From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
High traffic

On 7 July 2008, Wood was linked from xkcd, a high-traffic website. (See visitor traffic)

"Carbon Neutral"?[edit]

Assuming it isn't burned, yes. However, wood comes from trees, trees are a form of carbon-based life, and burning carbon produces CO2. That only takes a basic understanding of chemistry to figure out. Should this be mentioned somewhere? And before someone brings it up, wood isn't going to produce CO2 without burning. NickNackGus (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Wood certainly does produce CO2 even if it isn't burned: as it is consumed by oxygen dependant organisms, these then in turn give off CO2. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 02:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It uses Carbon Dioxide in its lifetime, which is released when burnt. It is Carbon Neutral. (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Forestry, however, is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


I propose to change the introduction portion of the article. It would be better if there were more examples of the different uses of wood and what makes it a great resource.

Fhasan-NJITWILL (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hundreds of thousands of years[edit]

From the second sentence: "It has been used for hundreds of thousands of years for both fuel and as a construction material" Hundreds of thousands of years of construction? (talk) 06:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Bark - expansion: Girdling, Decortication etc[edit]

The practice of "ring-barking" a tree kills it but there is no any information in the article that explains why this is so. If the sapwood were solely responsible for transfer of water/nutrients etc then ring-barking would have no effect. There is no helpful information on this on the article on bark.

The "correct" term for ring-barking is "girtdling". The inner part of the bark, the phloem, forms the return part of a tree's circulation system. It handles transportation of the sugars produced in the leaves, which then provide the energy for further growth throughout the plant (though the girdling article doesn't actually say this).

All three articles would therefore benefit from expansion and clarification imo.:

1. this article needs the function of bark to outline its role in the vascular system

2. the Introduction of the Bark article needs to set out the function of bark

3. the article on Girdling should be referenced in both these articles.

4. the section on decortication in the Bark article needs expansion and

5. the article on Decortication needs to have a disambiguation associated with it and its redirect from decortication ammended accordingly

Would someone help? I don't have the time at the moment and have no expertise in redirects etc.

LookingGlass (talk) 07:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2014[edit]

It must contain simplest word that can be understand by student. (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

There is an easier article about wood at the Simple English Wikipedia. Does that help you? Tdslk (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Primary School invitation[edit]

Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that this article was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert. We'd now like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the article before June 30, 2015 (any timezone) as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated expert for review. Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on this page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! --Elitre (WPS) (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Wood in pines and oaks but not palms[edit]

If anyone has more info about the evolution of wood, I think that would be welcome. As far as I understand, gymnosperms, like pines produce wood. So do eudicots, like oaks. However, monocots, like palms and bamboo do not produce wood. Yet, in evolutionary terms, monocots are closer to eudicots than gymnosperms are. Did the ancestors of monocots "forget" how to make wood? If so, when, how, why? The answer could of course be "we do not know". Mlewan (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


The first paragraph of this article has been modified in a way that creates more smoke than light. I am a lurker here and I am not sure how to go about backing out the edit. Singular (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. The vandalism has been removed. --Sjö (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Text of article copied from old book[edit]

The book is "The Mechanical Properties of Wood, Including a Discussion of the Factors Affecting Mechanical Properties, and Methods of Timber Testing" Author: Samuel J. Record, Professor of Forest Products, Yale University, 1914 The book is available online through Google Books. I found that many unattributed passages from this article were lifted from this source, which is not even listed in the refs for the article. There is too much plagiarism in Wikipedia articles. My suspicions were already aroused, but then I came to this sentence: "This is particularly the case in the choice of hickory for handles and spokes." Spokes indeed; give me a break.--Quisqualis (talk) 07:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

As a first step I've added a reference note for the "spokes" sentence as it is a 1914 book as a first step (the book is in the public domain). Feel free to use that as ref for other content from the book in question. Vsmith (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Well the book was already referenced - so combined refs for consistency. Vsmith (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)