Talk:Scroll saw

curves with edges

I'm afraid I don't know what this means. Why don't the curves made by other types of saws have "edges"? Cjrother 02:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for more paragraphs

Someone added a request for paragraphs on the following subjects be added to this article:

• Intarsia,
• Fretwork,
• Compound cutting,
• 3-D cutting,
• Large Fretwork Clocks,
• Marquetry and Inlay and
• Antique Scroll Saws
• Lathart

I removed it as it wasn't appropriate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Links like Intarsia, Fretwork, 3-D cutting, etc are primary project type that are widely discussed and are elements commonly associated with this topic. They are absolutely relevant. If a user is looking for info on scroll saw, like for example, what are the typical applications, then the exclusion of these elements does the reader a great injustice. If there is content in the history that gives a brief description of these elements and a link to the full article, then that content needs to be restored.

Gloden (talk)`

Tagged for tone

I've placed the tone template on this article as it doesn't read as an encyclopaedic article should. A lot of it resembles a buyer's guide offering specific recommendations and in other places it directly addresses the reader (you, you're etc), which is a style specifically recommended against. I may come back in a few days and clean it up but I'm tagging it now pending any comments since that will inevitably mean the removal of some content. CrispMuncher (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I've belatedly gone ahead and refactored the article. There were many comments that I simply removed because they were advisory in nature or inherently opinion. I also removed a fair chunk on intarsia since it didn't seem very appropriate here - that belongs in the page on intarsia. In any case, it apears to be that mosty of the comments made could eaulally have been applied to marquetry. CrispMuncher (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Links Core to Scroll Community

There has been some assertion that http://www.scrollsawer.com/ should not be included as part of this article, even though it is generally recognized as a primary hub in the scroll saw community. The site is operated by Fox Chapel Publishing, but the site and incredible respository of information if free for all. Other than some banner adds and such, this site host forums on the range or project types and interest. The sites' focus is not commercial and thus the link between the sponsoring publishing company and the actual function of the site is thin at best.

The reasonable assumption of a user accessing this site to gain information about "Scroll Sawing" would be given a good overview of the tool type and in the case of crafts that have a huge community focus and support mechanism, a link to those locations would be consistent with the article goals. Worse yet, the links that remain are not reflective to the community involvement as a whole.

Ultimately, we should be looking to strengthen the article, and yet after a considerable amount of time, the article remains minimalist and steril. Is that what we are going for, little more than a dictionary coverage? The current article does not represent the diversness and breadth of the craft nor give the user any meaningful depth into the topic. The "guidelines" should be applied with "Common Sense." Part of that responsibility to be to "inform" the user of critical element the topic, including the community aspects of the topic.

Gloden (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)