4

I just posted a question with a new tag . I wasn't allowed to create , my first choice, since there was already a tag for (one question - this might be better served by , actually), and the help-text pointed me here to ask about it.

When sewing with knits, there are special concerns and different techniques used as compared to woven fabrics, so I think it would be worth having a tag for questions specifically about them. On the other hand, perhaps we don't want to set a precedent of a tag for every fabric. Personally, I think this would be useful meta-information - precisely what tags are for.

So, two questions for the community:

  1. Should we have a tag for knit fabrics?
  2. If so, what would be an appropriate tag, to distinguish it from questions about knitting or knitted garments?
| |
  • Not only knit, but hand vs machine knit. and fiber types. Angora, Acrylic, Llama, Alpaca, Sheep's wool aka Wool, but each breed type of each animal had a wool of a different fiber type.. No, it is not 1 entry simple. – Joel Huebner May 2 '16 at 0:03
3

I'd say is the best choice, here. If I search for "knits", "knit fabric" is actually the first result. So, it naturally makes sense.

We also already have precedence using tags for specific materials, and I don't see why this should be any different.

In general, I would say tags for specific types or sub-types of materials, mediums, or tools are good to have, as long as we don't get too specific that no one will use it. For instance, . Although, could potentially be justified being its own tag.

In this case, combining + would make the question better off than just , and mark it as distinctly different than + .

At this time, we've not yet run into the case of there being too different types of materials tagged. I'm not confident it will be a concern in the long run, either.

| |
  • also, see my comments above, it multiplies & multiplies! – Joel Huebner May 2 '16 at 0:04
  • 1
    @JoelHuebner Some of those examples are where we'd get too specific. For instance, "wool" is a class of material, and is suitable. Alpaca wool is a such a specific product within that category, that I don't think it's reasonable to have as a tag. But, I don't see that being a problem unless we don't watch or guide tagging at all. – user24 May 2 '16 at 0:34
  • I agree. You used both so I am not sure if you are trying to make a point or it was an accident. I would vote for knit-fabrics – Matt May 2 '16 at 0:36
  • @Matt I used both what? I'm not sure if it was a point or an accident, either! – user24 May 2 '16 at 0:37
  • @CreationEdge Sorry the last two sentences are backwards. You used the plural and singular tags in your post – Matt May 2 '16 at 0:37
  • @Matt Ah, yes! That wasn't intentional, but it fits since that naming convention is still up in the air. I'm in favor of plurals, myself. – user24 May 2 '16 at 0:39
  • @CreationEdge, in the fiber industry "wool" is sheep's wool. We remind folks that Angora Rabbit fiber is NOT HAIR, but is wool, as it has crimp just like Sheep's wool. Qiviot if the fiber from a Musk Ox, that is it a fiber with crimp is implied, as with Bison, Camel, Llama, and Alpaca and the other camelids. Wool, by it self is Sheep's wool. Wool in use with the other animals is implied. It is how we in the industry use our nomenclature! – Joel Huebner May 2 '16 at 1:38
  • You can add "Shetland" to your wool, still a sheep, or any of the other sheep breeds. Angora Goats, their fiber is Mohair. Cashmier is a fiber type,not sheep or goat.We in the industry use this is our verbiage – Joel Huebner May 2 '16 at 1:45

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .