Talk:Plane (tool)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Plane (tool) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Archive 1 start - Oct 2007

Link to Planer (metalworking)?[edit]

Having just corrected Matthew Murray, which has reference to a 'planing machine', I took some time discovering that it probably referred to Planer (metalworking). There are references to metal planing (at planing, and planer), but not at plane, which just covers woodworking. Could someone apply appropriate links to direct those interested in the metalwork application away from this article? Not being knowledgeable in this field, I do not want to tread on anyone's toes by doing it myself.

EdJogg (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Works[edit]

from user:Timurite talk page:

Please read the archives for some discussion on the reason for the inclusion of the Stanley paragraph. Stanley occupies a significant position in the history of Industrialized Plane manufacture. ThuranX (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article car does not include section Ford Motors. Ford Motors and Stanley Works have their own artcles. This is how done in wikipedia. Every subject has its own article, where the topic explained in full. Wikipedia is not paper, and Stanley Works is one mouse click away from plane (tool). Timurite (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, well, I'm not about to argue with a flaming WP:DICK who shouts policy at me like I'm a new user. leave it out, I'll unwatch, and you can parent the article through all the poop vandals from now on. Bye. ThuranX (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'll put it on my watch list and fend off poop vandals while you heal your nerves shattered by mintioning of wikipedia policies. Timurite (talk) 02:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a new section in the article called "History and development of the hand plane". Please don't unilaterally delete it or remove references to Stanley without discussion here. Stanley is a very important factor in the development of the hand plane and the article is not complete without discussion of this, precedents of car and Ford notwithstanding. Feel free to expand it from your own knowledge of hand plane development. Thank you for your cooperation. SilentC (talk) 02:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the text is about plane, I will not change a word. If you start writing about how Stanley's mother washed rich man clothes to help Stanley start his business, it will be deleted. Please explain what is wrong with this approach (please skip references to my personal traits and tone down on irony: please keep in mind that unless I am your buddy, it is even more insulting than my bluntness taken for rudeness (or vice versa) ). Timurite (talk) 02:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again: "it will be deleted". Who made you the arbiter of what will and will not be written in this article? If we reach a consensus, with or without your agreement, that we should discuss Stanley's mother, then it will be in the article and if you delete it without consultation, we will follow the procedures that have been put in place to handle that situation. I agree with ThuranX, you are a WP:DICK. There, you've been told twice. Maybe you should reflect on that for a while. SilentC (talk) 03:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "it will be deleted": I am describing my actions and I am the arbiter of my actions, just as you are an arbiter of your actions, which may be, e.g., reverts of my deletions, with subsequent wikipedia:Conflict resolution or what else. Why you want to read more than it is written? Why do you want to drag personal discussions littered with insults? Please keep your opinions about me at bay and discuss the article content. Timurite (talk) 03:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion[edit]

Hello all! :-)

The first thing I'd ask is, how Stanley is/was important to the development of the plane? Did they improve it? Did they come up with a unique design that is widely used today? Thanks! :-) fr33k man ^{t - c} 00:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course. Anyone who knows anything about planes would appreciate the contribution of Stanley and Bailey to the design of hand planes that we see today. Just about all metal hand planes that are manufactured by people like Clifton, Lie Nielsen, Lee Valley etc. are based on the designs originally manufactured by Stanley. There is no doubt that Stanley is as important to the development of the hand plane as Ford is to the motor car, probably more so. I'm not sure about this policy mentioned by the editor above. It may be just as valid to say that Stanley is mentioned here, so why is Ford absent from the car article. I don't know. I think the article should at least mention the fact that most modern hand plane designs are derived from the earlier work by Stanley. I don't think it needs to be a company profile though. Since our friend above likes to cite policy, I suppose the thing to do is to determine if it actually IS a policy and whether there is a precedent for it elsewhere. I find comments like "it's how we do things" interesting because, from what I can tell, the "we" bit depends on who you talk to. SilentC (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome to add a section which described how Stanley improved planes, which patents relate to planes it holds, etc., i.e., the information immediately related to planes. But the text kind of "Frederick Trent Stanley established Stanley's Bolt Manufactory in New Britain to manufacture door bolts and other hardware from wrought iron" and other historical and business stuff clearly belongs to "Stanley Works" page. By the way, on a different topic, please don't forget that there are other countries in the world beyond America, so that the phrase "Just about all metal hand planes .... are based on the designs originally manufactured by Stanley" must be (1) referenced and (2) phrased more cautiously. Of course, if it is true, it belongs to this article. In summary, I will have nothing against the subsection titled (and focused on) "Contributions of Stanley Works to design and manufacture of planes" or something like that. I hope this is a reasonable for your intentions. Timurite (talk) 01:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the geography lesson, I am well aware that there are other countries beyond America, I happen to live in one called Australia, you might have heard of it :) But nevertheless it is true, and even the metal hand planes that I have seen manufactured in the old USSR are based on the Bailey design. You will be hard pressed to find a metal hand plane that is not. The same cannot be said for wooden planes, as there are various forms of these.

Just a little suggestion though: you might want to tone down some of your remarks along the lines of "I will have nothing against ...". You need to keep in mind that this is a collaborative effort and whether you have a problem with something or not is not really a consideration when deciding what goes into an article. I happen to agree that the bit about Stanley Works as it stood was out of place but I don't think you improved the article by deleting it and not replacing it with something more appropriate. That type of action is not conducive to collaboration and you have already put off one editor with your approach. So I ask that keep that in mind too. Of course you are free to ignore this advice. Do you actually have an interest in hand planes and/or woodworking by the way, or was this just a 'policeman' edit? SilentC (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote "I have nothing against" because you wrote "our friend above", which I read as a polite expression of animosity, so the whole piece I wrote basically says that I have nothing against Stanley, so you may want to keep your smart-ass politeness at bay and concentrate on the improvement of the article. Australia issue: what is your problem, colleague? If you can prove that all steel planes in the world are Stanley's, fine with me, just bring in a reference. As for collaborative effort, I am well aware of it therefore I requested WP:THIRD opinion, quite ready to listen to it. Finally, once again, I would strongly advice you to stop discussing my intentions and discuss the article instead. Timurite (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think it is we are doing here? It's not a paid, job, it is meant to be enjoyable and people like you who come along with your guns blazing quoting rules and policies, deleting things and reverting people's edits without discussion just make it unpleasant. Frankly, I think that attitudes like yours do Wikipedia more harm than good. You didn't answer my question: do you have an interest in this subject, or do you just trawl Wikipedia looking for rule breakers to berate? People like you come along and stir up a fuss and then disappear. Are you intending to be a long-term contributor to this article, or will you just fade away once you've made your point? I just want to know before I bother attempting to have a sensible discussion with you about the article. SilentC (talk) 02:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Let's have a small talk. Plain answer: no I am not an amateur wikipoliceman, as you might have readily seen yourselves from my not so many contribs]. From them you may also notice I don't have any particular interests. I created articles where I noticed some topics missing while reading wikipedia (and funny to see, these articles bring next to zero other editors beyond 'boticized typo/format fixers :-). But I don't have particular passions, and I don't intend to work on them much beyond fending off "poop vandals", as our nervous colleague put it. Just the same, I was reading this article, but instead of adding I decided that subtracting will work. In case you didn't notice, I did not simply "delete": I replaced with the text: "See also: Stanley Works, a major US plane manufacturer", which I decided more than enough to bring an attention of a reader to Stanley's glory. And what is wrong with fading away after making my point? Aren't we be happy with annoying me gone? Anyway, I think I explained "my point" quite reasonably a bit above: this article is about plane and it is nothing unreasonable in wanting to keep it in this way. I understand we may have disagreements on how this may be accomplished, but again, in wikipedia it is advised to discuss this "how", not who when where and what I am. And, mind you, this is exactly what I did before you started dragging personal issues here. Concluding, if you want to continue socializing, welcome to my talk page, but please leave this talk page to talks about article content. Timurite (talk) 03:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<Continuation of thrashing my person moved to my talk page: no reason to litter this one> Timurite (talk) 03:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Nervous colleague"? Another personal atttack. I'm a secret agent of Stanley Tools, I'm a liar, I'm crazy. Is this going to stop? Then next time this guy insults me behind my back, I'm taking it to AN/I for a block, because there's an ongoing history of Personal Attacks, Obstructionist editing and Tendentious behavior, the latter two of which are DE violations. Shut your mouth about me and start figuring out why you're so stringly opposed on this page, WP:DICK. ThuranX (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

proposed merger of finger plane[edit]

Came across this, the current finger plane article contains less about the subject than what's already here, and is more or less a DICDEF that I didn't spot (after a cursory search) much referencing to appropriately expand it. Would a merge/redirect thus make sense? --j⚛e decker ^talk 23:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

oppose WP's coverage of woodworking is abysmal and plane is no exception. Finger planes are notable as a distinct type (as are smoothing planes, jointers, jacks et al). The fact that our coverage is currently so bad is no good reason to start going backwards by merging all the fragments into a single equally sparse article. The effort would be much better spent expanding something in the obvious directions. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose As Andy said, effort will be better spent fleshing out Finger plane. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge template removed.Klbrain (talk) 07:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

power planer[edit]

Power planers are mentioned in this article but minimally. There should be an image of an ordinary one and maybe of the unusual hand held 12" wide power planers such as made by Mafell in Germany. I could not find any images in Commons. Or, perhaps power planers should be discussed in a separate article which can be categorized as Woodworking hand-held power tools instead of Woodworking hand tools. Jim Derby (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicker?[edit]

There should probably be some mention of nickers, although I'm not sure if that's too specific, being a shoulder plane thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.88.119 (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]