people used to say it was using and making tools, but obviously various primates and even elephants have been observed making tools. So it isnt tools that separate us from animals.
• Other people have said it is language, but dogs have been shown to have literally hundreds of vocalizations recognizable by other dogs they never met, whales communicate over thousands of miles of ocean, creatures on the Galapagos islands have been shown to pass on the memories of human atrocities committed against their own kind over a century ago, and chimps and other primates have been trained to not only use sign language, but now to type on computer keyboards and type out words and recognize words on a screen and respond. So it is isnt language that separates us from animals.
• At one time, it was said that only humans could laugh and show emotion, and animals could not. However, this has been shown to be incorrect.
• Animals have been shown to engage in farming, so it is not farming.
• Crows are very good at counting and arithmetic, so it is not mathematics
• It is not the use of the wheel, since many indigenous peoples did not use the wheel.
• Some human tribes like Pygmies of the Ituri Forest and the Andaman Islanders never learned to make fire, so it is not that.
• Animals have been shown to engage in warfare, and killing for pleasure and sport, so it isn't any of those.
• No animal, as far as I know, makes textiles. Animals might take advantage of some shelter in their environment, but no animal makes cloth or textiles. Were there any primitive people who did not make cord or rope or textiles or ar least partially clothe themselves? I wonder.

So the manufacture of textiles is a candidate for an activity that separates humans from their animal breathern. Another candidate I have is the keeping of records on bone carvings or cave paintings. Granted, elephants and chimpanzees can be trained to paint, but is it the same as cave painting? Do all human societies keep some sort of written or painted or drawn or carved record? I do not know. But as far as I know, the production of textiles and cord etc might have been more common. So textiles and cord manufacturing has a long and interesting history, and might have interesting implications for the creation of human culture and society.--Filll 17:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)