Latest comment: 11 years ago by P16ink4 in topic Modern carpeting and installation

Editing comments

High quality carpets cost a lot of money.

Be bold in editing! !!!! olivier 04:01 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The reference to rugs needs sorting out - the term here loops back to this page, while on 'search' goes to 'rug-making.'

Jackiespeel 16:02, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

when i put back the annotation in the biblio it screwed up the format and i can't figure out how to fix it. sorry. -astragal

I have added a new type of carpet called ColorTEC Stephen Williams 26th June 2007

Persian Carpet section

To the author(s) of the page,

We (authors of the Iran/Persia sections) felt it was necessary to have an exclusive page on Persian carpets. So we cut out the stuff that was on this page regarding Persian carpets, combined it with our own stuff, and pasted it at the page: Persian rug.

Please feel free to edit it as well, if deemed necessary.

If you feel you would still want this page (carpet) to have the former text on Persian carpets (your original text before I cut it out), then please do provide the link to our page too.

Thanx.--Zereshk 01:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You did a great job on the Persian carpets page. I have only one concern - carpets from the Anatolian penninsula have now been consumed into the entry on Persian carpets. I see that they are a part of the back-story for the Persian carpets - but they have a history of their own. I will add a section on these carpets to the carpet main page when I have time, unless you want to do it. -Astragal

I think the Rug making section and the carpet section should be left separate. They are completely different subjects in their own matter.

Modern Carpet Section

I made a correction to the statement that carpet is sewed together. First let me qualify-My family owns carpet and tile store and I work in the office but have installed carpet. Carpet is no longer sewed together and my father says he hasn't seen it done since the very early 1970's and that hot seaming was being done even then. LJohnson

Thank you! Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I have made a further correction as the above statement may be factually correct for the USA & Canada, however carpet is sewn to size within the UK. Carpet manufactured for Pubs and Clubs is usually 27" (0.69m) wide and then the individual widths are sewn together to make the carpet the correct size for the area. The narrow width of carpet means that there is less wastage within the differently shaped rooms.

Stephen Williams 26th June 2007

HI TRENTON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Merger of categories

There are two categories relating to rugs: 1. Category:Rugs which is a sub-category of Category:Textile arts which is a sub category of the Categories: Artistic techniques | Art media | Textiles | Crafts | Arts and crafts and 2. Category:Rugs and carpets which is a sub-category of Category:Textiles

I propose to merge Category:Rugs into Category:Rugs and carpets. Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Rugs_to_Category:Rugs_and_carpets --A Y Arktos 21:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Modern carpeting and installation

Carpeting is an attached floor covering made of a heavy, thick fabric, usually woven or felted, often wool, but also cotton, hemp, straw, or a synthetic counterpart. Polypropelene is a very common pile yarn. It is typically knotted or glued to a base weave. It is made in breadths of typically 4 0r 5 meters to be cut, seamed with a seaming Iron and seam tape, but formerly it was sewed together, and affixed to a floor over a cushioned underlay (pad) using nails, tack strips, (gripper) or adhesives, thus distinguishing it from a rug or mat which are loose-laid floor coverings. Carpeting which covers an entire room area is loosely referred to as 'wall-to-wall,' but carpet can be installed over any portion thereof with use of appropriate transition moldings where the carpet meets other types of floor coverings. Carpeting is more than just a single item; it is, in fact, a system comprised of the carpet itself, the cushion, and a method of installation. 'Carpet tiles' are squares of carpet, typically 0.5m square, that can be used to cover a floor. They are usually only used in commercial settings and often are not affixed to a floor in order to allow access to the subfloor (in an office environment, for example) or to allow rearrangement in order to spread wear.

Modern carpeting is often attached to the floor (or stairways) of a building and, when considered permanently attached, would be part of the real property which includes the building

I pasted the previous I disagree. Nylon is the most common synthetic, synthetics dominate the market since the 70's. Carpet tiles are attached to the floor they just use adhesives that are weak and don't completly cure, not attaching them would be a disaster. The adhesive is the carpet version of "post it note" someone revise please.

--- As for the above excerpt that was posted, I have to disagree with some of the information, but most strongly with the title (Modern carpeting and installation). This tidbit, along with the rest of the article concentrates too much on American carpeting. There is no indication of European production methods or products which are vastly different and more technologically advanced than American mills. A section titled "Modern carpeting" without mentioning advances in random-pattern dying, hypoallergenic synthetics, velcro installation methods, smartfloors, metal weaving, etc is quite poorly labelled. Indeed, the mention of carpet tile is proof that it is anything BUT modern. - Progflea ---

I propose that a completely seperate carpet installation page be made. The installation section of this article is vague and terribly short. There is so many tools and methods that it should not be contain a a puny paragraph. Xbret64 03:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with above comment. There should also be some warning about safety and DIY: badly fitted carpets on stairs etc. but an encyclopedia is not a How to... — Preceding unsigned comment added by P16ink4 (talkcontribs) 11:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Merger of Carpet and Rug making articles

  • Oppose - they seem well-enoough developed articles in their own right. Please explain why they should be merged.--A Y Arktos 19:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - subject are similar but not the same. -- Solipsist 10:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • In Favor The distinction between rugs and carpets is vague at best (see second paragraph of carpet article). More importantly, there are many subjects listed under Category:Rugs and carpets that should certainly be included in or linked to an article on carpets. For example, some of the finest carpets in the world - such as the the Tabriz are included in this list. Division makes no sense to me! Astragal 22:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - These articles can stand alone, and have been standing alone just fine. Merging them would result in an extremely long article. -- Steven 00:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Maybe I need to be more clear. I believe that for anyone with a background in the history of carpet production and design the division between these two articles is clearly arbitrary. I agree that sub-divisions need to be made to avoid overly lengthy articles, but if repetition of information and semantic confusion are to be avoided, then these two articles must be combined. The main problem is that as it stands right now there is information under rugs that could just as well go under carpets. There are designs listed on the rugs page that any scholar on the subject would look for under carpets. Isn't the whole point to make information easily accessible? I agree, that if ain't broke don't fix it - but this is actually a pretty problematic situation at present. Astragal 04:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. To me, there is a clear distinction between carpets and rugs. Carpets are generally larger and often cut down to size to fit a given space, unlike rugs. I can see that there can be special cases where the boundaries ar blurred, but that happens with many other things. For example, the distinction between a mobile phone and a PDA can in some special cases be unclear, but that's no reason to treat those as the same either. (I'm quite sure, without even looking that mobile phones and PDAs have separate articles.) --A bit iffy 09:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • In Favour - Carpeting and rugs are two distinct product categories. Carpeting refers to an installed textile product where the primary concerns are durability, installation environment, health, wear, and air quality. Rugs (or carpets) are luxury textile products where design is the primary issue. The emphasis on utility in carpeting can be seen by the popularity of wool and nylon (or, for modern health concerns, in the popularity of felted nylon and compact needlefelt production), whereas the design-orientation of rugs / carpets is obvious in designs that use silk or linen. Being separate product categories, carpeting and carpets / rugs have both different histories and will certainly have different futures (look at modern production techniques, machinery, designs, etc). My suggestion would be to discuss "carpeting" and "carpets / rugs" as separate articles. I acknowledge that there is semantic problems with using carpeting vs. carpets / rugs, but using anything more vague would diminish the value of the different production techniques. A lot of the information under "Carpet" should definitely be moved to "Rugs," and the histories properly separated. - Progflea
  • Oppose. There seems to be enough distinction to maintain these as separate articles. Noisy | Talk 10:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Responses

Progflea: So actually, Progflea is in favor of uniting the carpet and rug articles, and separating them from the carpeting article. This distinction I am fully in favor of as well. A bit iffy: You are actually talking about CARPETING(usually industrially produced and often installed wall-to-wall), not CARPETS. Please see the second paragraph in the current carpet article in which this distinction is discussed. Astragal 01:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

That is my mistake then - I thought the idea was to merge both the carpet, rug and carpeting articles into a single one. Carpeting should be separate from rugs and carpets (which should be merged). - Progflea

In favor of disambiguation. Since the words carpet and rug may mean different or the same thing, depending on the industry lingo, why not create a disambiguation page for the word carpet and then direct it to rugs (carpets with finished edges) and carpeting (flooring material such as "carpet tile" and wall-to-wall carpets).
Didn't realize my merge request finally got some attention. - RoyBoy 800 14:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge all related into "FLOORCOVERINGS"

Suggest merging all subject matter related to carpet, rugs etc. under the header title "FLOORCOVERINGS"


Author wrote: "Carpets are easier to maintain than bare floors."

This is strictly a matter of opinion. Another of the many reasons why Wikipedia is just a poor source of information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Not really, hard floors will show mud/debribs/dust and shoe prints much easier, and can be scuffed as well. Requiring regular buffing. - RoyBoy 800 14:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
But carpets can be permanently stained by dirty boots, whereas a stone or tile floor (and probably a laminate one?) can alway be cleaned. PeteVerdon 15:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Marginal. While a carpet can technically be permanently stained, competent cleaners can remove it from being visually apparent. Especially with commercial carpeting that has variations in color to minimize stain residuals. Furthermore, replacement of a section of carpet is easier and cheaper than many other flooring options; and laminate, concrete etc. can be stained in certain circumstances... and that's a bitch to get out! Believe u me, and Greg. - RoyBoy 800 23:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

In any case, the merge request clearly isn't a good idea. -- Solipsist 22:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


"Sadly DIY attempts to clean carpets often lead to disaster.

Many companies use a "bait and switch" advertising program to get inside the door, then start adding on extra charges for such things as using detergent instead of plain water; it is best to avoid these coupon companies if you want quality cleaning done. They often use inadequate equipment, which is cheap and unable to extract all of the detergent and dirt. All too often they carry out work at your risk i.e. no insurance and unlikely to be correctly trained. As a result you could compare, washing your hair in the shower and then rinsing it out half way, leaving it dirty, crusty and weird for the rest of the day.


Such professional cleaners are highly trained and one should look for qualifications and certification by recognised industry experts such as IICRC."

Is the above neutral or written by IICRC? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tpl6060 (talkcontribs) 22:44, 26 July 2006.

Well no its not. I'd have to agree with you there. Actually this article has quite a number of similar problems -- as they say in these parts Be Bold. -- Solipsist 21:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Berber carpet?

There is an image of "berber" carpet but no description or explanation in the text. Can someone who knows something about carpet (I sure don't) please take care of this? Some guy 00:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Another question of neutrality

Near the end of the article is a statement as currently written sounds very opinionated and not very neutral/informative:

"Carpet stinks and is often dirty with pet excrement and day-to-day spills making it somewhat unhealthy." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

GA failure

Failed "good article" nomination

Upon its review on February 18, 2008, this good article nomination was quick-failed because it:

had a virtual or complete lack of reliable sources

thus making it ineligible for good article consideration. According to WP:Verifiability, "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source."

This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment. Thank you for your work so far. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

GA; why has this article been put back on the list so soon? There are lots more references needed. Sorry, but you'll find it will fail again, and quite soon.--andreasegde (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you briefly point out where?Geoff Plourde (talk) 05:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that many more inline citations are needed to support what is being said in this article. Please see WP:When to cite for guidance... Johnfos (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

GA fail

I'm sorry, but I can not pass the article at this time. Here are some things to work on before renominating the article:

  • The lead is too short (and there is a giant tag at the top of the article pointing this out). Per WP:LEAD, leads are supposed to summarize all the main points of the article. For an article this size, 2-3 paragraphs ought to suffice.
  • There are entire sections without inline citations. An entire article should be fully referenced before it can be a GA.
  • When a book source is used, please include the page number where the information was found for verifiability.
  • There seems to be excessive and un-necessary bolding of words throughout the article. Please see MOS:BOLD for the proper occasions to use bolding.
  • Sentences should not begin with the word "however". It is improper grammar. Either move the word into the sentence or remove it entirely. For example, "However, historically it meant a supplementary warp-cut or uncut loop pile made on a draw loom (aka Velour d'Utrecht, Brussels, Wilton, bouclé, and Frisé)" should read "Historically, however,..."
  • There are also entire sections (example:Turkish carpets) that need to be wikified.

Please fix these problems and you may renominate the article. Thanks. Nikki311 02:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Missing info about Rug Doctor and carpet cleaning

See heading. (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The article could use more extensive info about maintaining a carpet. SamanthaG (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Pazyryk Carpet

I removed as a source because the presentation was grandiose and gave far too much weight to this single source. After reading the full reference, I'm not sure how we can possibly present it properly without finding more and better sources on this carpet. --Ronz (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Source Copied

I was researching something and discovered that the section on English Carpets was copied verbatum from Interior Decoration: A Complete Course by Shirley Morris. Unless Ms. Morris herself entered this section, it will need to be rewritten. Vsanborn (talk) 12:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Turkish carpet section far too large

Given that we have a separate article, Turkish carpet, this section should be returned to its previous size [1]. Note that the other large sections do not have their own articles (Indian and English). There is absolutely no need to double it in size as has been done. Much of additional details provide a very poor summary of Turkish carpet. Of course, additional sources for verification and changes for accuracy should be made. I don't have a problem with the addition of one, exemplary image. --Ronz (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ron. I've made some changes to the Turkish section. Check them out and let me know what you think. Still too much info? I can pare it down if need be. But please take note of the length of the Indian section on this page.

As for the Sultan Ahmet, Blue Mosque, pic. Please keep it up, I will minimize the size.

Thanks. Cllane4 (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)cl

The Indian section is expected to be larger because there is no specific article on the topic as there is for Turkish carpet. The Indian section needs sources and a rewrite as well. --Ronz (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ron. Ok, I've trimmed the article yet again and deleted the Usak pic. Still too long? Too biased?? Please advise. Cllane4 (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)cl

Ron, One more trim. Let me know what you think, need to leave for a few hours. I'll check in later. Cllane4 (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)cl

Current 21:27, 10 January 2012‎

Turkish carpets (also known as Anatolian), whether hand knotted or flat woven, are among the most well known and established hand crafted art works in the world. [1] Historically: religious, cultural, environmental, sociopolitical and socioeconomic conditions created widespread utilitarian need and have provided artistic inspiration among the many tribal peoples and ethnic groups in Central Asia and Turkey. [2] Turks; nomadic or pastoral, agrarian or town dwellers, living in tents or in sumptuous houses in large cities, have protected themselves from the extremes of the cold weather by covering the floors, and sometimes walls and doorways, with carpets and rugs. The carpets are always hand made of wool or sometimes cotton, with occasional additions of silk. These carpets are natural barriers against the cold. Turkish pile rugs and kilims are also frequently used as tent decorations, grain bags, camel and donkey bags, ground cushions, oven covers, sofa covers, bed and cushion covers, blankets, curtains, eating blankets, table top spreads, prayer rugs, and for ceremonial occasions.

The oldest records of flat woven kilims come from Çatalhöyük Neolithic pottery, circa 7000 B.C. One of the oldest settlements ever to have been discovered, Çatalhöyük is located south east of Konya in the middle of the Anatolian region. [3] The excavations to date (only 3% of the town) not only found carbonized fabric but also fragments of kilims painted on the walls of some of the dwellings. The majority of them represent geometric and stylized forms that are similar or identical to other historical and contemporary designs. [4]

The knotted rug is believed to have reached Asia Minor and the Middle East with the expansion of various nomadic tribes peoples during the latter period of the great Turkic migration of the 8th and 9th centuries.

Famously depicted in European paintings of The Renaissance, beautiful Anatolian rugs were often used from then until modern times, to indicate the high economic and social status of the owner.

Women learn their weaving skills at an early age, taking months or even years to complete the beautiful pile rugs and flat woven kilims that were created for their use in every aspect of daily life. As is true in most weaving cultures, traditionally and nearly exclusively, it is women and girls who are both artisan and weaver. [5][6]


Carpets, whether knotted or flat woven (kilim) are among the best known art forms produced by the Turks. They have protected themselves from the extremes of the cold weather by covering the floors, and sometimes walls and doorways, with carpets. These are handmade, of wool or sometimes cotton, with occasional additions of silk. Even technological advances which enable factory-made carpets has not stopped the production of rug weaving at cottage-industry level. Although synthetic dyes have been in use for the last 150 years, hand made carpets are still considered far superior to industrial carpeting.

Turkish carpets in the 15th and 16th centuries are best known through European paintings. For example, in the works of Lotto (15th century Italian painter) and Holbein (16th century Germanpainter), Turkish carpets are seen under the feet of the Virgin Mary, or in secular paintings, on tables. In the 17th century, when the Netherlands became a powerful mercantile country, Turkish carpets graced many Dutch homes. The Dutch painter Vermeer represented Turkish carpets predominantly [citation needed]to indicate the high economic and social status of the persons in his paintings. Turkey carpets, as they were known, were too valuable to be put on floors, except under the feet of the Holy Mother and royalty[citation needed].

The Turkish carpets have exuberant colors, motifs, and patterns. Because traditionally women have woven the carpets, this is one art form that is rarely appreciated as being the work of a known or a specific artist.[7]



Since no edit summaries were used in this rewrite, it would be helpful to explain why such a drastic rewrite. A few questions to start:

  • Why was the reference removed: Aslanapa, Oktay. One Thousand Years of Turkish Carpets. Translated and edited by William A. Edmonds. Istanbul: Eren 1988?
  • What errors were corrected in the rewrite?
  • How does the rewrite better summarize Turkish carpet?
  • Isn't much of the rewrite redundant to other sections of the article (eg those that aren't specific to Turkish carpets)?

--Ronz (talk) 04:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Ron, it hasn't been worth my time to rewrite this section and to follow up on discussions to this effect. Feel free to delete my contribution to this "Carpet" page and/or revert to the older version. I'll focus on the independent Turkish Carpet Page.

Thanks. cl Cllane4 (talk) 04:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Ron, you make the bold mistake of editing and deleting information added to articles where you have no level of knowledge on the actual topic.

You also are a very poor judge of what is good informative writing and what is not.

Who are you, what are your credentials?

I have undone your last reversion per what I believe is an obvious improvement on the summary. My summary is well researched with correct grammar, spelling and filled with citations.

If you persist on this dispruptive campaign I will certainly report you.

Cllane4 (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Cllane4 (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Please focus on content.
You've erased the portion of this discussion relevant to my actions. I've restored the discussion in full. --Ronz (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
You wrote, "Feel free to delete my contribution to this "Carpet" page and/or revert to the older version." Sorry that you now have changed your mind.
Now let's get back to the questions: (04:26, 11 January 2012)
  • Why was the reference removed: Aslanapa, Oktay. One Thousand Years of Turkish Carpets. Translated and edited by William A. Edmonds. Istanbul: Eren 1988?
  • What errors were corrected in the rewrite?
  • How does the rewrite better summarize Turkish carpet?
  • Isn't much of the rewrite redundant to other sections of the article (eg those that aren't specific to Turkish carpets)?

--Ronz (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The answers Ron.

  • 1)reference is there
  • 2)obvious if you read both summaries, AND if you know anything about Turkish Carpets, my area of expertise
  • 3)redundant question, see above
  • 4)No

Would you honestly say that fighting this battle is more important than providing correct and knowledgeable, well researched info on Turkish Carpets? I do not understand this silly game.

Cllane4 (talk) 07:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

  1. Thanks for reinserting the reference after I brought it up.
  2. That doesn't answer the question.
  3. That doesn't answer the question.
  4. Are you saying it is somehow relevant to Turkish carpets and/or it is not redundant?
Editors are expected to work with others. Wikipedia is not a battleground. --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Cllane4 won't be able to respond for the next day or so. DMacks (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Early Carpets Section should be renamed and moved up

In accordance with most other pages for objects (e.g., the burning glass page) the section on Early Carpets and the history and all should be the first section following the intro, and should be labeled as 'history'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)