Talk:Laundry symbol

Additional material needed

Some questions for this stub:

who devised them?
when did they first come into use?
how did they become ubiquitous?
in fact, how ubiquitous are they? Which countries use them, whcih don't?
are therevariations among manufacturers of clothing? -- Tarquin 18:23 Jan 12, 2003 (UTC)

additional questions:

when are certain symbols omitted and what that means.
what is assumed when certain symbols such as one for hand washing are used but another symbol for a different category is not such as the symbols for drying are not preset. Gaerek (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Local copy?

So I came to this page absolutely certain that I would find the intel I needed, and WP did not have the information I was looking for. I can't remember when the last time that happened was. Anyway, I do believe the images and text on the "Canadian info" link should be open source. It's hosted by the Cdn gov't after all. Could be a good place to start, and it's also well-organised. This article could use an org scheme similar to what that page uses, as a starting point at least. — chirographa diverbia cognatō 16:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make sense for Wikipedia to include these symbols right here?

I think it would be beneficial to include these symbols here. I have been trying to locate a copy of the Canadian Laundry Care Symbols in colour, but have not had any luck as of yet. The only symbols I can find are related to the new system with dots indicating temperatures. If it is not feasibly to have the symbols located here, then links would be the next logical choice. Steve Pachal 18:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this article badly needs some illustration. Compare with the German version, for example! (Surely there cannot be insuperable copyright issues in displaying such ubiquitous symbols in an article about them?) --Jonik 13:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this article absolutely should have examples of the symbols. It's kind of pointless without it. Kwertii (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dø nøt wåsh by ælk

I don't really speak Swedish, but as far as I get the meaning from the linked site in Swedish, their symbols look and mean exactly the same as the official GINETEX ones ... which makes sense since the European country Sweden isn't mentioned as an exception to adhering to the GINETEX standard. (After all, they're not the British "englishing" on principle. ;) So if nobody objects, I'm going to remove that link quite soon. Cheers, Edwing 19:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No objections here - Sweden is a member of GINETEX 64.59.144.85 16:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

harmful link

If I try to follow the link to the Japanese explanation of the symbols (http://www.apparelkey.com) I receive a warning message from my firefox browser that this website could harm my computer ("reported attack site") - the same with google search ("This site may harm your computer."). Therefore I would suggest to remove that link. regards, Freygeist (talk) 11:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same with Safari, I have removed the link (Eraserhead1 not logged in) 118.155.240.89 (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about American cold/warm/hot temperatures?

The 30 degree Celsius etc symbols are easily understood in most of the world, but in the U.S., typically no absolutes are given for washing. There is only "cold", "warm" and "hot", and these settings are indicated on washing machines without any indications of what the actual temperatures are. So even if a person converts 30 C to Fahrenheit, the will still not know how the symbol corresponds with the choices on their washing machine. I tried looking for a conversion between cold/warm/hot and actual temperatures on Wikipedia but couldn't find it. Any pointers? Thanks. --CodeGeneratR (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't the US wash symbols a tub with 1, 2, or 3 dots - meaning cold, warm, and hot wash, respectively? They are not shown in the article. 75.36.222.28 (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any suitable images at commons:Category:Laundry symbols, so someone will need to make them first. -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know 1) this discussion is nearly a decade old as I write this, and 2) I'm terribly confused by all these symbols, but I may have found a remedy to this issue you were discussing. I have an internationally-distributed skein of yarn from Lion Brand. Its care labels actually use GINETEX symbols. It has both F° & C°! So no math necessary. It has 104 F° inside the symbol, and 40C° below it, which is the same thing. I'm not sure, if a product isn't meant for the international market, what Americans can do other than ask their virtual assistants to convert it for them. Kelelain (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know the standard "hot" temp is 140° F. Warm is probably ~ 105°, and Cold: 65°, or so? Or just whatever the tap temp happens to be, which will vary by the season. Firejuggler86 (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not global in coverage - link to possible starting point for fuller article.

This article only discusses European care labelling. There is no global standard for care labelling; different well-established systems exist in Australia, Japan and North America for example.

This PDF appears to be an informational leaflet detailing the different garment care labelling systems used in various parts of the world, produced as commercial promotional literature. While this is not great as a reliable source, it might be useful as a starting point for anyone trying to improve this article. --MegaSloth (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unicode?

I thought these symbols were in Unicode, but can't find them. Am I right? If so, can it be mentioned briefly here? 82.113.133.21 (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An old thread (2003), but the only discussion I could find; suggests these symbols aren't in Unicode? Wash Symbols and Iconography --MegaSloth (talk) 10:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is an active proposal to incorporate them into Unicode and some characters, such as Ⓐ, are the same as existing Unicode characters, but the full set is not yet incorporated (and may not end up being incorporated). Carter (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edits 30th Jan 2014

Just in case anybody wants to know, I reverted an edit by an IP that was just wrong regarding washing symbols. The previous version was correct so I just went back. The refs in that para support the current version, not the one I corrected. Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Triangle with two oblique lines and "CL"

I came here with a garment featuring among its symbols a triangle with two oblique lines and "CL", features not represented in a single triangle in the article. Anyone know if this is (or was, I noted that the CL triangle is "obsolete") commonly used and what its meaning is? In boolean logic, this is a case, I believe, where parentheses would be helpful, if not necessary, to express the desired message. And in case it appears that I'm just using a talk page as a Q&A, I'd like to say that I am almost as concerned that Wikipedia might be lacking some specific bit of information as I am concerned about properly washing my hat.Mattman00000 (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will be honest with you, I don't exactly understand what you mean by, "two oblique lines," but that has something to do with bleach and chlorine. If you mean it has two more lines inside of it, like a striped triangle, then that means use non-chlorine bleach only. I understand I'm telling you this >4 years after this was asked, but I just now took an interest in this topic. I'm finding there are still symbols missing from the main article. Kelelain (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The triangle means bleach. As Kelelain noted, the CL is chlorine. I don't know what "two oblique lines means either, but if it's an X that means do not do this thing. Firejuggler86 (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit dispute over P in circle symbol

It looks like on both this page and on Dry cleaning there's been a slow back-and-forth between stating that the P in circle symbol indicates "dry clean, PCE only" and "dry clean, anything except PCE". This appears to have started with this revision without a citation, and was perpetuated by well-intentioned efforts on each side to revert what may have looked like deliberate misinformation. The source cited by the Dry cleaning page clearly states that the meaning is "dry clean, PCE only", and an archived version of one of this page's sources (from GINETEX itself) appears to confirm this. However, three more sources from this page state a third (but possibly functionally equilavent to the first?) meaning of "dry clean, anything except TCE". My guess is that the original editor (understandably) confused PCE and TCE due to the similarity of their acronyms and full chemical names, leading to the erroneous second meaning.

Since the GINETEX standard appears to be the primary topic of discussion for both pages, I've updated both to the "dry clean, PCE only" meaning given by that source. The last username left was taken (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The circle with the P means "Dry Clean in any solvent except trichlorethylene." The "P" stands for perchlorethylene (perc), AFAIK, because historically those two solvents were generally the only two that were used (and trichlorethylene fell out of widespread use a LONG time ago, and for many years perc was the standard solvent...now it is starting to fall out of favour, in certain regions anyway, due to environmental concerns. But any. Yes, the P stands for perc, but no, it does NOT mean dry clean in no other solvent but perc: it means only do not use trichlorethylene. Firejuggler86 (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laundry symbols and GINETEX (moved from Roxy's Talk page)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

It looks like there is consensus to use the all caps version of this abbreviated term, GINETEX, consistent with the article at GINETEX. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 09:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over whether the "Groupement International d'Etiquetage pour l'Entretien des Textiles" should be referred to as GINETEX or Ginetex. Carter (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(After revert by Roxy the dog) Per MOS:CAPS, GINETEX should be all caps since it's an acronym. It was my error to write it Ginetex in the first place, so I corrected. Carter (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a proper Acronym. The Groupement International d'Etiquetage pour l'Entretien des TEXtiles uses the first three letters of the last word. Thanks for discussing though, but I believe you are wrong. We really should discuss this at the article talk page, where others will see. I will move this discussion there. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, per WP:BRD I have begun the discussion and will revert for the second time the initial Bold change. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, although given the past attention to the page I don't expect a robust discussion. Carter (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:CAPSACRS acronyms are all caps. MOS:ACRO notes that acronyms are "usually" from the initial letters of words in a phrase, which acknowledges that that is not always the case. There's nothing "proper" or improper about formations, such as GINETEX, using three letters from a word in its expanded name. The specification for British English on this page might bend towards the use of Ginetex over GINETEX due to how British English often handles acronyms that are pronounced, but that goes against what MOS:CAPSACRS explicitly states. Carter (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of moving this forward (and furthering the Discussion part of WP:BRD), I've tried to bring it the attention of MOS editors. Roxy the dog, it would be helpful if you clarify your position with reference to the MOS rules that you're basing it on. I'll additionally note that your reverts left inconsistent use of Ginetex vs. GINETEX within this and the GINETEX articles. My preference would be to see this resolved and a single form be used in all instances (Laundry symbol, GINETEX, and Dry cleaning). Carter (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use whichever the organisation itself uses - while done with good intentions, back and forth litigation of the fine details of various MOS guidelines in these kinds of cases is unnecessary...MOS are only guidelines after after all, an l and are only meant to describe general best-practices; they don't apply in all cases, and they don't need to be strictly followed when it makes better sense to do something different. Firejuggler86 (talk) 01:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I lean towards GINETEX, which is the form used at https://www.ginetex.net/ . It is also the form used by the article GINETEX. Are there reliable sources that use "Ginetex"? If not, we should stick with "GINETEX". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources do use Ginetex, but they tend to be British English ones that often use only an initial capital letter on an acronym that's pronounced as a word (Nasa, Nato, Unesco, etc.), which is a convention MOS:CAPSACRS says shouldn't be used on Wikipedia. Carter (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going by the MOS and my own interpretation of it, and the fact that GINETEX looks so awful on the page repeated in the middle of so many sentences. If consensus is against me, then ... ok. -Roxy the ex GINETEX dog. wooF 17:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the comments above, and barring any further comments to the contrary, I'll go ahead and standardize the acronym in this article and in GINETEX as GINETEX early next week. Dry cleaning already only uses GINETEX and I don't believe it appears on any other page at the moment. Carter (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Questionable redirect to this page

MOVED

RfD discussion moved to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 16#Laundry mark.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The redirect to this page from Laundry mark should be deleted. Please see, comment, and participate in the discussion at Talk:Laundry mark. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 17:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Laundry mark" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Laundry mark. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 16#Laundry mark until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Spike Toronto 11:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]