Talk:Lumber

message: I took the liberty to remove the merge timber note, because frankly, there are only a few bits and pieces in the present timber article that relate to timber. That article should be renamed to something like The History of the British Timber Trade. It is more about trade and economics than timber. It is historic and makes no mention of contemporary timbering. And it is completely Eurocentric about a worldwide topic. I would suggest that timber and lumber might well both have pages, since timber refers to the raw material and lumber to the finished product, but the current timber article isn't the one. If timber is merged with lumber, it should of course have good redirects. Pollinator 14:46, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
:I still think the two pages should be merged; the word 'lumber' is not used outside of the USA (and perhaps Canada?). I agree that much of the current content of the timber page is superfluous there (and could perhaps be filtered out to British Timber Trade or something like that?), but my idea was that the content of lumber (which nearly all refers to what most people outside of the US would call timber) should be moved over to timber (as the more international title), to make one decent article, instead of having the information split between two pages. - MPF 16:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Merge Timber Note 

message: I propose that the following articles are merged as there seems to be overlap between them which creates confustion are all about the same thing. 
:Timber
:Lumber
:Dimensional lumber
This will also allow a for a better quality, more interesting article. I propose that all the articles are put under the title of Timber with their appropriate sub-headings. Hobo 04:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: Maine, Oregon, Washington, and California?  Did the Midwest suddenly disappear from the forestry history books?  Wisconsin was once a great center of the lumber industry in the United States. Someone very familiar with American forestry history has to add to and edit the History and Geography subsection of the article:
[Wisconsin lumber history http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/turningpoints/tp-027/] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.90.19 (talk) 09:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Wisconsin? 

message: This article's usage of Baltic seems somewhat confusing. It's surprising to see Norway mentioned as a "Baltic" country, and one can further suspect that Finland and Sweden, and maybe even Russia, are thought of as historically important producers of timber for Great Britain. Maybe Northern Europe should be read in most places where no stands the Baltic?
--Ruhrjung 06:30, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this is confusing, go ahead and change it. Also I think in the context of timber Baltic refers to the states which produce similar timbers such as baltic pine and Norwegian spruce. Hobo 04:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The meaning of ''Baltic'' 

message: In the US, a timber is a piece of wood larger than what is normally used in light construction.  If the articles are merged, it would confuse Americans to call it timber or confuse non-American English speakers to call it lumber.  I like timber the way it is now.  However, I think it would be reasonable to merge lumber and dimensional lumber.  Nobody is likely to look up dimensional lumber without a link anyway. JBickner 05:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I suppose I would tend to agree, that timber and lumber are defined differently in America. Timber really is unfinished wood or raw wood, the material growing and cut in the forest. Lumber is processed timber. A timber yard would only be seen at a sawmill; a lumber yard would be found at the local hardware - Marshman 05:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: * I also agree.  Before trees are cut, they are often referred to as "timber" (e.g. timber cruising), but not frequently as lumber.  When they are cut and sawed the material is referred to as lumber.  Not a hard and fast rule, but still a distinction. Jeeb 21:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Against merger

message: :I agree, in their current form the three articles have a wide overlap, and all all incomplete. njh 06:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from [[Talk:Lumber]] 

message: *I am in favour of merging the articles, although I do use the North American usage. They are all about the same thing. How about calling the merged article Lumber/timber or Sawn wood? The different usages should be mentioned up front in the lead paragraph. Also, Hobo, why not take a gander at it on a sandbox page somewhere, so that others could see what you have in mind. I think it would help convince people. Note that according to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English, the usage should be that of "the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article." According to the edit history, Timber was created first on 25 February 2002, while Lumber was started on 25 June 2002.Timber also ceased being a stub first, on 1 October 2002 compared to more than a year later for Lumber on 13 October 2003. Dimensional lumber was created much later. So according to that rule, the article should use British usage. Also, the Manual of Style suggests:
::If the spelling appears in an article name, you should make a redirect page to accommodate the other variant, as with Artefact and Artifact, or if possible and reasonable, a neutral word might be chosen as with Glasses.
::Words with multiple spellings: In choosing words or expressions, there may be value in selecting one that does not have multiple spellings, if there are synonyms that are otherwise equally suitable. In extreme cases of conflicting names, a contrived substitute (such as fixed-wing aircraft) is acceptable.
:hence my suggestion of a combined title (Lumber/timber) or a contrived one (Sawn wood), but I am not opposed to calling it Timber, with the appropriate redirects. Luigizanasi 19:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from [[Talk:Dimensional lumber]] 

message: I've restored Dimensional lumber and Lumber for the moment after User:NaOH merged the 3 together.
The merger for Dimensional lumber to Lumber looks good, so dimensional lumber should probably be changed back to a redirect (assuming that's fine).
The merger for Lumber to Timber still looks to be under debate. I've added merge tags to everything to get a better consensus, and moved all talk here. --h2g2bob 22:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My edits 

message: *Timber is used for heavy construction for example say a Church. (I am an Athiest).
*Lumber is used for light weight construction for example a town house or house.
*Dimensional Lumber could be merged with Lumber, but not Timber.
*If you would see the book "Construction: Materials, Methods, and Techniques" 
 it has a seperate chapter for specifically for Timber p.539-p563.
*In the same book it states Lumber (or Dimensional Lumber) is used for Platform Framing.
*The previous contributors to the articles have messed it all up and made it seem that they are all the same. So now it would require severe clean up. --Parker007 23:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose or Move Timber into Lumber 

message: Lumber/Dimensional lumber/Timber merged with redirects.
One thing I notice is that throughout the article there is links to lumber and the like.  How do I make those links point to the specific points in the article which refer to those topics instead of back to the original pages which now only contain redirects? --NaOH 06:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Say you want to point to the "Treatment" section, then you would use the code Timber#Treatment, note the "#" sign betwen the article title and the section title. Luigizanasi 15:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everything 

message: Trying to eliminate it all... how can I fix those blasted tables? --NaOH 03:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empty Space 

message: The section on Indian timber feels out of place, given its level of detail regarding a relatively minor area that is highlighted seemingly without reason.  Should it be moved into a new article? --Frostyservant 07:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have linked it from List of woods, which seems to be the most appropriate article. Luigizanasi 18:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Indian Timber

message: This article needs a section on the terms used to grade dimensional lumber -- and a dicussion of knots, bark, cracking, listing the typical defects. 69.87.194.162 23:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with needing a grading section. It will also need to note the difference in grading softwoods or hardwoods as it is different. I think a link to the NHLA (National Hardwood Lumber Association) should be added, as they have written a rule book on grading lumber which many in the Hardwood industry use as standards for the selling/buying of lumber. Their rule book also clearly defines the grades of lumber as well as terms for standard defects such as wane, pin knots, pith, etc. I am interested in helping with this page, but I am still quite new at wikis. Busfault 04:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Grading Lumber

message: There is a line that says "Leading International Producers ??????? ??????? ??????" at the end of the "Softwood" section of "Dimensional Lumber".  Shouldn't this be on the discussion page instead of the article itself?  I'm not going to remove it until I can at least get a second for removal or an explanation.Marvtixx 16:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say go ahead and delete the line. Looks like a previous editor may have left a note for themselves and forgot it. No issue there. JungleCat  talk/contrib 16:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Misplaced Content??

message: I'm a builder, not a framer or lumber salesman, but I noticed that there was nothing at all concerning an important part of lumber, which are engineered products; I can't build a home without them.  I may have missed something and if someone who is a framer or is a lumber sales rep could add to that section or correct any inaccuracies it would help.Marvtixx 17:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think plywood is a major part of engineered lumber.  Particle board, OSB, and MDF are all engineered wood products.  A table of their dimensions would be helpful.  Thanks.  cbedgar 66.91.234.161 (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Engineered Lumber

message: I added a source for my Engineered Lumber section.  It doesn't source everything I added as I didn't have the time/desire to search for one at the moment, but I'll add one later or someone else can gladly do it.  It shouldn't be a problem at this point as the entire article is lacking sourcing citations and at least I did provide one for about 85% of what I added.Marvtixx 17:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations/Sourcing Needed

message: I think that the Classifications section need clarity. I am not quite sure what was trying to be conveyed before. I am not quite sure what the author originally meant by “actual sizes” it is a little too vague considering that lumber is sold as the thickness of the board before kiln drying and planing. Boards are cut, at least in hardwoods, to quarter thickness ie 6/4 5/4 4/4 (inches) and are sold as thus even though some of the thickness is lost in the kiln and will be planed off.
Busfault 21:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: I don't have a decent source for this, but my understanding of the reason behind modern lumber being smaller than its name is that the old 2x4s were actually sawn to 2inches by 4inches. Modern buildings do not require as heavy cuts due to better quality control in sawing it, and better design and building methods. Anyone have a dependable source, one way or the other, on the matter?--Talroth 00:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I have seen is that the lumber is sold as the rough cut green size (with tolerances). Once it has gone through the kiln significant mass can be lost due to high moisture content in the green lumber. As a source, I did work as a lumber inspector and sawyer in a hardwood lumber mill. I would assume that there would not be much difference in practices (hardwoods v. softwoods). The other loss of wood could occur with planing. I don't think that quality sawyers could be a reason either as the timber is much smaller and not as good quality as it was in the past. Though there is a possibility that companies cut lumber smaller to increase profit, softwood lumber really goes for volume of production. Hope this helps. Regards, Busfault 02:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See also below.  If our article doesn't cover this age-old question well, it should.  (As of today, it definitely covers it; I'm going to spend some more time making sure it covers it well.) —Steve Summit (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to most people I talk to, it was more of an accounting issue then anything else.  Read these last two enteries, this can't be sourced but two people confirm the 'make more profit' story: http://www.oreillynet.com/databases/blog/2002/10/were_2x4s_ever_really.html 74.77.241.148 (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern size of a 2x4 is smaller than '2x4'

message: The lead section is presently (lks omitted):
:Lumber or timber is a term used to describe wood, either standing or that has been processed for use — from the time trees are felled, to its end product as a material suitable for industrial use — as structural material for construction or wood pulp for paper production. In the U.K. and Australia, "timber" is a term also used for sawn wood products (that is, boards), whereas generally in the United States and Canada, the product of timber cut into boards is referred to as lumber. In the United States and Canada sawn wood products of five inches (127 millimeters) (nominal size) diameter or greater are sometimes called "timbers".
: Lumber is supplied either rough or finished. Rough lumber is the raw material for furniture making and other items requiring additional cutting and shaping. It is available in many species, usually hardwoods. Finished lumber is supplied in standard sizes, mostly for the construction industry, and is primarily one of a few coniferous (needle-bearing) species such as pine, cedar, hemlock, fir or spruce.
# While "a good lead 'graph usually starts with a dict-def", it should focus on the thing the title refers to, not the words of the title. (If it helps you sleep at night, think of the word "is" in any WP article as "[in the sense this article intends] is".)  Thus "a term used to describe" should go.
# "Timber" (as a mass noun, as opposed to the stout timbers later discussed) indeed has as its primary American meaning "standing timber" or at least "unsawn timber", and either that or the impulse (just discussed) to thoroughly discuss the words, may explain "... either standing or...". But the article is not about standing timber, so those words should also go.
# " ...from the time trees are felled, to its end product as a material suitable for industrial use..." is probably not bad content for the article, but its focus on terminology suggests to me putting it of for later use, perhaps in a "Terminology" section. The same is true for the remaining two sentences of the lead 'graph. (But for the record, i'll note that the bolding of both "Lumber" and "timber" at the head of the lead sent is not a matter giving equal prominence to the American, British, and Canadian terms, but rather to respect the principle of least astonishment by being  sure that users who arrive here via the important Rdr Timber (over a thousand articles use it, in contrast to fewer than 40 using Dimensional lumber) immediately see that word prominently placed. Thus the bolding of "timber", in the last sent of the lead 'graph, is redundant, and distracting for experienced users.)
# As to the second and final 'graph of the secn, IMO the most important thing to say is that the shortening of the first 'graph that i've suggested opens up the question of whether the first could include it or otherwise be longer.
Having stated my reasoning for those changes, i'm going to edit boldly by doing that much, and counting on colleagues to  fix it if i've overlooked something in that reasoning.  (And someone is likely to find a better place for the two sentences i moved.) --Jerzy•t 07:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead secn 

message: I'm removing 
:==Miscellaneous==
:* The term TIMBER! is used as a warning call to alert others working in the area that a tree is being felled and that they should take care to be out of the way. 
:* The term "sending up timber" is used in some religious circles to signify sending up prayer and/or sacrifice to God.
because these are not about the topic, but merely about what superficially appears to be the same word. The first item looked likely to fit on Logging if not covered there, and i reworded it and used the result in Logging#Logging and safety. The second seems unencyclopedic to me. --Jerzy•t 07:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rem of Misc secn 

message: I just removed this paragraph:
: The timber industry states that finishing and drying the lumber results in the nominal size differing from the actual size, however, you will find that many houses built prior to 1950 usually have timber where the actual size and nominal size are the same. This has allowed new construction to become less expensive without having to modify municipal, state, and national building codes.
Now, it's true that many buildings (say, ca. 1900 in the U.S.) do use rough-cut lumber, with the "real" dimensions, i.e. a 2x4 is actually 2"x4".  However, it's also clear that this wood is rough (not planed) -- run your hand along it and you'll get lots of splinters.
I have no doubt (though I can't supply a source) that modern building codes are based on the strength of dimensional lumber using today's finished dimensions.
Certainly, there's been some cost-saving along the way; I'll bet that a precision, modern sawmill can get away with planing down to a 2x4 from a rough cut that was smaller than 2" x 4".  But it's also true that the planing (which, believe me, for the most part we'd all rather have the benefit of) is an additional expense.
I'm not sure what, if anything, to replace the uncited paragraph with.  Certainly, the existence of old houses with "real" 2x4's is a fun fact, but I'm not sure this is the article for it. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the UK there are two basic types of timber 'sawn' and 'prepared' if you buy, for instance, a 2x1 sawn peice of timber you get something close to 2x1 (allowing for tolerance of cut and shrinkage etc, still pretty close to 2x1). if you buy a length of 2x1 prepared you are buying the same size of stock, but one that has been subsequently planed smooth, so of course it is smaller. having said that 2x1 is actually 25mm x 50mm (sawn) which when planed comes out more like 21mm x 46mm. perhaps this helps to explain some of the speculation about 'good old sizes' above, nothing has changed it is just more convenient to work with planed timber, especially if the price difference is negligable. 81.102.245.243 (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Steve Summit, I'm afraid you are wrong.  "True dimensional lumber" isn't more splintery than modern "nominal dimension lumber" due to lack of planing.  The 2x4s I find in pre-WW2 construction are often more splintery than post-ww2 lumber because they are old dry first-growth hard yellow pine whereas modern 2x4 is half-dried fir or spruce cut from forests that have been repeatedly clear-cut.  I have worked on a 1925 house that had dead smooth, dead straight 2x4s in every interior wall, and I have worked on both earlier and later houses that used rough cuts.  During WW2 standards were relaxed, and in the post-war building boom they were never tightened back up; various myths such as those you cite have grown up since then.  Today, the wood used for western platform construction is crap that my grandfather would have disdained to use for firewood.  I can still buy true dimensional lumber directly from a sawmill; the old Amish guys, for example, will sell you a green board that will shrink down to within a hairsbreadth of exactly 2x4 inches.  It's so hard to find, though, that I will often just cut down a modern 2x6 to get a true 2x4.  You need true dimensional when you work on old houses, especially balloon frames, and modern nominal for post-WW2 construction.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.27.178.252 (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  rough vs. finished dimensions 

message: On reading about the problems that seem to have dogged this page regarding the terms timber and lumber - and some of the glaringly biased decisions regarding what should stay and what should go.
I have to agree that making a 'british timber trade' page was a good idea - unfortunately what is left is an 'american timber trade' page called 'Lumber' - why not go the whole hog and strip out all of the really trade specific stuff and make an 'american timber trade' page. perhaps then we could make a generic page that dealt with the subject more evenly, perhaps even one that got to the bottom of the different usage, and had room for some historical a and even legal detail (these are aspects of timber too). as it is the page is a real frightener. 81.102.245.243 (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  timber trade 

message: The logs pictured as "headed for the sawmill" are horribly checked and rotten and I can see at least one with a ring shake that probably runs the length.  It's good for nothing but pulp (you couldn't possibly make a profit trying to saw that stuff into lumber) and most likely it is headed for the firewood splitter rather than a sawmill.  Why not have a picture of fresh-cut or properly sealed timbers, to more accurately represent the vast majority of timber used to create boards?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.27.178.252 (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  nasty wood picture 

message: Shouldn't there be a lot of info in criticisms in the article, like deforestation which is destroying the earth? http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/deforest/deforest.html   so we stop all lumbering & give every person a Guaranteed Minimum Income.  Stars4change (talk) 05:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms

message: The various warping categories listed in Wood warping are also defects and should be included in this article.
Warping is a defect caused by a problem in conversion and seasoning of lumber (timber) and should not be treated separately.
Geoff (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Defects? 

message: We do see to be getting into complicated discussions over timber sizes.
Timber may be supplied rough sawn or planed/dressed and the dressed size could less than quarter of an inch or 6mm less than the specified size. This is called the nominal size or 'EX'.  On contracts such as for domestic buildings this would be specified and there should be no misunderstanding.
Geoff (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timber sizes 

message: i was wondering if anyone could help with a history running back to egyptian cedars. europe/north america, and current as south america.
what been going on with the populations, virgin forests are usually decimated along the map, but how many of which have been replanted?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.208.33.254 (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur that a history section would be desirable.  As an additional example, it's unclear when dimensional lumber became standard in construction.  However, I'm not the one to write that article...  Wyvern (talk) 06:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Logging industry, Effect on tree populations 

message: This article seems to be written in the United States point of view. In other words, somebody wrote this article the "familiar" way, not the worldwide or Universal way. Slayer2448 (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States View 

message: I moved the non-sequitur note regarding timber piles from the section on dmensional lumber and placed in into its own.  It needs attention from someone knowledgeable. --Theodore Kloba (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timber piles 

message: Had a go at editing the US size table entering in Norwegian standards.
and in my search for good references I see there is quite the range of differences between the EU nations when it comes to sizes, and no doubt other parts of the world. So I'd like to put forth the idea of making a sub/list page where tables for each country or region could be entered. as placing these on the main article would get rather messy.
Anyways.  Here, for now is my ugly creation, needs a bit of sorting and polish, and I need to make more room for the boards, still have in excess of 20 dimensions to add..
Norwegian softwood dimensional lumber sizes, Nominal is unfinished/unplaned size
Nominal (in)   	Actual          	Nominal (in) 	Actual          	Nominal (in)   	Actual
25x50(1 × 2) *1	23 mm × 48 mm   	50x50 (2 × 2)	48 mm × 48 mm   	100x100 (4 × 4)	98 mm × 98 mm
38x75 (x3)     	36 mm × 73 mm *2	50×75 (2x3)  	48 mm × 73 mm *2	100×150 (4x6)  	98 mm × 148 mm
38x100 (x4)    	36 mm x 98 mm   	50x100 (2x4) 	48 mm × 98 mm   	150x150 (6x6)  	148 mm × 148 mm
38x125 (x5)    	36 mm x 123 mm  	50x150 (2x6) 	48 mm x 148 mm  	50x250 (2x10)  	48 mm x 248 mm
38x150 (x6)    	36 mm x 148 mm  	50x175 (2x7) 	48 mm x 173 mm  	50x150 (2x5)   	48 mm x 173 mm
38x200 (x8)    	36 mm x 198 mm  	50x200 (2x8) 	48 mm x 198 mm  	32x50 (x2) *1  	30 mm x 48 mm
38x225 (x9)    	36 mm x 223 mm  	50x225 (2x9) 	48mm x 223 mm   	38x50 (x2) *1  	36 mm x 48 mm
(*1 often split from larger blanks yielding 2 or 3 actual pieces, thus nominal do not necessarily refer to the unfinished size but based on nomenclature) 
(*2 "3 inch" widths in 36 and 48 mm appear as both 73 and 68 mm for untreated wood, the 68mm being the most commonly used for indoor partition walls, fitting better together with standard door frames (93 mm) when the usual 12mm of wall cladding either side is added) Raymond Holmoey (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  European/Metric dimensions 

message: 2 points: Timber seems to be the word that the English speaking world outside of North America uses for the wood used in industries, construction, paper, furniture, etc and by North American English speakers for large wood used in construction, etc. Lumber is used only in North America. Timber seems more inclusive. Sawn wood seems a good compromise
Wood and timber have different pages. There is a worldwide distinction between wood (a raw material, used for a very wide range of purposes, from firewood, art, utensil making, etc., often on a small, craft scale) and timber, an industrial raw material used for construction, paper making and industrial level furniture. This distinction is contained within the respective wikipedia pages. There is a discussion on the Category:wood page whether individual types of wood known by names of trees should be included in the category pages. I believe there should be a Category:Timber page to provide a encyclopaedic guide to what timbers there are out there. What do youse think? Brunswicknic (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timber, wood, trees 

message: I think this should be a separate article. We have defects due to growing / silviculture or lack of. AND we have defects due to processing/transportation. It makes sense to split this very long article. As the German wikipedia does. the German wikipedia also has a separate section for standards (think paper size standards) and that can be kept here or split too. But defects are quite lengthy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.95.7.115 (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defects in Wood 

message: It's just annoying me a bit, being there for three years. The information there might lend weight to North America, but multiple other continents are discussed, and the information is not malicious, biased, or negligent. Wikipedia should give a detailed general overview, and notices like these should be used in more important instances Nuvigil (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this request. I filled in the "Lumber History" section which well explains both global and North America / European lumber history. Apart from Japan, most other parts of the world are not wood-building cultures, they use other materials to build their homes. They might use wood for finishing (IE: India) but they don't build out of wood. Therefore the comment of a more world-view does not really stand. **** KetaDesign (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we remove the worldview notice under Dimensions? 

message: There is commentary in the body of the article  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yupthisrlyismysn (talk • contribs) 20:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone with knowledge fix the language in the "North American hardwoods" section 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Timber truck. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Steel1943 (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Timber truck" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wood logs. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Steel1943 (talk) 00:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wood logs" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wood log. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Steel1943 (talk) 00:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wood log" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: is it true that a woodcutter yells 'Timber!' at the moment a tree falls down after being cut ?? if so, thats a 'trivia' or some a like !!!! 85.149.83.125 (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: TIMBER!!! calls the woodcutter 

message: This page makes no reference to the CLS acronym, which is very commonly used (at least in the UK) to refer to a specific type of dimensional lumber that is planed on all four sides and has rounded corners (see this page which has a brief intro and is the first hit on google, but I imagine isn't a reliable source?). Is this the right page to add such information, and if so where would be appropriate. What sources would be needed to ensure a paragraph or two passes review? I haven't edited wikipedia before, but would be willing to attempt a draft if given some guidance. CharlieDA~enwiki (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  CLS Acronym (Canadian Lumber Standard)