Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Woodworking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Initial message

This message was sent to User:Carders User:SilentC User:Boinger User:RJP Hello, I have noticed that you have recently been making a number of valuable edits on woodworking-related pages. I would like to start a Wikiproject on woodworking if there is enough interest. Please reply on my user talk page if you think this is a good idea (oer even if you don't. I have taken a stab at a starting a wikiproject page in a sandbox page at User:Luigizanasi/sandbox. Feel free to edit it and to add your ideas. As soon as we have enough participants, I will start the project page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Woodworking. Luigizanasi 22:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Naming of articles/tools/etc.

In Talk:Backsaw#Backsaw vs. Tenon Saw, while discussing the use of backsaw vs tenon saw, SilentC wrote:

Yes, it is difficult to be exact with these things. It also seems to vary between generations. We can't be all things to all people I suppose. How does Wikipedia handle this type of thing generally? I can imagine there would have been some colourful exchanges over different things. Fanny springs to mind :D

My understanding is that a number of rules are generally followed.

  • First, use Disambiguation pages, like I created for Joinery. As well, you can put in a disambiguation link at the top of a page (like I did on Jointer).
  • On article names, we probably should continue to use the first title used (unless there is a good reason not to) and liberally use redirects. We need to think up of all names for the same tool and create redirects by creating a new page, say Miter box that contains only #REDIRECT[[Mitre box]] so that anyone looking up "Miter box" can be sent to the right page. Also, for our purposes, we should list all names at the top of the article.
  • On spelling, the usage of whoever first wrote the article should be used. So, Mitre box should continue to use British spelling, while Miter saw should use the American.

Luigizanasi 07:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I've done a bit of work on the jointer article along these lines. Have a look and see what you think. I added an AKA section at the top - there may be a WP style for these already but I couldn't find one - plus removed the bit in the text body pertaining to these alternate names. I've created redirects for planer and flat top and added a DAB link at buzzer. Would appreciate if someone could have a look and let me know if it's all been done correctly. SilentC 23:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Looks OK to me. However, I have moved the alternate names into the text. The italicized stuff at the top is usually reserved for other things with the same name. Do you really call it a buzzer?Luigizanasi 06:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
No worries, wasn't sure of the Wiki way... Do I call it a buzzer? No, I don't, I call it a jointer but buzzer is a fairly common colloquial term for it amongst the, ahem, older woodworkers here. Flat top is probably rare verging on extinct. There for completeness I suppose. We had a poll on it recently: http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/showthread.php?t=18450 SilentC 06:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sharpening Stone

I think we should merge all the different stones into a single article, rather than trying to have individual articles or lumping them under whetstone. If we had one on sharpening stones, it could cover all the different types: water stone, oil stone, whet stone (is this different to an oil stone?), arkansas stones etc etc. They are fundamentally similar enough IMO. What do you think? SilentC 06:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. We don't need to explain how to use them three or four times. I think it would make for a better article to put them together.Luigizanasi 06:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

What's the status of the waterstone article? It has a possible breach of copyright notice on it but as far as I can tell, the article was written by the same person who put it on here. What do we need to do to resolve it? I don't think there's anything about a waterstone that we couldn't write ourselves anyway as it's fairly common knowledge what they're all about. We can have an article about them without any worry of copyright easily enough. SilentC 04:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted the Waterstone article given that permission has been officially granted as per the notice onthe talk page. Now it needs to be cleaned up and wikified. We might what to merge the different sharpening stone articles later (or now). Luigizanasi 17:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I have moved the Waterstone article to Sharpening stone (hope this was OK, I wanted to retain the history). Some of the info in Waterstone was relevant generally (artificial vs man-made) and some was pertinent to oilstones, so I've done a cut and paste job on it. Would appreciate other input on it. SilentC 02:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template for a Woodworking Joint Article

I've been working on the Butt joint article lately, trying to get a bit of a template (not a Wiki template) for articles about woodworking joints. I think it's getting close. Not sure how in-depth to get when it comes to details on constructing the joints because of the many various ways of doing them between hand tools, power tools and so on. It would be good to have a couple of methods described but there are good sources for those sorts of things and not sure if Wiki is the place for instructional info. Anyway, what do you think and any suggestions for making it better? It would be good then to roll this 'template' out to the other woodworking joint articles to get a bit of consistency. SilentC 07:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you did a great job on the butt joint article. The only suggestion I have is some pictures of KD fasteners. (I'll see if I can get some.) However, I'm not sure what you have in mind for a "template" or pattern for other joint articles. I'm all for consistency, though. 03:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I just mean a standard format I suppose. Similar section names and layout, a graphic for each joint variant, that sort of thing. It's probably not really the Wiki way of doing things and people are obviously free to changes things as they see fit. I just believe that if similar information is in a consistent format, it becomes easier to use as a reference. I'm not obsessive-compulsive, really ;) SilentC 04:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] BRACE AND BIT

I have added aditional material to the article regarding "brace" a wood drilling tool. I am new at this and so am not sure of all the protocals. I was not able to cite references because I have been having difficulty finding references in regards to tools such as a brace and bit. Feel free to correct my addition to the subject of "Brace and Bit" [[66.76.72.25 20:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)Larry Darnell]] 10/17/2005 (Texas)

Hi Larry, good work there. I have "Wikified" it by putting links to other wikipedia articles on relevant terms, like drill bit, chuck, ratchet, etc. This makes the article more useful for someone who doesn't know what a, say, ratchet is. This is one of the strengths of wikipedia. Please keep up the good work. Luigizanasi 17:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Gflores Talk 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] new interested user

Hi, I'm interested in helping out. I added Ruobo to the list of influential persons, and would like to help out more as this project develops.ThuranX 02:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Carpenter

This guy isn't famous in wood working at all. Why is he on this page?

I don't know why someone put him there. As there do not seem to be any relevant google hits for "Alan Carpenter" and woodworking, I will remove him. Luigizanasi 04:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tools

If someone was looking for new information, they might be thrown by the buffet of different tools available. Does it sound beneficial to sort them by categories? For example: Hand tools vs. Power tools. So that if they're looking for information on the safe use of a table saw, they don't have to scan through ball peen hammers to get there. Maybe even use of subcategories could help (ie. Hand Tools> Hammers, Wrenches, Pliers, Screwdrivers, Chisels, etc....)?

[edit] Sorry, forget about that last one...

My apologies, those obvious suggestions had already been done. I was looking at the project page and not the actual article.

[edit] Furniture is a COTW nominee

Furniture is a WP:COTW nominee. Vote on that page if you want it to be selected. Davodd 03:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Illustrated History of Furniture

Commons logo

Ran across this Wikimedia Commons category with hundreds of furniture images that may be of interest to you. I am trying to organoze stub articles about Molding (decorative), and also trying to come up with a good format for a Glossary of architecture. Do you have any suggestions or comments? Thanks —dogears (talk • contribs) 22:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

great find. As for suggestions, I'd just say, write it offline, then go back a night or two later and re-read it, so you put a strong first entry up, instead of throwing up 6 or 7 edits in the first five minutes.ThuranX 13:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] woodworking adjustments

i help correct any errors bout woodshop. =)

[edit] Woodworking book?

I wanted to ask if any members of this project would be interested in working on a wikibook or series of books on woodworking. We have 2 stub books now (Carpentry and Woodturning), which need a lot of work.

If you'd like, we can import wikipedia articles to wikibooks for use as the basis of book chapters, which makes the transition from stub to book a bit less arduous.

Personally I would love to see this sort of book developed there (with "how-to" material)... I recently started using an Alaska mill (wonder if that will be a red link?), and one day might like to do some stuff with my black walnut and black cherry :). --SB_Johnny|talk|books 12:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would be interested - but whether or not I have time is a different kettle of fish. In some ways, my contributions would be better suited for a book. I always feel like I want to describe the techniques too but that goes beyond what we're supposed to be doing in Wikipedia. But there's already so much to do here, I can't see how I can justify the time. Maybe when the articles here are in better shape, we could use them as the basis. Joinery would be a good subject for a book. There are so many joints and different ways of making them. The concern I have though is what happens once you ship articles off to a book? As you know, articles here rarely settle down for any great length of time. It wouldn't take long for them to be out of sync.
Regarding Alaskan mills, it's a red link no more. I have one and they are great for milling smallish logs. You are lucky to have such nice timbers available to you. The native trees in my area are hardwoods and very difficult to work with. SilentC 01:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Settle down as in move around, or develop further? Doesn't matter much either way, as the first problem is addressed by templates, the second is actually supposed to be that way (once it's moved off-project, it's a content fork). I mostly work on a gardening book, and the chapters in the book tend to be much longer than the wikipedia articles they're basd on, though sometimes they're much shorter.
A book on joinery would be excellent. Especially if you have a digital camera :). BTW, I'll try to take a pict or two next time I'm using the Alaskan mill :). --SB_Johnny|talk|books 10:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, settle down as in develop further. But as you say, it's a fork, so I guess it doesn't matter. I might have a look at wiki books anyway. I'm a bit annoyed with Wikipedia at the moment. What's the wikibooks policy on glossaries? ;) SilentC 22:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
No policy on glossaries that I know of, though I expect they must be typed ;). --SB_Johnny|talk|books 11:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 00:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Woodworking_9240.html"