Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metalworking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject Metalworking, an attempt to cleanup, categorize and expand Wikipedia articles related to metalworking. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page, where a list of open tasks is maintained.


Text to use at the top of article talk pages is:-

{{Metalworking}}

Suggested Edit summary (This is here so that a quick cut and paste does the job, no stress involved):

Template for Wikiproject {{Metalworking}}

The anvil and hammer were chosen as it was felt they summed up metalworking at a glance, the text hopefully sums up our goals. The source is available at Template:Metalworking. — Graibeard 14:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Metalworking entrance

Metalworking - make into a nice pretty introduction page.

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metalworking/Main page — Graibeard 07:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Milling cutter - End mill

Endmill - Possibly merge into milling cutter? — Discuss milling cutters

I don't think we should merge these two, Milling cutter is the parent, endmill is a valid child. Rather than having a multitude of stubs or a huge page on a family, have the stubs collected together on an overview page (eg: milling cutter) and then link with {main:article} to any substantial children that get created, the indepth material obviously goes on the child page.

Drill bits may need this attention real soon!

Machine tapers may end up being split in this fashion, later.

Gauge (engineering) is a parent page that was started in the reverse sense, it's just links to stubs or smaller articles. Both main page and the children could do with some expansion or some could be merged back into the parent and used as redirects if they are considered to be too "stubby". — Graibeard – talk 02:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Big list

The steps added to the to-do list are about what I did to generate the big list.  :) Bushytails 18:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't seen it before writing the stuff. In any case I suggest doing the categorization systematically, and have others participate so you can have an even bigger list. :-) Once everything is categorized into metalworking, regenerate the list. I just went through the woodworking articles and added category metalworking to the relevant ones (e.g. bandsaw, lathe, sandpaper, and found a few more eg hacksaw, etc.)Luigizanasi 19:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Heh, I spent a lot of work finding the articles for that big list... doing "what links here" on random pages, browsing through a bunch of categories, a couple random searches to see what came back, etc.  :) Bushytails 05:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Added metalworking to list of wikiprojects

I added Wikiproject metalworking to Wikipedia:List of WikiProjects. Luigizanasi 05:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought about doing that, but figured I'd wait to see if someone else came up with a better project summary.  :) Bushytails 17:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vendors and spam

Lathe (tool), milling machine and a few other pages seem to suffer from the odd advertisement or two under the guise of ==Vendors==. I've blown them all away from lathe (tool) for the reasons outlined on Talk:Lathe (tool).

I've seen and removed one of the culprits a couple of times on other pages and I'd be certain they have more links embedded in other metalworking and woodworking articles. I'd suggest we keep a watch for them and if found, look at them critically. If they add nothing that wouldn't show up on a google (insert your choice) search for both item and price then delete them. Once one is allowed it's an "open door policy" for others, eg: Second hand machinery, rental videos, etc — Graibeard – talk 13:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

What do you think of links to commercial pages that provide useful information? See Screw or Wood Router for examples. Note that I just removed a purely commercial one from the Screw article. Also, I put in the link to Pat Warner's page in the Wood router page. Warner's page is probably the most useful page on routers on the web, at least judging by the number of times it's been recommended on rec.woodworking.Luigizanasi 19:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
If a commercial page provides useful information then it should be fine. When I suggest (as above) look at them critically I mean in the evaluation sense not so much to judge severely and find fault, the difference is border line I guess but I'd rather rework a link and include it. If however, it's blatantly commercial then the decision to toast it is easy. With mirrors and other sites that use wikipedia's articles the Viral marketing or linkspam aspect can attract the worst sort and degrade the content into just another link farm.
Pat Warner's page I'd class as okay. It's certainly a good link for rec.woodworking's target audience, but I also feel it can fit with Wikipedias audience. It has useful content as the information given with their products is descriptive and transferable to other retailer's products, it doesn't just mention a product with price tag, all on less than three lines.
On a closer inspection however, although somewhat buried, the bolt link did have some useful information. Their FAQ and glossary pages, for example, are informative. A correction to that would be to redirect the link from their home page, to the useful content only; this treats them the same as the other two links have been and expands the articles coverage. I'll do that now and reinstate it with a deeplink, it will miss some content (the software) but I feel it's a suitable compromise. Hopefully I've clarified my thoughts enough that it makes good sense.
Incidentally, Wood Router redirected to CNC wood router. I've changed that redirect to Wood router, and quickly added a ==See also== to link back to the CNC wood router article, I'll let you incorporate it properly, if desired. That link highlights, yet again, the case problem we have when searching.
And while I'm here, nice work on catting Category:Metalworking too. :-) — Graibeard – talk 01:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Woodworking WikiProject

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Woodworking has been started, which lists the metalworking wikiproject as a related project.Luigizanasi 05:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Next step?

So I'm guessing the next step will be to move the proposed list of categories to the big article list, I'll re-update the big list from the current cat:metalworking (copy+paste and one line of bash), and we can start sorting the articles into the category structure by moving them around on the page? (the eventual plan, of course, being once we have a nice category structure we like, create all those categories and move the pages out of metalworking and into the subcategories, then work on navigation and the like)... or should we work on something else first?

Having a nice, sorted list of pages to work from seems it will make figuring out all the other things (missing articles, etc) a lot easier to work on. (but I don't want to start sorting it until we're pretty sure we're mostly done with the big list of articles).

Any ideas? Bushytails 05:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at what I did on Wikipedia:WikiProject Woodworking. I think the thing to do is to create the list of articles that need to be created and improved. You don't really need to have the "big list" perfect to do that (useful as it may be), the headings can be put in and maybe some examples. Other will no doubt add to the list. Luigizanasi 16:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm more thinking about the order to do things, not how complete the list is (although that is an issue)... I was thinking we should sort the current articles (a nice system of categories, subcategories, etc), then see what else is needed, as nice categories makes it easier to see what's a bit thin, and we can quickly do something about the remarkably horrible linking and cohesion of metalworking articles currently... but that's just IMHO. What's other people's ideas?  :) Bushytails 07:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Do your copy & paste (with a dash of bash o'course) and we'll take it from there, once we get a sandbox to play in we can combine both methods and flesh it out to get something that's 90% (?) right. The categories you have already will cater for most of the immediate articles, anything else can be tucked under a "Misc" heading, until someone gets suitably bold. Graibeard 11:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Anyone want to suggest a suitable list of sub-pages to separate out the tasks? Joe1011010 21:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I've regenerated the big article list (probably the last time; further updates should be manual... If you find/add an article, PLEASE add it to the list as well!) with the updates from Category:Metalworking, and moved the draft category list onto the page... now to begin sorting? Best way is probably cut+paste to move the articles into the category tree, for an easy way to keep track of what's done so far and what isn't... then actually make all the categories? Bushytails 23:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coining

Coin die, Die (manufacturing), Coining (machining) and die making have some serious 
overlapping and sorting to be done
  • Die (manufacturing) should be the index page (remains as is)
  • Coin die is the tool (currently its a mixture)
  • Die making is the toolmaker, mold makers profession (currently it predominately centers around coining - appears to be good material, just mislabelled)
  • Coining (machining) the process, (which it is, just a bit stubby)

I'm putting this to the back of my list as there are other more pressing issues at the moment, but it's here if someone else is willing to tackle it. — Graibeard 03:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lathe

Lathe, Lathe (metal), and other lathe articles - lots of duplication between articles;
needs to be split cleanly. Will be easier once all the lathe-related articles are grouped

Agreed, When I split off Lathe (metal) I left behind material that was specific to other types (woodworking, metal spinning). When those articles are created then that content can be removed and Lathe will become a summary page. The more curious and in depth readers can then go to the main articles, for this reason I feel there will always be some overlap between each page and its subpage , hopefully we can spare the reader word for word duplication though. — Graibeard 03:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Drill

Drill - in pretty sad shape. Needs serious rewrite, needs descriptions of gimlet, brace,
eggbeater, hand-held electric drills, drill press, etc.

I've got a photo of a geared head drill and pedestal drill, can get eggbeater and brace (two styles - reversible and chuckless) — Graibeard 03:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I started on a rewrite. I moved a bunch of stuff to a section on metal drilling. Please check. Luigizanasi 06:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Continued the rewrite, added a handfull of drill types and also split the drilling metal section off to drilling (which was a redirect to drill. It's a bit messy still but I'll tidy it (drilling) up later, if someone else doesn't get to it first :) It's a bit hard to write an article on drilling without it turning into a HowTo. — Graibeard 15:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spindle speed

Spindle speed - was a hard-to-read stub, and had been listed on articles needing cleanup for 
quite some time, so decided to just throw together a completely new article... someone with 
more machining experience should look over it to make sure it's accurate.

I've decided the page needs splitting, my comments are at Talk:Spindle speed, it also needs someone with some spindle moulder and jointer experience to tie it into woodworking, Luigizanasi? Last time I used them they weren't variable speed, but that was a long while ago and with the advent of CNC controls, who knows? — Graibeard 07:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Page moved, see Talk:Cutting speed — Graibeard 12:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abrasive Waterjet Cutter

Abrasive Waterjet Cutter - reasonably inchoerent, and barely a stub.
 Water Jet Cutter and Abrasive Waterjet Cutter need merging. (just found the first one!)

[edit] Height gauge

Height gauge - huh?

:-) It needs the vernier height gauge redirect reclaimed, I've got a couple of good pics for the new page and will start the article later. — Graibeard 04:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Vernier height gauge reclaimed, content and image added, close up images of scales to follow. Graibeard 12:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sheetmetal

Needs work, currently points to multiple disambigs, see Sheet metal to split some material from.


Sheetmetal.....Metal used for fabrication, and installation in any format be it industrial (light or commercial), institutional, ecumenical, residential. Simply stated, use of metal; internal or external, artistic or functional.

[edit] Slack tub

Slack tub transwikied to wiktionary - see Talk:Slack tub for the full comment

[edit] Navigation boxes

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metalworking/Template list — Graibeard 07:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blacksmith(ing), Blacksmith, Forge(ing)

My experience is more traditional blacksmithing. I've reviewed the articles 'Forge' and "Blacksmith" a few times and believe both of these articles could use some work.

My suggestion (and I would like feedback before I launch into this) is that 'Forge' should be focused on "what a forge is", some disambiguation and moving other elements to different articles. 'Forging' should be a separate article talking about the techniques of shaping metal. "Blacksmith" should be a simple definition article. "Blacksmithing" I think would be a good heading for an article about "traditional" or "hand" techniques.

Does this differentiation make sense to anyone but me?

Erraunt 15:19, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. If you have knowledge in the area or can write a good yarn anyway then chip in. Unless you're editing a controversial page (or thrive in the heat :) then be bold. If you want to be cautious then create a sandbox for yourself and work on the rewrite there, ie - User:Erraunt/Sandbox. Forging is a redirect to Forge so reclaim the link and test the waters by starting on it. ps: don't forget to sign your talk ~~~~- whoops, my mistake! apologies — Graibeard 15:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good to me too, but with one caveat. I would suggest keeping Blacksmith and Blacksmithing together. A simple definition article will probably end up getting deleted as per the policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary which starts off saying "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and an entry that consists of just a definition does not belong." Other than that, go for it. Luigizanasi 06:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


Thank you all for the advice. I'll be looking at things more shortly and try to work something.

On a related note I played with the stub "Sword Making". While I won't claim it's my greatest effort it should serve as a starting point. I tried to keep it general and put in a few redirects back into metalworking articles. I'm sure there are more that I've overlooked. And I've probably erred a good deal as I was trying to write an article that would apply to swords from bronze age forward. Erraunt 19:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Blacksmithing and Forgeing ...

I won't split things unless I have a good reason.

Currently I'm considering "Forge" as a stand alone page focused on the physical forge as a fireplace and shop. "Forging" to hold production methods. And "Blacksmithing" for more traditional methods. I feel that is a reasonable division. As you've probably guessed I tend to mull things before I change them. Erraunt 18:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC) Here is my current thinking.

There is an interest at least here in the U.S. in traditional techniques for a variety of crafts, blacksmithing included. The Forge article as it's grown is more technical and has a slight "lean" toward what I would call a manufacturing perspective. (Nothing wrong with that perspective by the way. Very good and useful stuff.)

When I thought to add some information about smithing techniques and tools that are more hand tools and hand work it "felt" better to put them in Blacksmith. That, admittedly, isn't the best reason in the world.

Chewing on that thought my developing opinion is this: keep the Blacksmithing article as a either a repository for or a route too more historical information on "traditional" or "artistic" techniques.

For example there are other articles that discuss welding. Welding is mentioned in Blacksmith. Rather than detail the various kinds of welding there I'm putting in links to the appropriate articles. I did expand forge welding because that's particular to early and pre-industrial revolution blacksmithing. And I shifted the focus of the forge welding description from a more technical description of what happens in a weld, to a description of *a* method to focus on the technique rather than the metalurgical.

In my mind that's the differentiation: describe the "primitive" tools and techniques there, leave the technical and scientific elsewhere and cite it for further information.

I am not married to this approach, I simply have no other ideas. And I'll admit my bias as I'm an amatuer blacksmith, not a machinist or anything. Erraunt 16:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anon forge edit

Main comment is at forge talk, references and authoritative knowledge needed, apply within. — Graibeard 23:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Alloys

Do we need or want to get into alloys? Types of alloys make a big difference in how it is produced, heat treated, machined etc... Joe I 01:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

First things first, welcome aboard!
Alloys falls under metallurgy and it was initially felt we'd leave that area alone for the time being, as it was fairly well covered and organised, and we're a bit thin on the decks - people wise.
However, if it's an area that you feel you can make a difference in then adopt it and use this project to cordinate the effort, create a sub page WikiProject Metalworking/Alloys and see if you can gather some supporters via the talk pages (add the project template to them). The current info box wouldn't be appropriate but something along the lines of the welding one may be better suited - alloys of Steel, Copper, Aluminium etc?
Incidentally, I intend to do some major work on the coining area as outlined at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Metalworking#Coining. Does your Numismatics knowledge lend itself (helping) to sort out the overlap within those pages? — Graibeard 03:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
OK, just wanted to make sure they were thought of. It's not something I really have time or lots of desire to try and do now. I've been gettin my plate pretty full as is. As far as coining goes, I'll be glad to help where I can, we'll see how far it gets us.  :) Joe I 04:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Remove links to the wikiproject from templates

Hey guys, please edit your templates and remove links to the wikiproject. Linking to the Wikipedia: namespace is not to be done in the main article space. Instead, you can put a notice on talk pages. Scott Ritchie 06:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Gosh, Scott, why not? Because of those links, this wikiprojet was very easy to find! That makes it easy for me to learn about the project and participate. -- Mikeblas 16:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay this has come up again and following the link provided there (avoid self references) suggests that it's not just the wikiproject links but the actual text that's the problem. I'll make another pass through the templates and remove the actual wording this time.

Regarding Mikeblas's comment above, It appears a portal page would be the best way to provide some cross linking between the project and the article (ie: helping readers and editors to enlarge and improve the topic area), unfortunately we're a small team so creating a portal page could be stretching our efforts too much, at this stage – perhaps later? — Graibeard 00:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] English Wheel

I recently added an article on the English Wheel, before I knew about WikiProject:Metalworking. Can I contribute the article to the project, as well? -- Mikeblas 16:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Most certainly - nice work! I notice that you've got the correct category, next find the template, add that to the bottom of the article then adjust the links to include it. The template page has the quick links to all the templates that we've got around to doing (although there are still a few more to do, and pages to add them to).
And feel free to add your name to the contributors/supporters section. — Graibeard 09:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for welcoming me. I think I've got it hooked up right—it would be swell if someone double-checked my work. -- Mikeblas 06:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Twinning

Is it a good idea to integrate Crystal_twinning and twin boundary in just one article? SietskeEN 09:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

These areas are a bit out of my depth, if you believe they could be merged then I'd suggest following the Merging and moving guidelines. (p.s. Sorry to see you go, even if it is to another wiki.) — Graibeard 10:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll do that! By the way: I won't go, in fact: I removed my name because I realised that I didn't do anything about metal working yet. Maybe in future? SietskeEN 10:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
You sound like a good candidate for Project supporters, straight under contributors. :-) — Graibeard 10:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not much of a cheerleader, but if you have a clear definition of my future supporting task, I will be ready to work on it! :-) SietskeEN 11:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Gflores Talk 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Triphammer vs. Trip hammer

I suspect that Triphammer may need to be moved. I have googled a little for the two-word version, and I'm getting almost exclusively hits for things 'named' "triphammer." "Trip hammer," on the other hand, gets a lot more results relating to actual metalworking equipment. Can anybody here who knows what they're talking about chime in? --Adamrush 01:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Now that's a big ask, anybody here who knows what they're talking about :-).
It's not my field but a quick thumb through a reference book suggests that it's two words (drop hammer, steam hammer, pneumatic hammer). Reviewing the google results adds weight to the argument. So, move it to trip hammer and the redirect from triphammer will remain as a safety net. The best of both worlds! — Graibeard (talk) 08:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Done. I got the Metalworking links template updated, too. Anything else? --Adamrush 09:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Looks fine, that's the important bit done. The only other thing would be to run through What links here, but it's no drama as I can make a pass through them if you don't. If you decide to do them yourself, be aware that some pages will have no visible link, except for the template; a null edit of the page (edit the page and save again without actually doing anything) will force a server side update of the What links here database. Apparently it's a quirk of templates, and a real mystery before the penny drops.
After that? feel free to drop back again, you're welcome anytime. :-) — Graibeard (talk) 11:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Will do. --Adamrush 17:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Have done. --Adamrush 18:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How can I help

Dear Graibeard et alia,Seán 10:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC) I'm new to wikipedia. I first learned about it from a call to arms from one of my favorite authors, James P. Hogan. I install, maintain and repair machine tools for Boeing Aircraft near Seattle, Washington USA. I have many and varied interests but I started with machine tools. I started muttering to myself 'No, no that's wrong' until I realized that some of the things were the differences between American usage and other flavors of the English language. The other things were nomenclature. I work on the West Coast of America and when lads from the East Coast come to work, they use different terms for the words common around here. I notice a distinct British influence in the pages on machine tools so please excuse my West Coast Americanisms like 'wrench' for spanner or 'chips' for swarf. Every time I've started, I suffer from self editing. I start typing away and see that I'm writing a textbook instead of an informative article. So I'm asking for help here. I've got thirty years of seeing machine tools from the inside out and you lot can direct me to where I'm needed. I'll give you an example

The concept of a machine tool. Start off with the idea that there is the business end of the tool. I've got drills, mills, robot welders, cutting lasers, wire EDMs, sinker EDMs, Titanium nitride coating machines, induction heaters, precision grinders, etc. all within a hundred feet of me right now. What ever the "effector" is, to cut, grind, burn, remove, deform, or add mateterial, the purpose of a machine tool is to control positioning of the material relative to the effector. Consider a handheld, power, rotating, wood cutting saw. We call them skilsaws, when actually that's a tradename. Most people think of the rotation of the sawblade as the "motion" when really, it's the slow and steady hand guiding the power tool that makes the finished part. An improvement would be to switch to a tablesaw with a fence to help guide the material. It doesn't matter if the material is clamped and the tool moves or as in the case of a tablesaw, the tool is held stationary and the material moves past it. The tablesaw still falls short of being a machine tool because the human operator needs to apply gentle pressure to keep the material against the fence and then push the material across the blade. The difference is called "freedom of motion" or a "controlled axis" (plural axes). The next improvement in our woodcutting shop would be a power saw mounted on a set of rails that would only allow it to move forwards or backwards. Remember, we could just as easily built a machine that moves the material. It's the relative motion we're concerned about. This improved power table saw stills falls short of a machine tool because a human has to push it along. At the beginning of the workday, it moves quickly. At the end of the workday, well, I suppose it would depend on how big of a lunch the operator had. Too fast - we burn the wood. Too slow - we fall behind schedule, waste time and electricity. So we can't allow any motion away from the axis and we must control the motion along the axis. Control it in a way that makes it predictable. Now we mount a power feed option on our saw. We can set it for a fast travel speed for softwoods and slow it down for hardwoods. We could use a pneumatic piston but the 'spongy' action caused by compressibilty makes it unpredictable. Hydraulic pistons, hydraulic motors on lead screws, electric motors on ball screws, and linear motors on magnetic rails have all been used. This is a single axis machine tool.

A two axis machine tool could be an ink jet printer. The "effector" is spitting ink and the two axes are controlling the relative motion between the ink head and the paper. In a machine shop, a machine with two linear axes is generally refered to as routers. The two axes must be 90° away from each other (yes, there are rare exceptions. We'll have a contest later) for two very cogent reasons. The first and foremost is 'by convention', that is everybody agrees to it. The customer, the draftsman, the machine operator. The other reason is the Law of Cosines.

c² = a² + b² - 2ab · cos C

If C, the angle between the two axes, is 90°, the cosine equals zero and the term falls away, leaving just the Pythagorean Theorem. The math is easier whether you're doing it on a calculator or a CNC controller.

For more complicated machines, another convention is needed. The naming of standard axes. Whatever the effector on the machine tool is, Z axis always is aligned with the center of it. On a drill, Z axis is pointing down the center of the rotation of the drill. On a laser, Z axis co-axial with the center of the beam. Same thing with a waterjet. X axis and Y axis form a plane that is perpendicular to Z axis. X, Y, and Z are all linear axes and describe the three dimensions. There are rotary axes as well. A rotates around X, B rotates around Y, C rotates around the spindle (or whatever the effector is). There are parallel axes. If the quill on a Bridgeport mill moves up and down and the bed can move up and down as well, The quill is Z axis and the action that lifts the bed is called W axis. So U is parallel to X, V is parallel to Y, and W is parallel to Z. The nine axes so far are used to tell the machine where to position the business end of the machine. Cut a line, weld a seam, paint a stripe. There are axes that are off the beaten path. I, J, and K are used to describe three dimentional points that aren't on the line. Imagine running out the door in a hurry and grabbing the door jamb to turn a sharp corner. Your footprints, that's described by X and Y, the pivot point of the door jamb, that's described by I and J. Modern CNC controllers can handle up to fifteen axes. Seán 10:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Seán, and welcome!
Terminology, or nomenclature amongst trades as old as ours is certainly varied and colorful. The difference is probably not so much age as the ready availability of world wide communications that kill the variations before they grow into accepted usage. Feel free to add your variations, if you believe they are widespread and deserving of note then create a redirect to the appropriate article and that way we'll minimize any reduncancy and encourage additions to existing articles.
As for the British influence, I thought it was nearly all American here :-) Seriously though, I no longer know what are the rght spellings anymore, and frankly I don't care (although the hackles sometimes raise when someone breezes through and corrects an existing article to suit their provincial view). That being said, try to retain the original articles spelling style, start new ones in your own style, then don't sweat it too much when changes happen.
It can be hard to stop writing, but if it helps then keep in mind that it's an encyclopedia and not a HowTo (wikibooks is the sister wiki for articles like that.) What Wikipedia is not has more on those gray areas, hopefully reading them won't kill your enthusiasm?
I'd suggest starting softly, pick a tool you know well, think on what would help someone who knows nothing about it (repeat - nothing!) would need to know to understand the concept or workings and put that down. Expand as you see fit but keep it concise, or at least interesting, so that their attention is held. If it's an existing article, expand as you see fit. Keep the intro short and to the point, break it into sections so the reader has an idea of the flow of the article (and can skim easily to any point they want to review.) Finally, don't take it to heart if someone seems to butcher your article. Upon reflection, you'll find that most good editors are out to improve not take away from an article, and also that articles have many owners, or more correctly–contributors.
Your comments on machine axes would seem to fit on the CNC pages, CNC lathe or perhaps the orphaned stub at Machine coordinate system might be more appropriate? Where possible add references and steer away from original research, however balance that with being bold and things should be fine.
Now, if all that puts you off, then don't let it, just write or edit an article and wait for the rules/guidelines to make sense. We look forward to your contributions. — Graibeard (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template proposed for deletion

Template:Metalworking - Mini has been proposed for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Metalworking_-_Mini. Luigizanasi 20:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Luigizanasi, many eyes certainly help. A pity they hadn't seen fit to leave a note on the project page before jumping into deletion mode. — Graibeard (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The result of the discussion was delete. The debate has been archived here. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grinding - polishing - etching

Can anybody tell me which is the correct grinding-article to link to this Dutch article about grinding? It's the kind of grinding followed by polishing and etching, followed by microstructure research. SietskeEN 22:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

A good question, we don't appear to have an article that matches it precisely. It's in the field of metallurgy (Category:Metallurgy), in particular Metallography. Polishing already has a stub[bish] mention so would appear to be the best fit, especially as that is the type of finish you're after. Lapping is a term that could also be used but the current article (en) covers the precision aspect, not the surface finish. I would skip any grinding links as being too early in the process.
Running the page through www.wordlingo.com only confuses me ;-) — Graibeard (talk) 06:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Terms, Usage, Regionalism

As someone mentioned earlier, I too have noticed the differences of terms for tools and such. Part of me enjoys the variety of language and spelling.

As someone who has done technical writing and education for international technical education I'm also aware of "regionalism" and the need for what someone called "localization". I've run into this before in teaching computer things and networking. (Long bit of confusion once in a class in the UK where we started to realize that in American English "route" and "router" are pronounced two ways and each pronunciation has a subtle difference of meaning. There are other war stories, but this isn't the place for that.)

I offer the following as *suggestions*.

I think individual writers should feel fairly free to use the terms for tools and processes and such that they are familiar with. Such use may lead to confusion at points, but it also let's us know that there are other terms for things. How else do we find out? So, for example, there is a reference (as has been mentioned) to "spanner" in the Forge article. Personaly, as a resident of the upper Midwest of the United States, I use "wrench".

For me this is fine because I know both. Someone else might not. Rather than argue for a "standard", I tend to edit such occurances when I find them (or when I create them myself) to provide a link to a page or create a page where the synonym(s) can be described. I think this is a more inclusive approach. And it's more in the spirit of Wiki. It also suits our purpose here as it adds more knowledge to the mix.

On another point when I describe something like a process ... if I have a suspicion that it can be done differently, that what I know might be a "regional" technique or term, I make an effort to describe it in the simplest terms possible and in some detail. I also throw in some words to "locate" what I'm talking about.

For example when I expanded "coal forge" on the Forge page, *hypothetically*, I might have described the brick forge my Grandfather used as the standard forge. In my experience it might have been standard, but describing one forge on a farm in Iowa built in the 1930s would not be inclusive of all the possibilities. If that were the sum of my experience with forges and I felt I needed to use that description to further the article I would have made some note of the "when and where". That way if someone from elsewhere who never used a forge like that read it it would at least let them know where in the world this was coming from and make allowances.

And, frankly, I think it might be pretty cool, had that happened if there was an addition to the article saying "another kind of forge found in Kenya is arranged in this manner ...".

More simply put I try to leave some clues so that someone from the far side of the world might make sense of what I'm writing about. If I encounter someone else doing the same and I'm able I'll try to expand what they put in to *add* what I know.

I'm rambling. Hope some find this helpful. Erraunt 16:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of metalworking

I'm not actually interested in metalworking, but happened to come across the article today and noticed that it doesn't say anything about the history of metalworking - which I'm actually curious about. There is also no article History of metalworking.

Can someone who knows more about this clarify the issue? Thanks.

-- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Live, dead and revolving centers

I have been trying to correct a problem but frankly I find log in proceedures a bit unfriendly. The problem is the use of the terms "dead centre, live centre and revolving centres". Correctly at the end of the lathe entry is Griffiths site"All you need to know about lathes". I agree with his site definitions but I cannot get changes accepted. A live centre is soft and goes in the lathe spindle. A dead centre is hardened and goes in the tailstock. It has to be hardened and lubricated because the workpiece revolves on it. More recent practice is to use a revolving centre that has its own bearings. The work piece now transmits its rotation to the revolving centre but the centre is not live as it passively turns with the work and is not driven as such. Unfortunately lathe work is no longer a school subject as part of metalwork as is shown by suppliers and others refering to a revolving centre as a live centre. This is a confusion and wrong. My opinion of sales staff knowledge is that they know practically nothing. Mistakes are then written into catalogues and apparently then have validity. My qualifications include(as per Griffiths, we were at training college together)teaching lathe work for many years, and I run my own workshop that has four lathes. Note that classical books such as Chapman, Workshop Technology part 1, were my original learning material. If I can get the editor to read this I could tackle other errors. Ron Wallman 17/07/2006

Greetings Ron, I'm the culprit with the reverts regarding your live/dead center edits.
I believe the earliest time this came up was 27th June 2006. The edit (I assume it was yours?) made me curious so I did some research and on the results of that I reverted the edit and commented accordingly in the edit summary (following that link will show the difference along with my edit summary). I made the comment there that it appeared to be a British usage but was unsure, thus the question mark. That google search now includes wikipedia as a hit, it wasn't there before. :-)
I think the next time was an edit to the article Lathe center on the 12th July 2006 (this shows the diff). Your comment above makes me realize that the edit was referring to the lathe page where Griffiths site is - Everything you ever wanted to know about lathes, correct? In that edit you said See references at the end of this section particulary lathes UK. except there were no references in that article, there is in lathe but not at that page (lathe center), and I now understand that part of your edit. I reverted your change because
  1. There was no reference on the page (so that comment needed deleting)
  2. A signature and time stamp were in the article (Signatures are reserved for talk pages, not for articles, so again a deletion was required)
  3. The edit needed clarifying as Live centers and revolving centers can be the same thing (depending which part of the world your from ;-)).
The reversion to your edit included a reference for my viewpoint and a re-worded entry for your viewpoint. I made a request for a reference to that usage as noted with the [citation needed], If you can find the terminology on lathes.co.uk then that will do as a reference. After that edit I also added a note on the talk page further explaining my actions.
Your last edit I admit was a hasty and non-informative revert. In my defence I was in two minds about reverting it then (it was morning and I was on my way to work) or later when I had more time. I opted for the quick fix, which now appears to have been rude as instead of contacting you on my own iniiative, I'm replying here to your request. Hopefully though the end result will be a better article and an understanding of what's going on (for both of us).
  • A live centre is soft and goes in the lathe spindle.
    • Agreed, a plain soft center is used in the spindle, it allows for truing so that the axes are concentric.
  • A dead centre is hardened and goes in the tailstock. It has to be hardened and lubricated because the workpiece revolves on it.
    • also true.
  • More recent practice is to use a revolving centre that has its own bearings.
    • Disagree, but only in terminology, not your explanation
  • The work piece now transmits its rotation to the revolving centre but the centre is not live as it passively turns with the work and is not driven as such.
    • Hmmm, depends where your standing. I can see what you're saying but to me the glass is half full, not half empty (or the other way round if you like). I've been taught that live is free to move thus I can see that a dead center could be a live center by virtue of the spindle bearings. It's not a term that is used here in Australia though. I work in the engineering department of a tertiary school (TAFE) and I took the opportunity today to ask a retired teacher (a tradesmen with 30 odd years in teaching) what his slant on the live/dead/plain/soft was and it confirms my view, FWIW he could also see your interpretation as being valid, but not one we teach.
Regarding your log in comment, there are benefits to logging in. I find it easiest to click the remember me box in the login window and be automatically logged in, however I have sole use of this computer so maybe that's not as doable for yourself. Anyway I'll continue this essay(?) on your talk page. — Graibeard (talk) 09:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rotary and steel-rule dies

I would like to add something on rotary and steel-rule dies, but I am not sure if I should
create a new article or add to the article on Die (Manufacturing), which deals primarily 
with punch press dies. Please advise --Rjstrock 20:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming from your contributors comment that you have plenty of material for the subjects? If you this is the case and you intend to create an article that would be greater than just a stub then do it and insert a short summary into the die (manufacturing) article with a suitable wikilinks to your new articles. If not just stick with a short summary in the die (manufacturing) article.

Incidentally, it appears there is a stub at Diecutting but if you have enough material and intend in splitting the two types with seperate pages then be bold and just write new ones, this stub article can become a redirect later. — Graibeard (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bellmaking vs bellfounding

I am proposing that Bellfounding (casting church bells or handbells) be split from Bellmaking (which I guess is a metalworking term for metal-beating the shaped end of a brass instrument, such as a trumpet). These two, separate, concepts were (I imagine, erroneously) merged in January.

Am I right in thinking that bellmaking is a well-known metalworking technique (it appears on the Template:Metalworking - Metalworking occupations link-box), and that it is the process I described above?

Could I ask for comment or support, particularly on the correct name for "instrument end making" on the talk page Talk:Bellmaking? Many thanks. Oosoom Talk to me 13:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Machine Tool Metallurgy

I am thinking of writing an article about the complexities of what happens at the tip (cutting edge) of a machine tool. Would this article be included simply as a "see also" link on the various machining pages? I suppose a better question would be is there an interest in this subject? Please let me know. Thanks! - Patris Magnus 00:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 00:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metalworking stub

Looking at Cat:Metalworking, I notice 38 stubs. It might be useful to create a metalworking stub. Thoughts? --Eyrian 02:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would help, yes. Go for it! -- Mikeblas 15:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sinking vs. doming

The articles on sinking and doming technique are about the same process, just repeated on different scales. I feel that they should probably be merged into a single article that makes mention of the various specific hardware. Personally, I feel that the final article should bear the sinking name, but I'd like to know what other people think. --Eyrian 03:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

I've marked several articles with the {{unreferenced}} tag as they're unreferenced. I hope we can work on adding references to the articles; some of them are pretty good, but are completely unreferenced and not verifiable. -- Mikeblas 15:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

Boy, there sure are a lot of templates in this project. How can I be sure that an article is using the right one? How do I know which one to add to an article that isn't using a template at all? -- Mikeblas 15:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Using the right template is intuitive, and there really aren't that many compared to how many categories of metalworking processes there really are. Do you do metalworking? If not, you probably shouldn't worry about the templates. - Toastydeath 17:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't find them intuitive at all, even though I do metalworking. If anyone would like to provide a productive answer, I'd like to take a rip through the articles in the project and get them into a consistent state. -- Mikeblas 17:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
What makes you feel they are in need of work? I haven't seen a metalworking article with a template that jumped out at me as out of place in some time. I'm fairly new to wikipedia, but the templates are consistent with what I work with in the industry. Do you have specific questions about the categories, or articles in specific categories? None of the folks in the project have had trouble applying the right template before, so I'm interested to get your take on the matter. - Toastydeath 18:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
It looks like the problem is that there are two sets of very similar templates. Sometimes, for example, we use {{Metalworking - Metalworking hand tools}}, but sometimes {{Category:Metalworking hand tools}} is used. The results are rather different.
Some tools jump categories, too. This is jarring for the user, particularly if they're using the templates to navigate. (Which is the point of the templates, isn't it?)
Finally, the templates are inconsistently applied. Wrench appears in the hand tools template, but the Wrench article doesn't have a metalworking template in it.
What makes me think they're in need of work are the inconsistent application. How would I decide to use the {{category}} version over the {{Metalworking - versions? -- Mikeblas 04:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Okay metal-dudes, time to address this again: vendor spam

I know we've discussed this as a group before, but I'd like to go in a different direction this time. Metalworking is inherently a vendor-heavy process, and the line between what is legit and what is not (in my opinion) is uber-blurry. Can we discuss and maybe come up with a "project metalworking link policy" of some kind? I know wikipedia addresses spam, and link stuff. I do not think that is specific enough for the kinds of links that occasionally show up regarding metalworking pages. I feel conflicted about editing or reverting some of this stuff, because it seems well-intentioned most of the time. But that being said, the link may be heavy in the gray area.

Here is my list of crap I'd like to hear some community input on, because they've confused me:

  • Open source projects. They don't have any useful information regarding the topic at hand, as in open source CAD projects, etc. But they're not COMMERCIAL. But, is it fair to allow open source links for an open source product, when we don't really allow vendors to do the same?
  • Mentioning vendors at all. I notice in many pages, there are lists of "who is on top of the industry." These lists then grow, with everyone and their mother AND HER DOG adding to the damn thing. Is it a good idea to mention vendors at all? Even if it may be relevant, how do can we mention some while excluding others and still be fair?
  • What about vendor pages that actually have a huge amount to do with an industry? This item is partially related to the one above. Say, for instance, a link to Renishaw on the CMM page. Renishaw is, I believe it's fair to say, the absolute industry leader in CMM probing and other CMM-voodoo magic and measurement. Do we include a link to Renishaw, or mention them at all?

Anyone have any other points of confusion or thought on the whole shiz-bang? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Toastydeath (talk • contribs) 20:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

I'd say... Open-source projects, if they're anywhere near useful or if they have information on their site, should be allowed. Since they're open-source, even if the website isn't too helpful, someone interested in the subject could learn a lot downloading it, looking at the code, playing with it, etc.
For vendors, I'd say we need some kind of notability factor... Pretending, dunno, Bridgeport didn't exist would be silly. But some-guy-in-his-basement-selling-parts probably shouldn't be mentioned... I think we should keep vendor lists to "Major industry players include ..." or "The most common example of this is a (BRAND) (PRODUCT LINE)" or similar. Absolutely no "These are available from foo, bar, baz, qux, qux's dog, qux's dog's flea on his hind leg, etc" lists... or links in the external links section that do nothing more than that.
If a vendor's page actually has useful content, then a link would add something to the article... We can't cover everything in detail, so linking to pages that have actual specific on the things we gloss over shouldn't hurt.
But, that's just my two cents. Bushytails 22:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the line is that blurry; check out WP:EL for some guidelines. -- Mikeblas 04:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Metalworking_dbd3.html"