Talk:Finger plane

Ibex

I've been wondering about that "reference" since before the recent backing and forthing. I don't think a "link to a random retailer" is appropriate here, but so far it hasn't bothered me enough to do something about it. Here are my own unsupported views on Ibex finger planes:

They are widely seen in many vendors' offerings. Another well-known brand is Herdim. There are others being made and sold, mostly in very small runs, by specialist makers who do it as a sideline, and advertise by word of mouth or occasional forum postings. Some luthiers turn up their noses at Ibex planes, preferring to make their own, or buy from those specialists. I have a couple of Ibex planes, and brand new out of the box they needed some tuning to get them working the way I want them to. They do the jobs I ask of them.

With that said, I don't think we need to document a brand name, even a ubiquitous one like this. In my view, the supporting reference, a commercial site, does not reliably verify that "Ibex is a widely known manufacturer of bronze planes." __ Just plain Bill (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Name another brand apart from Ibex. Although there are other makers, there's no other maker (that I'm aware of) with any level of brand recognition as a name. The article states, and has always stated, a very mild comment to that effect, that Ibex is "widely known". Not that it's the only brand, or even the most common brand, simply that they're widely known – something that's trivially sourced (although it keeps getting blanked). Andy Dingley (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Read again a little bit above, where I mentioned Herdim. Better planes, too, IMO. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

How well-known is the Herdim brand though? They exist, but they're not known to the same level as Ibex are.

Also there is no WP:POLICY against refs that don't meet WP:RS (We prefer RS, for some specific uses we require RS, but we do not restrict all sources to being RS alone). Nor is there any policy against commercial links as sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Known world wide in the lutherie trade. Hard pressed to find someone working on bowed strings who doesn't know of them, I'd expect. I just think it looks unencyclopaedic to use what amounts to a page out of a randomly chosen catalogue as a "reference." I think we can do better, and thanks to a couple of the links you found, have done better. Thanks! __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)