Talk:Grind: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 22:13, 17 November 2024

Military history: Technology / Weaponry

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Pronunciation

(stupid) question: do you pronounce it /gr i nd/ or /gra i nd/.

i know i'm not clear. i can read phonetics but cannot write it.

The word is pronounced to rhyme with kind, mind or find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.169.10 (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move this article to "Blade"?

Perhaps this article should be merged with Blade? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade I was trying to remember the term used for the cross-section of a sword and spent quite the effort on Google trying to recall the term. Sonictk 12:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a knife maker who specializes in handmade knives for outdoorsmen, to be used for camping, bushcraft, hunting, etc. I believe the article reference for the "convex grind" is incorrect. The reference page makes a lot of factual statements about the convex grind without any evidence supporting those statements. Referencing one person's unqualified opinion of a grinds suitability for any specific task is unfair and potentially misleading. I believe the reference should be removed and more scientific data presented that can actually bear out whether a particular grind type is suitable for a given task. Also, the photos for the article should include modern knife grinding equipment like a 2X72" belt grinder. The second photo is a knife sharpener, not a true grinder used to manufacture knives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.161.52 (talk) 03:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge "Blade Geometry" into this one

I propose thatBlade geometry be merged into Grind. Most of its content seems to be in reference to this one, and it could add a historical perspective on the subject. Rody1990 (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Type of Grind

So the article has a nice illustration showing the six ways to grind an edge. And they're numbered 1-6. Then ... the article never relates the explanatory text to the numbering, e. g. "Chisel grind (#6) ..." (No, that's not correct.) IAmNitpicking (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this issue has been pending for 18 months. Why is there no action? Is it because Chisel is #4 not #6? It would seem simple to resolve this either by adding the numbering to the text (either as suggested or as "4. Chisel grind") or by expanding the caption of the figure to be something like "1. Hollow, 2. Flat, 3. Sabre, 4. Chisel, 5. Double or Compound, 6. Convex."

I think expanding the caption is the preferred solution.

The reference for the section is to https://knife-depot.com/pages/a-guide-to-knife-grinds where there are eight (not six) grinds. The image in the reference is much better than the image in the figure. Presumably copyright issues prohibit using the better image?

This article may be viewed more often due to recent court decisions in the US related to knives and the Second Amendment, such as the overturning of laws in Hawaii prohibiting "butterfly knives", because people looking that up may follow links to terms such as "Hollow grind" to this page. Ksbooth (talk) 16:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{WPMILHIST|class=Start
+{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
+{{WikiProject Military history|class=Start|B-Class-1=no|B-Class-2=yes|B-Class-3=no|B-Class-4=yes|B-Class-5=yes|Weaponry=yes}}
-|Weaponry-task-force=yes
 }}
+== Pronunciation ==
 (stupid) question: do you pronounce it /gr i nd/ or /gra i nd/.
@@ Line 11: / Line 14: @@
 Perhaps this article should be merged with Blade? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade I was trying to remember the term used for the cross-section of a sword and spent quite the effort on Google trying to recall the term. [[User:Sonictk|Sonictk]] 12:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
-pie ldondsknfgsdjklbnfjkl  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.85.23.227|67.85.23.227]] ([[User talk:67.85.23.227|talk]]) 01:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+I am a knife maker who specializes in handmade knives for outdoorsmen, to be used for camping, bushcraft, hunting, etc. I believe the article reference for the "convex grind" is incorrect. The reference page makes a lot of factual statements about the convex grind without any evidence supporting those statements. Referencing one person's unqualified opinion of a grinds suitability for any specific task is unfair and potentially misleading. I believe the reference should be removed and more scientific data presented that can actually bear out whether a particular grind type is suitable for a given task. Also, the photos for the article should include modern knife grinding equipment like a 2X72" belt grinder. The second photo is a knife sharpener, not a true grinder used to manufacture knives.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.22.161.52|67.22.161.52]] ([[User talk:67.22.161.52|talk]]) 03:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+== Merge "Blade Geometry" into this one==
+I propose that[[Blade geometry]] be merged into [[Grind]]. Most of its content seems to be in reference to this one, and it could add a historical perspective on the subject. [[User:Rody1990|Rody1990]] ([[User talk:Rody1990|talk]]) 00:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
+== Type of Grind ==
+So the article has a nice illustration showing the six ways to grind an edge. And they're numbered 1-6. Then ... the article never relates the explanatory text to the numbering, e. g. "Chisel grind (#6) ..." (No, that's not correct.) [[User:IAmNitpicking|IAmNitpicking]] ([[User talk:IAmNitpicking|talk]]) 11:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
+:It seems this issue has been pending for 18 months. Why is there no action? Is it because Chisel is #4 not #6? It would seem simple to resolve this either by adding the numbering to the text (either as suggested or  as "4. Chisel grind") or by expanding the caption of the figure to be something like "1. Hollow, 2. Flat, 3. Sabre, 4. Chisel, 5. Double or Compound, 6. Convex."
+:I think expanding the caption is the preferred solution.
+:The reference for the section is to https://knife-depot.com/pages/a-guide-to-knife-grinds where there are eight (not six) grinds. The image in the reference is much better than the image in the figure. Presumably copyright issues prohibit using the better image?
+:This article may be viewed more often due to recent court decisions in the US related to knives and the Second Amendment, such as the overturning of laws in Hawaii prohibiting "butterfly knives", because people looking that up may follow links to terms such as "Hollow grind" to this page. [[User:Ksbooth|Ksbooth]] ([[User talk:Ksbooth|talk]]) 16:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)