This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
Related talk archive: Talk:Excelsior (wood wool) (used to be at Talk:Wood wool)
was there a pattent for "Excelsior" granted ca 1900? There were several water powered mills established here in central NH about that time to make Excelsior from poplar logs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haywardpentagon ( talk • contribs)
I am not aware that the term Excelsior is synonym for wood wool worldwide. I believe that the more generic wood wool should be the actual article about wood wool, while the present article should focus on the Excelsior name and the use of this term.
Based on this line of thought, I went ahead with creating the article wood wool. It is certainly not "content fork", rather a more generic article.
Please note:
It was also indicated by User:Dicklyon that he can find no evidence that excelsior is a brand. I did not research this, so if I was wrong, I was wrong. I will have a look and report my findings, which, however, are not related to creating of a more generic article on wood wool.
-- FocalPoint ( talk) 19:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The current title is marginally good for US & Canada (it would be better as "Wood wool (excelsior)"). For Wikipedia, an international encyclopedia, "wood wool" is more appropriate.
-- FocalPoint ( talk) 21:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
It appears that these documents are just "a few gov docs" in your opinion, however, they are official and their definitions are used everywhere. They are the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States and the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System. The present title is inappropriate and of local use (...and yes...the locality is a very large place, big parts of North America...but wikipedia is not an American encyclopedia).-- FocalPoint ( talk) 21:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
It is obvious that you do not understand the importance of official nomenclature. This is fine. Furthermore, it is also obvious that you believe that a product should appear in Wikipedia with a name used in Canada, while you choose to ignore the generic name with which is is described everywhere else in the world and prefer to use it only as a redirection. This is fine too. For both issues, other editors will appear eventually (in one hour on in one decade from now) and the issue will be resolved in the way that all issues are (or are not) resolved in Wikipedia. What is not fine with me is the use of irony as an argument. This is unacceptable and I am really dissapointed with this part of the discussion.-- FocalPoint ( talk) 15:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, your making the wood wool a redirect again has removed content which is not replicated in this article. It constitutes removal of useful content. I am reverting your edit. If you think that these two articles must be one, then ask for a {{merge}} and do not remove useful content from wikipedia.-- FocalPoint ( talk) 15:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I will study the issue and come back. Meanwhile, useful references to be used & assessed:
-- FocalPoint ( talk) 14:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Having been unsuccessful at getting FocalPoint to add his new info here instead of at his new content fork at wood wool, I went ahead and merged it myself, since there was apparent unanimous support for the merge proposal he inititated and just seemed to need help. Dicklyon ( talk) 16:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I am copying here what I wrote in Talk:Wood wool:
For the record, Dicklyon has not acted properly by copying content from one article to the other, since that would require:
1. A proposal to merge wood wool with Excelsior (wood wool). This was not my proposal. My proposal was to merge Excelsior (wood wool), an article with a local name, with wood wool, an article with a name used world-wide.
2. Consensus for the merging. There is no consensus, because for consensus to form, time for discussion is necessary. The issue was not properly discussed. Dicklyon has reverted [1] [2] my requests for proposal for merging of that article with the present article wood wool.
Sad behaviour. -- FocalPoint ( talk) 16:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems that Dicklyon is contradicting himself:
Sad.-- FocalPoint ( talk) 16:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I expect that in the future Dicklyon will allow a proper discussion to take place and that he will not take action by himself again, allowing someone else to judge whether there is a consensus and what the actual consensus is about.-- FocalPoint ( talk) 17:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I propose to merge the present article Excelsior (wood wool) with the article wood wool, making Excelsior (wood wool) a redirect pointing to wood wool.
The reason for the merging proposal is that excelsior is a local name (mainly used in the US and Canada) for the product called wood wool internationally.-- FocalPoint ( talk) 17:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Your references fully support my argument: All three are American books (and also all three happen to be published 1915, 1919, 1913). Furthermore, more recent but still outdated material from the US uses the term interchangeably: [6] Popular Mechanics - Jul 1944 - "Excelsior or wood wool", Jan 1944 "WOOD WOOL or excelsior". However, the current practice of US government is to name the product "Wood wool (excelsior)" US commodity code. But all that is from US. let us see what happens internationally:
The conclusion:
-- FocalPoint ( talk) 09:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
A US educational provider gives the definition of excelsior: wood wool [9] and then explains wood wool [10] -- FocalPoint ( talk) 11:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
One more reference, this time from a dictionary, characterizing it an Americanism. Ref: excelsior. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/excelsior (accessed: January 25, 2009). -- FocalPoint ( talk) 20:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
And another one: http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/dictionaries/difficultwords/data/d0005390.html "n. American, wood shavings used as packing, stuffing, litter etc." -- FocalPoint ( talk) 20:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-definitions/excelsior "excellent: used as a motto and as a trademark for various products, esp. in the U.S. for fine wood shavings used for packing breakable objects" -- FocalPoint ( talk) 20:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
For the time being I have restored the merge tags to both articles, with the discussion redirected here. Once a consensus is reached, then the articles can be merged, moved or whatever. Kevin ( talk) 04:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was moved to Wood wool. Usually, move disputes are settled according to WP:COMMONNAME; however, that doesn't seem to apply here, as no one has shown convincingly enough that one name is much more used than the other; this debate has instead focused on different interpretations of WP:ENGVAR: out of two sections in the guideline, which one is primary in this instance? Wikipedia:ENGVAR#Retaining_the_existing_variety states that, in the absence of "strong national ties to the topic", the variety used by the original author or first major contributor should be used. There is no dispute that, in this case, the original variety used was American. There is no dispute that the article started under the American name, "Excelsior". There is also no dispute that the product originated in America with that name. If the product were still only used in America, then there would be no dispute. However, it has spread beyond America's borders, and Wikipedia:ENGVAR#Opportunities_for_commonality says that "Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English." There is no dispute here that both "excelsior" and "wood wool" are shared by all varieties of English mentioned here. If these were the only arguments presented here, then I would say that there was no consensus for the move. However, there was no refutation of the principle of least astonishment; people searching for wood wool will likely be surprised to find themselves at an article marked "Excelsior", while those searching for Excelsior will land at the disambiguation page, and easily find the link to wood wool, and not be surprised at all. Since we are optimizing this encyclopedia for readers over editors, the page will be moved to Wood wool.-- Aervanath ( talk) 09:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Excelsior (wood wool) → Wood wool — Personal preference? Stop an edit war over an improper move? Don't ask me, I'm against it. — Dicklyon ( talk) 05:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.Summary – 6 editors support changing to wood wool, because they don't know of excelsior, (or know it as wood wool in 2 cases). 3 support respecting WP:ENGVAR and keeping the hisotical American name of this traditional product. There is not sufficient agreement to conclude there's any consensus for a move in violation of WP:ENGVAR. Dicklyon ( talk) 00:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
This is a very interesting way to see consensus. I hope that this is a bad joke. -- FocalPoint ( talk) 08:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The name and history of excelsior/wood wool seems to be interwoven with that of the American Excelsior Company (AEC henceforth... not to be confused with the United States Atomic Energy Commission, which was commonly known by those initials until 1974... showing my age...), despite claims (true for all I know) above that the term predates the company. But somebody invented the term and the product!
According to the AEC website, In the United States excelsior has no other general name; however, in many other countries excelsior is commonly known and referred to as wood wool. That doesn't seem accurate; Many US websites use both terms. It seems to me that the international term is wood wool.
Regardless of the result of this move request, a section in the article on the history of the product, the name and the company would be an excellent idea IMO. Andrewa ( talk) 12:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
What's going on here?? I feel like the guy who was watching a perfectly good fight when suddenly a hockey game broke out. People are quoting sources, weighing evidence, considering the reader's viewpoint and the role of Wikipedia as an international institution, all without a single personal attack, nor any accusations of bad faith! This has got to stop immediately, or no one will recognize this as a Wikipedia discussion. LouScheffer ( talk) 04:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
As has been stated above, this isn't simply a de-americanisation, which would be a violation of WP:ENGVAR. Rather, it's choosing between two terms for an article title, both of them current American English, one of them also internationally recognised, and both used in the article by its early authors. Andrewa ( talk) 19:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
This 2007 book Divided by a Common Language explicitly characterizes wood wool versus excelsior as a UK vs US language difference. The article was originally written from a US perspective, and per WP:ENGVAR should stay that way. Dicklyon ( talk) 06:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I found it: here. This 1868 patent "Improved capillary material for filling gas and air carburettors" is on a new use for this material that "may be used in mass as it is sold and used as filling for mattresses, its commercial name being 'excelsior'." This is the earliest description of the material by this name found by the OED. There's no suggestion that this commercial name was ever a trademark for this material. Dicklyon ( talk) 18:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
And here is the 1842 patent "Machine for manufacturing wood so as to be used as a substitute for curled hair in stuffing beds" that looks like the origin of this material. Not called excelsior yet though.
It's a American topic, based on its history, so let's keep calling it by its American name. Dicklyon ( talk) 18:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Here (pages 83 and 139) is a generic use of "excelsior mattress" in 1856. Patents in 1854 and 1855 on improved machine (see my first link at top section of this talk page) don't yet call it excelsior, so 1856 may be about the start, though they're clearly assuming that the reader knows the meaning already. Dicklyon ( talk) 19:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Excellent research. I suggest to include in the "History" section (to be created).-- FocalPoint ( talk) 20:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
In the text, there is the sentence: "In North America the term excelsior is sometimes used more generally, for any clean, loose material for shipment-packing of boxes or crates, such as styrofoam packing peanuts"
I attempted to find proof of this and I ended up with the following references [13]:
1. A site called Canadianmanufacturing.com which maintains what it calls "a comprehensive directory and search tool, providing information on Canadian industrial wholesalers, manufacturers, distributors and their products and services." In the "Search by product" it shows that a product category of "Paper Excelsior" exists Paper Excelsior Suppliers. This indicates the existence of the term "Paper Excelsior" in contrast with "Wood Excelsior".
2. A company, sellers of office products, are currently selling a product named American Excelsior Loose-Fill Peanuts [14], which is clearly not wood. In this instance, it appears that Excelsior is used generically for styrofoam packing peanuts (as claimed in the article)
It appears that [15] Dicklyon claims "there's no actual useful content at either of those cites" and reverted this content addition.
I think that these references support the claim inserted in 2006 [16] about the generic use of excelsior for loose packing material, however, I am not prepared to insist. I am just pointing out here the issue. If someone else agrees, put these references back in please. -- FocalPoint ( talk) 20:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I understand your line of thought, even though I do not agree with it. I believe that the two references weakly support the claim, not because they are weak, but because we could not not find any other sources. I suggest that it could find a place (including the references), phrased in a weaker way like: "There are indications that the term excelsior is sometimes used more generally, for clean, loose material for shipment-packing of boxes or crates, such as styrofoam packing peanuts".
A request (not part of the issue) - please consider not breaking down discussion text as you did above, it is OK if only you contribute, but if one more person writes something more, it makes the original text difficult to follow, despite the tabs. Still, if you really think it is necessary...go ahead.-- FocalPoint ( talk) 22:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I note from the same source (for use in Trends):
Advances in air-conditioning technology and a decreased demand for evaporative coolers -- even in Arizona -- lead to the decision to shed that portion of the business, said president and chief executive Michael Tinsley.
"Evaporative coolers probably are not the way of the future," he said. "It's really not a growth business for us." "Evaporative coolers probably are not the way of the future," he said. "It's really not a growth business for us.
-- FocalPoint ( talk) 08:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
As FocalPoint's recently-added history item makes clear, the product in Europe originally called wood wool was not excelsior, but something else entirely. I've added a source indicating that it was also known as pine wood wool and pine needle wool, as it was made from pine needles. Probably we should just take this stuff out, as it's unrelated to the article topic, which is excelsior by whatever name. Dicklyon ( talk) 00:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
That product was called wood wool. It is part of history of wood wool, which is the topic of the article, whether you are used to call it excelsior, wood wool, American moss or wood shavings.
Similarly, the material used for sanitary diapers was also called wood wool. Also part of wood wool's history-- FocalPoint ( talk) 07:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The phrase "have been tried and not found to be as good" is using a reference where it is stated : [17] "other substances have been tried ... but none of these are extensively used". Since the "not found to be as good" is not adequately supported, I am removing it.-- FocalPoint ( talk) 21:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
There is an adequate number of references here or more generally here showing alternative use of the terms wood wool and excelsior in the US. The current version of the text does not properly reflect this. My proposal is to improve the balance of the article and make mention of this.-- FocalPoint ( talk) 16:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
The reason that I made the proposal here, instead of doing the changes myself, was to ask for your assistance, for a balanced, neutral point of view text and certainly not to push the language anywhere. If you would care to help, so that the text reflects today's status accurately, it would be great. If on the other hand you prefer to present what you see as the traditional point of view, I am sure that someone will come up eventually to complement your fine work.-- FocalPoint ( talk) 18:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I changed from "The term wood wool is used in the US" to "was". The relevant reference is from 1918, with further references 1948, 1961. At the time of writing this text, 2009, it is 48 years after the last reference. More importantly, current usage of the term and references throughout the previous discussion do not indicate that there are such differences anymore.-- FocalPoint ( talk) 20:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
A reference from a 2007 book has been presented, however, in order to avoid misinformation, I propose to present some commercial reference if any.-- FocalPoint ( talk) 16:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Please examine the references provided here:
In view of these references, I believe that the current text of the article ("wood wool is used in the US to refer to finer grades of excelsior") is misleading and has to be amended.-- FocalPoint ( talk) 08:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
After seeing no reaction, I made the changes in the article, but they were reverted [18], with the comment "This is absurd; refs throughout the period of its existnence support the stated fact, including the cited 1948/1961 ref.".
It appears that the references presented above are considered by the contributor who deleted them less valid than the references which he provided. My impression is that following this practice, we are keeping references which make one story, rejecting other references which present another view. In my opinion this is against WP:NPOV.-- FocalPoint ( talk) 16:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The references and the text which I added, do not change what you refer to as "overwhelming evidence that the product still goes by the name excelsior. It can also be called wood wool, but this is less common in the US."
The references and the text which I added, only present another view on the statement "The term wood wool is used in the US to refer to finer grades of excelsior". These references support that this statement is in doubt (even though there are references from 1900-2000 which support it).
Eventually the text there said (I removed a lot to leave only conclusion):
References from .... indicate that the term wood wool is used in the US to refer to finer grades of excelsior.... On the other hand, other contemporary references do not support this information and refer to "fine" or "finer grades" ..... while the term wood wool is not connected with these fine grades.
Please help me understand: Do you disagree with this text? Why? -- FocalPoint ( talk) 10:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
It is clear that there are proper references from 1919-1948-1961-2007 which state that wood wool refer to finest grades (1961 clearly states it is based in the version of 1948, but nevertheless it is there). I tried to find some proof of this, hoping to find that a few companies would actually sell finest grades with this name. I found none. So I searched again. Nothing. If someone would selectively collect references supporting a specific point of view, I would think this would be a bad idea. I was not selective. I tried as best as I could. I found no supporting evidence whatsoever about reference to finest grades. So many people sell excelsior in the US, yet no one mentions finer grades by the name wood wool. I found nothing. I believe that the statement has to stand, but lack of supporting evidence has to be mentioned. I will give it a try and see how it looks.-- FocalPoint ( talk) 19:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
You have a very good knowledge of process in wikipedia. You also have all the data. I believe that the text should reflect the data. The current version of the text gives the impression that the term wood wool means fine cut in the US and that this is widely acceptable and known. I think that the text should show that it is seldom used under this meaning, while it is used (not much, but more than "seldom") in several/some cases generically. If you want, go ahead and show this view as well.-- FocalPoint ( talk) 21:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
That linked specification should be noted as a federal specification, not a MIL-SPEC, and my information [19] is that it has been cancelled, hence no longer in effect. Kevin ( talk) 00:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Some other references for the article. I might come at some point and use them, if someone wants to use them now, go ahead.-- FocalPoint ( talk) 21:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Both Wood Wool and Excelsior are used interchangeably in this article. I suggest most uses of Excelsior be changed for consistencies sake... Smarkflea ( talk) 21:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
Related talk archive: Talk:Excelsior (wood wool) (used to be at Talk:Wood wool)
was there a pattent for "Excelsior" granted ca 1900? There were several water powered mills established here in central NH about that time to make Excelsior from poplar logs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haywardpentagon ( talk • contribs)
I am not aware that the term Excelsior is synonym for wood wool worldwide. I believe that the more generic wood wool should be the actual article about wood wool, while the present article should focus on the Excelsior name and the use of this term.
Based on this line of thought, I went ahead with creating the article wood wool. It is certainly not "content fork", rather a more generic article.
Please note:
It was also indicated by User:Dicklyon that he can find no evidence that excelsior is a brand. I did not research this, so if I was wrong, I was wrong. I will have a look and report my findings, which, however, are not related to creating of a more generic article on wood wool.
-- FocalPoint ( talk) 19:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The current title is marginally good for US & Canada (it would be better as "Wood wool (excelsior)"). For Wikipedia, an international encyclopedia, "wood wool" is more appropriate.
-- FocalPoint ( talk) 21:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
It appears that these documents are just "a few gov docs" in your opinion, however, they are official and their definitions are used everywhere. They are the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States and the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System. The present title is inappropriate and of local use (...and yes...the locality is a very large place, big parts of North America...but wikipedia is not an American encyclopedia).-- FocalPoint ( talk) 21:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
It is obvious that you do not understand the importance of official nomenclature. This is fine. Furthermore, it is also obvious that you believe that a product should appear in Wikipedia with a name used in Canada, while you choose to ignore the generic name with which is is described everywhere else in the world and prefer to use it only as a redirection. This is fine too. For both issues, other editors will appear eventually (in one hour on in one decade from now) and the issue will be resolved in the way that all issues are (or are not) resolved in Wikipedia. What is not fine with me is the use of irony as an argument. This is unacceptable and I am really dissapointed with this part of the discussion.-- FocalPoint ( talk) 15:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, your making the wood wool a redirect again has removed content which is not replicated in this article. It constitutes removal of useful content. I am reverting your edit. If you think that these two articles must be one, then ask for a {{merge}} and do not remove useful content from wikipedia.-- FocalPoint ( talk) 15:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I will study the issue and come back. Meanwhile, useful references to be used & assessed:
-- FocalPoint ( talk) 14:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Having been unsuccessful at getting FocalPoint to add his new info here instead of at his new content fork at wood wool, I went ahead and merged it myself, since there was apparent unanimous support for the merge proposal he inititated and just seemed to need help. Dicklyon ( talk) 16:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I am copying here what I wrote in Talk:Wood wool:
For the record, Dicklyon has not acted properly by copying content from one article to the other, since that would require:
1. A proposal to merge wood wool with Excelsior (wood wool). This was not my proposal. My proposal was to merge Excelsior (wood wool), an article with a local name, with wood wool, an article with a name used world-wide.
2. Consensus for the merging. There is no consensus, because for consensus to form, time for discussion is necessary. The issue was not properly discussed. Dicklyon has reverted [1] [2] my requests for proposal for merging of that article with the present article wood wool.
Sad behaviour. -- FocalPoint ( talk) 16:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems that Dicklyon is contradicting himself:
Sad.-- FocalPoint ( talk) 16:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I expect that in the future Dicklyon will allow a proper discussion to take place and that he will not take action by himself again, allowing someone else to judge whether there is a consensus and what the actual consensus is about.-- FocalPoint ( talk) 17:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I propose to merge the present article Excelsior (wood wool) with the article wood wool, making Excelsior (wood wool) a redirect pointing to wood wool.
The reason for the merging proposal is that excelsior is a local name (mainly used in the US and Canada) for the product called wood wool internationally.-- FocalPoint ( talk) 17:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Your references fully support my argument: All three are American books (and also all three happen to be published 1915, 1919, 1913). Furthermore, more recent but still outdated material from the US uses the term interchangeably: [6] Popular Mechanics - Jul 1944 - "Excelsior or wood wool", Jan 1944 "WOOD WOOL or excelsior". However, the current practice of US government is to name the product "Wood wool (excelsior)" US commodity code. But all that is from US. let us see what happens internationally:
The conclusion:
-- FocalPoint ( talk) 09:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
A US educational provider gives the definition of excelsior: wood wool [9] and then explains wood wool [10] -- FocalPoint ( talk) 11:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
One more reference, this time from a dictionary, characterizing it an Americanism. Ref: excelsior. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/excelsior (accessed: January 25, 2009). -- FocalPoint ( talk) 20:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
And another one: http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/dictionaries/difficultwords/data/d0005390.html "n. American, wood shavings used as packing, stuffing, litter etc." -- FocalPoint ( talk) 20:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-definitions/excelsior "excellent: used as a motto and as a trademark for various products, esp. in the U.S. for fine wood shavings used for packing breakable objects" -- FocalPoint ( talk) 20:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
For the time being I have restored the merge tags to both articles, with the discussion redirected here. Once a consensus is reached, then the articles can be merged, moved or whatever. Kevin ( talk) 04:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was moved to Wood wool. Usually, move disputes are settled according to WP:COMMONNAME; however, that doesn't seem to apply here, as no one has shown convincingly enough that one name is much more used than the other; this debate has instead focused on different interpretations of WP:ENGVAR: out of two sections in the guideline, which one is primary in this instance? Wikipedia:ENGVAR#Retaining_the_existing_variety states that, in the absence of "strong national ties to the topic", the variety used by the original author or first major contributor should be used. There is no dispute that, in this case, the original variety used was American. There is no dispute that the article started under the American name, "Excelsior". There is also no dispute that the product originated in America with that name. If the product were still only used in America, then there would be no dispute. However, it has spread beyond America's borders, and Wikipedia:ENGVAR#Opportunities_for_commonality says that "Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English." There is no dispute here that both "excelsior" and "wood wool" are shared by all varieties of English mentioned here. If these were the only arguments presented here, then I would say that there was no consensus for the move. However, there was no refutation of the principle of least astonishment; people searching for wood wool will likely be surprised to find themselves at an article marked "Excelsior", while those searching for Excelsior will land at the disambiguation page, and easily find the link to wood wool, and not be surprised at all. Since we are optimizing this encyclopedia for readers over editors, the page will be moved to Wood wool.-- Aervanath ( talk) 09:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Excelsior (wood wool) → Wood wool — Personal preference? Stop an edit war over an improper move? Don't ask me, I'm against it. — Dicklyon ( talk) 05:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.Summary – 6 editors support changing to wood wool, because they don't know of excelsior, (or know it as wood wool in 2 cases). 3 support respecting WP:ENGVAR and keeping the hisotical American name of this traditional product. There is not sufficient agreement to conclude there's any consensus for a move in violation of WP:ENGVAR. Dicklyon ( talk) 00:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
This is a very interesting way to see consensus. I hope that this is a bad joke. -- FocalPoint ( talk) 08:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The name and history of excelsior/wood wool seems to be interwoven with that of the American Excelsior Company (AEC henceforth... not to be confused with the United States Atomic Energy Commission, which was commonly known by those initials until 1974... showing my age...), despite claims (true for all I know) above that the term predates the company. But somebody invented the term and the product!
According to the AEC website, In the United States excelsior has no other general name; however, in many other countries excelsior is commonly known and referred to as wood wool. That doesn't seem accurate; Many US websites use both terms. It seems to me that the international term is wood wool.
Regardless of the result of this move request, a section in the article on the history of the product, the name and the company would be an excellent idea IMO. Andrewa ( talk) 12:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
What's going on here?? I feel like the guy who was watching a perfectly good fight when suddenly a hockey game broke out. People are quoting sources, weighing evidence, considering the reader's viewpoint and the role of Wikipedia as an international institution, all without a single personal attack, nor any accusations of bad faith! This has got to stop immediately, or no one will recognize this as a Wikipedia discussion. LouScheffer ( talk) 04:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
As has been stated above, this isn't simply a de-americanisation, which would be a violation of WP:ENGVAR. Rather, it's choosing between two terms for an article title, both of them current American English, one of them also internationally recognised, and both used in the article by its early authors. Andrewa ( talk) 19:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
This 2007 book Divided by a Common Language explicitly characterizes wood wool versus excelsior as a UK vs US language difference. The article was originally written from a US perspective, and per WP:ENGVAR should stay that way. Dicklyon ( talk) 06:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I found it: here. This 1868 patent "Improved capillary material for filling gas and air carburettors" is on a new use for this material that "may be used in mass as it is sold and used as filling for mattresses, its commercial name being 'excelsior'." This is the earliest description of the material by this name found by the OED. There's no suggestion that this commercial name was ever a trademark for this material. Dicklyon ( talk) 18:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
And here is the 1842 patent "Machine for manufacturing wood so as to be used as a substitute for curled hair in stuffing beds" that looks like the origin of this material. Not called excelsior yet though.
It's a American topic, based on its history, so let's keep calling it by its American name. Dicklyon ( talk) 18:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Here (pages 83 and 139) is a generic use of "excelsior mattress" in 1856. Patents in 1854 and 1855 on improved machine (see my first link at top section of this talk page) don't yet call it excelsior, so 1856 may be about the start, though they're clearly assuming that the reader knows the meaning already. Dicklyon ( talk) 19:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Excellent research. I suggest to include in the "History" section (to be created).-- FocalPoint ( talk) 20:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
In the text, there is the sentence: "In North America the term excelsior is sometimes used more generally, for any clean, loose material for shipment-packing of boxes or crates, such as styrofoam packing peanuts"
I attempted to find proof of this and I ended up with the following references [13]:
1. A site called Canadianmanufacturing.com which maintains what it calls "a comprehensive directory and search tool, providing information on Canadian industrial wholesalers, manufacturers, distributors and their products and services." In the "Search by product" it shows that a product category of "Paper Excelsior" exists Paper Excelsior Suppliers. This indicates the existence of the term "Paper Excelsior" in contrast with "Wood Excelsior".
2. A company, sellers of office products, are currently selling a product named American Excelsior Loose-Fill Peanuts [14], which is clearly not wood. In this instance, it appears that Excelsior is used generically for styrofoam packing peanuts (as claimed in the article)
It appears that [15] Dicklyon claims "there's no actual useful content at either of those cites" and reverted this content addition.
I think that these references support the claim inserted in 2006 [16] about the generic use of excelsior for loose packing material, however, I am not prepared to insist. I am just pointing out here the issue. If someone else agrees, put these references back in please. -- FocalPoint ( talk) 20:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I understand your line of thought, even though I do not agree with it. I believe that the two references weakly support the claim, not because they are weak, but because we could not not find any other sources. I suggest that it could find a place (including the references), phrased in a weaker way like: "There are indications that the term excelsior is sometimes used more generally, for clean, loose material for shipment-packing of boxes or crates, such as styrofoam packing peanuts".
A request (not part of the issue) - please consider not breaking down discussion text as you did above, it is OK if only you contribute, but if one more person writes something more, it makes the original text difficult to follow, despite the tabs. Still, if you really think it is necessary...go ahead.-- FocalPoint ( talk) 22:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I note from the same source (for use in Trends):
Advances in air-conditioning technology and a decreased demand for evaporative coolers -- even in Arizona -- lead to the decision to shed that portion of the business, said president and chief executive Michael Tinsley.
"Evaporative coolers probably are not the way of the future," he said. "It's really not a growth business for us." "Evaporative coolers probably are not the way of the future," he said. "It's really not a growth business for us.
-- FocalPoint ( talk) 08:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
As FocalPoint's recently-added history item makes clear, the product in Europe originally called wood wool was not excelsior, but something else entirely. I've added a source indicating that it was also known as pine wood wool and pine needle wool, as it was made from pine needles. Probably we should just take this stuff out, as it's unrelated to the article topic, which is excelsior by whatever name. Dicklyon ( talk) 00:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
That product was called wood wool. It is part of history of wood wool, which is the topic of the article, whether you are used to call it excelsior, wood wool, American moss or wood shavings.
Similarly, the material used for sanitary diapers was also called wood wool. Also part of wood wool's history-- FocalPoint ( talk) 07:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The phrase "have been tried and not found to be as good" is using a reference where it is stated : [17] "other substances have been tried ... but none of these are extensively used". Since the "not found to be as good" is not adequately supported, I am removing it.-- FocalPoint ( talk) 21:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
There is an adequate number of references here or more generally here showing alternative use of the terms wood wool and excelsior in the US. The current version of the text does not properly reflect this. My proposal is to improve the balance of the article and make mention of this.-- FocalPoint ( talk) 16:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
The reason that I made the proposal here, instead of doing the changes myself, was to ask for your assistance, for a balanced, neutral point of view text and certainly not to push the language anywhere. If you would care to help, so that the text reflects today's status accurately, it would be great. If on the other hand you prefer to present what you see as the traditional point of view, I am sure that someone will come up eventually to complement your fine work.-- FocalPoint ( talk) 18:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I changed from "The term wood wool is used in the US" to "was". The relevant reference is from 1918, with further references 1948, 1961. At the time of writing this text, 2009, it is 48 years after the last reference. More importantly, current usage of the term and references throughout the previous discussion do not indicate that there are such differences anymore.-- FocalPoint ( talk) 20:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
A reference from a 2007 book has been presented, however, in order to avoid misinformation, I propose to present some commercial reference if any.-- FocalPoint ( talk) 16:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Please examine the references provided here:
In view of these references, I believe that the current text of the article ("wood wool is used in the US to refer to finer grades of excelsior") is misleading and has to be amended.-- FocalPoint ( talk) 08:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
After seeing no reaction, I made the changes in the article, but they were reverted [18], with the comment "This is absurd; refs throughout the period of its existnence support the stated fact, including the cited 1948/1961 ref.".
It appears that the references presented above are considered by the contributor who deleted them less valid than the references which he provided. My impression is that following this practice, we are keeping references which make one story, rejecting other references which present another view. In my opinion this is against WP:NPOV.-- FocalPoint ( talk) 16:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The references and the text which I added, do not change what you refer to as "overwhelming evidence that the product still goes by the name excelsior. It can also be called wood wool, but this is less common in the US."
The references and the text which I added, only present another view on the statement "The term wood wool is used in the US to refer to finer grades of excelsior". These references support that this statement is in doubt (even though there are references from 1900-2000 which support it).
Eventually the text there said (I removed a lot to leave only conclusion):
References from .... indicate that the term wood wool is used in the US to refer to finer grades of excelsior.... On the other hand, other contemporary references do not support this information and refer to "fine" or "finer grades" ..... while the term wood wool is not connected with these fine grades.
Please help me understand: Do you disagree with this text? Why? -- FocalPoint ( talk) 10:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
It is clear that there are proper references from 1919-1948-1961-2007 which state that wood wool refer to finest grades (1961 clearly states it is based in the version of 1948, but nevertheless it is there). I tried to find some proof of this, hoping to find that a few companies would actually sell finest grades with this name. I found none. So I searched again. Nothing. If someone would selectively collect references supporting a specific point of view, I would think this would be a bad idea. I was not selective. I tried as best as I could. I found no supporting evidence whatsoever about reference to finest grades. So many people sell excelsior in the US, yet no one mentions finer grades by the name wood wool. I found nothing. I believe that the statement has to stand, but lack of supporting evidence has to be mentioned. I will give it a try and see how it looks.-- FocalPoint ( talk) 19:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
You have a very good knowledge of process in wikipedia. You also have all the data. I believe that the text should reflect the data. The current version of the text gives the impression that the term wood wool means fine cut in the US and that this is widely acceptable and known. I think that the text should show that it is seldom used under this meaning, while it is used (not much, but more than "seldom") in several/some cases generically. If you want, go ahead and show this view as well.-- FocalPoint ( talk) 21:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
That linked specification should be noted as a federal specification, not a MIL-SPEC, and my information [19] is that it has been cancelled, hence no longer in effect. Kevin ( talk) 00:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Some other references for the article. I might come at some point and use them, if someone wants to use them now, go ahead.-- FocalPoint ( talk) 21:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Both Wood Wool and Excelsior are used interchangeably in this article. I suggest most uses of Excelsior be changed for consistencies sake... Smarkflea ( talk) 21:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)