Talk:Saw chain

Started article

I know there's loads missing, I need to photograph some chains and do a bit more writing. Plenty left to come. Nailgunner (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Added links in and links out; feel free to add more. Nailgunner (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

ok, images found, permissions granted, emails sent, etc. I'm not sure how it comes to read like a how-to guide, since a certain amount of practical information is, I feel, necessary, although I've so far avoided actually giving anything like the amount of information that could be dragged up on saw chains. Some pointers would be good instead of just bombing the page with tags. Anyone?

As it is, if anyone wants to sort out my lousy formatting, crack on - the pictures are all over the place and I've no clear idea on how to sort it. Nailgunner (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your efforts in improving the article. I hate to be a "drive-by tagger" and try to demonstrate what the tag meant by doing some of the work myself, but I had trouble untangling the writing here. It's not that it is bad writing, but it is not encyclopedic writing. If you read about lead paragraphs, you'll see that first of all this article needs to start out with a (sometimes obvious but necessary) statement of fact. For example: "A saw chain is a component of chainsaws, etc., etc. Saw chains were invented by So-and-so, and came into wide use in the ???-Century." What would help me with to help you with the writing is if this article had citations to reliable sources. It's sometimes hard to figure out how to add citations, but do your best and someone else will come along and clean them up. Without citations, the information in the article reads like original research. Unfortunately, as knowledgeable as a Wikipedia writer may be about a topic, we can't take his or her word for it, we need citations. This is what helps us maintain the integrity and quality of the project, vs. it being a mishmash of half-truths and speculation, so I hope you understand. BTW, I found this article because it popped up on a list of new articles that mention "Oregon". I added the name of the founder of the Oregon chainsaw company to your addition to Oregon (disambiguation). It would be great to have an article on the company and tie all the articles together. Happy editing! Katr67 (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, some fair points. I'll try to get some quick amendments in over the next few days. I'd really considered the article as it was to be very much a first draft, and I'm sure there's still a lot more that needs to be added or at least tarted up. Adding citations - I've seen the citation tags in use so I get that, finding reliable sources will involve some legwork but it'll come together. Article on Oregon Co.? Nice idea, it would sit well with the others. Certainly Oregon are a major - if not predominant - supplier of commercial/professional cutting attachments and consumables/replaceables for forestry work and chainsaws in particular, so they're an important part of that world. I'll tidy up saw chain first, and try the Oregon co. article later - Unless someone else pitches in? :) Nailgunner (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I corrected a little grammar and replaced "full chisel" with "round or square chisel".... Good accurate information here. "Reading like an encyclopedia" is superficial appearance and has nothing to do with the content. I've never been much on formalities. It's just fluff that the academics like to buzz around.  ;) Good job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.213.80.58 (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers - actually, since the recognized terms for the chain types are "chisel", "semi-chisel" and "chipper" (in increasing order of working corner radius) I've corrected this back ... refer to Oregon/Carlton/Stihl etc. for confirmation of this. "round chisel" is really a contradiction in terms, since the "chisel" bit refers to the sharp-cornered tooth, which looks a bit like a V-shaped chisel from the point of view of the cutting points and edges. Hope this helps - Nailgunner (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

As you wish, it's your article, but I buy round chisel from Bailey's on every order. The recognized terms are round chisel, square chisel, semi-chisel, and chipper but I don't think I've ever seen chipper for sale. It's one of those old types that are not used much anymore. Kinda like the 8-track tape of the chain world. I won't mess with your article again. Good luck.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.173.160.58 (talk • contribs) 22:34, November 15, 2009

Carlton still sell chipper but tbh I don't know if anyone buys it ;) the confusion seems to be down to differences between British and American nomenclature so I'll dig a bit deeper and clarify this (or you can, if I don't get round to it. see below).Nailgunner (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Everybody might like to read WP:OWN. Cheers, Katr67 (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Actually, the fluff us Wikipedia editors like to buzz around about "reading like an encyclopedia" is simply a matter of our standards, since this is, after all, an encyclopedia. So you may not think much of the standards, but material that doesn't adhere to them is subject to removal at any time. You can read more at What Wikipedia is Not. Cheers! Katr67 (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Katr67 - Advice ... Saw chain is a subject with a lot of information attached that invariably relates to very practical matters, much of it related to design decisions made during evolution and manufacture. How can this be bought across without attracting the "how-to" tags it's saddled with at the moment? Nailgunner (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Please take encouragement; your article was very helpful when it came time to order replacement chains for my saw. I avoided wasting time and money by reading this info first, so thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.110.153 (talk) 08:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)