Talk:Forging

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Cogging)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Metalworking (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metalworking, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Metalworking 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject History of Science (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

I've added a lot of manufacturing forging related information lately, however I'm lacking information regarding the history of forging, so anyone with anything, feel free to jump into that. Also, I stole this snipet from the Forge discussion because I thought it was a pretty good start for goals for this article:

   This article should have at least three sections:
   * a section defining the verb and giving an overview -Maybe the intro needs to be expanded a little
   * a section devoted to industrial forging -got this covered
   * a brief section on forging as a "hand craft" with a link to "blacksmithing" -need this
   * a brief section on "forge" and "forging" as related to "forgery" with a link to that article
   * Create a recommended link to "forgery" and creating a "forgery" article if it does not exist

Wizard191 (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


I believe that there should be a list of Forging Companies in Alphabetical Order linked to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.105.21.62 (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the introduction places too much emphasis on the ambient temperature, when the difference between cold/warm/hot working in manufacturing processes is entirely based on the material's properties. For example, lead can be hot forged at room temperature, and tungsten for light bulbs is cold drawn at 900 degrees celsius. --86.140.241.205 (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

moved duplicate (misplaced) discussion of temperature to one section, titled Process Characteristics for now, till I think of the better term. "material considerations" can be added to this section to spek to your points about lead, tungsten, etc. Wilhkar (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)wilhkar

Recommendations[edit]

I agree about the temperature issue. There is a formal definition of this relating to percentage of melting point.

I think it would be worth adding machinery categorisation (as I was taught at university)

  • Energy restricted (i.e. hammers)
  • Stroke restricted (i.e. mechanical presses)
  • Load restricted (i.e. hydraulic presses

I worked for 14 years in a high volume automotive forge. The presses there ranged from 500t to 2500t. All cycles were of a fraction of a second (not multiple seconds) and all impressions were used once. i.e. the heated billet was placed into the preform die then then press cycled, then moved to the mould, cycled, then the finisher.

There probably ought to be a section about clipping/piercing presses too as they are an integral part of the process.

Possibly also a mention of air-cooling have replaced traditional heat treatment on many parts since the early 1990s.

How about high volume transfer forging presses like the Hatebur and equivalents?

What I've also seen was that press die sets had evolved to be far more complicated with multiple pieces and ejection etc. While hammer dies are often simply a top and bottom die with all impressions machined into them. 80.176.88.36 (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You are correct about the temperature thing, so feel free to change it. As for the types of machinery, I like that too. I've never seen it laid out that way before, but it makes sense to me. I'm not sure which section of the article states that cycle times are multiple seconds, but I know for certain operations it can be multiple seconds. Also, in most open die operations the workpiece will be struck multiple times.
Feel free to add info on clipping and piercing, and air-cooling heat treatments. I'm not familiar with Hateburs, but I looked at their website and their machines look like what is outlined in the automatic hot forging section. Wizard191 (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll try to get some words together and edit the page. Thought it best to ask first to save my efforts being immediately reverted 80.176.88.36 (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Nice list of work to do. Will try to address some of it as I can. Wilhkar (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)wilhkar
I understand you consider hot forging in respect to the melting temperature, but it's not true. The hot forging is done in respect to the (first) temperature of recrystalisation of the atoms in the material fabric. So hot forging is done in respect to the recrystalisation and not to the melting temperature necessarily. What is this temperature then it's a different issue, you can find it in the extrusion article.
Temperaturi înalte de extrudare pentru diferite metale
Material Temperature [°C ]
Magnesium 350–450
Aluminium 350–500
Copper 600–1100
Steel 1200–1300
Titan 700–1200
Nickel 1000–1200
Personally so far, I don't find a reason for warm forging use.5.12.213.85 (talk) 09:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Drop forging[edit]

The Wrench article has a link to this article to explain drop forging but I can't find drop forging defined here. There are a couple of comparisons to drop forging but no actual definition or section for it.  Stepho  (talk) 08:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added a section with a description of it. Hope that clears it up. Wizard191 (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
What used to be very confusing is now crystal clear. Thank your very much.  Stepho  (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Drop forging isn't defined. Can a definition be added? Wakablogger2 (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Sure it does; see the Forging#Drop forging section. Wizard191 (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I see it now; it's just kind of hidden: "The similarity between the two is that a hammer is raised up and then dropped onto the workpiece to deform it according to the shape of the die." Wakablogger2 (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Forge and forging[edit]

These two articles contain a good amount of duplication. Wilhkar (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)wilhkar

That's because someone recently restored it. It really needs to be boiled down significantly in the forge article. Wizard191 (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
if you come up in a section of the article then it's not a bad thing the duplication.5.12.213.85 (talk) 09:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Wizard191 inhibits the insertion of information[edit]

There was inserted by me information on the use of computer 3D simulation for modern forging:

<<... The modern manufacturing of complicated forged items is usually accompanied by computer 3D modelling ...>>

The information was confirmed by a reference:

On modern technologies

Wizard191 removed my contribution, with comments for his action on my talk page:

<<... The external links you added to the page Forging do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it ...>>

I feel that my contribution could be useful for readers of the article, and intend to reinsert it. --Commator (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually you have been spamming http://www.metal-art.com.ua links to Wikipedia, specifically this article, forge, and ironwork. Your link is promotional and not a reliable source, as such please stop adding this link. Wizard191 (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
You removed this EL shortly before I got to it, and I would have removed it too (in general, I'd say I'm more lenient on ELs than Wizard191).
I read this EL in the hope that it would be a useful and interesting link on a topic I know little of, but do know is an expanding field: that of CAD _really_ being applied to forging processes, so as to take the shape of the billet and the shape of the finished item into account, then to generate the pattern of hammer blows needed to shape it. That would be a good EL, but I haven't seen it on your site.
Use of CAD as a sketchpad for run of the mill decorative ironwork is not a notable topic or valid subject for an EL. I can do that much in my own backyard. If you've anything more useful as a link target - maybe I just missed the good stuff on your site - it would need to be a more precise URL. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Dear Wizard191 and Andy Dingley, thanks for the detailed explanation of your opinion on the link, which I used to confirm the veracity of my information. It was about the conventional now practice of using not a simple 2D CAD drawing, but full 3D simulation. The link may convince that this is used even in small companies of decorative ironwork. Such information was not mentioned in any of cited by Wizard191 articles. Strange that a lot of arguments about the supporting evidence link and there's no explanation of the reasons for removal of my contribution to the text of this article. The accusation of unreliability of the supporting information link is far-fetched. The site contains contact information and anybody who interested to clarify the details of this technology will be satisfied. The company is sufficiently well known. As for promotion, any EL promote some site or organization. If my reference is such, please check everyone else and remove them as well.--Commator (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
This link http://www.metal-art.com.ua/en/tehno.htm "Computer 3D solid modelling of a full-sized article allows to get its realistic image from the desired angle of view" isn't an interesting EL (to the standards of WP:EL) to the level of an interesting technology. It's just "CAD as a design sketchpad", not "CAD for modelling a manufacturing process" (i.e. flow of metal from billet to finished item). Andy Dingley (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Commator, please do not re-add your material. Right now there is consensus that your material doesn't belong in the article. Until that changes please do not re-add your spam. Wizard191 (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Wisard191, the article has 138 authors. Only you delete my material twice because only you don't wish to see it here. Where is consensus? --Commator (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Please read WP:EL and WP:ELNO. This link does not add any content to the standard required by WP:EL. The use of CAD demonstrated by this site is nothing special. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Please read articles CAD and 3D modeling and try to end talking about CAD in discussion on my materials. My materials about role of 3D solid modeling in forging. This article tells nothing about this matter, but it is very notable component of forging now. --Commator (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps your work itself is at the leading edge of CAD and modelling as applied to forging, but the link you added doesn't have any content that describes this. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Pointing to the link you hide your opinion about my contribution to the text of the article. The essense of material in addition to the text. It's about that solid 3D modeling play conspicuous role in forging. Reference only confirms my statement. That's all the link is obliged to do in my material. --Commator (talk) 09:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
There is no useful content at your link. It's just an advert. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Commator, just to be clear, I don't have a problem with the addition of information about the novel use of CAD or CAE in forging, however I would like to see a reliable source to back it up. Wizard191 (talk) 12:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Wizard191, just for reminding. The accusation of unreliability of the supporting information link is far-fetched. The site contains contact information and anybody who interested to clarify the details of this technology will be satisfied. The company is sufficiently well known. You can't hide your personal aversion to my contribution and you has demonstrated your impatient resistance. --Commator (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that you are using your own personal definition of reliability. Wikipedia has a precise definition for a reliable source at WP:RS. If you think that I'm incorrectly interpreting the policy, please bring it up at WP:RSN. Then you can get an opinion both others than myself and Andy. Wizard191 (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
No, it is not so. Andy Dingley don't understand the matter of discussion. You understand it, but can't overcome your personal aversion to my contribution. It seems the article is your estate where for Andy Dingley also is permitted to do something. --Commator (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

(un-indent) Seeing how you feel so strongly about your stance, get an administrator or ask for assistance on a noticeboard so that we can get this resolved. Wizard191 (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Your untouchable article meanwhile remains holey. --Commator (talk) 06:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Your first reason to remove my contribution: <<... Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project ...>> Your article still includes external links to advertise:
You're not sparkled with сrystal-honesty. --Commator (talk) 08:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
There are probably other links that don't deserve to be there. If more editors had more time, such things would be reviewed more often. As it is, new links are more obvious and do get reviewed, old links tend to get overlooked. These old links have no right to ignore WP:EL and WP:ELNO - some might get removed, if someone finds the time to do so.
Nor is being commercial a bar to an external link. It's often seen as one, many editors (incorrectly) remove external links "for being commercial", but this is wrong.
External link policy is described under WP:EL. The basis of this, which is usually misunderstood, is that Wikipedia articles should ideally have no external links, other than links to an organisation that's the subject of an article (and references, which are separate). Acceptable ELs are only there as a recognition of a shortcoming in the article itself: maybe useful content that can't be added to the article because of copyright, or content that ought to be described in the article but isn't as yet, owing to limitations on article editing time. The point is though that these ELs aren't there to be links and to "build the web", they're only there as substitutes for content in the article itself, when we can't otherwise achieve that.
Do your links add useful content that the article is currently lacking? No - I cannot see this. Therefore your links are unacceptable, because they don't have any content, not because they're commercial. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments and courtly advice read WP rules. I was in Cymru at September, 2009 and has communicated with people. In Wrecsam. So very glad that my Lugansk (Ukraine) and Caerdydd are sister cities. In fact you have not removed my contribution so far and I can not discuss with you the matter of my last message to Wisard191. As I understand, he is the article boss --Commator (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
As I stated before, please contact an administrator or noticeboard, because there's nothing I'm going to be able to say that's going to sway your opinion. Wizard191 (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
What you will do if I undo your rvs? --Commator (talk) 23:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
That would be edit warring over unsupportable ELs, which is likely to lead to you being blocked. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Andy Dingley, thanks again for the comment. Meanwhile, my question is not to you yet, but to Wisard191. He is silent and in accordance with WP rules, this means that he will not respond to my actions. It seems that now Wisard191 is not finding danger in my contribution and edit warring is excluded. --Commator (talk) 06:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Let me make it clear: Your link isn't acceptable as either WP:EL or WP:RS - not because you're commercial, not because of the poor English, not because we have some personal vendetta against you - merely because it doesn't offer any useful encyclopedic content. I can see one relevant paragraph at most - that's just not enough. If you add this again and no-one else reverts it before I see it, I'd revert it myself. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
So you promise to be my enemy in edit war instead of Wisard191 only because your only one opinion on encyclopedic value of my materials is opposite with my and almost 500 readers per day and more than 100 authors?. --Commator (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh get over yourself. Your site is an uninspiring commercial showcase with no content anywhere on it that's worth a link. There are any number like it, and any number of better smiths making more attractive and more innovative work. If you don't like a link that's right against widespread policy being removed, either take it up with ArbCom or (even better) put something onto your site that's worth linking to. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Andy Dingley promises a war of editing.[edit]

I intend to undo Wizard191's action, which removed my contribution.

To the article will be inserted text:

"Since the advance of the PC era the manufacturing of complicated and unique forged items is usually accompanied by realistic 3D computer simulation. This accurate and relatively fast technology allows accumulate all needful knowledges, equipment and intermediates for the future forged items before the starting of manufacturing[i]. Computer 3D modeling is now conventional even for small companies[ii]."

i Forging Process Modeling

ii 3D modeling in forge

Wizard191 is silent and it means he agree.

Andy Dingley promises to remove the text because he is finding it as not relevant to the article.

I find that his personal intention is not coinciding with community opinion. --Commator (talk) 08:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The text you intend to insert is not too bad but it needs good references. Your [ii] reference is blatantly commercial and has only one small paragraph mentioning CAD. Your [i] reference is an obvious plagiarism of [1]. The original sandria web page would make a good reference.
Wizard191 is silent not because he agrees with you but because he has already stated that he can not convince you. He has also suggested that you call in an arbitrator.
Andy Dingley's promise to remove text that is not relevant to the article is what every editor should be doing - i.e. keeping rubbish out. The argument is about the difference between good information and information not in the best interest of the reader. From the comments in the above section, the community is agreeing with him and is against the links you are inserting.  Stepho  (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
If you have not noticed, I draw your attention to the fact that from the very beginning of the debate Andy Dingley warns about he knows little about the substance of my contribution. Besides, no one has the right to assert that he knows all about the preferences of readers. I'm trying to insert into article truthful, and not too bad text with sustaining footnotes. With difficulty in the discussion take part four persons and they say that footnotes are not interesting to Andy Dingley, therefore they are commercial, stolen, and the text without them lies. So will be better if you go away from our favorite articles in the English Wikipedia to your national ones. This is not vendetta, but we four know exactly that our readers don't need your contribution. I will never believe that this is the opinion of community on my contribution. --Commator (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
What you will do if I undo Wizard191's rv? --Commator (talk) 04:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Rfc: Commator's links to metal-art.com.ua[edit]

Commator (talk · contribs) has been adding to this, and other metalworking articles, a number of links to their commercial web site. These have been added as ELs, and as references. The linked site is "relevant", in that its topic area is related to the subject under discussion, however it has almost no content on it. It's way short of the WP:EL standard. I don't even see it as adequate for a reference: not merely not being WP:RS, but not even enough for a reference in passing. I'm happy to accept (in the spirit of WP:AGF) that they could be knowledgeable in the field and have knowledge that could usefully be added to this article, however the content accessible on the linked site is nowhere near enough.

Their discussion since is welcomed, however the style of these two threads could be seen as needlessly personal and combative:

Your comments please. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

  1. Commator seems to sincerely believe that their links are helpful,and probably does not perceive their own actions as spam. However, I agree with Andy Dingley that they are not acceptable under WP:EL. Whatever the intention, the effect of Commator's link addition is spamming.
  2. Commator either cannot or will not understand the objections given, but very persistently repeats the same arguments, which do not address the issues. He/she seems unable to grasp the concept of a reliable source. For example, here we have an argument that amounts to "the web site contains contact information so you can contact its owners so the site must be a reliable source".
  3. Commator has for some reason decided that the whole issue is a personal vendetta by Wizard191. The fact that Andy Dingley has also made similar criticisms is somehow dismissed as not counting, as poor Andy Dingley doesn't understand. Commator repeatedly makes accusations against Wizard191 of bad faith and ownership, as in these edits, for example: [2], [3], [4], [5].
  4. Commator will not accept that he/she is working against consensus. He/she has repeatedly claimed that Wizard191 is the only one disagreeing, despite the contributions of others. As I have already mentioned, Andy Dingley has also taken part in the talk page discussion, but is considered not to count. Stepho-wrs has also made a small contribution, and explained to Commator what the problems are, and has reverted one of Commator's edits. I have not taken part in that discussion, but have reverted some of Commator's edits and have posted to their talk page. It is difficult to understand how Commator can continue to assert that it is only a question of Wizard191's individual opposition.
  5. Finally, after the discussion has been running for eight days, Commator notices and acknowledges Andy Dingley's opposition. Strangely enough, rather than accept that there are (at least) two voices in opposition, Commator now turns the accusation of being the only voice of opposition onto Andy Dingley.
  6. In the edit which I have just linked Commator claims support from hundreds of unspecified people, without explanation or justification. Commator also says "Andy Dingley promises to remove the text because he is finding it as not relevant to the article. I find that his personal intention is not coinciding with community opinion." However, no evidence is cited for Commator's judgement of what is "community opinion". The fact that every single person other than Commator who has expressed an opinion is against Commator is somehow ignored.
  7. Commator has been repeatedly invited to seek arbitration, as here for example, but has not done so.
  8. The problem is not restricted to this article. The same inappropriate linking has taken place at Blacksmith, Forge, Ironwork, Metalsmith and 3D modeling at least.
Commator does not seem able to understand other people's points of view, and his/her arguments do not address the issues raised. He/she cannot or will not see that consensus is against him/her. He/she shows no willingness at all to co-operate or to try to reach agreement, but rather persists immovably in his/her opinion. Invitations to seek arbitration have elicited no response at all. Where do we go from here? I have posted a comment on Commator's talk page, making another attempt to elicit co-operation. Let's hope that helps. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Before this list of charges JamesBWatson made only one contribution to this article. He has removed my contribution, after I started the discussion with Wizard191. He was able to find only one cause, which he don't mention on the talk page of this article. He has prefered to write it on my talk page.
<<... Unfortunately your edit was not in comprehensible English. Perhaps you would like to contribute to the Wikipedia in a language you have a thorough command of, instead of English Wikipedia ...>>
As for vendetta, it was for me surprise to get to know from participants of this discussion about such method in Wikipedia edit practice.
Last call from Wikipedia is: "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment". --Commator (talk) 04:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I intend to undo Wizard191's action of personal dislike, which removed my contribution.
To the article will be inserted text:
"Since the advance of the PC era the manufacturing of complicated and unique forged items is usually accompanied by realistic 3D computer simulation. This accurate and relatively fast technology allows accumulate all needful knowledges, equipment and intermediates for the future forged items before the starting of manufacturing[i]. Computer 3D modeling is now not scarcity even for small companies[ii]."
i Forging Process Modeling. This footnote supports reality of using 3D computer simulation in forging.
ii 3D modeling in forge. This footnote supports reality of using 3D modelling in small forging companies. --Commator (talk) 07:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
There have been no personal attacks against you. Each editor is merely showing the correct avoidance of commercial sites. As I mentioned above, those two links are not suitable. The metal-art web page is too commercial and has as its only redeeming feature the fact that at least one small company uses CAD. It by no means shows that it is common and has no explanation of the process. The lugmetalart web page is an extract of another source - far better to use the original source. I make the following counter proposal, which hopefully covers your intent.
"The flow of metal during the forging process can cause stress spots and failures in the final product. In the past, an iterative process was used where successive dies were made according to how the previous test die failed. Computer 3D modelling can be used to predict the stresses raised in the metal due to the forging process and thus remove the need for costly test dies.[i]" ref [i] https://share.sandia.gov/8700/projects/content.php?cid=59
Thoughts?  Stepho  (talk) 10:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Firstly your utterance about the absence of attacks against me is not properly. You are the first who has attacked my contribution and you still believe that my contribution is a spam which must be unconditionally removed. Secondly I will not interdict you make your contributions to the article. My contribution must tell about another. I intend to do it in my edition and in the section "History". Thirdly, if you're so captivated with the idea of making a direct link to the article from Sandia, please be aware that Windows Internet Explorer 8 has popup question to the reader, and only one answer from two possible may open the way to the article text. To my knowledge, such direct links to Wikipedia are undesirable. The article also has notable commercial features, but by this only your own conscience may be concerned. --Commator (talk) 08:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment rather than edit warring over the section at issue, might it not be a better idea to try to find some different references to support the statement. If what is written is true, there must be other references to support it.

If were going to criticise the article and references it would be for plagiarism rather then commercial interest. Nearly all the current references come from one source 'Degarmo'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  • While this is getting a bit off-topic, I assure that the article is not plagiarized from Degarmo; if it were I wouldn't have used a reference. I think what you meant is I copied the text, therefore violating copyright, but I used my own words for all of it. Check out the book at your library and confirm it. And while you are at it contribute something from it, because it's an excellent source! Wizard191 (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Plagiarism may be too strong a term to use and I did not intend to criticise the book or the editor who used it. Degarmo was properly cited, but to write a whole article based on one source is not entirely within the spirit of WP. I agree that it would be better to have a greater range of sources which is why, in the absence of anything better, the metal-art source might be acceptable, assuming it does actually confirm what is being said in the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I would support User:Stepho-wrs' proposal. Applications of CAD for modelling metal flow in forging would be relevant, interesting and a valuable addition to the article. Obviously references for this would be important, and the Sandia ref would be adequate. However I cannot see the site metal-art.com.ua as being adequate for this - not because of any personal dislike of the site (despite some provocation throughout this thread), not because it's a commercial site, but simply because there's no useful content on that site. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I also support Stepho's proposal. If it is accepted I might reword it slightly, but otherwise I like it because it's using a RS. Wizard191 (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

My intension is to undo Wizard191's action, which removed my contribution. My goal is to contribute to the article section "History" the text:

"Since the advance of the PC era the manufacturing of complicated and unique forged items is usually accompanied by realistic 3D computer simulation. This accurate and relatively fast technology allows accumulate all needful knowledges, equipment and intermediates for the future forged items before the starting of manufacturing[i][ii]. Computer 3D modeling is now not scarcity even for small companies[iii]."

i Forging Process Modeling. This footnote supports reality of using 3D computer simulation in forging.

ii On CAD/CAM hardware and software usable in forging. This footnote tells which tools are usable.

iii 3D modeling in forge. This footnote supports reality of using 3D modelling in small forging companies. --Commator (talk) 08:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

None of those three links are acceptable. The first (i) is a simple copy / copyvio of the Sandia content. We should link to Sandia directly instead. The second (ii), offers no useful content. Sure, it looks like a good site and they're doing relevant work, but the content they present on the web says nothing more than "we use CAD". As such it adds no content useful for our purposes. If they added more detail to their site perhaps, but not as it stands at present. The third site (iii) is just your own site presented yet again, and still with no useful content on it. Your repetition is now clearly getting to the level of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, please either stop it, or improve your own site so that it has content worth looking at. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Your indecent attempt to take control over my participation in discussion is an evidence that you fully confuse discussion with editing and WP with your own backyard. My repetition is not for ascertainment your dislike level to my contribution. I know you never approve it. I wish to ascertain what other people can tell me on the matter which is for you bad understandable. --Commator (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Commator, Andy is not making any indecent attempt to take control of your participation. He has shown that your links are not suitable for Wikipedia. Wizard191, JamesBWatson and myself have said the same thing. We have explained our reasons but you do not want to accept them. Wikipedia must be highly critical of commercial links. If we accept a commercial link then it must explain the point. Linking to one or two commercial sites that have the word CAD explains very little. It only proves that those few companies use CAD. The reader has no way of knowing if CAD is very common or very rare outside of a few carefully picked websites. You would have to link to hundreds of sites to prove your point - but of course hundreds of links would be too tedious to prove a single point. Instead, you need to find a book or magazine that states your point. You can then use that book or magazine as a valid citation and we would probably be happy with that. Personally, I think your claim that CAD is common is probably true. But you need a good reference to verify it, not just a few examples.  Stepho  (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems I must be in very good relations with you four to have a possibility to share my knowledges with your readers. By other words you four tell me that will be better for me to go away from your favorite article in the English Wikipedia to my national one. You four know exactly that your readers don't need my contribution. By the way in my two national Wikipedias nobody has assessed this contribution as commertial. --Commator (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Linking to your site isn't a problem because your site is commercial, it's a problem because there's no useful content on your site. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Raised at Reliable sources/Noticeboard Andy Dingley (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I am very willing to assume Commator believes their edits are helpful to the article, but as an uninvolved editor who came here from WP:RSN my conclusion is that the website in question does not appear to have any significant and useful information that would assist readers in the way intended by Wikipedia. While some readers may very well want a link to a commercial site so they can conveniently find an organization to perform certain work, Wikipedia has always rejected such links. I did not spend much time looking at the website in question, so if someone would like to give me a precise URL that presents useful on-topic information, please do so. Meanwhile, the link should be removed from all pages (see LinkSearch). If the link is re-added, please post a report at WP:ELN. If further attention is required after that, report at WT:WikiProject Spam. Relevant information is at WP:EL (the site does not provide a unique resource) and WP:REFSPAM (the site has been used inappropriately as a reference when in fact no useful information was being referenced, and the reliability of the site is unknown). Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
It's impossible to believe that Johnuniq is uninvolved editor. I understand that there may be people with imagination of spam and useless changes everywhere in Wikipedia. Johnuniq from these ones and has clearly declared this on his page: <<... most of my time is taken resisting the erosion of articles by unhelpful changes or linkspam additions ...>> --Commator (talk) 04:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I also came because of the RfC, and I just want to add my voice to saying that WP:EL is, while a bit difficult to wade through, fairly clear on this issue--a link like the one proposed is definitely not acceptable. There is nothing available at that site that this article itself would not contain if it were a feature article. Furthermore, it is a commercial website that "primarily exist[s] to sell products or services," which is also listed in WP:EL as something to avoid. Finally, I want to add to Commator that you seem to be going down a bad path, continually attacking other editors rather than the edits/content themselves. User:Johnuniq is an uninvolved editor in that he has not worked on this article before--that's the definition of an uninvolved editor. Furthermore, the fact that his talk page claims he is resisting the addition of linkspam merely means that he's following Wikipedia policy--we're all supposed to keep linkspam out of articles; it just happens to be an issue he chooses to focus on. My user page mentions that I actively revert vandalism. A vandal can't use my user page as a defense against my removal of their vandalism, because I'm just following policy. Please try to focus on the content, not the editors. I think that User:Martin Hogbin provides the best suggestion--if this information is accurate and relevant to the topic, it must (by definition) have been covered by reliable sources, and those are the links/references we should be looking to add. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
You don't say that Martin Hogbin turned attention of Wisard191 to following: <<... to write a whole article based on one source is not entirely within the spirit of WP. I agree that it would be better to have a greater range of sources which is why, in the absence of anything better, the metal-art source might be acceptable, assuming it does actually confirm what is being said in the article>>. I want remind that the discussion has arisen as a result of gross action of Wisard191 to remove my insertion to the text of the article. My intention is to undo Wizard191's action, which removed my contribution. My goal is to contribute to the article section "History" the text:
"Since the advance of the PC era the manufacturing of complicated and unique forged items is usually accompanied by realistic 3D computer simulation. This accurate and relatively fast technology allows accumulate all needful knowledges, equipment and intermediates for the future forged items before the starting of manufacturing[i][ii]. Computer 3D modeling is now not scarcity even for small companies[iii]."
i Forging Process Modeling. This footnote supports reality of using 3D computer simulation in forging.
ii On CAD/CAM hardware and software usable in forging. This footnote tells which tools are usable.
iii 3D modeling in forge. This footnote supports reality of using 3D modelling in small forging companies.
Andy Dingley is the only author who promises to undo my undoing of Wizard191's action . I don't see in his intention a common sense. I only see a passionate desire not to permit in the article my additional text with footnotes. I almost no doubt that he again and again will try to switch debate to the criticism of an external link. Meantime the article will be without the truthful text about the historical role of computer 3D simulation for modern forging. --Commator (talk) 08:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Commator, you are like a little child throwing a tantrum when you don't get what you want. Everybody who has commented on your contributions has said that the quality is not good enough. And we have all told you why it is not good enough. If you add that piece of text or those links then I too will work to remove it. How many experienced editors do you want to say this?  Stepho  (talk) 11:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Commator, maybe my explanation wasn't clear, but I can respond to the specific example you have above. Citation i appears to be self-published, and thus is not reliable. Citations ii and iii are strictly commercial cites. Wikipedia does not allow citations of commercial cites just to show which items (tools) exist or to prove that there are commercial cites using certain techniques. That means the thing you want to add has no citations. As such, it isn't verifiable. If, however, you find citations that meet the rules set out in the reliable sources policy then you can add the information. Does that explain our concerns more clearly? We're not (or, at least, I'm not) objecting to the information, just to the sources you're using to support the information (and without sources, the information generally shouldn't be included). Qwyrxian (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Seems discussion proves convincingly that <<... a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge ...>> is not an essence of English Wikipedia. Judging by the diversity of unclean ways to prove this fact, the current essence is that everyone freely must only read and only that is written by only honest fanatics of strictest observance of many rules. Alas! The discussion in frames of common sense is currently impossible. --Commator (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry you feel that way. But, really, WP has to have some rules, otherwise all of the valuable information would be hidden under millions of pages of advertising, trivia, and personal web posts. There's nothing "unclean" about insisting on the quality of sources used. I certainly hope you don't give up on Wikipedia. Heck, you don't even have to give up on this info, so long as you can find reliable sources. Happy editing! Qwyrxian (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Roll Forging and Rolling?[edit]

I don't understand, based on reading both articles, the difference between Roll Forging and Rolling. Someone with knowlege plese clarify or merge as necessary. -Keith (Hypergeek14)Talk 13:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thickness mostly. "Rolling" is the term used for the production of sheet. This, depending on materials and thickness, is either hot or cold. "Roll forging" is used instead when it's thicker bar stock, girder sections, or pretty much anything with a non-flat section formed by shaped rolls. Owing to the thickness, this is a hot process. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

"Forged" redirect[edit]

I just noticed that if you enter "Forged" into the search bar, it brings you to the page on a theology book called Forged. It would seem more appropriate to me if the term brought you here, or even to Forgery instead. I suspect many more people are going to be looking up these two topics than the book of that name. I also think that that article ought to be called "Forged (book), but that's not relevant here I guess..45Colt 05:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. May check into changing it if I get time. I also remember some user a few years ago (?) with an obsession for going around WP changing such instances from the logical way (i.e., what you call for) to the dumb way. It could be one of the casualties of that misguided crusade. — ¾-10 02:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Fixed. Glance at history showed that this one was not one of the quixotically changed ones. — ¾-10 03:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Forging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Isothermal Forging[edit]

Note that i merged a new article Isothermal forging into this article. It could use some sources however. InsertCleverPhraseHere 00:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

And just why would you do such a thing? New articles aren't some sort of 'contamination', to be cleaned away as fast as possible. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Forging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)