Talk:Lumber

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 What about Wisconsin? 2 Removal of Merge Timber Note 3 timber/lumber 4 Merger 5 Lumber/Timber 6 Lumber/Dimensional Lumber Merged

[edit] What about Wisconsin?

Maine, Oregon, Washington, and California? Did the Midwest suddenly disappear from the forestry history books? Wisconsin was once a great center of the lumber industry in the United States. Someone very familiar with American forestry history has to add to and edit the History and Geography subsection of the article:

[Wisconsin lumber history http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/turningpoints/tp-027/]

[edit] Removal of Merge Timber Note

I took the liberty to remove the merge timber note, because frankly, there are only a few bits and pieces in the present timber article that relate to timber. That article should be renamed to something like The History of the British Timber Trade. It is more about trade and economics than timber. It is historic and makes no mention of contemporary timbering. And it is completely Eurocentric about a worldwide topic. I would suggest that timber and lumber might well both have pages, since timber refers to the raw material and lumber to the finished product, but the current timber article isn't the one. If timber is merged with lumber, it should of course have good redirects. Pollinator 14:46, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

I still think the two pages should be merged; the word 'lumber' is not used outside of the USA (and perhaps Canada?). I agree that much of the current content of the timber page is superfluous there (and could perhaps be filtered out to British Timber Trade or something like that?), but my idea was that the content of lumber (which nearly all refers to what most people outside of the US would call timber) should be moved over to timber (as the more international title), to make one decent article, instead of having the information split between two pages. - MPF 16:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] timber/lumber

From User talk:Pollinator Hi Pollinator - just added a note at talk:lumber. The real problem is that the very title 'lumber' itself is strongly US-centric; the word simply isn't used in other countries (apart from perhaps Canada?) - MPF 16:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know that.Pollinator 03:14, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

I propose that the following articles are merged as there seems to be overlap between them which creates confustion are all about the same thing.

Timber

Lumber

Dimensional lumber

This will also allow a for a better quality, more interesting article. I propose that all the articles are put under the title of Timber with their appropriate sub-headings. Hobo 04:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, in their current form the three articles have a wide overlap, and all all incomplete. njh 06:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lumber/Timber

The Lumber/Timber Articles Should Not Me Merged For They Have Sperate Maenings (posted by anon 24.179.67.206)

And the meanings differ, depending on where you are. In the US, "timber" refers to the forest product, or, if it refers to cut wood, only to large pieces such as beams. A "timber-framed" house would be an older-style home framed with hand-hewn beams, mortised and tenoned at the joints - or if sawn, to forms that are basically modern imitations of the older style - at least 6x6 in size. Lumber refers to smaller dimension or dressed lumber such as 2x4 or 2x6 used in modern construction. Interestingly a sawmill refers to the first machine to cut the lumber, whereas, in modern trade usage, "milled" lumber is further dressed by planing to standard dimensions, or made into molding or specialized forms for cabinet making. Pollinator 01:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• I am in favour of merging the articles, although I do use the North American usage. They are all about the same thing. How about calling the merged article Lumber/timber or Sawn wood? The different usages should be mentioned up front in the lead paragraph. Also, Hobo, why not take a gander at it on a sandbox page somewhere, so that others could see what you have in mind. I think it would help convince people. Note that according to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English, the usage should be that of "the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article." According to the edit history, Timber was created first on 25 February 2002, while Lumber was started on 25 June 2002.Timber also ceased being a stub first, on 1 October 2002 compared to more than a year later for Lumber on 13 October 2003. Dimensional lumber was created much later. So according to that rule, the article should use British usage. Also, the Manual of Style suggests:

If the spelling appears in an article name, you should make a redirect page to accommodate the other variant, as with Artefact and Artifact, or if possible and reasonable, a neutral word might be chosen as with Glasses.

Words with multiple spellings: In choosing words or expressions, there may be value in selecting one that does not have multiple spellings, if there are synonyms that are otherwise equally suitable. In extreme cases of conflicting names, a contrived substitute (such as fixed-wing aircraft) is acceptable.

hence my suggestion of a combined title (Lumber/timber) or a contrived one (Sawn wood), but I am not opposed to calling it Timber, with the appropriate redirects. Luigizanasi 19:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Per color (and its neglected cousin colour), I think it would be best to use a non-contrived non-joined article name. I agree timber was first, and should be used. However, I don't think dimensional lumber necessarily needs to be merged in (I can see it being the first thing to be split back out as the article grows), but if the decision is based on purely article size, then that's fine too. --Interiot 10:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lumber/Dimensional Lumber Merged

Dimensional lumber merged with Lumber.

I note though that those tables are ugly. Anyone care to fix them?

Also, I'll do the merger with Timber, too, if people want.

--NaOH 05:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The question is what name would the new article have, lumber or timber? Luigizanasi 05:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Timber, with a redirect from lumber. It makes the most sense, seeing as it's a universal term, though in USA + Canada lumber and timber are different.

--NaOH 05:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There, I just did it. --NaOH 06:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)