This level-4 vital article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

Woodworking (inactive) This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Woodworking, a project which is currently considered to beinactive.WoodworkingWikipedia:WikiProject WoodworkingTemplate:WikiProject WoodworkingWoodworking MaterialsLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Materials, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofMaterials on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.MaterialsWikipedia:WikiProject MaterialsTemplate:WikiProject MaterialsMaterials Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theimportance scale. CraftTop‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Craft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofcraft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.CraftWikipedia:WikiProject CraftTemplate:WikiProject CraftCraft Top This article has been rated asTop-importance on theimportance scale.

This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source: Woodworking: Wood, wood carving, wood as a medium, spindle turning, lathe faceplate, stretcher, spindle, Betascript Publishing, 2010 Additional comments OCLC 701211732,ISBN 9786130415402.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):Cdentong.

Above undated message substituted fromTemplate:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment byPrimeBOT (talk)05:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Woodworking' 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 withwood, 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 inEnglish 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 andJimboWales, 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 andothers 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 oncarpenter and related topics--my husband's a German carpenter, I'm an editor--I see thatframer andframing 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. Undercarpentry one can talk about the methods and types, while undercarpenter one can talk about individuals, training, guild costumes, and misc. branches of the profession such asframers, 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)

I'm correcting links to the disambiguation pagewell and came across this term -Linear Pottery culturewell. What on earth does it mean?! Could someone change the link accordingly, or if it's a dodgy term change the wording? Thanks.BigBlueFish15:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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?SilentC23:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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?ThuranX23:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC) (hmm... wonder if any of dem plan sites got a Blackjack table plan...)[reply]

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. ?Luigizanasi01:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. --ArmadilloFromHell01:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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— Precedingunsigned comment added byCdrobeson (talk •contribs)08:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated a lot of terminology..any of u seeing this?--jamierulesbtw 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.SilentC02:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.ThuranX02:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've had another thought on it. We should make it a separate glossary and list ithere. The Architecture one looks like a good model for it.SilentC02:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. :-)Luigizanasi04:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.SilentC04:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.SilentC21:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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—Precedingunsigned comment added by120.28.8.22 (talk)13:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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'spersonal opinion? What determines that someone shouldnot be included in the list?
• The article isWoodworking. It is notRandom 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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have inserted a new section named "Common Tools". I have listed a few of the most popular tools used for woodworking. Along with their brief descriptions and uses. I thought this might be helpful for those learning more about woodworking. If I am missing any "common" tools then please feel free to edit or add some more information.Cbmoore3 (talk)02:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could somebody take a look atCategory:Gouges (photo series by Jens Mohr) on Commons, to check the categorization? They all got categorized as gauges, but I am not sure if e.g.this orthat qualifies as a gauge. Even if they are all gauges, maybe a few subcategories would be useful. Greetings,Watchduck(quack)12:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added a section in the pageStyles & Designs. I thought that someone should have added information on the different styles and designs throughout woodworking history. There are so many out there, but this is a list of the more common styles. Please let me know if there is any way I can fix or improve what I have added here. I appreciate it!Michaelkurek011 (talk)17:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This section is out of place, It may be better to have a list of styles and designs as a separate page list which compiles different features and relates them to architectural features. I would suggest a chronological categorization method for that.

It is a difficult question of how to list it because Rough carpentry is obviously separate from finish carpentry and when thinking about other disciplines like boat building, etc. we cannot categorize things in the same styleMagjozs (talk)13:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a section of Disciplines with definitions and subsets on this page.Magjozs (talk)13:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectScary sharp has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 25 § Scary sharp until a consensus is reached.Utopes_{(talk /cont)}03:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectWood shop has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 27 § Wood shop until a consensus is reached.cogsan_{(nag me)(stalk me)}19:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• B-Class level-4 vital articles
• Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in Technology
• B-Class vital articles in Technology
• B-Class Materials articles
• Low-importance Materials articles
• WikiProject Materials articles
• B-Class Craft articles
• Top-importance Craft articles
• WikiProject Craft articles

• All Wikipedia vital articles
• Wikipedia article talk pages incorporating the backwards copy template