Talk:Wood: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:48, 7 July 2008

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Wood. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Wood at the Reference desk.

Plants B‑class Top‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

Wood was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
Review: September 22, 2007.

Thanks

This page really helped for my project on wood! Wikipedia has been the source that has been the most reliable for my classmates and me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.139 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 19 December 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Wood grain

I've been trying to eliminate as many links as possible to the disambiguation page grain (trying not to link to it), and I've mostly handled the ones that mean cereals, or seeds, or the unit of weight. I could get rid of a few more of the remaining links if I could point them to an article on wood grain or grain (wood), but no such article exists. I'm hoping to find some wood and Wikipedia sages who could give me advice. Should such an article exist? Should I set up a redirect from those titles to this article? Is there another possibility I'm missing? Thanks — Pekinensis 00:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

opening definition

Wikipedia:Lead section suggests we should start with a definition. I'll take another crack at it. The article is about wood, not merely the usage of wood. Samw 00:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think most people reading this page would already know, but nowhere in the opening section is anything said about where wood comes from. Though you may know that wood comes from trees, this article should cater to those who do not happen to know this24.161.53.152 03:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the vandalism. Samw 04:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heartwood

What is the proper way to deal with common words like Heartwood which have been used as the name of important organizations (www.heartwood.org). I see Heartwood Institute has it's own page, which can be distinguished by the extra word.

See Wikipedia:Disambiguation Samw 03:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External link to matbase

From my talk page:

Re [1]: If you endorse the link that's good enough for me, but note that these links were added by someone affiliated with the site who will have a commercial and promotional gain from it, thus it's linkspam by definition. Femto 18:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I don't claim I've reviewed matbase in detail but it looks like a reasonable source to me. If others have opinions, we can discuss it here and delete if needed. Samw 18:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solid

Would wood be classified as an amorphous solid or a crystalline solid? James Callahan 23:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither? Both? Wood is complex, and there are both amorphous and crystalline components.--Curtis Clark 03:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wood can be considered a solid, but it's also the only possible state of wood. It can never be liquid or flow alone because wood can't melt. In a gaseous state, the wood would have to be hot enough to give off carbon emmissions which produce charcoal. JustN5:12 02:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wood cutting

Is here allready a section on wood-cutting? Otherwise, I intend to make it! Swami Woodcutter 14:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lumber maybe? Samw 22:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA On hold

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

The lead needs to be trimmed per WP:LEAD. It's not a very long article, so there isn't a need for more than maybe three paragraphs. Additionally, it should summarize the article while introducing no new information (anything not expanded upon in the body). Many of the stubby paragraphs in the lead can be combined into larger paragraphs as well. And, last, consider rewording the prose to avoid starting almost every paragraph and sentence with "Wood".
Referencing needs to be consistent. Currently, the article uses the footnotes style and Harvard referencing. While both are appropriate, they should not be used together; only one or the other.
This article also needs further inline citation for verification. Currently, entire sections are unreferenced. One citation per paragraph is my recommendation for this article.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GA/R). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Regards, Lara Love 18:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been delisted. Regards, Lara Love 02:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified the reference section a bit by adding a general subsection to the references section, it still could use more citation and references. Please add them in, especially if you have access to the two books in the reference section or better sources.

--D27061315 (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Popular Culture (see http://xkcd.com/446/)

In comic #446 of xkcd, the wikipedia article on wood is chosen as an example how useless and random popular culture sections can become. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paniq (talk • contribs) 16:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In episode 7 of Firefly, Jaynestown, Jayne is given a wooden Rain stick by a villager.
In the Buffyverse, Buffy often slays vampires using stakes made of wood.
The wand used by Harry Potter is made of wood from a Holly tree.
The Fence around the back yard of the house in The Simpsons
In the 2004 TV Series, Battlestar Galactica, all of the wood on each of the 12 Colonies of Kobol has been destroyed by a Cylon attack

How about this? --QuicksilverJohn (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't the point of that comic how pointless and random popular culture sections are? Trying to add this to the actual articles reminds me of the Ali G fans who try to act and dress like him in real life--comepletely missing the point that they're the butt of the joke. Dinoguy2 (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The recursion in the irony, is the irony in itself... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.232.132 (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I could have sworn that the point was that Wikipedians are silly, but ten again what do I know? User:CorbinSimpson 05:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.234.224 (talk) [reply]

For anyone wondering what this is about, today's xkcd comic referenced this page and these edits. --Stéphane Charette (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I interpret the comic as a pretty sad, yet accurate picture of the state of many of the articles we host on the English-language Wikipedia. [2] Results 1 - 10 of about 130,000 from en.wikipedia.org for "in popular culture". (0.26 seconds) JBsupreme (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Popular Culture sections have a place - for example, when a religion is extremely misrepresented, the setion could be use to describe how. Things like that. Otherwise, unless it's so extremey well-known that a particular reference is the only reason it's known (which, if there was a meta-article about the Wood article, might be true of the xkcd reference...) pop culture references probably don't need a mention. --Kinkoblast (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a meta-article. You're reading it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.142.124 (talk) 05:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i interpret the comic as a pretty funny, yet accurate picture of how wikipedians take everything too seriously. hotaru2k3 (talk) 05:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I interpret the existence of this discussion as how Wiki editors (including myself) take everything too seriously. :) Buspar (talk) 07:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, the episode shoul be Our Mrs Reynolds, not Jayestown. :) Camajsterek (talk) 07:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.26.0 (talk) [reply]

Ooh, your powers of deduction are exceptional. I can't allow you to waste them here when there are so many crimes going unsolved at this very moment. Go, go, for the good of the city. --CBG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.211.201.174 (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moderators: Unlock this article at once, so that it may be amended to cite critical Popular Culture reference in xkcd.

I looked back at the revisions section and noticed that the first thing added after the comic came up was simply an acknowledgement of the comic itself. It seems that the edits involving the exact satirical text from the comic were not added until after the first edit was deleted. What I must ask, and understand that if this is a ignorant question it is meant in good faith, what is wrong with mentioning the comic? I understand why you don't want a "In Popular Culture" section that contains more information then the rest of the article and I understand why you don't want the text of wikipedia to match a satire of wikipedia verbatim, but isn't leaving in the mention of the comic a reasonable comprimise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.99.251 (talk) 09:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, because this is not an article about articles in Wikipedia that have been referenced in webcomics; it is an article about wood. The xkcd satire is entirely irrelevant to the particular subject covered by this article. Shmuel (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The title text of that particular comic says:

Someday the 'in popular culture' section will have its own article with an 'in popular culture' section. It will reference this title-text referencing it, and the blogosphere will implode.

Clearly this comic is a satire of Wikipedia. Let's not conform to our negative stereotypes, guys. --Slashme (talk) 07:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait!! If that happens wikipedia will divide by zero!! Oh shi- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.32.190.3 (talk) 08:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Popular_Culture —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.75.131 (talk) 07:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles —The imp (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant! I also came here to reference the xkcdcomic. Great mind think alike. 11:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagleapex (talk • contribs)

And fools seldom differ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.1.66 (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to laugh at the fools who would inevitably be trying to vandalise this page, I was not disappointed. Derobrash (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that trivia sections are discouraged by WP policy. What XKCD is satirising is a degenerate WP page, not a healthy one. The Wednesday Island (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think things like knocking on wood, magic wands, divining rods, vampires, Dryads, Hamadryads and the flag of lebanon should be mentioned in the article somewhere (e.g "in different cultures" section) --George (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above users are all lemmings. Why not attempt something original, no reason to execute Mr. Munroe's ideas. He is a big boy, he can do it himself. Fafnir665 (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, shouldn't it be “Wood in poplar culture”? 86.156.98.61 (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should, but we'll just have to be content with the fact that there's now a protection log for the article. :) --Chaos386 (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I love the xkcd comic about Wikipedia, I love that xkcd fans immediately tried to make life imitate art, I love that Wikipedia moderators locked the article in response. For me, this is the internet operating to perfection.

What really matters

Look, people, we all love xkcd. We all think it's awesome that xkcd has referenced Wikipedia, and some of us want xkcd to mould real life to be more like xkcd. What needs to be understood is that xkcd's strip was a parody, a joke. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be logically and semantically cohesive, and anything not directly related to the topic of "wood" should not be in this article. If you care about xkcd and how people shouldn't use the internet for stupidity, obscenity, and arguments, then please, think rationally about what should be in this article to make it a verifiable, comprehensive, accurate, and well-written article about wood. If you can't think rationally, there are other games you can play with Wikipedia that don't fuck it up for the rest of us. Thanks, {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 15:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sigh* There are enough idiots with established accounts that I think we should request full protection until at least Wednesday, when the next comic goes up, with semi through the weekend. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What really matters is the wiki "popular" subculture. You can have 1 article about wood, but a article about ONE episode of battlestar generates as much content on Wikipedia as a non fiction article like wood. :Sterremix (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The missing See Also Section

In the kerfuffle of the past 24 hours, the "See Also" section has been deleted. (See [3].) It probably should be restored. -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added it. --- RockMFR 16:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 110: / Line 110: @@
 :It should, but we'll just have to be content with the fact that there's now a protection ''[[Logging|log]]'' for the article. :) --[[User:Chaos386|Chaos386]] ([[User talk:Chaos386|talk]]) 17:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
+I love the xkcd comic about Wikipedia, I love that xkcd fans immediately tried to make life imitate art, I love that Wikipedia moderators locked the article in response. For me, this is the internet operating to perfection.
 === What really matters ===