Talk:Textile performance

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 08:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Burberry advertisement for waterproof gabardine suit, 1908.

• ... that performance is the serviceability of textiles (pictured) that withstand various conditions, environments, and hazards? Source: Kadolph, Sara J. (1998). Textiles. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Bobbs-Merrill Company. pp. 9, 11, 22, 23, 25, 392, 408, 407. ISBN 978-0-13-494592-7 – via Internet Archive.
  • ALT1:... that in terms of performance, wool has been advertised as a "miracle fabric"? [[1]], [National Wool Grower 1963-05: Vol 53 Iss 5|date=May 1963|publisher=American Sheep Industry Association|others=Internet Archive|language=English]
    • ALT2:... that in terms of performance, wool has been advertised as a "miracle fabric" as it naturally possesses a variety of functional properties, including stretch, warmth, water absorption, flame retardance, and the ability to wick away body moisture? [[2]],, [[3]] [Source] [[4]][[5]][[6]]
    • ALT3:...the textiles' performance characteristics make them suited for their end-use? Source:
    • ALT4:...that specific finishing methods, functional finishes, fit, and product design can all be used to improve a textile product's overall performance, allowing it to achieve higher performance levels? [Source],[Source]
    • ALT5:...that in terms of performance, wool is a natural fiber that offers a variety of functional properties, including stretch, warmth, water absorption, flame retardance, and the ability to wick away body moisture? [[7]][[8]][

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Hamadryas glauconome
• Comment: There is a pending AFD, that will be successfully resolved, There was an AFD that resulted in a KEEP, so that a review and promotion can proceed in due course.

Created by RAJIVVASUDEV (talk), Dicklyon (talk), and 7&6=thirteen (talk). Nominated by 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC) Performance (textiles)

User requesting to be removed from the credits

• Could somebody please explain what this is about. Thanks. -Roxy . wooF 15:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure. See WP:DYK. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Why would anybody nominate this bucket of gomutra for people to actually see how awful it is? Why am I listed as a creator, I didn't create this rubbish. Why can I not comment in this subject on the talk page of the article, where it appears? please unnominate this article collection of disparate factoids for DYK. Thanks. -Roxy . wooF 10:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Your true colors are showing. Alone, you wanted the article deleted, and others everyone else disagreed. I removed your name, per your request. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

You didn't answer any of my questions. Why didn't you answer any of my questions? -Roxy . wooF 10:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure what questions you're referring to, but this line of aggressive inquiry seems unneccessary. jp×g 22:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Review

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - Earwig indicates that there's a bit too much close paraphrase so more copy-editing is needed.

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
• Interesting: - It seems rather dull so I suggest casting the net wider. For example, "In terms of performance, wool is something of a miracle fabric."

Image eligibility:

• Freely licensed: - Why no picture? We ought to be able to find something appropriate.
• Used in article:
• Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: There's some concern about the article title which might need thrashing out to ensure stability. "Textile performance" would be my suggestion. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I have no objection to renaming the article. Should that be brought up at the article's talk page? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing and copyvio has been a historical problem with the original creator of this article. A proposal to rename the article has already been made on the article Talk page. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 21:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Sour grapes. Your proposals are unrelated with the sources. We can go with Andrew's suggestion. RV (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Earwig is clear. The only thing it highlights is a quote about Gabardine. We could add that picture (the historic ad) to the DYK. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Andrew Davidson: are you still working on this review? It looks like there were some additions made to the article at the beginning of the month but nothing since so it's fairly stable. The article isn't nominated for deletion and the title is fine (even if not your preferred title) so there's no reason for this nomination to be on hold. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Andrew Davidson I have proposed an ALT, inserted a picture. Are we GTG? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 07:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The picture looks great for this topic – well done! I'll take another look through the article – more anon. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The ALT1 hook does not go well with the picture because the Burberry combination pictured seems to have been a cotton gabardine outer with a woolen lining. We might perhaps use the original hook but I reckon something more specific would be better. See this case study which explains how Burberry started with performance clothing. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Andrew In this context, Burberrry Gabardine is treated worsted wool, perhaps with some cotton, and definitely with lanolin. The ad itself says, "Gabardiine outside; wool inside (both Burberry proofed)" I think. So I submit the picture and the hook align. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I would support Andrew Davidson's suggestion for an article rename to "Textile performance requirements" though "Fitness for purpose", i.e. what the article is about, would be better. Can this be dealt with before the DYK goes wherever it goes? I also note that there is no clarity as to the composition of gabardine in anything written here. Cotton? wool? lanolin? what knowledge are we going to impart to DYK readers? Will it be accurate, or do we not care? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 12:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Read the preceding post. Renaming the article is fine. That should be addessed at the article talk page, however. "A rose by any other name ..." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The preceding post, which you wrote, says "Gabardiine outside; wool inside (both Burberry proofed)" which doesn't pass muster, so again I ask what is the composition of gabardine, Cotton? wool? lanolin? (hint: Lanolin would not be required as a component in the UK garment labelling requirements, so you just need to clarify what gabardine consists of. I'll wait in this shallow grave shall I? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

You could do this yourself, but that would be too much to ask. So I won't. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Following the above response, this article is clearly unsuitable for DYK. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Repetition doesn't make your observations any more persuasive. You said that before, and your colors are showing again. A leopard can't change its spots. And Ipse dixit doesn't apply. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Here is the answer. "What is Gabardine – Fabric Guide, Uses and Care". and Varley, Rosemary; Roncha, Ana; Radclyffe-Thomas, Natascha; Gee, Liz (2018). CASE STUDY 10: Burberry and brand development and retail. United Kingdom: Macmillan International Higher Education. p. 208. ISBN 9781137508195. ISBN 1137508191. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment They appear with a new perspective/question each time.I do not like it.Rubbish, Bucket of Gomutracollection of disparate factoidsDYK! What is that?RV (talk) 02:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The mysteries of gabardine now revealed.

In its earliest forms, worsted wool or a blend of it and cotton were used. It was weaved to achieve smoothness on one side and ribs on the other. When tightly woven, it became a twill fabric used in men's suits and trousers. "The fabric became a favorite among many because it can hold its shape and does not wrinkle too easily."

"What makes gabardine unique is the fabric's ability to be water-resistant and breathable at the same time. It's also an extremely tough fabric which made it perfect for military use. Not only were officers wearing a trench coat able to stay comparatively dry in the trenches during rain, thanks to the breathability of gabardine, but the coats also did not make them sweat and dehydrate in hot and humid temperatures either." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Andrew Please take a few moments to finish; the name has already been updated to Textile performance. Thanks RV (talk) 04:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

comment everyone in the comments should please remember remain civil and polite—we're all here to make wikipedia a better place, after all theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I've taken another look and there is still more to be done. There were three issues in my review above.

N There is still too much close paraphrase, as reported by Earwig. For example, the para "When it was waterproofed with lanolin before it was woven, it became popular with polar explorers like Ernest Shackleton, who led an expedition in 1914 to cross Antarctica, and Roald Amundsen, who is renowned for being the first man to get to the South pole."

Y The ALT1 and ALT2 hooks are interesting enough.

N The Burberry picture is good but requires too much extrapolation or synthesis to work with the ALT1 hook. As most DYKs don't go in the picture slot, I suggest that we proceed without a picture to keep things simple.

So, please focus on cleaning up the close paraphrase issues.

Andrew🐉(talk) 07:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Andrew Hi! Most of the contents highlighted by Earvig are quoted. Is that not acceptable with the policy MOS:QUOTE, or Wikipedia:Moral rights. Please correct me if I am wrong. thanks RV (talk) 10:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The quote about gabardine and the South Pole was put in to address the purported concerns about the picture and answer the content and uses of gabardine. It is limited and fair use. I removed it. With respect, this is getting silly and needlessly tendentious. And horribly prolonged. Two months along, and pregnant with possibilities. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The text about gabardine and the South Pole is not a quote nor is it acceptable fair use in my view. And it is still in the article so I am going to remove it now to resolve the issue.

When I was working on this just now, Earwig was giving another major alert about another page and I spent some time puzzling over that. I can't put the URL here because it's in the xyz domain which seems to be in a blacklist. My impression is that that was a spam site using text from our clothing article which has also been edited by RAJIVVASUDEV with similar phrasing and so that's probably ok. And, in any case, Earwig is not reporting the xyz site now and so the article text now seems reasonably free of such issues. But, it's worth mentioning in case it re-appears.

Moving on, the ALT1 and ALT2 hooks are reasonable for interest but they don't seem to appear in the article. It's not enough that they appear in external sources. Per WP:DYKRULES, "The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article ...".

Andrew🐉(talk) 20:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Andrew Hello! ALT1 and ALT2, hook is included in the article. [[9]]. Kindly check revised ALT2. Thanks RV (talk) 03:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I’m not sure that “miracle fabric” is particularly encyclopaedic in tone. It’s sourced to blurb for a trade fair, advertising copy, and a page in German which returns a 404 message, but also seems to be marketing. I don’t think it should be in Wikipedia’s voice, the most that could be said is that it has been advertised as a “miracle fabric”. It appears to me to fall squarely within WP:PEACOCK. Brunton (talk) 07:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Revised as per your suggestion. Thanks RV (talk) 08:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually, my suggestion would be to remove “miracle fabric” altogether, per WP:PEACOCK. Advertisers using hyperbolic language is not particularly remarkable, and Wikipedia is not a place to repeat advertising claims. And the paragraph about the properties of wool really needs to be sourced from sources that are not concerned with marketing. Brunton (talk) 08:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Brunton FYI wool is a generic name, we are not promoting wool. The article is about the attributes. The properties are inherent WP:Sky is blue. And the terminology 'miracle fabric' is not a patented thing we cannot use as we have used. You see When you write the hook, please make it "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers into wanting to read the article. I can add more sources, but those will be without the word 'miracle' which may not work. What do you think? RV (talk) 09:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that if we can’t cite independent WP:RS calling wool a “miracle fabric” then it shouldn’t be in the article, and it certainly shouldn’t be on the front page. Brunton (talk) 09:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources calling wool a miracle fabric added. Thanks RV (talk) 09:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

The sources recently added seem to be a page on the Woolmark website that doesn’t, as far as I can see, actually include the word “miracle”, a page on Science Direct saying “Topic not found”, and a book about fashion saying, “the way I see it, wool is a miracle fabric.” Certainly not something we should be putting in Wikipedia’s voice, and still falling foul of WP: PEACOCK in any case. Brunton (talk) 09:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Consider them for properties for the word miracle [terms of performance, wool is something of a miracle fabric. ] RV (talk) 10:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

That gives a 404 error as well. Brunton (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Source details The Guardian Article Sustainability and performance in textiles: can you have it all? by Deidre Hoguet on Thu 10 Apr 2014 11.00 EDT. Another source which says [Merino sheep are celebrated globally for producing the world’s finest, softest and most beautiful wool. Known as nature’s miracle fibre, merino wool also creates a much lower ecological footprint when compared to synthetic materials. ] RV (talk) 11:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Another source that says “Error Page 404”. Brunton (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, I’ve found the Guardian article now. Calling wool “something of a miracle fibre” is OK in a Guardian comment piece, but it isn’t really encyclopaedic. As there is no class of fibres or fabrics defined as “miracle” it’s not meaningful enough to be anything more than peacockery as far as the encyclopaedia is concerned. Brunton (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

You are twisting your words, I have reliable sources See [[10]]. RV (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

"Please try again tomorrow" -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 12:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I was anticipating your arrival, and here you are. RV (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

The last couple of sources presented are slightly better than the marketing copy previously cited, but don’t do anything to address the point that it’s the sort of language that WP:PEACOCK tells us to avoid. Brunton (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by slightly better?The sources are reliable, verifiable and independent. Thanks RV (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, one appears to be a trade journal, so likely to be positive about the products with which it is concerned, the other is using the term in the course of an argument for using wool in the interests of sustainability. But do you have anything to say about the WP:PEACOCK issue? Brunton (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

FYI, there are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia. At first, your words were the most that could be said is that it has been advertised as a “miracle fabric”. And we graciously accepted the same thing and all revised." Then you were not connected to the sources, now WP: PEACOCK. Do you have anything to say about the WP:DYKHOOK? If the sources are clearly referring wool as miracle fiber. What's holding you back from agreeing? RV (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

My first word on the matter was that I don’t think the language used is encyclopaedic or in compliance with the MOS guidelines. I haven’t seen anything to change this. Brunton (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

You mean these are not your words the most that could be said is that it has been advertised as a miracle fabric? Sources support 'miracle' a ligate word for wool. Moreover there are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia. That is all. RV (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Those are my words, but they need to be read in context, and with the understanding that “the most that could be said is” does not mean “we should say”. Brunton (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

We will prefer to respect the sources. And advise the same to you. The word miracle is not censored. An advertisement of the 20th century, Society Brand “A miracle fabric with remarkable properties of softness and long wear, and which makes the extrusion of chemical fibers unnecessary, has been successfully raised on the skin of a herbivorous quadruped and is being used in considerable quantity in 1963 Society Brand sports coats. As yet, we have no special trade name for it. We just call it WOOL.”. RV (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Andrew The said issues are resolved now for instance [Earvig] is clear and hooks are included in the article. Please see if there is anything else that needs to be addressed? Thanks RV (talk) 05:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. An Earwig scan now seems to be clean enough so let's consider the surviving hooks:

• ALT1:... that in terms of performance, wool has been advertised as a "miracle fabric"?
• ALT2:... that in terms of performance, wool has been advertised as a "miracle fabric" as it naturally possesses a variety of functional properties, including stretch, warmth, water absorption, flame retardance, and the ability to wick away body moisture?
• ALT3:...the textiles' performance characteristics make them suited for their end-use?
• ALT4:...that specific finishing methods, functional finishes, fit, and product design can all be used to improve a textile product's overall performance, allowing it to achieve higher performance levels?
• ALT5:... that in terms of performance, wool is the only natural fiber that offers a variety of functional properties, including stretch, warmth, water absorption, flame retardance, and the ability to wick away body moisture?

1. ALT1 is short and snappy. But the corresponding sentence in the article does not have a immediate citation. Quotations should always have citations per WP:V and WP:DYKRULES also says "Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact. Citations at the end of the paragraph are not sufficient."
2. ALT2 is ALT1 with extra claims. Best to stick to the short version per the KISS principle.
3. ALT3 seems to be a statement of the obvious and so lacks interest
4. ALT4 takes a lot of words to say that improving a textile's performance improves its performance. See tautology.
5. ALT5 reads ok but the claim doesn't seem to appear in the article

So, I suggest that further effort be concentrated on trying to make ALT1 or ALT5 stand up. For this, we need a corresponding sentence in the article with a good inline citation.

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: ALT1 and ALT5 are fixed and corresponding sentence is here Textile performance#Fiber properties—In-built (natural) properties. Kindly have a look. Thanks RV (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@RAJIVVASUDEV: Thanks for the update. I'm not content with ALT1 as the sources don't do enough to link the word "miracle" to its performance. For example, the first source just seems to talk vaguely of "benefits". And ALT5 still needs work as the paragraph in the article indicates that other natural fibres have similar properties and so the word "only" is not justified. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

ALT5 is incorrect. As noted by Andrew above, Wool is not the only natural fiber that offers a variety of functional properties. They all do, as do all the synthetic and man made fibres. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 11:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

ALT 1 is correct. It is "a" miracle fiber, not the 'only' one. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: ALT1, the new source explicitly links the word "miracle" to its performance In terms of performance, wool is something of a miracle fabric. Highly durable, with inherent flame-resistant properties, it also has some natural water repellency. While not as slippery and oil-repellent as a perfluorinated finish, wool's performance attributes are laudable without the added chemistry. Kindly consider [[11]] . Thanks RV (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The Guardian source does not support ALT1 because it's not advertising or about advertisng. Putting such sources together to support ALT1 is improper synthesis. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson:, I have tried to fix it again. See an advertisement of the 20th century, Society Brand “A miracle fabric with remarkable properties of softness and long wear, and which makes the extrusion of chemical fibers unnecessary, has been successfully raised on the skin of a herbivorous quadruped and is being used in considerable quantity in 1963 Society Brand sports coats. As yet, we have no special trade name for it. We just call it WOOL.”. Logically the Guardian article is advertising wool properties only. Thanks RV (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I am satisfied that the National Wool Grower source is adequate support for ALT1, given the other sources surrounding the claim. So, let's go forward with ALT1 (but no picture). Andrew🐉(talk) 11:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

This is the silliest DYK nomination I've ever seen. I am willing to support any of these ALTs if it causes the bikeshedding to end, and a hook to be run. jp×g 22:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not silly as much as it is disheartening, honestly. Let's get this off the nom page. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

References

References

ALT1 to T:DYK/P7 without image

Template

@PamD Hi! As per template, i have made minor corrections. Kindly have a look and advise. Thanks and best regards RV (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

This article was deleted and Raj blocked last time it was created

Why create it again? I will be proposing deletion. -Roxy . wooF 19:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Have you read what is the subject of the article? Stop hounding. The subject, matter both are changed in this Performance (textiles). kindly do not attack or provoke. Better if we focus on the project. RV (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Attribution

Text and references copied from Technical textiles to Performance (textiles), See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Improvements by the nominator (for deletion )

@Roxy the dog You appear to be convinced of the subject, but your recent contributions] are limiting the scope. It can be rephrased for textile products. It would be best if you also withdraw the deletion before making any positive changes. Otherwise, it could be regarded as vandalism. Thanks RV (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm merely improving on your poor efforts, stop trying to do stuff about which you clearly have such a low level of understanding. Thanks. -Roxy . wooF 14:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:Civil ought to be honored here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS should have been honoured at the AfD. -Roxy . wooF 14:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

You of course have proof of that bullshit accusation? Where is it? Go to WP:ANI, if you dare. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course. You yourself did it, it is on the AfD page, here. You are welcome. -Roxy . wooF 15:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

That is a baseless accusation. And you know it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

That's the very essence of canvassing. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 05:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

And what is that? Unconditional support. RV (talk) 06:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

You ARS boys do a lot of canvassing, dont you think??. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 12:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. You probably liked the performance. One free piece of advice, when you're in deep shit, it's best to keep your mouth shut!!! That is your present state, so stay quiet. Your discovery here. RV (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Article name

I propose that the name of this article is changed to Fitness for purpose (textiles). -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 08:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

We reject it "according to sources."Keep your proposals under wraps. Because for you, it was Gomutra also. RV (talk) 08:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Who is "we" ? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 12:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Read and remember the names, except for one. See here [12]. You may exclude your partner's name. Kindly do not hesitate to clear any doubt. RV (talk) 12:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense. That was a totally different discussion. try to keep up. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Fitness for purpose" does not seem to be a common phrase for this concept. Suggestions made during the AfD were:

1. high-performance textiles
2. performance-based textiles
3. fabric buying specifications

These titles seem too narrow for such a broad topic. I have suggested "Textile performance", which is much the same as the current title but simpler as it drops the parentheses. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The title "Textile performance" is the most closely related to the references and should meet policy criteria also.Thanks RV (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

"High performance textiles" is a poor suggestion. 'High performance' is undefined. Where does the differentiation lie between between high performance and not quite so high performance? As regards "performance-based textiles" the same consideration applies. All textiles are performance based, tis just the level of performance in various areas that differ. If the word 'performance' is the sticking point, then how about "Textile performance requirements/standards" (choose one). The actual subject is "fitness for purpose" though, regardless what the ARS brigading says. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Here's some sources in support of the title "textile performance":

1. Mechanics of Textile Performance
2. A New Approach to the Assessment of Textile Performance
3. Physical Properties of Fibres and Textile Performances
4. Textile Performance Problems: Their Causes and Recommendations for Solutions
5. Performance Testing in Textiles
6. Recent developments in the evaluation technology of fiber and textiles: toward the engineered design of textile performance
7. Textile Performance: End Use and Relevant Tests
8. Performance Testing of Textiles

Andrew🐉(talk) 13:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. The common theme running through all those titles? "Fitness for purpose" and "Fabric buying specifications." Srsly! -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes! They are good. WP:COMMONNAME some topics have multiple names, and some names have multiple topics; this can lead to disagreement about which name should be used for a given article's title. Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)RV (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• The suggested alternative – "fitness for purpose" – is not fit for purpose because it is a tautology and cliché. See Macmillan... Andrew🐉(talk) 19:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
• @ Andrew After copy edits the status of Earwig. Kindly have a look. Regards RV (talk) 08:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• If there are no meaningful objections to Textile performance as a title, I'll move it there. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@BuySomeApples, Name of the article has been changed as per suggestion by Andrew Davidson. Kindly suggest if anything pending or incorrect. Regards RV (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)