Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Woodworking/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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)

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)

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)

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)

I thought you did a good job there too. It's an interesting point though, isn't it. Do you think we should try to keep illustrations stylisticly similar?, or is it too early for that? and just put up whatever and see which ones look good?MarkAnthonyBoyle 14:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It could be difficult to make them all similar in style, given that there are varying degrees of skill in lllustration and different tools available. I can draw line diagrams but that's the limit for me. I've been using Google Sketch Up to do some of the later ones (see Dovetail joint which makes perspective drawings easy. The ones in butt joint were done with the drawing tool in Word. I think people should just put up whatever they have access to and if another editor comes along later with an improvement then well and good.

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)