Jump to content

Talk:Kitchen cabinet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Untitled]

[edit]

Kitchen cabinets are useful to store things such as tuperware and etc. Also they can be used as storage for pots and pans

deletion of promotional edit

[edit]

Deleted a promotional edit from pinnaclecabinets Eileivgyrt (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More Promo?

[edit]

The sentence: "An example of a frameless cabinet company is called Mill's Pride [1] which was sold at Home Depot since the 1980's." seems promotional. May I add: "These cabinets suck, and so does Home Depot."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.247.231.26 (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag

[edit]

some of the desighns was wonky shapes and sizes nothing matched at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.246.44 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though much useful material has recently been added to this article, much of it is highly opinionated, and sounds more like a sales brochure from a maker of American-style cabinets competing with European-style cabinets than it does like an encyclopedia article. It also includes advice on how-to-buy (e.g. always pay with a credit card) which again is not encyclopedic and is POV. --Macrakis (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Sections on "engineered wood"

[edit]

Notwithstanding, deletion of essentially every detail regarding the difference between engineered, as opposed to natural, wood leaves the reader with an insufficient understanding of the subject of kitchen cabinetry. It's a classic trade-off between price and quality. Every expert I've seen published eschews particle board (the usual term for engineered wood). The engineered vs natural wood decision is one of the most difficult decisions to make. This kind of information ought to be supplied by a well-constructed Wikipedia article.Eileivgyrt (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There should definitely be a discussion of engineered vs. natural wood. But it should be sourced and NPOV. --Macrakis (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS Plywood is just as "engineered" as particleboard.
You are correct. Unfortunately for particle board mechanical integrity depends to a greater degree (than for plywood) on the resin. Although most of the particle board by volume is sawdust, it acts more as a spacer for the resin matrix than as a structural component. (By analogy an inflated tire carries the weight of a car in its sidewall; the air within is a filler that stiffens the sidewall.) Should the resin structure be damaged, it is difficult to recover the original functionality of the wood. Particleboard or MDF cannot be repaired. That is not so much of an issue for the carcase (though the carcase can become damaged during installation), but it is for doors, drawer fronts, side panels, etc. Furniture refinishers are able to restore damaged areas in solid wood. No it seems that particle board and MDF furniture are not intended for long service life and are not destined to become antiques. This is perfectly acceptable for buyers who intend to update their kitchens regularly to keep them in style but it is a choice that should be made consciously. It is a legitimate function of an encyclopedia article to provide that kind of information. Eileivgyrt (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Several issues here:
  • WP is explicitly not a how-to or consumer's guide -- see WP:NOT. We are not here to give buying advice to people.
  • High-quality particleboard has many desirable properties compared to solid wood, especially when it is to be laminated or sprayed with opaque lacquer. Low-quality particleboard is of course junk.
  • Many of your contributions had a strong point of view in favor of American-style face-frame, solid-wood cabinets, what people (incorrectly) consider "traditional" in the US. Some of us consider this as simply obsolete engineering and kitschy design, but that's just an opinion, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article either way....
  • At the same time, there is a strong anti-European design tenor to the comments, attributing the general European preference for Modern design to post-war poverty (!!!), when in fact the modern movement was well under way before the War.
  • Detailed comments about the engineering properties of particleboard belong in the particleboard article, not here. It suffices to mention that, for example, shelving should not be made out of materials with a tendency to creep, such as low-quality particleboard.
In summary, as an encyclopedia article, the Kitchen cabinet article should describe accurately without preferring (say) Smallbone-style kitchen cabinets to Bulthaup-style kitchen cabinets. And historical and engineering judgements should be backed up with reliable sources. --Macrakis (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

It seems that all neutrality issues have been resolved and there no longer remains any dispute regarding neutrality of this article. That would be the criterion to remove the notice. Please comment over the next few months so that the label can be removed - if appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.92.164 (talk) 11:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality could be resolved quite a bit if there were more references. Adding a references tag to this article. 66.90.184.51 (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updates

[edit]

I removed some of the WP:SPAM a while back, and tried to tighten the writing, and added references. I found it hard adding references without appealing to sales-oriented sites, since the vast majority of information on the Internet is not from impartial sources but from sales outlets or cabinet makers. I think this article could be improved with more pictures of cabinets, cabinet parts, and such, as well as tightening up the writing further, and I agree with comments (above) about not making this article into a how-to buying guide etc. But I'll try to fix it up when I get time.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though it's true that the vast majority of the information on the Web about kitchen cabinets is sales-related, there is lots of good information not on the Web in books etc., for example:
  • Dolores Hayden, The Grand Domestic Revolution: A History of Feminist Designs for American Homes, Neighborhoods and Cities
  • Nancy Carlisle, et al. America's Kitchens
  • Ruth Oldenziel, ed, Cold War Kitchen: Americanization, Technology, and European Users
  • Ellen Lupton, The Bathroom, the Kitchen, and the Aesthetics of Waste
  • Mary Snodgrass, Encyclopedia of Kitchen History
Wikipedia encourages using the best sources whether on- or off-line: see Wikipedia:Sources#Reliable_sources. The current sources (daily newspapers and trade journals) are pretty low-quality, though handy because on-line. --macrakis (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I prefer online sources since they're so fast and easily checkable, but you're right that best sources is what we should aim for. Agree about low quality of online stuff.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Post-modern cabinet design trends?"

[edit]

From where do we derive that these trends in cabinet design are "post-modern?" I don't see a source for the applying of that term (postmodern) to cabinet design. What about these cabinets makes them "postmodern?" Bus stop (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you saying? If you're saying that the label "post-modern" shouldn't be applied to cabinet designs, because it's an artistic term not a cabinet design term, as if there's some kind of period in design history when cabinets had a "post-modern" look, well, I think you probably have a good point. I hadn't thought much about this term. It was there before I worked on the article. If you wish to change it please do so. But if the earlier author was merely using it as a label, saying cabinet looks changed somewhat, corresponding to more serious changes in the world of art -- well, that's another sense of it. What do you think?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Cabinet Making?

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Not to merge. Klbrain (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Cabinet_making has a suggestion that it should be merged into this article. I strongly disagree.

The art of cabinet making is much broader and has a diverse history from the topic of kitchen cabinets. It may or may not be appropriate to move discussion of construction processes from the Kitchen Cabinet article to the Cabinet Making article. IMO, that is the appropriate focus of the Cabinet Making article.

--174.101.212.40 (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Cabinet making. And Kitchen cabinet. Two different subjects.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a poor proposal. There is an industrial occupation called Cabinet Making, there needs to be a Wikipedia link to this industry. Kitchen cabinetry, if anything, is merely a sub-category of Cabinet Making.Stringybark (talk) 09:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

US-centric article

[edit]

This article only gives measure in imperial measurements and doesn't refer to standardised norms used in the rest of the world.Finnfather (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes if you'd like to add the other measurements, please do.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kitchen cabinet. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

US Dimensions, standardisation

[edit]

While I'm pleased that all the dimensions have conversions, this is a bit misleading. European cabinets are typically a nominal 600mm wide (or smaller multiples of 100mm) so converting from US measures is not very meaningful. I don't know what we can really do about this, since obviously the problem is not essentially a conversion rounding error but that the cabinets are in fact different sizes.

It would be interesting to add some history about industry standardization. Since obviously it affects not just the cabinets but built-in (and freestanding) appliances. This must have been quite a large effort and yet I can't find much information about it. I imagine there are now international standards that I could look up, but I was more interested in how those standards got formulated. Trying to find the history of mundane, everyday industrial design is quite hard! 178.164.173.0 (talk) 06:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kitchen_cabinet&oldid=1208026184"