Talk:Thatching

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Plants Mid‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

---Needs to be rewritten---

Under "Thatch Material":

"There are more thatched roofs in the the hood and the slums than in any other European country"

Makes no sense. Compare what to what? When rewording this, please omit the slang phrase "the hood" which is a shortened form of "neighborhood".

Adriennes (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a link should be added

... with :

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Great_Plague

"Thatched roofs (which had provided splendid places for rats to live) were also forbidden within the city, and remain forbidden under modern codes"

Seems to have been forgotten !!! But I think that if you have rats living above your head, you end up automatically having dust charged with rat's fecaes particles and much worst into your food, and you multiply the chances of interspecies diseaes transmission !!!!

How does a rat live in a densely packed mass of thatch? and don't they prefer nice holes in the ground? Mice are more your loft dwellers. GraemeLeggett 19:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Flammability

As per dictionary.com[1], flammable and inflammable are considered synonyms. However, inflammable runs the risk of confusion as the latin prefix in- may be mistakenly thought to be the negating english in-. If the two are considered synonyms, then deciding between the two is an issue of style and practicality. Flammable is (imo) clearly more practical. -Kasreyn

Re Insurance

"and insurance premiums are high because few companies will insure a thatched property - and those that do realise that owners have little choice but to accept their charges."

That is a load of rubbish ! The reason people with thatched roofs pay higher premiums is because in the event of a fire, more damage is likely to occur than with a tiled or other style of roof and that it costs more to replace a thatched roof than a standard roof.

Both of these points were stated earlier in the text....

James

Propaganda

I know little about thatching but this page has become propaganda. It doesn't even really cover thatching so much as it covers thatched rooves of which there is already an article. Editing is needed. --Ryuukuro 16:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"last" century?

"In the early years of the last century thatching was in decline". Is the writer really referring to the 20th century? This sounds like text lifted from some uncited 20th century document.

Flammabilty

Under the section "Flammability" it says they are at no greater risk from fire than other roofs but under "Disadvantages is says they are. Which is right? 172.188.149.60 10:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolk Reed

I believe that Norfolk reed is still harvested commercially from the Norfolk Broads, and what people supppose to be straw is often in fact reed. Sorry do not know the details. 78.149.201.215 (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

50 years!

I'm not an expert on thatching but as I understand it the best quality thatch is a reed thatch, and this is unlikely to last 50 years (30 years would be more realistic) so to claim a straw thatch would last this length of time seems to be stretching it a bit. Can anyone provide a reference for this part of the article?--Ykraps (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sedge

Sedge currently appears only in the introduction, where the link is misleading. So have added the generum (Cladium mariscus) temporarily there for now. Material at this site might be usefil for improving the materials section? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EU law

There is a reference to a law (Plant Variety and Seeds Act 1964) that supposedly prohibits the use of an old variety of wheat in the EU. This is a UK-specific law and has existed for much longer than the UK has been a member of the European Union. Maybe this needs to be reformulated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.218.220.8 (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Thatching. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The photoessay

So... this photoessay. Look, I don't want to be a jerk: it's nice, it's interesting, it's germane, it's not hurting anybody. Why not? And I'm nobody's idea of a WikiLawyer. I think clearly the whole thing's going to have to go, ultimately, but I'm not exactly here to push for its removal. I just want to get in there and edit it, and the way it's written makes me a little balky. After I post this, I'm going to go prune the most egregious typos and grammatical errors. Fine; but it needs more than that, and unlike the rest of WP, which belongs to me as much as anyone and which I never scruple to clean up so long as it's just a matter of grammar or clarity, this is very much some particular person's thing. Thoughts? Regulov (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it does not belong in Wikipedia, but since it has been sitting there unchallenged for seven months, I will not delete without hearing what others think. - Donald Albury 18:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since there have been no opposing views, I took the liberty to delete it from this article. It does indeed not belong here. --Ulkomaalainen (talk) 10:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Disadvantages" / fire stats

The line "There are about 60,000 thatched roofs in the UK, of which 50–80 suffer a serious fire each year, most of these being completely destroyed. The cost to the Fire Brigade is £1.3m per annum" isn't really very useful without a comparison with other types of roofs. Iapetus (talk) 13:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thatching#Advantages

Hello all, shall the following be added to that section?

Modern day thatched roof under construction. When replaced, the waist product of the thatched roof is often used added to the soil to add fertility, resulting in dark earth.

Both pictures and descriptions come from the current and past versions of Dark_earth. -- Ktsquare (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction in 'material' section

Surely these two paragraphs contradict each other?:

Technological change in the farming industry significantly affected the popularity of thatching. The availability of good quality thatching straw declined in England after the introduction of the combine harvester in the late 1930s and 1940s, and the release of short-stemmed wheat varieties. Increasing use of nitrogen fertiliser in the 1960s–70s also weakened straw and reduced its longevity. Since the 1980s, however, there has been a big increase in straw quality as specialist growers have returned to growing older, tall-stemmed, "heritage" varieties of wheat such as Squareheads Master (1880), N59 (1959), Rampton Rivet (1937), Victor (1910) and April Bearded (early 1800s) in low input/organic conditions.

In the UK it is illegal under the Plant Variety and Seeds Act 1964 (with many amendments) for an individual or organisation to give, trade or sell seed of an older variety of wheat (or any other agricultural crop) to a third party for growing purposes, subject to a significant fine. Because of this legislation, thatchers in the UK can no longer obtain top quality thatching straw grown from traditional, tall-stemmed varieties of wheat.

Grunners (talk) 08:14, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]