Talk:Lint (material)

Medicine Start‑class Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Does

Does anyone know if the following pun was intended, or just a funny co-incidence?

"...undertook a systematic survey to determine the ins and outs of navel lint"

Ryanlerch 06:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline article. And barely that.SV(talk) 00:05, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's a bit of fun, and has enough scientific interest to merit some coverage - it did after all win an Ig Nobel... -- ChrisO 00:08, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Agree, and I'll volunteer my belly for the photo if anyone wants to come over and take it... -- Graham :) | Talk 00:13, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How selfless of you, Graham! :) -- ChrisO 01:54, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh my god that picture is disgusting.... --grasshopa

Agreed... :o I wouldn't be so disturbed by it being on a pasty white hairy body, but... its discoloration! :s -- Jugalator 23:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the navel yellowish and sickly looking? Can't we have one a bit

more normal?

WTF, that picture is nasty. That does not look like lint, it looks like he shoved fresh dog feces in his navel.--WatchHawk 02:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

Incidentally, Google gives the following figures for terminological usages:

Belly button fluff - 734
Belly button lint - 4,680
Navel fluff - 848
Navel lint - 4,230

Some redirects are called for, I think... -- ChrisO 00:15, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, ther article should be renamed to BBL "fluff" doesnt quite describe the phenomenon wikipedically. -SV(talk) 03:44, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Bearing in mind of course that 'lint' is an American term that is rarely used at least here in the UK... -- Graham :) | Talk 18:36, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm curious. It says first that a Dr. Karl Kruszelnicki did some major research, then goes on to say that Dr. Ganesh Shenoys got the Ig Nobel prize for it. At the moment this is misleading and possibly confusing. Someone (not me, I'm afraid) should be certain who it was that actually did this research, and who it was who got the prize. I'm pretty certain the latter had nothing to do with it, as I have often heard of Dr. Karl and his adventures with BBF. -- huwr

Thanks for spotting that - some anon user put in that entirely bogus reference, probably as a troll. It makes you wonder how many similar trolls go unnoticed... -- ChrisO 08:59, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, he definatley got it, i heard him say that he did when he did a show in melbourne.Trottsky 20:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get similar fluff up my arse crack. Is this common? Dunc_Harris|☺ 21:19, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't know... but this probably isn't the place to discuss it. If it is a problem you should probably talk to your doctor ;) --huwr 11:01, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Informative

Someone at my college did a presentation entitled "What is bellybutton fluff and why is it blue?" - I'm sure they appreciated this informative article ^_^ --Joshtek 18:19, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Need for Further Research

In my experience, the development of navel lint seems to vary. I have gone through periods lasting perhaps 6-18 months where navel lint was developed rapidly and consistantly. And then I experience periods lasting years where no navel lint at all appears. I have my own theory that body fat plays a role. It appears to me that when I weigh more than usual, I develop navel lint, but not when I'm a healthy weight. Obviously this can't be added to the main article until some sort of research is completed.--68.33.67.103 07:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you ought to apply to the National Science Foundation for a grant to study this phenomenon. 66.108.4.183 03:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have discovered that if i shave my chest and stomach (for aesthetic reasons) that i never get belly button fluff, but then i start to get it once the hair reaches about 1cm and i get more and more the longer the hair. Trottsky 20:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umbililint?

I was surprised to see this word not mentioned in the article as I thought that's what it was called. I was even more surprised when I searched for it on Google! I know I've heard other people call it that... Sweetie Petie 22:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

never heard it, although i like it so i'll do my best to spread the word! Trottsky 20:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disgusting photo

Can we please. Please. Get rid of that horrible photo. It's disgusting. -Vontafeijos 01:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is rather funny. I don't see what people are objecting about it. TripleH1976 12:58 a.m., 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's funny, but really, it's also repulsive, so it shouldn't be here. -Vontafeijos 02:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have pictures of smegma and herpes sores. Those are disgusting. However, "disgusting" and "I don't like it" are not criteria to remove a picture. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. The articles you mentioned need those photos because they are medical issues, so the photos might be useful in a diagnosis. People would never be diagnosed with navel lint, so this photo doesn't serve the same purpose as the medical photos. In fact, it serves no purpose at all; it does not provide a clear image of navel lint because it's not a well-taken photo anyway. Therefore, it does not add to the article. Combine that with the fact that it's repulsive and distracting, and we've got a clear case for deletion. -Vontafeijos 03:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can look at the pictures of smegma and human feces and I'm fine but this naval lint picture makes me feel sick. Look at the number of comments from people wanted it deleted, surely that's enough consensus to actually delete it!!! -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 09:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say "there's a picture and you're deleting it??" But you're right, that picture is pretty gross. And not very informative, either. You can't even see the lint! We should find (or take!) another one. — Omegatron 18:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is real, it's much better. — Omegatron 18:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove that disgusting sickly photo!

I agree- that disgusting photo must be removed, now. Better no photo than that one! Nothing id visible in that photo anyways.--172.133.43.52 16:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Can we please nominate this article for deletion? This really is silly and has no place on Wikipedia. IMO, of course. Sindweller 16:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silly isn't a reason for deletion - see Exploding whale and Crushing by elephant. The article has factual and verifiable information and has been the subject of scientific studies, believe it or not! -- Chuq 03:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i assume you're suggesting that it isnt of importance so should be deleted....but if that was the case, then how did u get here in the first place? clearly you asking for it to be deleted means that it is important enough to not be deleted! catch 22.Trottsky 20:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article should absolutely not be deleted, I was very surprised and happy when I found this on Wikipedia, also it was incredible informative. It bears no mark of silliness that I can see. 86.7.131.139 05:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shaving the "snail trail"

Will shaving the "snail trail" prevent lint forming then? 86.7.131.139 05:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should. Speaking from my experience of an episode of Brainiac. Vimescarrot 16:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lint as a main article?

Is there a reason that the "lint" "article" is just a list? Is there a reason for not having a full-fledged "lint" article?

Harmless?

The article says bellybutton lint is harmless. This seems rather subjective to me. Prove it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.0.32.190 (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well done! Now we can obsess about THAT as well as cancer, terrorism, global warming etc. Myles325a (talk) 06:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article raises more questions than it answers

I smell a rat. How was that photo taken? I presume that the lint HAD to be coloured so that it could be seen in a photograph, but how was this achieved? Did they just shove green gunk into some patsy's navel or did they actually initiate a search to find someone with coloured navel lint? If the first, then the image is fraudulent and cannot be said to faithfully depict the phenomenon of the deposition of lint into the human umbilicus, and should be withdrawn and those responsible have either their jounalistic or medical credentials suspended pending a full and formal enquiry. If the last, then numerous questions as to the protocols and procedures employed by the researchers are immediately raised.

How did they find someone with green lint in their navels? Given that most navel lint is a pale grey, what proportion of navels have lint as brilliantly coloured as shown in the example here? Apart from green, does navel lint come in other colours? Did the researchers ensure that those people with highly coloured navel lint who came forward to work with scientists in order to advance our knowledge of this condition received proper counselling. And of course, everyone will want to know HOW it came about that some people have navel lint of such extraordinary colouring. In the normal course of events, lint will retain only a faint shade of the colour of the textile from which it was abraded. If this holds true, then how brilliantly hued were the underpants of the man with the green navel lint? They must have been iridescent.

Moreover, the article states that navel lint does not originate from shirts and undershirts—as the public generally assumes it does—but rather “migrates upwards” from the underpants. How is such a movement possible? There is no citation here for this claim, which is weakened by the qualifer “appears to migrate upwards”. How extensive is such a migration? Do we have anything to fear from our socks? Given that researchers “found” someone with green navel lint, then may we expect that they will disclose how it came about that that such an extravagently bedecked navel came into existence? If it is hypothesisted that such lint “migrates upwards” from the underpants, then what now appears to be an unsubstatiated assertion could receive corroboration by by the methodical examination of subjects who wear differently coloured underpants and singlets during the course of the trial, so as to ascertain whether their navel lint is correspondingly affected. Until such research is undertaken, I and others of a scientific bent will not give credence to the farrago of inferior epistemology and half-baked empiricism on show here. Wikipedia can do better than this! Myles325a (talk) 07:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image is basically a bit green wool off a jumper (not really navel lint if you ask me), we used to have the pic you see above which is what the real stuff looks like, believe me! Ryan4314 (talk) 12:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

recent news story

yes.... bully button lint made news... on G4 at least :) Anyone want to add info from the broadcast, here. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 05:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should develop a home page

I know this may sound weird, but I do believe that someone should start a page for lint and then just either link to this or have it as a subsection. As with a few other users, I am afraid I won't have the time (or to be honest, the will to make a list). However, I am sure that someone will want to get this done. As of now (11/26/10), this article is humorous at best; wrong at worst. I believe that this should be nominated for deletion until someone makes a home page for "lint." If not, this should probably be saved for someone who can provide decent references and time to do so. Judging from the lack of resources and short length, it probably didn't take this user (or whomever edited it to its current state) very long to do so. TR1N3TY (talk) 08:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lint

this article is missing coverage of animals, some of which have navel lint as well. And on the composition of the lint, which has non-clothing related components. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 04:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

I propose merging navel lint into this article, as it is only a particular kind of the material. bd2412 T 19:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree. We do not have separate articles on pocket lint, toe lint, shoe lint, turn-up lint, etc.. Should the section expand we can split again. Rich Farmbrough, 20:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

If there are no other comments, I think this is good to go. bd2412 T 20:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The merge is a bad idea. There is enough material in the other wikis (de, it), to expand into its own article. Navel lint is discussed in many sources as a distinct topic from lint in general.--Sum (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both the German and Italian navel lint articles are basically one long paragraph. The material is already reflected in this article, except for the note, of dubious encyclopedic value, about the "world record holder" for navel lint. In short, there is nothing in those articles with which this section could be expanded. bd2412 T 23:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lint free

Could this article explain why there are lint-free versions of q-tips and cloths