|Axe has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Technology. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7|
- 1 photo comment
- 2 Automatic axe
- 3 Edits 10/06
- 4 Wordings
- 5 Axe Crew
- 6 List of manufacturers
- 7 Spelling Variant
- 8 Possible Additions?
- 9 Francisca
- 10 Simple Machine vs Compound Machine
- 11 Hammer Axe
- 12 Aylesford
- 13 Archived Discussion
- 14 Pulaski (tool)
- 15 Worth a mention of axe handles as weapons?
- 16 Double bitted axes
- 17 Need to add a template to point people looking for "AX" to that page
- 18 Ax (axe) murder as a separate article or list
Are we sure that the second photo depicts an axe and not an adze?
How about this thing: David.Monniaux 18:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Tried to group types, edited introduction, edited refernce to mortise axe and twybill ( a twybil is not an axe.)
In the "Symbolism, ritual and folklore" section, the following sentence does not seem to make sense: "In folklore, stone axes were sometimes believed to be thunderbolts and were used to guard buildings against lightning..." It could be just me, but can anyone reword this?
Stone hand axes were found hafted to wood preserved in bogs. I have no time to reference this. --Denny 11.13.05
Is there any reason we're keeping the "Axe Crew" on this page?
List of manufacturers
I've seen axe spelt ax with no e in some places- should this be listed as a variant? Eric Sloane, I believe in his book, "A Reverence for Wood," explains the difference between AX and AXE. I just don't have the book available right now. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I think that's the British version. But Wikipedia is international, so I'd agree with you220.127.116.11 01:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Thats not a british version. I'm british and i've never seen it used in britain.
- Ax is the tool, axe is the weapon. 18.104.22.168 22:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
ax (w/o e) is the preferred U.S. spelling. It's all right to be international, but "occasionally ax" is just plain inaccurate.22.214.171.124 15:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Geof Garvey, LINK Book Development
- I agree that "occassionally" is far from accurate. 126.96.36.199 02:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- American, here, I'd never seen the variant "ax" here in the US before the History channel's "Axmen" series, but my Webster's 3rd International Dictionary says both are correct. Xaa (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Interesting you say that. I am American also and consider ax to be the standard spelling. Wikipedia always seems to favor British usages.
- Both spellings are in common use in the U.S. I don't think either can be considered more or less "standard" than the other. Kostaki mou (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Theblindsage 23:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Franciscas WERE hafted. The pic on the Francisca page shows only the heads.
- Seconded. In fact I'm going to delete this rubbish, a year on! Salvianus (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Simple Machine vs Compound Machine
The third paragraph states that an axe is a simple machine, but goes on to state how an axe uses both a wedge and a lever. Would that not disqualify it from being called a simple machine, and thereby make it a compound machine? Primalmoon (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is this not a world wide view? The example places mentioned are both in the UK, but is the content not relevant world wide? Suggest removing the 'worldwide' template unless it can be justified Thelem (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest removing the worldwide template as well. Otherwise I could go and slap the same template on bits of quite a few articles just because the examples are only in one country, especially when it comes to archaeology where there may not be good examples from other countries (although I don't know if that's the case here or not.) --188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
"Hammer axes are an often overlooked tool in the axe field. They were first developed in Switzerland but soon migrated west to North America and Aylesford in particular." - What on Earth is this? It was a common Roman tool! Aylesford?! Deleting... Salvianus (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
It's an axe and should be merged here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree on merging the Pulaski with the axe. It IS an axe, but its too specific of an axe, it would be like having "bacteria" then merging every bacterial strain into it. Jcmcc450 (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- Also disagree with the merge, the Pulaski is specific enough to merit its own article. Could use some references though. Minnecologies (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I too disagree with the merge. A pulaski is only partly an axe, it's just as much mattock as it is an axe. Why hasn't it been proposed that Pulaski (tool) be merged with Mattock? It fits there just as well as it fits within this article. GrantHenninger (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
No need to merge Pulaski with axe or mattock. From practical experience using the Pulaski for chopping & digging during: wildland firefighting, landscaping, & personal yardwork; the Pulaski is the ONE tool that I would choose over ALL others. I've used the mattock in tree planting which was appropriate, but the Pulaski is so much more versitile than either the axe or mattock to definitely retain stand-alone entry status.Bestallaround tool (talk) 04:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Worth a mention of axe handles as weapons?
I seem to recall reading various US history bits mentioning axe-handles being relatively popular weapons during the Labour struggles and Civil Rights era. Some basic googling turns up mentions like "Maddox once passed out axe handles to white patrons of his restaurant in an effort to bar blacks. He sold the restaurant, rather than integrate it, in 1964."
Double bitted axes
Need to add a template to point people looking for "AX" to that page
The lowercase word "ax" was redirecting to the disambiguation page for "AX," which I felt didn't make as much sense, so I changed the redirect of "ax" to point here. However, that also will apply to "Ax," which has other uses; people who were looking for something else that can be found on that page now will not know to look there. What I believe is needed is the template that makes a message along the lines of "'Ax' redirects here. For other uses of 'Ax,' go to this page" or something like that. However, even five years of editing WP hasn't taught me all the common templates, so I don't know how to set that up. Could someone else give it a whack? (OK, pardon the pun, but it was too hard to resist!) Lawikitejana (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Ax (axe) murder as a separate article or list
As gruesome, morbid, and sensationalistic as it feels to bring this up, it is a little surprising to me that there does not seem to be any list or page about the specific category of "ax murder." In criminal history, these cases generally stand out, being just rare enough that they tend to be remembered as vividly as serial-killer cases, yet over history just common enough that one could make a substantial list of them. I turned up quite a few in searching Wikipedia, but no gathering of them as a group. Am I overlooking something, such as an existing category, and if not, what are the thoughts on making a list of notable cases? After all, we try to serve many purposes with this encyclopedia, and this kind of thing is a type of query for which people would tend to turn to this kind of source (e.g., encyclopedia) when interested in the topic of how rare it is, whether psychologists and profilers have identified any particular profile of the kind of person likely to choose this specific method, and so on. A list, of course, wouldn't necessarily have that info; it just feels odd to suggest a whole article on the subject, as interesting as it may be to so much of the public. Pardon my asking here, rather than on a crime-related page; this was simply my starting point after linking to "axe" for an article mentioning a particular murder case. Lawikitejana (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)