From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Woodworking (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Engineering, applied sciences, and technology.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.


The 'atay' page is somewhat pathetic, to say the least! I am quite into writing some stuff, but first I was wondering what anyone thinks about renaming it 'Woodwork'; it seems that this more acurately reflects the whole field of working with wood, and not just the process (of woodworking). Also does anyone have any ideas on how woodwork, joinery, carpentry, etc. are to be related? And how are we going to link all these (and other 'manual arts') from HomePage?

Sam - All valid comments. "Woodwork" seems like a fair candidate as it is a noun, whereas "woodworking" is a verb gerund (gee, you can't tell that I've been working in English language lately, can you?). "Woodwork" sounds like a "global" subject (like "computer" or "sport") so I think it is a the best launching point for links to joinery, carpentry, wood sculpture. Adding things to the homepage is the domain of the project administrators - LarrySanger and JimboWales, if you've got a good argument they'll listen. Welcome to the 'pedia - we need more Australians :) - Manning Bartlett

Go for it dude!

This page still need a heap of work. But wehre should it be going, is it a definitive article? a brief summary linking to other topics? or what?Ping 08:19 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

Two weeks later and no suggestions; this page seems to be a bit of an orphan so I am giving it a goPing 11:13 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

you know since i wrote this crap i have come to think that europeans and others probably had no-glue no-nail joints too.

the list of saws needs to have a listing of japanese saws, ryoba, dozuki, etc. what the heck huh?

I just added a bunch of terminology derived from a couple glossaries in the back of some woodworking books I own. The content is original, but the words aren't :-). I also threw in a few more tools since I felt they should be there. I think that the Woodworking article needs to address a lot more than just woodworking, like all the complex tools in use, and the various traditions around the world. I'll try to add stuff as I go along. I can add some pretty specialized things, like info on American Northwest Coast aboriginal woodworking that I know a lot about, and some stuff on Japanese carpentry which I've studied.

Someone needs to ask the Dutch people to help include some of their stuff into the English version, it looks like they've got some info that is missing here. Most Nederlanders can speak English pretty well, they won't be likely to be adverse to helping.

James Crippen 23:24, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've been working a bit on carpenter and related topics--my husband's a German carpenter, I'm an editor--I see that framer and framing are separated, but carpenter and carpentry are not. I don't care where the articles on this go, really, but I think a case can be made for keeping the profession and the worker separate. Under carpentry one can talk about the methods and types, while under carpenter one can talk about individuals, training, guild costumes, and misc. branches of the profession such as framers, roofers, shipwrights, etc. Any help and sources people here can provide (and corrections, of course!) would be much appreciated. Deirdre 18:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Linear Pottery culture well[edit]

I'm correcting links to the disambiguation page well and came across this term - Linear Pottery culture well. What on earth does it mean?! Could someone change the link accordingly, or if it's a dodgy term change the wording? Thanks. BigBlueFish 15:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

I have a bee in my bonnet about these links. There's no doubt some of them link to useful and/or interesting information and people love free plans. However, I don't believe that any of them conform to the policy on external links. None of them particularly expand on the topic of woodworking as an encyclopaedic subject - they are of interest to woodworkers, but not necessarily to people wishing simply to learn what the field of woodworking is about. OK, it's a line call but anyway I think they run foul of the "Wikipedia is not a collection of links" policy, so I'd like to remove them. What do others think? SilentC 23:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll see your link removal, and raise you one invisotext'd caution line about NOT posting free plan sites, nore external commercial links. and waitress, another coke here at the blackjack tables? ThuranX 23:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC) (hmm... wonder if any of dem plan sites got a Blackjack table plan...)
Toss 'em all. Actually, the only one of any use in the bunch is the woodworker's central, IMNSHO, and even that one is dated. Maybe also the inside woodworking one. The others have some interesting stuff, but are either link farms or blogs. There are a gazillion wooddorking sites out there. How about putting together a bibliography instead? Joyce, Feirer, Roubo, etc. ?Luigizanasi 01:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad to see the above, I tend to delete them all, but I hesitate since I have I have had my (exteranl link) deletions reverted in some places. So I hesitated, next time I'll beat you to it. --ArmadilloFromHell 01:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've done it. Mwah hah hah ;) Don't know how to do the invisiotext thing (is that real, or did you dream it?) so I'll leave that for someone else if they think it's worth doing. I like the biblio idea. I've got a couple of classic texts at home, I'll add the biblio section later, unless someone with the publisher details etc. to hand beats me to it. [forever na mahal na mahal kita nikki ann cabalquinto ikaw ang babaeng pinaka mamahal ko always then i love you mwuahhhhhhh,,,,,,,,,,jhanikki_28]jan carlo d. laumoc —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The concerns you have about External Links are not unique to woodworking. Yet this is the only article I know of with no editable external links section. Cdrobeson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdrobeson (talkcontribs) 08:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


I have updated a lot of terminology..any of u seeing this?--jamierules btw i need somebody to check my spelling errors.--jamierules

I think this terminology section is getting out of hand. From the intro to it, it was meant to capture some arcane terms used in woodworking that have ancient origins but are still used today, like bead, flitch, cope etc. It now seems to be morphing into a general glossary of woodworking terms, many of which have articles of their own, such as dado etc. Some of the definitions given are either too general or highly debatable, if not plain incorrect, such as "drill : tool or process of cutting holes less than 1 quarter inch inch in diamneter". I think it needs to be culled, perhaps to just a selection of particularly odd words. SilentC 02:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Let's move slowly, though... perhaps picking out ten at a time, let it sit a day for editors to see, then move on? Just to avoid revert wars. ThuranX 02:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I've had another thought on it. We should make it a separate glossary and list it here. The Architecture one looks like a good model for it. SilentC 02:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea of a separate glossary. BTW, most of our terms are arcane and have ancient origins and might sound odd to the uninitiated, so it's not surprising that the terminology section is getting out of hand. :-) Luigizanasi 04:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
It's done, as you have already noticed ;). Thanks for adding the wikiproject tag. I always forget that. Now people can go nuts and add all the words they can think of. SilentC 04:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Woodworkers section[edit]

I think we should only list names of notable woodworkers who would warrant an article in their own right. It should be a short list of influential woodworkers or furniture makers who are famous in their own right. I think one or two names in the list now are also debatable. Scott Phillips for example. Do we need to list every person who has hosted a woodworking show on TV? Being a good host does not make them influential woodworkers who deserve to be listed next to people like Tage Frid and James Krenov. Otherwise this just becomes a list of woodworkers that editors know or have heard of. I'm not sure people like Norm or David Marks should be there either because although they are part of popular woodworking culture, they haven't really been that influential in developing a style. More in popularising the field. I don't know, what do others think? I just don't want to see a lengthy list of people who, whilst possessing admirable skill, haven't really contributed much to shaping the craft. SilentC 21:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This whole list should go, being replaced with maybe three categories: past, 20th century, contemporary. It's far better as a category(ies) than as a list. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
So we would assign each wiki article about a notable woodworker to one of those three categories and then just have the category names listed? If so, sounds good to me. SilentC (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


I see no need for a list of tools on the main woodworking page. A holistic list would be pages long, listcrufty and an indiscriminate collection, and an abbreviated list would be incomplete. There are pages about tools, that's enough. Further, the notation of a few newer man-made wood materials in the lead seems pointless, and could be better expressed in a section on plywood steam-bending, or materials, perhaps hardwood, softwood, and man-made. ThuranX 03:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC) jhanikki_28 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Notable Woodworkers list[edit]

Sections like this in articles are almost always a bad idea. Just to list the problems with this one;

  • No clear criteria established for notability. What makes someone worthy of inclusion other than an editor's personal opinion? What determines that someone should not be included in the list?
  • The article is Woodworking. It is not Random List of Woodworkers or [[Category:Woodworkers]].
  • If a woodworker was truly notable then they would have a Wikipedia article devoted to them. Some of these persons do not.

Consequently I would like to suggest that either a sensible criteria is established for inclusion in the list, or it is removed. Thoughts? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

"If a woodworker was truly notable then they would have a Wikipedia article devoted to them."
That's a serious falsehood. In particular, because it encourages the view that anything with a wiki article is necessarily notable.
That said though, I'm glad to see these lists removed. They belong better on something with a scope about woodworkers more than woodworking. Also the categorization mechanism works better there than list articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Saying that if someone was notable in woodworking, they would therefore have an article is not equivalent to saying, vice versa, if someone has an article, they are therefore notable in woodworking.--Escape Orbit (Talk) 08:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Of course it isn't. But this is Wikipedia, and such falsehoods are widely believed and argued in AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

New navbox[edit]

I just started this, and don't quite know what I'm doing. Please help improve it. Then I will add it to articles. Many thanks.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)