Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metalworking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Metalworking (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Sheet metal embossing[edit]

Was sorting out orphans and came across the above article on Sheet metal embossing. I see it isn't currently included in your wikiproj so thought I would just flag it up here. Not sure whether the info is covered elsewhere (ie the article needs to be merged/redirected) or if it just needs working up more but I will leave that to the experts here. Hope thats ok, sassf (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I've added the metalworking wikiproject temp. As for merging, I would have to read more of it to see if it can be merged into the repousse and chasing article. Wizard191 (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


I don't know if anyone even watches this page anymore, but I wanted to report a massive amount of plagiarism that's happened in the last three days. A lot of various metalworking articles are having massive amounts of information added in a short period of time by various new users from a work called: Manufacturing Processes Reference Guide, By Robert H. Todd, Dell K. Allen, Leo Alting, Published by Industrial Press Inc., 1994. My guess is that a class of students were asked to contribute to wikipedia and have a digital copy of their text available for copy and pasting. Due to the large number of article affected I'm hoping that others might be able to help sort through them and revert them. Wizard191 (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I know that you're totally right. I didn't want to smack down these [apparently] good-faith contributions, but man this is getting ridiculous. They're taking articles that have decent readability, good document structure and wikification, and no copyvios, and turning them into badly formatted, plagiarized piles of stream of consciousness or something. I will try to find time to beat back the tide a little. — ¾-10 03:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Yesterday while I was working on this I found one edit summary that stated: "Updating wikipedia for a homework assignment". So I guess my gut instinct was right. Thanks for the help. Wizard191 (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Might be worth contacting a teacher/professor if we can track down where they're coming from... Bushytails (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
There's enough evidence in the ips to think it's coming from, but I'm still trying to track down which class might have this as an assignment. Bushytails (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
According to the author Dell Allen teaches there now. Perhaps he's asked his class to "contribute" to wikipedia using the book he wrote. Wizard191 (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I should clarify my harsh criticism above, for the benefit of any of the students who may read this discussion. It's not the information itself that I object to, but the poor communication of it, and, with so much content citing the one book, the plagiarism issue. I don't have time, or a copy of that book, to go over the contributions and see whether each constitutes a copyvio (bad) or a truly original composition that repeatedly cites a source (OK). But I have a feeling that some students are just dumping whole sentences straight from the book, which is no good. Also, there is an eye-glazing denseness and lack of context that is hard to put one's finger on, exactly. Most of the new info is true, but it's dry, dense, non-sequitur-ish. I am looking at Drilling specifically. There may be other articles that I haven't seen because they're not on my watchlist. You wrote, "On most workpieces it is vitally important that the hole be drilled precisely in reference to the x, y, z-axes." So in plain words, you mean, "If you drill the hole in the wrong place, the part is scrap." You wrote, "When possible drilled holes should be located perpendicular to the workpiece surface. This is due to the large length-to-diameter ratio which causes the drill bit to be easily deflected which can cause the hole to be misplaced, or the drill bit to break or fatigue." OK, I know exactly what you're trying to say here—if you try to drill on a slanted surface, the bit will walk, especially with a jobber-length or longer bit. But I think most encyclopedia readers would come away with glazed eyes after reading this paragraph. Well, I am out of time for now. All I can say for now is, (1) Try to be succinct. (2) Watch out for saying the same idea 4 different ways in 4 different places. Try translating any wordy sentence into simpler words—it uncovers a lot of that repetition. (3) Watch the borderline between citing a reference and plagiarizing it. If whole passages are reverted, don't blame the reverter—it just means that you need to try harder to contribute well, rather than just hurriedly dumping some words into the article in order to inattentively jump through the hoop of doing your homework. — ¾-10 23:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Update, 2009-02-03 (UTC)[edit]

I've contacted the professor I found above, because this is getting ludicrous. The edits haven't stopped. Wizard191 (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks, Wizard, for taking the time to do that. My corroborating notes for tonight:
  1. User:Jasonford33 has got straight-up objectively illegal plagiarism going on when he scans the image File:Workholding Methods.jpg and licenses it as own-work (Metadata result: "Source: I created this work entirely by myself.") BULLSHIT. He scanned or snapped a photo out of his textbook, and uploaded it.
  2. People, we aren't writing textbooks here at Wikipedia. It's an encyclopedia. The writing of textbooks is over at Wikibooks. The text these kids are adding, when it isn't bloated tautology ("It is very important that the work is done correctly so that the result will turn out well" and other such 20-words-to-communicate-nothing bullshit), is tedious checklist detail suitable only for textbooks, not an encyclopedia. A lot of it is going bye-byes when I get the chance.
We volunteers don't have the time to police this volume of crap, nor to teach these kids the simplest basics (e.g., what plagiarism is) and do the professor's job for him. If you can't bring more than a grade-D game, don't bring it at all; come back when you understand what plagiarism is and why an encyclopedia is most often not the same thing as a textbook. — ¾-10 04:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
No, I completely agree with you. I have to spend most of my time just cleaning up after these terrible additions instead of improving Wikipedia. It's complete crap.
As for that one image, I marked it for speedy deletion and it's gone now. Good catch 3/4-10. Wizard191 (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I communicated with Dell Allen via email last week and he's called off his class assignment. We are working to see if there's a better way for his class to contribute to Wikipedia without the huge mess that we had before. Wizard191 (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


I realize this project is pretty much dead right now, but I'm considering trying to restart it. I know there are a few people on the original participant list that are still around, but most of them aren't. As such, I was going to "archive" the current list by putting it on a sub-page and then begin a new list. I've been considering restarting it for a while, but been a little apprehensive, because I don't know if it can stay afloat. But then today I saw someone add their name to the participants list, so I suppose there are still people out there interested in the project.

I've got some ideas as to stuff that needs to be addressed that I'll try and lay out here sometime soon. In the mean time I'm going to start a new participant list and if you are still in then please re-add your name. Wizard191 (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Cloud Gate FAC4[edit]

Feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cloud Gate/archive4.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


Right now the abrasives category has category:grinding and lapping as a sub-cat. I think it should be the other way around, because abrasives are used in grinding and lapping, but not all grinding and lapping processes use abrasives. Please weight in. Wizard191 (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree. Go for it. Bryancpark (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the quick reply. I have already made the change. Wizard191 (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Category: Smiths[edit]

I think that we should ask for Category:Smiths to be renamed Category:Smithing under Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion, as this more accurately reflects the topic and the contents. Bryancpark (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 July 16. Wizard191 (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, there's a discussion about moving Smith (metalworking) at its talk page. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Bridgeport Machines, Inc.[edit]

This article has currently been {{Prod}}ed and think that it should be saved. Wizard191 (talk) 02:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. I started to reply here, but have moved the thread to Talk:Bridgeport Machines, Inc.. — ¾-10 13:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Popular page list[edit]

I have requested that the most viewed pages associated with the project be listed through the new Popular Pages plugin. -- Bryancpark (talk) 01:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats[edit]

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Metalworking to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Metalworking/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 00:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Newest turret punch presses.[edit]

The newest turret punch presses built by Amada are not hydraulic powered. They are either electro-mechanical or flywheel powered. They are building electro-mechanical punch presses because they consume far less power than a constantly running hydraulic pump. They have also went back to a flywheel type because they are much easier to maintain and when they do break down they are easier to work on and cheaper to build since there is no hydraulic unit to break down and no chiller to break down. The hydraulic punch presses like the Vipros 568 and Vipros 368 King II had severe overheating and valve and hydraulic amp problems. Also you need to put in the article that the bridge frame machines are much more accurate because the upper and lower turret do not move as much when the machine is punching or forming. On the LVD C frame machines the lower turret tends to flex down and the upper turret tends to flex upward causing the punches to be side loaded which causes them to dull faster and can cause the sheet to stick to the punch at high speeds. Also i do not know but most of the machines I have seen are either 30, 50, or 55 tons. You also need a section on the G-code and M-code used to control the machine. At the beginning of the program on a hydraulic punch press is the orgion statement that tells the machine where 0,0 is. After that is a G06 command that tells the machine the thickness of the sheet, the material type, and the bending offset to correct for the progressive bending of the sheet as it is punched. Anytime you nibble a hole and it takes many hits the sheet will start to warp. After that will usually be a M command like M691 or M515 for a marking stroke or forming stroke or to turn on air blow. After that you can enter a G68 nibbling command, a G28 punching line command or many other G commands. At the end of each block is a T command that tells the turret where to rotate to and if it is using an auto index there will be a C command to tell the auto index what angle to rotate to. On the controller there is a switch to raise or lower the ram speed. Usually the faster ram speeds work best on hard, brittle metals because it causes the material to fracture. A low ram speed and short stroke can lead to shattered punches when the ram reaches the end of the stroke and the material did not fracture and it springs back up compressing the punch beyond its compressive strength. Also the airblow system was developed to reduce cold welding of the material to the punch because 5052 H3 and 3000 series aluminum alloys are notorious for cold welding to the punch requiring the operator to dissassemble the punch and scrape the welded on metal off with a stone. Many tools can be purchased with a titanium nitride coating that also reduces galling. The mechanical machines have a fail safe device to prevent overloads (to try to avoid destroying crossed tools). At the top of the striker is a plate that is designed to shear at a preset amount of stress. Behind it is a backup plate that acts as a die with the striker acting as an inverted punch. It does work because I have accidentally put in a 3.5" round die with a 4.5" punch on a 50 ton Amada Coma. It broke the shear plate but the punch, die, and holder were undamaged. Also the reason that the newer machines are so much faster is that the ram does not have to make a full stroke. If you switch it over so it does make full strokes it will actually be slower than some of the older machines like the Amada Pega King. The quality of the finished part depends mostly on using the correct die clearence and on the die and punch being as sharp as possible. On stainless steels and aluminum alloys a clearence that is a little smaller than what is recommended will lead to a much cleaner burr free part but it will dull the punches faster. A clearence that is much too big will shatter the punches because they will be hammering through the material instead of breaking it and they are not designed to hammer through it. Tools with roof-top or cresent shaped tips are available they stay sharp much longer and are much quieter because you are only breaking a small part of the material. A flat tool stikes the sheet head on and breakes the slug out all at once. This causes a lot of stress on the corners of the tool which usually dull first causing overlap marks. The die clearences I always use and lead to parts that are as clean as laser cut parts are as follows. Stainless steel 20ga .006, 18ga .008 16 ga .012 14 ga .016 13 ga .021 12 ga .024 11ga .024-.028 depending on tool size, 10ga .032 3/16" .036, 1/4" .042-.050 depending on tool size, 3/8" .060, 2024T3 1/4" Aluminum .004, .25" .006, .125" titanium .006. If correct clearences are used the material will fracture from the edge of the die opening to the edge of the punch without forming a burr. Also you can punch a hole then come back with a very small die clearence and punch a hole a few thousandths larger and the cut portion will extend all the way through the sheet and will actually be a cleaner cut than any drill or endmill can make. When nibbling a radius on the outside of a part a square tool with a small clearence and small pitch can produce a part that looks almost as clean as one made on a mill, especiall with hard brittle materials. Punch presses do not do well on very soft or very thin metals because they tend to tear before they fracture or will just smash and stick to the punch and be torn when the stripping spring pulls the punch back up. 2 types of clamps are available pneumatic and hydraulic. The hydraulic clamps have a larger clamping force but that is so you can run heavier sheets at higher speed, not so you can use dull tools. A dull tool will pull the sheet out of a hydraulic clamp just as quick as it will pull it out of a pneumatic clamp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadroper (talkcontribs) 19:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

What is this all about? What are you trying to say, much more succinctly? Wizard191 (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
This looks to me like someone submitted information for someone else to post as they saw fit. Dissymmetry (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement[edit]

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:CNC, CAD, and CAM[edit]

FYI, Category:CNC, CAD, and CAM has been nominated for renaming. (talk) 06:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Wizard191 (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot[edit]

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Metalworking/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Metalworking/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.
There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.
If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 00:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

becoming a member[edit]

Greetings all. I am a new Wiki editor. I am a machinist and would very much like to add whatever I can to any of the metalworking articles. I am getting started on the CAM article. Also, I'd be happy to look over and start editing anything that the metalworking Wiki-community deems a priority. SteveB67 (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome! We definitely can use any expertise you have. Feel free to post your name in our Contributors list. There are plenty of articles that need assistance, for various lists see Articles needing attention and the more thorough (but somewhat outdated) Cleanup list. There is also the list of Requested articles if you are more interested in creating articles. Wizard191 (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I look forward to contributing. SteveB67 (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


I would like more quantifying, more links to for example yield strength of steel and that sort of thing, because currently it is like "Look, children, this is a lathe, and this is what it does", but how much it can do and why it is built like it is can only be understood when it's operation is quantified. Siwardio (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

For the example above (a lathe) the operation is discussed separately at turning. This is done because a lathe can do more than just turning operations (e.g. drilling, reaming, honing, etc.) Depending on the topic the operation and tool are separate because the tool can perform more than one type of operation, but others are combined; for example hobbing and hobbing machine. Wizard191 (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the first time I've contributed anything to Wikipedia, so I'm sorry already if this is the incorrect place to note the following: Under References for the article, the 3rd link (Verhoeven, John (2004). Experiments on Knife Sharpening (PDF) (Technical report). ISU.) isn't working. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Arc eye[edit]

As the article Arc eye is within the scope of this project, I thought you should be notified that there is a proposal to merge it with Snow blindness, under discussion at Talk:Snow blindness#Merge and rename. --RexxS (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Clackson scroll formula[edit]

has anybody here heard of the Clackson scroll formula which is currently on AFD. --Salix (talk): 06:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Metalworking articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release[edit]

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Metalworking articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


So I need some advice. Should sprue (manufacturing) be merged into casting#The gating system or should casting#The gating system be split into gating system (or casting gating system), of which sprue (manufacturing) can be merged into? Wizard191 (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Guess it depends on how much content is currently available. Could keep everything as sections within the casting article unless you think the resulting article will be too vast for the user to navigate easily. That's my (entirely nonauthoritative) take on it. We can always split it later if it starts out non-vast but grows vast over time. — ¾-10 02:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Well thank you for your advice, because I needed a nudge in one direction or the other. Wizard191 (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing[edit]

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

FAR notice[edit]

I have nominated Welding for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.-- Cirt (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Gauge plate[edit]

Gauge plate doesn't need it own article, and so I'm thinking about merging it into bar stock, but gauge plate actually qualify as bar stock? Wizard191 (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The pagenaming could be quite frustrating on this topic. I think the reason sums up as this: The words that English (a natural language) uses to name these various things do not present any taxonomy/ontology that allows you to group them together for purposes of having one superset article that talks about each subset briefly as one of its sections. To do that you would need an etic superset name that you might create in an artificial language based strictly on logically naming real-world objects and classes of objects based on attributes. Sounds high-falutin', but it's a simple concept behind all the words it takes to painstakingly say it. The Venn diagrams of words' overlapping senses don't offer any simple pagenaming schemes that don't leave certain topics "out in the cold to occupy tiny orphan stub articles". I think our end result may involve another disambig page besides "plate". "Plate stock (disambiguation)"? Hmmm. Maybe; not sure yet.
Maybe Wikipedia could have a page named "plate stock", which would be a disambiguation page that points to "structural steel" and "gauge plate"; but no, the point of this discussion is that we're trying to avoid having a whole article just about gauge plate, because it seems too small a topic to have a separate article.
Out of all the kinds of metal stock that people call "plate", some of it is structural steel plate, and some of it is gauge plate.
Plate is not bar stock, because it's "plate".
So you can't discuss gauge plate in the article "structural steel", because it's not structural steel. You can't discuss it in the article "bar stock", because it's not bar. Meanwhile, some bar stock is ground precisely, and is the bar stock analog of gauge plate. But there's no superset name for all kinds of stock that are precision ground. Such a name could be "gauge stock", but it doesn't exist in natural language AFAIK. The names that do exist are subset names tied to the shape, or at least category-of-shape, or aspect ratio. "Ground flat stock" and "Ground round stock" are some natural-language terms for precise-geometry stock.
This also makes me think about the article "gauge block", and how gauge pins are discussed therein because it seems silly to have a separate article just for gauge pins, separate from the gauge block article. Theoretically you would want to rename that article by some superset name that covers gauge blocks, gauge pins, and gauge balls, but "gauge" isn't it (because that word refers to many other kinds of gauges, too), and no one says "gauge shape". There just isn't any such superset name. That fact tries to force you toward having 3 short stubbish articles that overlap in some of their content (how it's made, what it's used for). You can intuitively "feel" the WP:CFORKing that this would entail, and your brain cries out for one superset article with sections for each subset, but there's no natural-language name for the superset, and Wikipedia requires that its pagenames come from natural language (for various valid reasons beyond scope to dissect here).
This whole line of thought makes me think (via free association/stream of consciousness) about what I've heard about the Japanese language and how it has different counting words or pronouns (I forget the whole story now exactly) depending on whether you're counting long, thin objects (like sticks or pencils) or roundish objects (like toy balls or apples or pebbles) or [whatever-else-mental-archetype-category].
It also makes me think about views in databases. A view is different from a table in relational database normalization. It is actually a query that joins multiple other objects (tables or other queries)—a saved query to be precise. These two lines of thought (the language-and-pagenaming one and the database one) are related under the surface in ways that my brain is currently struggling (and failing) to consciously envision.
I think maybe we'll eventually have to accept some stubs in all their ugly stubbliness. Either that, or invent the concept of Wikipedia "virtual pagenames", in which case, "virtual pagenames" are to regular pagenames as virtual folders are to regular folders. The "virtual article" on plate stock of all kinds would be assembled on the fly from a query. It would not be a static article. The user would tell the computer, "Whip up a Wikipedia article about all the kinds of metal plate that people buy and sell, and what traits it has based on customer requirements (precision of geometry, of metallurgy, etc). What you call this built-on-the-fly article doesn't matter much; it's just a view / virtual article based on a query of attributes."
OK, I think I'll walk away from the computer and eat dinner, now that I seem to be "trippin'" without the aid of any psychoactive substances ... — ¾-10 00:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I love how I ask a one sentence question on that prompts you to write a multi-page (if this were in a paper encyclo.) answer. While I completely agree with everything you said about supersets and subsets, I have a question about the middle part; while "gauge plate" is plate by definition, the first link on the gauge plate bullet at User:Wizard191#To do (hrm...the collapsing table breaks this link, but I think you can find your way nonetheless) states that it is equivalent to "ground flat stock", which is actually more correct than "gauge plate", because, in my experience, it usually comes in strips, not wide plates. (wow...that's a run on sentence, but I can actually do that because this is just a discussion.) And another thing, who said bar stock has to be round? At work, the model makers refer to the square and rectangular shaped long metallic things as "bar stock". Therefore, if the two previous sentences are correct can the merge still be considered? Wizard191 (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I totally agree that bar stock can be round, rectangular (special case=square), hex, and other shapes. I also agree that "gauge plate" and "ground flat stock" overlap by at least 75% in meaning, because it's usually not a huge plate, although I'm ignorant of how large it may be available out on the market (a googling-sifting project for later?). IMHO you should go ahead and merge per your original question, for the same reason why I would not fancy un-merging "gauge pin" from "gauge block" anytime soon ... it all goes together well enough (close enough for govt work), and as well as one can do within the constraints of the system.
[Edit conflict below]
After dinner, plenty of coffee, and pie ... I just realized that what I described above (WP virtual pagenames / view-articles) may overlap conceptually with some of the ideas behind expert systems and, more recently, Qwiki, even though my trip above just really comes from the basic frustration that "the map is not the territory" when it comes to natural-language-versus-etic-reality. So it seems like it *shouldn't* be related to expert systems and Qwiki (it should be much less interesting and spiffy than that), but I think it kind of is related, in some way. Or maybe not. I think I'm in a funny brain mode tonight, more hyperdigressive than overdigressive. Time for sleep, then TGIF! — ¾-10 03:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Quick google search gives: [1] and [2]. I suppose we would now have to consider when does a strip become a plate, but the widest choice is 12". Also, square stock is available. And thicknesses less than 1/4", which is less than plate thickness. From all this I've garnished that "gauge plate" is really a subset of "ground flat stock" and that even in the types of metal that might qualify as "plate", its somewhat iffy. Boy, the metalworking/engineering industry really did a good job of making a logical business into a sloppy confusing one. Wizard191 (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Not anyone's fault, really; just interesting to peel back the layers and realize how complex life is. For example, people naturally assume that they "get" language, but if that were true, then linguistic science wouldn't need to exist ... and many people centuries ago (some smiths, alchemists, and witches) naturally assumed that they "got" matter, but the sciences of chemistry and physics had to be developed because they didn't ... and managers naturally assume that they "get" management, but things like operations research and industrial engineering had to be invented because they actually didn't (well enough). Anyway, thanks for listening to my tangents ... I'm sure you'll be seeing some more around WP! — ¾-10 23:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


I just added a "guidelines" section to the main page, because its something that I've followed for a while, and I think it makes a lot of sense for organizational purposes. If others disagree or would like to improve it, I'm open to input. Also, feel free to copyedit it, because I had a hard time trying to plainly explain the various conditions under which it applies and doesn't. Wizard191 (talk) 14:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I like those guidelines and will aim to follow them going forward. Related thoughts:
    • I would love to have a "milling (process)" article, as I believe Wizard191 suggested a while back. Right now I'm still in the phase where it seems like a big project that I must postpone till I have time to dig into it properly.
    • I would like to see, eventually, main articles "machining center", "turning center", and perhaps "turn-mill" or "mill-turn" or "multitask machine" for the machines that combine turning and milling into one machine tool.
    • I think I've already blabbed about these topics before, so I'll desist. BTW, staying home during a snow storm is a good idea, but damn is it hard to feel motivated to work rather than surf WP. Back to work I go. — ¾-10 15:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Heading (metalworking) and upsetting[edit]

Due to the recent conversations and merge at screw, I began looking over the heading (metalworking) article more closely and found that there is an overlap between that article and upsetting, which is Forging#Upset_forging. Upsetting states "A few examples of common parts produced using the upset forging process are engine valves, couplings, bolts, screws, and other fasteners." which makes me think its the same thing as "heading". And honestly, the current definition of heading seems dubious, even though its referenced, because an extrusion process involves pressing a material through a die, which doesn't happen during heading or upsetting. As such, I have a feeling that heading is another name for upsetting, especially with respect to fasteners. However, I need confirmation and most definitely don't have time at the moment to research it. Wizard191 (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Reactivity of zirconium with water steam at high temperature: hydrogen production in Fukushima reactors[edit]

The tragedy of Fukushima and the explosion of hydrogen gas above the containment buildings of nuclear reactors pose the delicate question of the reactivity of zirconium and zirconium alloys with water steam at high temperature in a damaged nuclear reactor core. The page about zircaloy should deserve a special attention and the contribution of critical reviewers. See also the talk page for questions and useful references: Talk:Zirconium alloy. Any help would be appreciated. Shinkolobwe (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, however that topic is outside the scope of this project. Wizard191 (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Wizard191 will be missed at WP[edit]

Wizard191, it's a shame to see you go. No doubt you had your reasons. Your advancement of WP's coverage of metalworking, materials science and engineering, mechanical engineering, and manufacturing processes has been absolutely indispensable. Literally, you helped advance the cause in those content areas when no one else in the world (out of hundreds of thousands of people with engineering degrees) was willing to bother. Thus you have shown more civic virtue, in my opinion, than 99.999999% of humanity. Karma will reward, now or in future. Best of luck in your career and family. Perhaps we shall meet again someday. Regardless, regards (the very best). — ¾-10 04:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me add my own surprise and my disappointment to see you go. Your contribution will be greatly missed. --gargoyle888 (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

As a newcomer to this WikiProject, I have to say that I agree completely. I didn't know Wizard191, but his work is brightly visible all over a slew of articles connected to Metalworking and industry. They've all been excellent, constructive contributions and this project is definitely missing him. --Kierkkadon talk/contribs 15:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Silverware[edit]

I'm interested in silverware (salvers, coffee pots, jugs, candlesticks, famous silversmiths, different styles, etc.) but there's no WikiProject for it. Would that topic be considered as a subsection of Metalworking, or should I try to set up a Silverware WikiProject? Any ideas? Thanks. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 11:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


There is a metalworking Merit badge in Boy Scouts. Scientific Alan 2 (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's get'er going again![edit]

Greetings gents (or ladies, as the case may be). This project looks like it used to be jumping, but apparently with the loss of one Mister Wizard191, activity seems to have declined. I'd love to see this project get back up to speed, get some good edits and content going. I've started by going through the Cleanup list, but it's a long list and there's a lot I won't be able to do. I love metalworking, and I definitely love wikipedia, so it would be amazing if this could become a great project again!

I especially would like to update our lists of things that need doing. Wizard191 had a bunch of lists on the Project page, and then he knocked them all out, but surely there's more to do. Can we start cleaning up done items and repopulating that list?

Regardless, thank you fellows for the jobs you've already done, I'd love to see you all keep working hard! Kierkkadon (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

For the past few days I've been working on a rewrite of this Project page to make it a little clearer and cleaner; you can find it here. I've saved the various To-do bits on the talk page. Constructive criticism and contributions would be greatly appreciated. --Kierkkadon talk/contribs 15:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Done, see below. --Kierkkadon talk/contribs 19:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite complete![edit]

I've pushed the rewrite formerly found on my User page to the actual project page. If anyone notices errors or omissions feel free to fix it or notify me. The old version can be found here, and the list of contributors from it can be found with the older old list, here. --Kierkkadon talk/contribs 19:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


I recently started going through the list of completely unassessed articles for WP:METALS, and found that a lot of them were companies that happen to produce steels or something, like Arrium and Aperam and Baosteel. These don't actually seem like they are within our scope; we deal with the processes of metalworking rather than anything that happens to be tertiarily related to metals. If the articles dealt with unique metalworking or production techniques employed by the companies, or some other content which would actually pertain to the practice of metalworking, then they might be worthy of inclusion. But really, I don't think an article about a company like that should be within our scope. Could others weigh in? I've gone ahead and removed the {{WikiProject Metalworking}} templates from those that I've found, and will continue to do so unless a contradictory consensus is built here. --Kierkkadon talk/contribs 20:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Metalworking Materials[edit]

I've been searching Wikipedia for a comprehensive list of every material you might find being machined in a machine shop, which would also provide basics of each material. Something which would resemble this List Of Elements which serves chemistry. The search has been a tour of what seems to be partial lists which provide a portion of the entire universe of information, but doesn't give me the one-stop-shop service I'm seeking. If such a thing doesn't exist I don't mind building my knowledge of what I'm seeking by assembling it. But before even beginning such a thing I'm checking in here to see what you people may know, or have to say about it.

I did see in your January 22, 2013 entry, Kierkkadon, that you feel that materials of metalworking shouldn't be in the scope of the Metalworking Project. Please correct me if I misunderstood. But if this is so, I respectfully disagree. As a person who's interested in metalworking, and who'd be happy to contribute to the project, I think the materials used in metalworking are a very important aspect deserving the project's attention. Much of metalworking is knowledge of material characteristics. It's part of cutting tool selection, tool rotation speed, etc. Because you essentially can't perform metalworking without material knowledge being part of the process I think it's an essential aspect which this project should cover.

Whether or not this project is the place for it, I'd like to pursue the table I'm looking for. I generally would like to see a solid, reliable, comprehensive library which is easy for a user (machining students?) to reference without having to run to various places to piece things together. Cosmo1976 (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Your wrong as this is clearly Materials science or more specialized Metallurgy. Additionaly in Metalworking you never work with pure metal but as good as always with alloys and you dont need to know for example thermodynamic behavior or variables of thouse alloys. All you need to know is its characteristics when cutting, stretching, bending etc. it. --Kharon2 (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Um, I don't know what metalworking you're doing, but I definitely need to know the thermodynamic behavior of metals for what I do. Forging is a big part of metalworking, and it is all about the thermodynamic processes. Not every blacksmith knows all about Eutectic systems, nor are they likely to be familiar with the finer points of steel phase diagrams — like practical men everywhere, they would deal with the effects rather than their internal causes, but the knowledge is still there. A good blacksmith knows that if you heat steel and then cool it quickly, it becomes hard and brittle. That's thermodynamics. We know precisely why this happens because of Materials science, but it's still part of metalworking.
And in response to Mr. Cosmo, I didn't think I said anything about the materials of metalworking not being within the scope of the project. The very thing you came looking for ought, I think, to be something that WP:METALS makes easy to find and use, it's a shame we haven't. What I was talking about above was stub articles about companies that happen to produce steel. I'm not sure we should consider every metal element within our scope — I doubt, for example, we should include the article for osmium. But for iron, absolutely. Chromium, Aluminium, Copper, probably. Alloys like Steel and Bronze, definitely.
I hope you find what you're looking for, terribly sorry we haven't made it any easier. Not long ago I started on an Outline of metalworking, but RL concerns and a recent heavy focus on a WikiSource project to aid my work here has drawn my attention away. You're welcome to work on it if you have the time and inclination. Kierkkadon talk/contribs 00:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Of course almost all professions in metalworking need extended knowledge about Metallurgy as well as in most cases about Physics (like Stress (mechanics) for example) but that doesn't make Metallurgy or Physics the Science of Metalworking but in fact just the other way around Metalworking a science based on the former. So Metallurgy (or more obvious Physics) should not be the responsibility of an WikiProject Metalworking. That should be left to Portal:Physics because it (Metallurgy) is Solid-state physics by definition. --Kharon2 (talk) 13:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I've been having a similar problem of classification of where any unified "metallurgy" belongs (primarily alloys). If it helps any, extractive metallurgy (roasting, smelting, refining, etc.) is part of WikiProject Mining, but secondary work--namely alloys and alloying--is still a really interesting question that there is no clear group. It seems too small and overlapping for its own wikiproject. If there are sufficient articles in need of help, possibly someone could create an "alloys" task-force within WikiProject Chemistry for such topics? Morgan Riley (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
If you like as practical approach i doubt there is enough manpower here to even touch it. --Kharon (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
If I had time and a broad enough attention span (and friends, sad face) I'd create a WikiProject for Materials Science, and alloying (and other subjects of Metallurgical nature, but not necessarily Metalworking) would be included there. However, as I'm sure my recent contributions show, I have not had much time for Wikipedia recently. Kierkkadon talk/contribs 20:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, it's worth remembering that a WikiProject is merely a tool for helping editors for certain subjects find each other to collaborate. You can always make improvements to any subject, WikiProject or no. It just might be more difficult if there is no associated WikiProject. Kierkkadon talk/contribs 20:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


Today's Article For Improvement star.svg

Please note that Hammer, which is within this project's scope, has been selected to become a Today's Article for Improvement. The article is currently in the TAFI Holding Area, where comments are welcome about ideas to improve it. After the article is moved from the holding area to the TAFI schedule, it will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's Article for Improvement" section for one week. Everyone is invited to participate in the discussion and encouraged to collaborate to improve the article.
Thank you,
TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
(From the TAFI team)

Request: Can someone improve the history of Chain.[edit]

History of Chain is vague. Thanks Marasama (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

pattern types[edit]

there should be some pattern types added. as an example,

1.single piece pattern 2.split patterns 3.match plate pattern 4.loose piece pattern 5.gated pattern 6.sweep pattern

with their wikipedia local links... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentamalli (talkcontribs) 03:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


According to the page Whitesmith, members of that profession work "with 'white' or light-coloured metals such as tin and pewter." There is also a separate article at Tinsmith, but both are fairly small. There was some discussion at Talk:Tinsmith way back in 2008 regarding the possibility of merging Tinsmith and Whitesmith, but it seems never to have reached a conclusion. Additionally, the name Pewtersmith redirects to Pewter, but the word pewtersmith does not appear there, as far as I can see. I wonder if Pewtersmith should redirect to a merged version of those two articles, or is it better as is? I have no expertise in this area, so I wanted to mention it to people who do. Cnilep (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

September 2013 file deletion nominations[edit]

Possible to include hydraulics?[edit]

Or is there a better way?

I notice that hydroforming is included with metalworking, which makes perfect sense to me. However, hydroforming is not included in hydraulics. Should hydroforming be included in both categories? Should hydraulic press be too?

What's the wikipedia way of resolving something like this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SewerCat (talkcontribs) 19:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

proposal: redirect diffusion hardening to case hardening[edit]

Please see Talk:diffusion hardening Gravuritas (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Technology for featured candidacy[edit]

I've nominated Portal:Technology for featured candidacy. Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Technology. — Cirt (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Brass redrot[edit]

A notice about red rot (brass) has been placed at WT:CHEMISTRY -- (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update[edit]

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Rework, retitle, or ...?[edit]

Talk:Centrifugal_casting_(silversmithing)#Rework, retitle, or ...?

--Kevjonesin (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Bottom-blown oxygen converter[edit]

I came across the article Bottom-blown oxygen converter which describes both a process and a product, referenced as Pyrometallurgy > Refining > BBOC™. Maybe I don't understand it properly, but I think the article may be misleading, so that either a special page should be created for the product or other processes should be mentioned as well, because there are definitely other bottom-blowing converters around ([1] and [2] for example). --Adbar (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Mass image upload[edit]

There are over 17,000 new images of jewellery and silverware in Commons:Category:Images from Fellows (auctioneers). Please make use of them! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal[edit]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Gas metal arc welding FAR[edit]

I have nominated Gas metal arc welding for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live![edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Gas tungsten arc welding FAR[edit]

I have nominated Gas tungsten arc welding for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


Porosity could use expansion from the Metalworking/Welding perspective. Currently it has zero information on porosity in those areas outside the lede that states "The term porosity is used in multiple fields including pharmaceutics, ceramics, metallurgy, materials, manufacturing, earth sciences, soil mechanics and engineering." (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

British English on GMAW[edit]

Gas metal arc welding could use attention from someone who knows British English – see Talk:Gas_metal_arc_welding#British_English_vs._American_English. —Spangineerws (háblame) 22:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)