Two more articles[edit]

So, is there a way to keep this format and still add in the animal fiber article? There is an equivalent for vegetable fibers too. Loggie (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

|belowstyle = background:#e7dac1;
|below = [[Animal fiber]]((·)) [[Fiber crop|Vegetable fiber]]

Sardanaphalus (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be considered bad form to do something like this in the 'Natural' section?
Animal fiber: Alpaca, angora.....
Vegetable fiber: list of vegetable fibers...
Mineral fiber: Asbestos, and others...
Thanks muchly for the help. Loggie (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This change makes sense to me. Need me to do it? - PKM (talk) 02:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to make sure I wouldn't be stepping on anyone's toes. Loggie (talk) 06:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vinalon not included?[edit]

I believe Vinalon, although not very popular, should be part of the synthetic fiber list. It is one of the first synthetic (possibly the second, right behind Nylon) fiber yet I don't understand why it still isn't in the template.

Jeffrey3732 (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Man-made (Artificial) cellulosic fibres[edit]

I think this template should have another category (and Wikipedia ahould have another article), though I do not have the expertise to do it. Rayon, viscose, (and many other names for essentially the same product) are generally not described as synthetic - they are man-made or artificial cellulosic fibres. (The Wikipedia article on rayon calls it semi-synthetic). These fibres are made from wood or other plant material, some from bamboo, the material is pulped and fibre, still containing the plant cells, is constituted from it. This is (I believe) quite different from synthetic fibres, which are plastics made from oil. [ Is there an issue in WP with sexist language like man-made? Do we need to use the rather ugly human-made?] Natural fibre (talk) 12:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment in Talk:Fiber#Human-Made (??) Man-made Synthetics.--Quest for Truth (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do we want to handle bamboo fibre?[edit]

So, the article bamboo fibre is not about the fiber in the sense that flax is, but is about reconstituted bamboo, like rayon. Rayon is in the 'synthetic' category. If we want to put this bamboo fiber there, we have bamboo in two places then-I'd suggest changing the link in the 'natural' section to the actual plant page. Do we call both links bamboo? That's what I've done temporarily, since I can't think of a better solution. On a separate note, and to echo above, maybe we should have a cellulose fiber section for modal, rayon and this bamboo fiber article? We could also include soy silk, seacell and others. They are still natural in their way-not plastic, and it would be more accurate I feel to have a separate section. Loggie (talk) 11:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me. - PKM (talk) 02:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and done that, I think. I'm not sure I got all the ones we have articles on, or that I sorted them right though, so feel free double check. I'm going to start a general article on cellulose fibers in moments. Loggie (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beautification of this navbox[edit]

Should we align and correct the margins the two subgroups of this template? It looks like having a big bend after the subgroup synthetic mineral to natural cellulose.Vanischenu mTalk 12:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Include ixtle?[edit]

I learned of ixtle today while reading about Agave and was wondering how it differed from sisal. I found this nice template on the sisal page, and thought it would be helpful for this template to also appear on the ixtle page. askewchan (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]