Talk:Wood carving

message: I deleted this redirect because woodworking and woodcarving should remain separate. Woodcarving can be considered a subset of woodworking, however it is a sufficiently complex entity in and of itself to merit its own page. I see this being echoed in the fact that the "carving" link on the woodworking page links to a disambiguation page which links to "wood carving." Hopefully in the future this page will include a discussion of woodcuts.
:I concur, as wood carving is a separate function.  The only similarity between wood carving and wood working is the fact that wood is used.  I find wood working to be more cabinet building, millwork, etc.  where wood carving is more art / sculpture.Kaiserb 16:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect from woodworking 

message: I've done some small edits and cleaned things up a bit, but it is still a big block of information. Much of the information is good, but some of it, presumably from the 1911 EB, is weirdly biased. For example, check out the crazy 'Savage Races' section that does a pretty handy job of belittling quite a few cultures. Unfortunately, outright deletion is probably not the solution, because it does contain smatterings of information about their carving styles. Still some work to be done, but its close. Phidauex 20:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding wikification and cleanup 

message: This article could benefit from images of wood carvings. Phidauex 20:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the wooden cranes image, it makes a good header. I'm going to leave the image request up because there seems to be a lot of opportunities in the article for the addition of images of various historical carvings, or examples of carvings mentioned in the article. Phidauex 20:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  This article is still a mess (Savage races!?), but there is lots of potential.  I did a quick search around for other carvings but I haven't been able to find anything in the commons. Reflex Reaction 20:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Request 

message: I think it needs many more images, specific to each period. Also dates specific to folk mentioned  in the article need to be removed. POV are also still present in some bits. Still is still some spelling mistakes, and a lot of the use of etc, which is an old style spelling. Should these be removed ?. Some of these links to the plates in the original 1911, are still present, Plate III. fig. 6. I did the work to put it into different periods of history, and the savage races popped out. If you look at the article it covers a large area of earth. 
I also think it needs to be reordered/reoganised, in time, as it covers European carving then all the world. This imperial bias needs to be removed. Scope_Creep
:I completely agree, there is so much that needs to be done with this article that I really don't know where to start.  I did not have much luck finding fair use or free images. I will see about getting some publicity for the article. Reflex Reaction 14:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is now listed at Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive please vote for it's nomination Reflex Reaction 14:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganisation 

message: this article suffers woefully from a cultural bias toward tribal and crafts activities.  it is much in need of material on the fine art of carving including medieval to 17th century carving from europe and other locations. Joan-of-arc 21:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: existing cultural bias

message: We sell wood carving supplies, and teach classes.  An essential, neglected item is a strop and compound for sharpening.  An edge will last for 30 minutes of carving, and at that point needs to be stropped for 4 or 5 minutes. This action will maintain sharpness.  HOurs of carving without sharpening dulls a tool so that it takes major effort to regain a good edge.  
So, by including "strop and compound for sharpening" in the basic tool set, we educate carvers from the beginning in this important element of successful carving.
71.115.201.87 (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Suggested addition to "woodcarving Basic Tools." 

message: I deleted a request for a citation for the following statement:
"Some of the finest extant examples of early wood carving are from the Middle Ages in Italy and France, where the typical themes of that era were Christian iconography."
I submit that this is such a generalized statement that the burden of citation is on the person who thinks it's a false or contestable assertion. Are these examples of medieval wood carving regarded in reliable scholarly sources as NOT fine extant examples? This is like requesting a citation for a generalization such as "The pyramids of Giza are among the most famous surviving monuments of ancient Egypt."
That said, the objection may be to the specifying of "Christian iconography." I'm assuming this is true, however, because it's the Middle Ages, and most of the wood carving that survives is going to be from churches. The objection may also be to "Italy and France," which excludes Northern or Eastern Europe; that point I could easily see. But the burden is on the person who tags the article to (a) make an assertion to the contrary, and (b) explain what you're looking for on the talk page. I rant with apologies to the probably well-intentioned editor; it's just that I see this frequently, with generalizations that on the surface could be considered "common knowledge" that are then tagged without any discussion of what's contested. The discussion of "common knowledge" tagging is necessary for the very reason that the statements seem easily true. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the above comment. Making a declaration that any object is among "the finest extant examples" (my emphasis) is a huge claim. Without citation, it smacks of personal preference, or put another way, WP:original research. I find it to be very far from "common knowledge". And the burden is not on the reader, but on the writer who chose to enter the statement into the article in the first place. Surely it wasn't pulled from thin air? Therefore, a citation exists somewhere. It's not unreasonable for someone to ask that such a statement be qualified. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  deletion of frivolous citation request 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Explain the process of carving wood 163.47.148.253 (talk) 01:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occupation