Talk:Butt joint
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Article rating
editRegarding SilentC's comments here, I do think this article is better than B class. The only thing missing in it is outside references: I can see the article is accurate so I odn't want to add a "needs references" template, but it does need a few notes for where the info comes from. With that added I suspect it would easily pass a Good Article review, and I wonder if it would take much more to get it to Featured Article level... I've never worked on an FA so I don't know.
Looking at WP:WIAGA, all this is missing is number 2. This is very strong in all other points. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 04:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- The references thing is a constant problem for me. Naturally I have read about butt joints (amongst other more interesting topics) in various places. I know they exist, and have even made few ;). I'm aware of the methods for making them and their potential uses, however this is all from my own memory, which is patently not a reliable source. I have a couple of books on joinery, one a very good one by Gary Ragowski called "The Complete Illustrated Guide to Joinery" which discusses various butt joints, but with a focus on how to make them. I guess what I am saying is that this book verfies (or at least I hope it does) what I have written but it wasn't the direct source of the information. So do I reference it so that we get a tick in the box? SilentC 05:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- I know where you are coming from. References are a pain. However, with Wikipedia it is much easier than with "real" academic work: you can use something that just verifies your info as a reference, like your Ragowski book, rather than having to use a source you actually used as a ref. while writing. And if the reference thing is too much of a pain, it's not like you have to do it, you're a volunteer ;) you can always leave it to someone more concerned with that kind of stuff. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 05:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Discussion continued at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Woodworking#Referencing Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 22:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- I know where you are coming from. References are a pain. However, with Wikipedia it is much easier than with "real" academic work: you can use something that just verifies your info as a reference, like your Ragowski book, rather than having to use a source you actually used as a ref. while writing. And if the reference thing is too much of a pain, it's not like you have to do it, you're a volunteer ;) you can always leave it to someone more concerned with that kind of stuff. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 05:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Picture
editThe article needs a picture of a plain non reenforced butt joint —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.69.213 (talk) 08:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Legos
editare legos a butt joint? -70.108.32.247 21:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC) NO! - however funny. If you want to get technical they are still mortice and tenon. - the lego mortice though relies on the fact that the tenon is larger than the mortice at specific contact points and that the materials have enough plasticity and tension to accommodate joining without sticking yet increasing static friction to the point where the join is a viable state of "lego cohesion". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.87.172 (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
“About” template: Woodworking v metalworking
editAside from a quick mention of welding in the intro, this article seems to be entirely about butt joints in woodworking. I therefore added an about template directing readers to the corresponding article on butt welding. Zeligf (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)