Talk:Duct tape

Duck tape or duct tape?

Since so many people think any tape refered to as "duct tape" can be used on air ducts, maybe this page should be called "Duck tape". I've heard that the origin for the name "duck tape" is that water rolls off it like water off the back of a duck.

According to Speaking of Animals: A Dictionary of Animal Metaphors By Robert Allen Palmatier: it takes its name from "doek", the Dutch word for cloth. So obviously "duck tape" is cloth tape, and it thus might not be synonymous with "duct tape" - and so I worry that this article has been taken off track a bit. Also - according to The Boston Globe "“Duck tape” in that sense isn’t recorded till the 1970s, when “duct tape” is already current. And the duck version doesn’t take off till the ’80s, when Manco trademarks its “Duck Tape” brand." Aaronchall (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

As for the real duct tape, it's unrelated. It has a different adhesive and is based on a aluminum foil. Will (Talk - contribs) 22:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

That's the trouble here, the origins of the "duck tape" name are all "I've heard..." sources. Is it a duck's back? Or duck canvas fabric? Or because of the Duck Brand? The earliest sources that name the product name it "duct tape." Maybe there'd be less confusion if the product became officially known as duck tape, but WP isn't the place to lobby for that kind of change. 2601:C2:C103:7C40:F177:F29F:A559:32CF (talk) 04:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

There is an extensive discussion of this at the top of the page. "I've heard that" is not encyclopedic. Chemical Engineer (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Ill leave my thoughts here. From this Google Ngram search , we can see that 'Duck'tape is used earlier than 'Duct' tape, but the latter is more widely used now. tedjam (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

They are two different things. "Ticker tape" was also in wide usage long before "duck tape," but that does not mean the original name for duct tape is really ticker tape. Duck tape is still a thing that exists today, and it isn't duct tape. But we really don't need to be debating which is which. A Wikipedia article with a section on etymology ought to be reputable sources written by etymologists, not original research conducted by Wikipedia users. The Yar (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Ticker tape was originally 1/4" paper tape used to transcribe morse telegraph signals - the tape would simply show the dots and dashes. In the 1940s, this had widened in teletype usage into a 1" tape, with patterns of holes punched into it encoding the characters in a line of holes across the tape, rather than serially along it: the coding was a form of modified binary EBCDIC.The system was then adopted in computing in the late 1960s, alongside 80-column punched cards (20-column ones also existed for a short while in the early 1960s, used on the Lyoms Leo computer), to store code for processing on the IBM360. All were soon replaced by digital storage.

I cannot post directly as this is personal testimony. As Regimental Quartermaster Sergeant of a Cadet Batallion (GBAR), I was well versed in the tape used in ammunition boxes, which we used in significant numbers. This was essentially a cloth tape with a rather brittle glue, which closely resembled the traditional bone glues used in carpentry. However, the Batallion was formed in the school which created the National Youth Theatre movement, and no duck tape was in use then. By the mid-1970s, I was still active in stage management, and a very different tape came into use, which was thicker, plasticised, difficult to tear, and stuck strongly to anything it was applied to. This was gaffer's tape, and it was indeed used by the spars on the film crews. The reason for it is because we were becoming more Health & Safety conscious, and so where once we'd leave a cable trail wherever it went and rely on people's common sense not to trip over it, now we were expected tp tape it to the stage. Taping a 1" diameter cable down with 4" tape would just about work, however we'd often make 3 passes, along the spine, and then tape the edges of that to the floor. Then they moved to ducting channels with sloped sides, and that use of tape faded. Duct tape, originally used to seal air conditioning duct joints, is very different again, easier to tear both laterally and longitucinally - it's intended to be airtight, not necessariky strong - but the common width started to confuse the two. And the someone started selling it under a rubber-duckie brand image, in the 1980s... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.55.25 (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

At the very least, the comment "often mispronounced duck tape" should probably be removed since there is active debate over the correct name. -- Resuna (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Changing it. Drabkikker (talk) 05:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I think there should be some warning upfront that this isn't resolved. As is the etymology section entirely contradicts itself. It would also seem possible to resolve some of these contradictions. One paragraph claims "Their new unnamed product was made of thin cotton duck coated in waterproof polyethylene" but a couple paragraphs later the entire history is stated to be "quack" by the quoted etymologist, not only rejecting the use of the word duck, but that duck cloth was never used. It was or it wasn't, but this one section claims both. This is causing arguments elsewhere on the internet that I have to get back to. Psylok (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree, since in its current state the section is contradictory at best. Adding the `disputed` tag. Alvint69 (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Contradiction on page between duck and duct

The whole article appears to support the use of duck tape as the name of a tape developed before and during WWII, however there is one paragraph beginning "According to etymologist Jan Freeman..." that states that 'duct tape' was first used in the 1960s and 'duck tape' in the 1970s.

Here is an example in the article where it's stated as being used as far back as 1902 as 'duck tape': "The first material called "duck tape" was long strips of plain cotton duck cloth used in making shoes stronger, for decoration on clothing, and for wrapping steel cables or electrical conductors to protect them from corrosion or wear. For instance, in 1902, steel cables supporting the Manhattan Bridge were first covered in linseed oil then wrapped in duck tape before being laid in place."

And here: "The Revolite division of Johnson & Johnson had made medical adhesive tapes from duck cloth from 1927 and a team headed by Revolite's Johnny Denoye and Johnson & Johnson's Bill Gross developed the new adhesive tape, designed to be ripped by hand, not cut with scissors. Their new unnamed product was made of thin cotton duck coated in waterproof polyethylene (plastic) with a layer of rubber-based gray adhesive (branded as "Polycoat") bonded to one side."

This clearly supports the use of "duck tape" as the name of the product as the product's origins include the use duck cloth.

Here is the contradictory paragraph that appears to go against all points and references made elsewhere in the document: "According to etymologist Jan Freeman, the story that duct tape was originally called duck tape is "quack etymology" that has spread "due to the reach of the Internet and the appeal of a good story" but "remains a statement of faith, not fact." She notes that duct tape is not made from duck cloth and there is no known primary-source evidence that it was originally referred to as duck tape. Her research does not show any use of the phrase "duck tape" in World War II, and indicates that the earliest documented name for the adhesive product was "duct tape" in 1960. The phrase "duck tape" to refer to an adhesive product does not appear until the 1970s and was not popularized until the 1980s, after the Duck brand became successful and after the New York Times referred to and defined the product under the name "duct tape" in 1973."

Apologies for the long post, but basically, I feel there needs to be more clarity/uniformity on which name is used in the article/the balance of how each name is supported; as there is as much of an argument against "duct" (as it's used for more than just air ducts), as there is against "duck" (because it isn't still made with duck cloth). Yet the product was made using duck cloth long before it was used for air ducts. I'm not sure whether it requires a rewording and a removal of some sections, or a new section created altogether.

TGB13 (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

And I have now tagged the "History and etymology" section with this problem. That section is a mess, and needs to be rewritten. That does not mean removing one or the other theory, but everything needs to be rigorously sourced, and we need to get rid of the back and forth whipsawing we have now. - Donald Albury 13:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Here's what I'd propose doing: adding this as a separate "Etymology" section:

Duct tape is commonly, and erroneously, referred to as "duck tape". Duct tape was originally known as "duck tape", receiving this moniker because it was originally made out of cotton duck fabric and was said to repel water like the back of a duck. Duct tape adopted its modern name following World War II, when it began being marketed as a way to fix leaks in forced-air heating systems. Despite the name, modern duct tape is not designed to be used in air ducts, where HVAC tape is preferred. Both terms are often used today, and confusion and debate exists over which term is correct, but the correct term is "duct tape". Duck tape more accurately refers to the brand Duck Tape, originally registered by Manco and now sold by Shurtape.

And removing all other mentions of etymology in history. The Boston Globe source, in my extensive research, is a major outlier; I can't find anything to back it up. Pinging User:TGB13 and User:Donald Albury for this. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Newspapers sometimes get things wrong, although we are not supposed to trying to prove that. I'll support your version. - Donald Albury 19:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

It could be included maybe, but if it's the only source out here giving that viewpoint while a ton of other extremely reliable sources say another thing, that's a big clue. That's all I'm getting at: I couldn't find anything else to indicate her opinion is correct or has been corroborated by other courses, and nearly a decade later it hasn't challenged the predominant account of the name. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that the first sentence of the etymology section should be removed. The source for sentence #1, a 2003 etymology book, cites the use the tape on ducts. Safire's NYT article, also from 2003, seems to be more definitive and exhaustive on this point. Regardless of any of our own preferences, it is clear that well established etymologists disagree on this one. To say that "duck tape" is a "mispronunciation" seems to be stronger wording than the evidence supports. I support having a separate etymology section, but think that the first sentence of that section should be removed. 70.181.241.249 (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree, since in its current state the section is contradictory at best. Added the `disputed` tag. Alvint69 (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Old discussion

Please note that the debate on duct/duck has been going on for 15 years. The first comment on this talk page was on April 22, 2004. You can review all of the discussions at Talk:Duct tape/Archive 1. Any argument you want to make has probably been used before. - Donald Albury 19:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Industrial design?

Does this article belong in wikiproject Industrial design? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 6 September 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 17:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

---

• Duct tape → Duck tape
• Duck tape → Deleted to make way for page move

– This is a 19-year-old dispute, but at the point this is pretty comprehensively settled. The article goes out of its way to point out that:

• "Duck tape" is the original name
• There is a clear etymology as to how that name was acquired
• Pretty much every secondary source directly corroborates the above

This article is repeatedly used as "evidence" that the current title is normatively correct. It never has been. The sources agree. At this point it's just incongruous.

The existing dab at the title can be trivially addressed with a hatnote once the article is moved. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: pages with content, such as Duck tape, are ineligible to be proposed titles in move requests unless they, too, are formally dispositioned. "Duck tape → Deleted to make way for page move" has been added to this request to meet that requirement. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 01:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. You're correct about your points, but I don't see any reason to override WP:COMMONNAME here. WPscatter ^t/_c 19:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not the common name. This article is legendary as a resource for pedants who don't know any better to attempt to school people who use the actual most common name, which is the requested target. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

You'll have to provide a source for such a claim. Results for "duct tape" on Google search outnumber the alternative nearly sevenfold, and around double on Ngrams (and notably have seemingly always shared that approximate relation). WPscatter ^t/_c 21:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• Strong support per sources Red Slash 21:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Even if "duck tape" is the original name, no evidence has actually been provided that it's the common name. The request merely claims it to be so. O.N.R. ^(talk) 02:19, 7 September 2023

• Oppose per User:Old Naval Rooftops and WP:COMMON despite the usage in the current title starting as an eggcorn. The only argument made for the move appears to be the etymological fallacy. Language changes. Llew Mawr (talk) 11:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• support. This is a better choice. Pkgx (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. No evidence that the proposed title is the common name. Google hits aren't everything, but I note that "duct tape" gets 33M hits, vs. 2.5M for "duck tape". 162 etc. (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Did you know that Ice-T's birth name is Tracy? It's true, there are multiple sources that back it up. Let's move the article on Ice-T to Tracy Lauren Marrow. That seems to be the argument being advanced here, and as others have said, per WP:COMMON, that isn't how article titles are selected. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The overwhelmingly common name is the current title per the Google Ngrams. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

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.