Talk:Metalworking

message: The metalworking area has too many tiny stub articles like Slack tub which are nothing but a dictionary definition.  These should be expanded, or if that is not possible, merged into some larger article.  --Xyzzyplugh 15:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's still true.  I recently created Four slide machine, and nobody has touched it since. --John Nagle (talk) 04:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many stub articles

message: This is a stupid thing to be warring over, but to set the record straight the BCE/CE was first chosen on this edit: . Per WP:MOS the dating system should stick with that one. Now please stop warring over it. Wizard191 (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating system 

message: The first paragraph states "The earliest substantiated and dated evidence of metalworking was processing of copper in Wisconsin, near Lake Michigan. Copper was hammered until brittle then heated so it could be worked some more. This technology is dated to about 4000-5000 BCE" then subsequent paragraphs describe use of metalworking earlier than 5000 BCE. What gives? This article contradicts itself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.13 (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  doesn't make sense 

message: Which of these methods are most common to the home hobbyist wishing to get into metalworking?
Not all of us have entire factories at our disposal.
The main article could be improved by explaining which methods of metalworking are common to home hobbyists.   Also, it would be helpful if there were an exploration into the prices of metalworking hand tools.   Which methods meet with more wear and tear, and breakage, either of the metal products, or the tools themselves?   Are some tools subject to very short lifespans because they break more often than others?   I am on the verge of buying a bunch of sheet metal, rolling it up so it fits in my car, and then having at it.   The main article would be more informative if it dealt with home hobbyists, and their attempts to do what can also be done with large factories, but with a much smaller volume of product output.   216.99.201.214 (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encyclopedia not the consumers report. We don't address prices or which models break down faster. Wizard191 (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Home Hobbyist 

message: "Today modern mining practices are more efficient, but more damaging to the earth and to the workers that are engaged in the industry."
This statement appears to violate the neutral point of view requirement, and does not appear to be substantiated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.236.128.41 (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads-up...I've removed it. Wizard191 (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point of View 

message: Seems like brass and bronze (being part of the historic ladder of metals) should be included in the "can you mold/grind/forge/etc" chart. Only I don't know enough to fill in the blanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riventree (talk • contribs) 07:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brass and Bronze in working techniques chart? 

message: The detailed biblical account of the origin of metalworking at the top has no place in a pragmatic/scientific article such as this.  Note especially the reference to "the Bible" as if everyone should know that we're talking about the Judeo/Christian Bible and the fairly charged wording like "revealed in Genesis" being used to make statements of fact.  This entire section should be removed or moved to an article on biblical history.  DS8193 (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree (I just did not have time/energy for a strong enough opposition to the editor who was adding it). Materialscientist (talk) 04:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biblical References References Unnecessary and Irrelevant 

message: The Machining section in this article described, exclusively, milling. So I'm renaming it to Milling, and I'll try to figure out where a heading for Machining might need to go. —Kierkkadon talk/contribs 22:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, Machining needs a hell of a lot more coverage than it currently enjoys in this article. It's sort of mentioned at the beginning of the Cutting section as one of two main categories of cutting, but in the field of modern metalworking Machining is a large, important subject. I would almost say it needs to have pride of place in this section of the article, and I nearly just replaced "Cutting" with "Machining" and put oxy-acetylene cutting in its own section. —Kierkkadon talk/contribs 22:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Machining section 

message: Should there not be a suitable section on Continuous casting in here somewhere ?  Velella  Velella Talk   12:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Continuous casting

message: I propose that Metal Testing be merged into Metalworking. I think that the content in the Metal Testing article can easily be explained in the context of Metalworking, and the Metalworking article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Metal Testing will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. ► LowLevel (talk) 12:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Forgive this newbie for not knowing the etiquet, but it can't be right that a reference appended to the text "The oldest archaeological evidence of copper mining and working was the discovery of a copper pendant in northern Iraq from 8,700 BCE" should lead to a website about public hangings in Iran. I have no idea how to re-reference the sentence, only to suggest that the existing reference should be removed, until a more appropriate one is found.
LeighForbes (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Metalworking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150707190819/http://idiotdiary.com/this-steampunk-metal-scupltures-by-igor-verniy-will-leave-your-jaws-wide-open/ to http://idiotdiary.com/this-steampunk-metal-scupltures-by-igor-verniy-will-leave-your-jaws-wide-open/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100114053711/http://americanmachinist.com/304/Issue/Article/False/84907/Issue to http://www.americanmachinist.com/304/Issue/Article/False/84907/Issue
*Added  tag to http://www.americanmachinist.com/304/Issue/Article/False/85010/Issue
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I just found this article from the  Wikiproject Metalworking page and I feel it needs a good buffing up and some topics added, or linked to
# Smithing in its various forms
# Surface Finishing, Restoration, and Preservation
# Metallurgy as it applies to forming, cutting, and joining processes
I will add to this list as I think of things
 — vulcan_ (talk contrib) 21:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing topics and poor wording 

message: Artwork from metal sheet consisting of cutouts (2D from single sheets, 3D from multiple sheets) is left out, as far as I can tell. Metal sheet article doesn't even mention art of any kind, and this one here doesn't even contain the word "cutout", let alone a wikilink to a dedicated article or paragraph. Arminden (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metal cutout (art): fully missing on Wikipedia 

message: Even worse (see above): there is no Art in metal article! Just a "category Ancient art in metal". A "metal art" search only leads to topics on metal rock music. Arminden (talk) 11:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  No [[Art in metal]] article!