Talk:Knitting needle

There seems to be a dispute about whether knitting needles are used in pairs. I say yes. 203.202.5.75 says no. This is really a matter of usage. All knitters understand circular knitting needle to refer to two needles joined by flexible wire or length of nylon. So while it's true that you need only buy one thing, that thing has a pair of needles on it.

The Principles of Knitting, by June Hemmons Hiatt (considered the most authoritative book on knitting in the last 50 years) says, "A circular needle will have two pointed needle shafts." It then goes on to say that, "These needles [note the plural] are connected to one another by a length of fine-diameter, flexible nylon cord."

Mary Thomas's Knitting Book, continuously in print since 1938, is less direct, but implies the same thing. Mary Thomas says--even of the old fashioned single wire form of circular knitting needle, that the wire is "developed either end into a pointed knitting needle." So, once again, a knitting needle is on both ends of the circular needle. Thus, a pair.

So at least one world-famous knitter ( me and seemingly two) might agree with the way i last edited Knitting needle.

Can 203.202.5.75 find an authoritative source that says that a circular knitting needle is not made of two needles? For now, I'll assume that he or she can, and will provide it soon, But i'd be much happier if we used standard terminology.

Noted. Busy, so will have to delay full reply; noting to avoid appearance of avoidance. Basically, we should minimise technical usages and so anything that is "a needle" is singular. The needle is not the pointy bit. Experts speaking to experts are not what this is about. PML.

Hey PML, if you're still around, I tried to give you your voice back on Knitting needle. I don't know why I was so adamant about excluding your view. If my rudeness hasn't driven you away, I wish you'd see if your view is adequately represented now.

Okay :) I think yours is the final "rudeness apology" I had to do. (I had to do four. shame on me.) I'm new here, and it took me a short while to understand how to function properly. I'm lucky it wasn't more.

By the way, did you see that Rutt might agree with you?

Arthur 04:26 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)

Still busy. (And have to revisit Irish potato famine.)

But it may help to tell you that I came to this with some knowledge of the Tudor era single implement, and I quite see that the twin implement is twofold; it would have been better described with a phrasing like "pair of handcuffs/trousers" etc. But all that is necessary is some phrasing that acknowledges all this and does not make the absolute and general statement "they are used in pairs", which happens, historically, to have exceptions. PML.

I agree, in part. Sometimes needles are even used in sets of four, five, and even 8 (some american Indian knitters).

Pictures[edit]

Not that I'm against having pictures, but Johntex's photo does nothing to illustrate an article on knitting needles, as opposed to, say, knitting, where I notice he's already added it also. I'm not sure it's really needed there either, but as inclusivism is generally the rule I left it. But here? What is it illustrating, exactly? /blahedo (t) 07:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that it might be nice to have a photo of knitting here, to help illustrate the concept of knitting needles actually being used for knitting. In a similar fashion, our article on gun includes an image of a gun firing a projectile, and our swimsuit article includes the item of clothing on actual people instead of just items of clothing laying against a neutral background.

To me, it is usually worthwhile to show an object in the context of its use. It is certainly true that the reader is one-click away from knitting, but it seemed to me that this photo would provide some modest benefit here, and that it did no harm, especially since a large amount of white space was completely unused in the location where the image was placed. Just an idea - I'm happy with whatever consensus arises. Best, Johntex\^talk 07:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the whitespace thing depends very much on the size, shape, and font of your browser; on mine, there was no whitespace there and the introduced picture actually adds clutter. Making the other picture smaller (as I just did) helps a little. I don't think the gun and swimsuit comparisons are particularly relevant, since we do not have a corresponding "Firing a gun" article, and in the swimsuit article, nobody is swimming, they're just modelling the swimsuits. Even in the gun article, the fact that there's a guy holding the gun is secondary to the gun itself; in a sense, he is also "modelling" the gun. In your picture, the knitting needles are barely even visible, and the clear focus of the photo is on the knitting process and on the knit product, not on the implements. /blahedo (t) 23:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Needle Size Conversions, European to US[edit]

I recently purchased some lovely yarn, produced in Germany. The closest thing I can find to suggested needle size is a box that says, "2,5-3". I am deducing that this indicates us to use size 2-mm needles, but then what does the remaining "5-3" stand for? I haven't, as yet, found any conversion charts that help clarify this for me. Thank you for your help. Prrlgrrl 01:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered this question on your talk page, Prrlgrrl. --Edna H. 07:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gauges lower than zero[edit]

I'm no expert, but I know that needles come in much smaller sizes than the 2mm size 0. The smallest I've heard of is 00000000 (8x0), which is 0.5mm. Should we include all the <0 sizes, or just note that they exist?

If you could add a citation for that, it would be wonderful. Durova^Charge! 02:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not really familiar with wiki standards and such. I'm not sure I could find a great citation, but I've seen such needles for sale online. I can't imagine that'd be sufficient as reference material, though. What about the page at http://world.std.com/~kcl/kneedlesizecomparison.html ? Would that be suitable?

In the states pretty much any JoAnn fabric store will sell a boxed set of needles from 1 down to 000. Being a sock knitter primarily I may come into contact with below zero sizes more often, but I feel them to be rather common. (At least, 00 and 000). Loggie (talk) 07:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US Sizes[edit]

Originally, sizes in the US were based on inches. As a standard, the size 10 needle was one quarter inch in diameter. Sizes above size 10 were successively one sixteenth inch larger. Sizes smaller than 10 were successively one thirty-second smaller. For example, size 11 was 5/16ths in diameter and size 12 was 3/8ths inch. Size 9 was one thirty-second inch smaller at 7/32nds. Et cetera. My Flatley (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]