Talk:Textile

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2018 and 7 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Thoschis. Peer reviewers: Chris sarli.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Burn test of fabrics

Hi all! In an article Sulfur someone wrote a sentence: "The high disulfide bond content of hair and feathers contributes to their indigestibility and to their characteristic disagreeable odor when burned.[citation needed]" A little investigation on Google gave no citation which is suitable for that statement in context of the article. But there is a bunch of search results pointing on "Burn test of fabrics". Don't you want to add this information to Treatments subsection? I'm going to remove the mentioned statement from the Sulfur article. Tosha Langue (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, Roxy the great dog, I'm that, who saves every any meaningful crap at Wikipedia. Would you magnanimously point at an appropriate place, within known limits, for the quick identification test of fabrics, that you didn't let be here?

Your humble servant, Tosha Langue (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

If I was to suggest an article, it would be the one on textile testing, in the fibre identification section. I do not know if such an article exists. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Significance of water in textiles

§ Handling of edit-warring behaviors. @Roxy the dog Your recent attempts to vandalize this page have been reversed. Stop your nonsense because there is no denying the link between textiles, wet processing, and water consumption. Keeping the readers in mind, the section deserves a place in the article. And let me do that. You are welcome to discuss this here. Do not revert the edits, especially when they belong to a reliable source.. RV (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC) or You may want to try WP:BRD to resolve your problem. Open a talk page section and justify how water, wet processing and associated impacts are not linked, to show why the disputed section is justified in that position. RV (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Attribution

In section Health impacts, there is copy and paste edit Chemicals use, advantage and health impacts, copy and paste edit from Chemical finishing of textiles. For attribution see page history. Thanks RV (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

uhh, I'm about 90 percent sure one of the images is AI?

specifically, the one of the baby wearing various types of cloth, if you look at his eyes, mouth and nose, its pretty clearly AI generated. or maybe a real photo that's been edited with AI? ~2026-53923-31 (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

That photo was taken nearly 20 years ago, generative AI wasn't around in 2007. Schazjmd (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

apologies, the mobile version I was on didn't have that upload date info (or at least, not that I know how to access? this is not remotely my area of expertise). plus, lets face it, one of the biggest giveaways,

and while you are more or less correct in this context (ie, for a civilian photographer); I'd be pretty surprised if the US government didn't have some primitive form AI image generation back in 07; like 90% of all tech period gets invented by the military/government, then later rolled out to the public; like how the US Navy had GPS decades before everyone else? or how the internet was originally created by a defense contractor? or how the jet engine was created in the 1930s yet it wasn't until the 1950s that civilian jets started being a thing (well, partly because running like ANYTHING through the FAA's godawful bureaucracy takes 300k forums, $50 million and 2 acts of congress... seriously, my uncle is a machinist for GE's aerospace division, no matter how bad you think the bureaucracy is, its at least 100x worse... its genuinely impressive just how godawful it is)

PS: this actually is the OP, if it shows up differently, its because I originally wrote that from my phone, and I'm writing this from my PC. ~2026-54278-68 (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

PS: I realize I accidentally left a sentence halfway finished; its because I usually write things like this in a notepad document then copy and paste them; well, this time initially started writing in the actual website's textbox, before moving to notepad... but I was too out of it to notice that I didn't finish the sentence I was writing in the website... look, in the past 2 days I've driven probably around 500 miles, and done quite a bit of manual labor, and did not sleep well; the words were dancing on my screen when I wrote that... ~2026-54278-68 (talk) 09:34, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Not a problem, @~2026-54278-68. It's good to raise the question when something seems suspicious. I agree that the photo seems to be overly airbrushed, but I guess that's just the artistic vision that the photographer was after. Take care and get some rest! Schazjmd (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

also, look at the kid's lips, AI always makes them look wet... come to think of it, I almost wonder if that ain't because of them scraping social media to train their models.... I don't have kids, but, holy hell, the number of parents who post absolutely anything and everything to their public social media accounts is beyond concerning... like, do they live in some parallel reality where pedos don't exist, and where the government/corporations won't abuse that? I'm old enough to remember when the whole establishment message was "don't give anyone your real information online"... how the hell did we go from that, to legally requiring you to age verify with your government ID, or a facial scan to post a meme on twitter, and it being perfectly "normal" to post what you are doing every few hours on your public social media? the only thing idiocracy got wrong was the timeline... ~2026-54278-68 (talk) 02:45, 10 October 2026 (UTC)