Talk:Jointer

Untitled

This is a minor discrepancy: the opening photo caption says mid sized bed-width is 4 to 8 inches, 5 to 10 centimeters. Maybe we should replace "5 to 10 centimeters" with "10 to 20 centimeters," to more closely approximate 4 to 8 inches (assuming both describe the same range of mid-sized bed widths, in SAE and Metric respectively).Jeffreagan (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

I'm having a bit of trouble thinking of a jointer as a power tool. I deliberately avoided using that term because I wanted to distinguish it as a stationary machine, as opposed to a portable power tool. This may be a regional semantics issue but I would not think of a tablesaw, jointer or lathe as a power tool. I would call these items woodworking machinery. Strictly speaking, if you apply the criteria specified under the power tool entry, then a jointer is a power tool. I don't know if there is a further criteria that a power tool is portable but it just doesn't seem right to me... SilentC 23:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Found a page called woodworking machinery so I'll change it to that and update its list of machines.SilentC 23:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate terms

ILike2BeAnonymous these are alternate terms and you shouldn't just remove the whole lot because you happen to disagree with one of them. As to your specific question, I'm not in the UK, I'm in Australia. Here many people call a jointer a jointer but there are quite a few who call them a planer. I don't know what you think of when you say 'planer', but perhaps it is what we call a thicknesser. SilentC 02:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one link at which the terms 'jointer' and 'planer' are used interchangeably: http://www.timbecon.com.au/products/combination-planers-341_0.aspx SilentC 02:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Woodworking under Naming of articles/tools/etc. SilentC 02:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And a link from a UK site: http://www.diytools.co.uk/diy/Main/p-80-nutool-bt155-155mm-bench-planer-jointer.asp SilentC 03:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In feed & Out feed vs Infeed & Outfeed

ILike2BeAnonymous I see you are still having issues with the non-US-centric wording in this article. I have checked my dictionary for the words infeed and outfeed and they do not exist. If you try googling "Define:infeed" you will find two matches, neither of which are dictionary sources. "Define:outfeed" finds no matches at all. If you are going to be pedantic about such things, you need to check your facts first. SilentC (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not being pedantic about it at all; quite the opposite. Check the woodworking literature; you'll find these terms (spelled "infeed" and "outfeed") used in reference to jointers and planers. Dictionaries aren't necessarily the final word when it comes to technical subjects that use their own nomenclature.

Regarding your comment about how since the article was created by an Australian, that Aus. terms should be used, no: if the article were on a place or entity in Australia then yes, it would be proper to use those spellings and other usages. But since this is about a woodworking machine used internationally, that doesn't apply here.

By the way, just for laughs you might try a Google search for "jointer infeed outfeed". (Mind you, that doesn't constitute proof of usage or a citation that could be used in this article, but it does show that those terms are in common usage. Don't know why "define:outfeed" returns zilch.) +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try the manual of style: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. It says: "In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic." So as far as I'm concerned, that covers it. The article was started by me, the words infeed and outfeed do not exist in the Macquarie Australian dictionary, and so I haven't used them. You are now wanting to change the status quo of the article, so I believe it is up to you to demonstrate a good reason for it, and not just because you prefer it that way, or because American literature on the subject seems to support your point of view. Find me a dictionary reference to either of those words. SilentC (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the MOS and use of jargon is acceptable, so long as the terms are highlighted and defined, which I have done. But you don't get "center" :) SilentC (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can live with "centre". And I went ahead and removed the "scare formatting" from the first instances of infeed and outfeed; as I said in my edit summary, there's really no reason to "quarantine" these terms which are widely used throughout the world. And yes, these do fall under the heading of jargon.

I also went ahead and fixed the formatting of the pictures in that section; apparently because of the way they were inserted, without frames, the lower picture was actually obliterating some of the text in the following paragraph. I sized the 2nd picture to 350 pixels wide; you may want to make further tweaks. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've followed the MOS, which states that bold italics should be used for technical terms which are immediately followed by a definition. Technically, you can also make the terms appear in italics throughout the article in this situation as well, but I thought that was a bit over the top. The reason I believe we need that formatting is because, as we've established, these terms are not words as defined in the dictionary, they are jargon as defined by the technical literature. I only conceded to that spelling because we can treat them as jargon as per MOS. Otherwise, we go back to the debate about whether they are words or not. This is what some people would call a win-win. :) SilentC (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Shorter OED, 5th edn, contains 'infeed' but not 'outfeed'. Google returns 'about 736000 results' for 'outfeed' Globbet (talk) 10:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]