Talk:Joinery

On 19 March 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Woodworking joints to Joinery. The result of the discussion was moved.

Global view

Hi wood is boring —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.24.133 (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Adding a global view to this subject is analogous to trying to add a global view to "cooking" because all aspects of wood joinery - the woods, tools, techniques, names, and uses - are tied to specific cultural traditions or customs.[reply]

Joinery

Why is this article not called "Joinery" or why is there not an article called Joinery? Is it to avoid ambiguity or is it because "Joinery" is mainly an American word, or is there another reason? It seems to me that the name of this article should be changed to Joinery, but it doesn't much matter since there is a disambiguation page for Joinery that points here.--VegKilla 20:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes joinery probably is mainly, but not exclusively a modern North American term, while for the Brits and Australians (and in the US in the past), it means finish carpentry. This is a constant problem in the titles of woodworking articles, where the same thing is called by different names in different places and times, while different things are called by the same name. The best we can do is make sure that all bases are covered by disambiguation pages and redirects and trying to use names that are understood by all. There is no authority out there that can say: "This is the correct name for this gizmo."Luigizanasi 15:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is a reoccurring problem, It might be an interesting or project for a woodworking historian to write an article on the history of woodworking terms. This might help a newcomer to woodworking navigate the disambiguation challenges. I often come across both regional and historic differences as I learn more about wood working, some are quite interesting and some are humorous. For example clamp (US) vs. cramp (UK). As I understand it they are one and the same in woodworking. However to me a cramp is something I get when I eat too much, so now you know what part of the world I come from. --Maxelrod (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of terminology

When reading this article I found myself having a good idea what certain terms meant (eg end grain) but not absolutely sure. Perhaps a list of such terms together with an explanation would be useful? reetep 10:52, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Graphical Index

A graphical index of joint types would be nice. I know some of the names, and a lot of what joints look like, but I'm not sure which goes with which.

I added some pictures, I think they're up to standard. I hope so. 17:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The picture Image:BoxJoints.PNG is beautiful, but the dovetail joint image is not quite right. I will see if I can get a sketch of something on the talk page soon to show it a little clearer.--VegKilla 20:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Box combing

The joint shown in he external link in the finger joint article is not is not box combing. That would require a row of several of the joints shown. The point about box combing is that it simulates a multiple dovetail but is easy to contrive by machine. It is therefore a cheap dovetail joint for drawers and boxes. It relies on glue for remaining together and each part of the joint looks like a comb with stubby teeth. (RJP 18:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

The link in the finger joint article shows a weird version with only one finger, which I have never seen before. See [1] (the first Google hit I got), and you will agree that what is called a finger joint in North America is the same as a box-comb in the UK. Your description of a box comb is exactly what is called a finger joint in North America (or at least, what I have always seen them called in my rather voluminous woodworking library). I will fix the finger joint article. Luigizanasi 22:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As to the American names for joints, I take your word for it. :-)(RJP 09:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Dovetail joint in the image

Number 5 in the image is not a dovetail joint.

(207.69.138.137 07:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC) )identifcation of a dovetail joint?

I have a Desk given to me which was my great grandfathers. I am trying to id the dovetail in order to find out who may have made this piece and go from there to get futher information if anyone can help me please contact me at my E mail The dovetails in question look like the following. round holes with half shaped circles on the outer edge that connect to each other. I hope this will start a disscusion to help me locate the maker of this desk thank you any and everyone.--207.69.138.137 07:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Brenda Ingram --207.69.138.137 07:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roundwood joint

Another traditional joint joins 2 roundwood poles by cutting both back at the joint so there is lots of area for both to touch, and tying them with a large dowel. I can't remember the name of it though. Tabby (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dutchman

It links here, but is missing from this article. Could s.o. please add it. Thks. --99.11.160.111 (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing fastening methods

What about the use of splines and glue strips? The English vocabulary woodworking includes many specialized terms that need defining. Should that be in Wiktionary. They don't have a woodworking category. DCDuring (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel like writing it, there's scope for an article on joints with inserted keys, splines or feathers. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing a different type of binding

I'm no expert, so apologies in advance. In particular, my comment applies to lumber in house construction.

The binding I see in my ceiling joists is different from all those listed. It is like Butt and it is like Lap. But the two joists are parallel, one is alongside the other, and the ends overlap by a foot, and they are nailed crosswise/laterally.

Thank you for addressing this in whatever way you see fit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HaroldHelson (talk • contribs) 01:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dovetail more secure than Box joint?

I won't argue whether the dovetail is or is not "more secure than box joint", but the citation (article at woodgears.ca) draws the opposite conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.188.10 (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It changed over time. The point of a dovetail was that it still held long after the glue had failed. Modern box joints with modern glues rely entirely on the glue, but this allows strong untapered tails so is stronger in the absolute and the glue probably lasts longer than the life of the furniture. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The description given between box joint and dovetail is not correct. A box joint is a method of increasing surface area between two boards that would otherwise be joined with a butt joint or a miter joint. It results in a stronger joint because the glue area is higher. It's the glue that creates the strength in the joint. A Dovetail is a joint that has both the properties of increasing surface area AND due to the "dove tail" nature of the shape of the joint provides mechanical fastening in one direction. A dovetail joint is typically used in drawers where the pull of the drawer is aligned with the "dove tail" shape of the joint. That is the mechanical advantages of the joint lend strength as you try to pull the face of the drawer towards you. If you were to take the drawer out and pull the side of the drawer perpendicular to the face, the joint would provide no more mechanical advantage compared to a box joint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.10.121.109 (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Also added a hatnote on top of Joinery (feel free to reword it). (closed by non-admin page mover) ~Styyx^Talk? 20:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Woodworking joints → Joinery
Joinery → Joinery (disambiguation)

– The subject of the page is joinery, currently a disambiguation page of only two entries, this page and Joiner. There is no reason to misname this page the bulky "Woodworking joints" to disambiguate the two. Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikiuser100, I think your request makes sense. But I can't process it here as uncontroversial because of this previous RM. Dr. Vogel (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping on this. That was way back in 2012, evidently before a proper "joinery" article was written. Andy Dingley was materially involved (on the pro-"Joinery" article name side); he has since retired from the encyclopedia. I'll have to think about the investment of time (and more importantly human capital) in making a new request for a move. It is not insignificant. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:CONCISE. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The word "joinery" is an old-fashioned word for finish carpentry and cabinetmaking (as opposed to rough carpentry). It does not mean "what you do with a joiner" and it didn't always even mean just "joining pieces of wood", although that was an essential part of the job. Srnec (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the clear primary topic of the term, and delete the disambiguation page in favor of a hatnote. BD2412 T 05:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support and delete dab per BD2412. MB 15:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge from Joiner

Much of the relatively short article on joiner is actually about joinery. Do we need to separate the activity from occupation? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge. Most of the source article could simply be brought over as a new section here. Joyous! | Talk 16:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Mebigrouxboy (talk)

Merge is complete. Joyous! | Talk 10:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

European focus

Ok then why does a history of joinery mention European joinery, if finish carpentry occurs the world over? Japan has a rich tradition that is not linked here. The title of this page should be "European joinery" if it is going to not have a world perspective, not assume European is the default. 142.134.91.115 (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding this comment -- the article says "wood joinery techniques have been especially well-documented, and are celebrated, in the Indian, Chinese, European, and Japanese traditions" and mentions the hundreds of joins used in Japanese and Chinese woodworking, but then the list of traditional wood joints only includes the "Most-commonly referenced joints carried forward from historical Western traditions". I'd like to request others add more info about other joinery traditions and some common traditional "eastern" woodworking joints. For the record the Japanese Carpentry page is currently mostly a large list of tools used, and doesn't include any list/description of common/traditional joints. Cviu (talk) 00:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are much worse problems (the lead image is a carpenter).

This article is about the making of joints in wood, mostly as carpentry. There is almost nothing here on joinery, European or otherwise. The joiner page (sparse, but more accurate than this page at least) was deleted earlier in the year (as usual, without any visible discussion). Andy Dingley (talk) 11:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is the distinction you're making between "joinery" and "making of joints in wood" that you expect more focus on the profession of being a person who makes these wood joints? [edit: I didn't notice there was a "Joinery as a profession" section created in the merge of the Joiner article]. Or maybe only making of joints in non-structural wood? I wouldn't interpret this article as using "joinery" in an inaccurate way but it seems like there are a lot of regional differences in terminology for woodworking -- check the first two discussions in this page.

I think this article could use a more in-depth/prominent discussion of etymology/terminology. Right now looks like there's just the sentence in the intro "In British English joinery is distinguished from carpentry, which is considered to be a form of structural timber work.[1]; in other locales joinery is considered a form of carpentry." (which the IP user in the thread below has taken issue with)

(this discussion might be more fitting in one of the other threads) Cviu (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying that the rename here in March 2022 was completely wrong. But that's what happens when you have an editing community that bars woodworkers from it, and doesn't follow its own rules on sourcing because correct sources are binned in favour of incorrect cites from generalist dictionaries.

Joinery is not the making of joints in wood. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright not sure I really agree with you 100% but I wasn't involved in that and I'm also not really sure why you brought it up in the first place on this thread about the european focus of the article (seems better suited to a different/new thread). I'll refrain from commenting more on the move/terminology Cviu (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point in complaining of an article having a European bias when the whole article is so bad (it's basically not an article on joinery at all) that there's hardly even a European section. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Basic grammar and sentence construction

"In British English joinery is... in other locales"

So called "British English" (more correctly, English) is not a "locale", so the sentence doesn't make sense.

One might surmise that the standard of English required by Wikipedia is that of a pre-teen school child. So-called Wikipedia "editors" are clearly not up to the job if such basic linguistic errors are not recognised and corrected immediately. 86.190.224.83 (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]