From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Woodworking (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Woodworking, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Woodworking on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.


Just wondering what to do with this page. I've always considered the term backsaw to be a class of saw of which tenon saw and dovetail saw are examples. I have heard some American woodworkers refer to what I would call a tenon saw as a backsaw. Should we make this article more general and refer to it from the tenon/dovetail saw articles, should it be merged with tenon saw, or should it be expanded in parallel to the other two? SilentC 02:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

In my experience Canadian/North American usage, the backsaw is used either as a class of saw, or for the larger one generally used in mitre boxes or for cutting large tenons. So I think we need separate articles for different ones like the dovetail and gent's saws. I'm not sure that a tenon saw is any different from a backsaw, though. Maybe backsaw and tenon saw should be merged. Luigizanasi 18:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I have re-done backsaw as a separate article from the others but it is hard to see that there is much to be said about say, a dovetail saw which is different from that for a tenon saw and not covered by backsaw or by the articles on the joints concerned. It might be sensible to give Luigizanasi's observation as well as tenon saw etc. a paragraph each in Backsaw and redirect the specialist saw names to there. Backsaw would then provide a useful link for mitre box, bench hook, marking knife etc.
By the way, I have recently come across a reference to a back saw called a sash saw. It was smaller than a tenon saw and used in making windows. Has anyone here used one? This is not an example of the calling of a frame saw a 'sash saw'.(RJP 21:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC))
Good job on the article. On further reflection, I agree with you that we probably don't need articles on the dovetail saw, gent's saw, etc. I will be bold and merge and redirect the dovetail and tenon saw articles into this one.
On the sash saw, I found this reference: [1] from the Society of American Period Furniture Makers web site. No I have never used one and I thought it was a large frame saw used in sawmilling.Luigizanasi 04:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Done. Dovetail, tenon, gent's saw & dozuki all redirect here now.Luigizanasi 05:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

but for most you can not find the thing to say goodbye to your finger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Backsaw vs. Tenon Saw[edit]

In Australia, the term backsaw is hardly ever used. It is much more common to call this type of saw generically a tenon saw. People in the know would then distinguish a dovetail saw. The only time we hear backsaw is when watching New Yankee Workshop ;) SilentC 23:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Since when does Norm use hand tools? ;-) Maybe you should mention that (the Australian usage) at the beginning of the article. I think that it's important that all names for the same tool or technique get documented. I understand that the British usage is the same as the North American one, but the Oz one should also be mentioned. Names are so variable, not only among countries/continents, but also between different region. For example, the keyhole saw talks about what I have always called a "dry wall saw". To me, a keyhole saw has a pistol grip and is much longer, but I've also seen it referred to as a "compass saw". Luigizanasi 02:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I just changed it so that instead of 'most often just backsaw' it says 'often just backsaw'. I don't really have any evidence that we use 'tenon saw' more or less exclusively here, it has just been my experience. Catalogues, Australian woodworking magazines and so on seem to support this. However I think most Australian woodworkers would understand what was meant by backsaw.
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 SilentC 06:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
As I think this is a question of more general interest, I have responded on the project page (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Woodworking.Luigizanasi 07:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Dozuki Spelling[edit]

Being somewhat of a newbie, would just like to clear up why we use the spelling Dōzuki instead of Dozuki. The ō character does not exist in the English language, so is this a policy like the pinyin thing I read about recently? It seems to resolve OK in searches but if you search for "Dozuki", although it gets a hit on the Japanese saw page, if you search for it within the page it is not found. I suppose my point is that this is the English wiki, so is there a reason we need to do it this way? SilentC 07:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Some people get really anal about these things, and as a Canadian we get subjected a lot to it. You should have seen the discussion at the Montreal portal (Portal:Montreal/Discussions/English Names. Personally what I think is important is that people be able to find stuff, so I would avoid the accents/diacritics.Luigizanasi 06:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
There's a Wikipedia policy on how to write Japanese words, so if it is being used in a Japanese context, the macron is better. On the other hand, "dozuki" is now actually an English word, so the no-macron form is OK. You can remove it if you want to. Actually the capital letter in "Dozuki" is more in need of change. On the page Japanese saw, it would be definitely be better to use the macron since it's specifically about a Japanese thing. --DannyWilde 06:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
OK I used a highly technical and scientific process to resolve the issue. I searched in Google for 'dozuki' and again for 'dōzuki'. I got 12,000+ hits for the former and three for the latter, none of which were related to the saw! SilentC 22:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Is the Dozuki a backsaw?[edit]

In my original version, I said that the Dozuki shares similarities with the backsaw. Luigi changed that to "the Dozuki is a type of backsaw". I'm now wondering if this is correct. I know it fits the classification but does the term backsaw also imply a group of western saws? I didn't change it because I'm uncertain. SilentC 22:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it is a back saw (i.e. a saw having a back) and it is used in the same way, but I am not patrticularly hung up about it. So if you want to change it or add qualifications, go for it.Luigizanasi 06:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Just added a bit so that it's clear the saw has a different ancestry. I suppose most people would have understood that from the japanese saw link but I like to apply the LCD principle. SilentC 22:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
A Dozuki is certainly a backsaw. The term Backsaw implies only that the blade has a stiffening rib.
This being the case, why do you keep removing "The Japanese Dozuki is a type of backsaw." from the article? If you're going to be a regular contributor, how about creating a login and joining the Woodworking project? SilentC 21:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I've removed that line because it doesn't help the flow of the article in any way. It adds no information, and there's no more reason to have that sentence about the Dozuki, than there would be for any of the other types of backsaws.
The very good reason is because, unlike all of the other saws in the article, the Dozuki is a Japanese saw and it might therefore be of interest to readers to know that the Dozuki is also a type of backsaw, despite it's separate heritage. It is also there as a counterpoint to the sentence concerning the Roman origin of the backsaw. Back it goes. One more and we'll have to get independant arbitration on it.SilentC 21:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Backsaw as 'one of a class of handsaws'[edit]

I've reverted some of the changes made by because I feel that it changed the whole slant of the article, which was to define the term 'backsaw' as a generic term for a group of saws having similar characteristics. The part of the article that discussed this concept was removed and so I have put it back. SilentC 05:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your claim that I changed the whole "slant" of the article. My version made it just as clear that "backsaw" is a generic term covering the subtypes described below, and I had added substantially to the text.
Your wording 'the backsaw is one of a class of woodworking saws' implied that there is a class of saws to which the backsaw belongs and that it is a single representative of the class. This is not correct, except perhaps in the US where they use the term 'backsaw' when others would say 'tenon saw'. It also contradicted the next section of the article which goes on to describe a class of saws. This article was changed quite a bit a couple of months ago to reflect the fact that 'backsaw' is in fact a generic term for a class of saws itself - the original reflected the US usage only. Your new wording is better. Whether it is better than the original or not is subject for debate but I don't have any problem with it per se. SilentC 21:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Removing mention of Dozuki from article intro[edit] has removed the phrase "The Japanese Dozuki is a type of backsaw." a number of times now. Could you please state your objections to the inclusion of the phrase? My reason for wishing to retain it is that it undoubtedly has a different heritage to the rest of the backsaws and is unlikely to have been evolved from the Roman example. SilentC 22:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)