Talk:Manila hemp

I think the fiber itself is called "Manila hemp." &mdash;seav

Confusing
This article needs work. It states that manila is not hemp and then that it was banned with hemp. It gives no history or use. The 3rd paragraph looks like it was copied from the hemp page and not adapted for this one. --Karuna8 02:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The article should be deleted in favour of the article on Abaca - abaca is the same fibre, and the article on abaca is more comprehensive. Manila is a rather outdated name, and it never has been hemp. Obviously there should be an appropriate redirect. Natural fibre (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Also the statement that it is mostly used to make rope is not correct - this was the case 50 years ago, but now most of this fibre is pulped, a small (rather variable) quantity is used for rope, mainly for use by the US navy. Natural fibre (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reference for this? The article states that it is a small quantity but if you go to any hardware store you can still find Manila Rope.  So which is it?  Is it only used for the Navy or is it a small quantity?  Sales must be strong enough if you can still find it in stores - even Walmart has it!  I think you are confusing Manila Rope with Hemp Rope which is mostly used now in nautical circles (U.S. Navy included).Dbroer (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Veronica Mars
This article was referenced in the Veronica Mars episode that aired on January 23, 2007. Veronica and her dad wonder what "manila" is as they are filing papers. A few seconds later, Veronica says "according to Wikipedia ..." and then continues to quote this articles information about what manila paper is. -- User:Konky2000

Proposed merge of Abacá with Manila hemp
Two articles on the same topic; no opinion on which title should be used fro the resulting page – abacá is older, Manila hemp is English Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * These are duplicate articles titled under synonyms, that much is obvious. This can not be the merger destination because the other article is much more developed. That, more developed, article has to be the destination. The issue of whether Abacá should be moved to Manila hemp is then an issue for a requested move discussion. I think that there are two options: (1) we just boldly do the merge without waiting for further input because of how obvious this is, or: (2) this discussion gets moved to the appropriate page, which is Talk:Abacá. —Alalch E. 16:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, . I'm not sure where the "much more developed" reasoning comes from, but as I said I've no opinion on which title the final page should sit at. This discussion is on an appropriate page, the talk-page of one of the articles for which a merge is proposed, but where no target page is specified; the merge notice at Abacá links correctly to this discussion (I've just checked). It's fine with me if you want to go ahead and carry out the merge, and I think there's been a reasonable amount of time for others to comment (unless we have some hard-and-fast rule that I don't know about about how long a merge proposal needs to stay open?). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and merged it. There's nothing in this article really that needed to be merged anyway. So it's fairly uncontroversial. Everything was a duplicate. The topic is the same thing. I just migrated the sources and tweaked the wording in the lead in Abaca.-- OBSIDIAN  †  SOUL  15:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much.—Alalch E. 21:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, thanks to both and ! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)