Talk:Tool/Archive 1

Archive 1

Mental Tools

This page doesn't seem to address mental tools. Parts of mathematics are mental tools that allow humans to accomplish things. And money can be viewed as a tool also. --Pordaria 03:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It also does not address software as tool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.65.4 (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Image Replacement

I recently replaced the knife image with that of a hammer, on no ground other than the fact that I think a knife is perhaps a tad too violent. True, this is derived from one's personal associations, but I know that when I first viewed the page I thought I entered the wrong article. It seems more appropriate this way. -- Itai 00:10, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC

A knife, is sometimes called a tool, i.e: He was tooled up. (meaning he had a knife). Therefore the image of the knife should have remained. A knife is an inanimate object and therefore cannot be voilent, the user of the knife is voilent. Griff.

We've got some funky grammar going on. I fixed it.

The first tool that I visualize upon hearing the word tool, is a 'hammer.' I think it was a good change. Jimcripps

Are there really people out there who dont know what a hammer looks like?? Could we not choose a more esoteric looking tool- like a plane or something?.

I like the hammer, but I agree that a woodworking plane would be nice. A variety of photos might be even better -- from a simple log-splitting wedge to the hammer to something really complicated like a robot welding arm. --DavidCary 02:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Don’t throw stones in your glass house. We all seem to have our grammar issues to live with. That is where QA, proofing, and editing should come into play. I prefer a stone, attached to a stick, as an icon depicting a physical object type of tool. James, jas-list@ipns.com

Tools and Human Evolution

I split the sentence about evolution into two sentences, but in doing so I may have lost some of the original meaning. Before it said: "Most anthropologists believe that the use of tools itself intertwined with the opposable thumb (useful to hold the tools) and an increase in intelligence (aiding in the use of tools) in spurring along the evolution of humankind." ...I think there must be grammatical error in that sentence. I rewrote it, but maybe we're missing the "spurring" point now. -- Nojer2 15:06, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The philosophy and interrelation of tools like language

The cyclical dynamic between imagination, visualization, creativity, expression, invention, implementation, advantage, competition, desire as the pursuit of happiness, revelation, revolution, leading once again to, imagination.

The new use of an otherwise common item to achieve a more timely result, such as picking up a stone to open a clam, we call invention. Combine a stone with a stick by tying a knot with string, and we were well on our way to improving our inventions. Discovery or exploration, through curiosity or necessity, is very hard to separate between which came first. Even harder to say which one is more dependent upon the other. Whether our stone age ancestors were first to see a stone as able to open a clam, or first saw a stone fall and open a clam and then visualized themselves playing a part in the act of opening still further clams, might seem a topic to explore elsewhere. However, when it comes to how we as humans interact with tools of all sorts today, it seems appropriate to discuss the chicken-egg relationship as it has come to be for us now.

Imagination, creativity, invention (with words is if tools, or tools as if words) all seem to go hand in hand so to speak. Invention and its product, often a savings in time or a something like a change in scenery such as the view of Earth from the window of a newly invented space rocket, becomes a cyclicly enlarging and ever more complex interaction with our world. Although intention or desire does play a very large part in motivation, such as hunger, shelter and defense from aggression, it is something quite unique to humankind to "see in the minds eye" a vastly more complex interaction with our world by creating the "next" tool.

This reordering, by visualizing a possible thing in the mind and then setting out to fashion, carve, mold, or otherwise craft it into being, is why we can so easily share words and concepts between tools, speech language, as either ideas or objects, as if coming from the same motivation within our mind. The reordering of words into new phrases or expressions, leading to new thoughts and responses, is the very same process used by a tool maker, desiring a new cutting expression, or leverage upon an otherwise unmovable object. This activity always leading to even newer thoughts and responses vastly outnumbering/outweighing the product of the original, practical pursuit. This wiki software tool, combined with a practical pursuit of crafting a "better" encyclopedia, leading to innumerable advances in many other realms of thought and activity, and yes, ever more sophisticated, refined or best of all, elegant tools.

just some thoughts I think could/should find there way into this article. The very concept of Tools, absolutely embody great portions of both our Humanity, just as well our darker side of war making. The creation of the wheel like Shakespeare, comes from the same ability in our minds as the creation of the sword like atom bomb. 68.82.127.3 14:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) TTLightningRod 14:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merging

A host of individual tool new entries are likely to be lost to Wiktionary. They need to be merged into categories that are broad enough that an encyclopedia entry can be built around the concepts: Striking tool, Cutting tool etc. Or else Carpenter's tools, Mason's tools etc. The definitions of each kind of tool within the category will go far towards making the core of an entry. --Wetman 23:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

One organizational method to consider, would be the evolutionary tree-like structure of tools, their development, and implementation. Pick up a stone to strike, cleave, aggress or defend. Tie it to a stick for improved leverage (and thus don't forget the incredible mental dexterity needed to develop strings, ropes and all manner of knot work). The modern "Stanley Hammer" sporting a 'graphite composite shaft and soft rubber grip', is nothing less than a direct descendant of 'a stone tied to stick'. Depending on one's frame of reference; spinning a stick on/into a second piece of wood to make fire, offers an evolutionary line to both mill, and lathe. Recovering cooled and solidified metals from under the hearth fire, at first inadvertently released from nearby earthen material, offers us the 'roots' of metallurgy, casting, forging, forming, and even welding.

Picturing a 'categorization of tools' in such a manner, would at once provide the layman a striking image of tool hierarchy, core importance, the dependance of some tools upon others (by their own 'tool making ability'), and lastly, at the outer most branches, details on the 'state of the art' (CNC, EDM, SLA, even the astonishing drive upon the non-sci-fi 'replicator').

As for some human vs. 'lesser' animal differences.... I would point to the greatest disparity between us; that being Human's application of astonishing creativity, and diversity in application. The entirety of the animal kingdom other than human, certainly trumps us on all fronts in cumulative quantity and quality.... but when counting the 'tool use' of any single species, it would clearly be a defining human characteristic. Yes/No? (is there not, tome after tome trying to span the interrelation of 'tools', to humankind's spectrum between War and Peace?)

Just some thoughts.... TTLightningRod

This merge notice (in the History section) was added incorrectly in August 2005:

• Added to one page, but not the other
• No rationale given here

Since then, both have grown somewhat in size, and a {{Main}} seemed more appropriate now, more than one year later. Walkerma 04:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Raw Materials?

However, humans are the only "animals" that have the ability to make tools from raw materials

Sorry? So what do other animals make tools from? If the desired implication is that Humans are the only creatures to manufacture tools then this is false; animals make tools themselves, they don't just use things that are found on the ground. --Neo 18:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I suppose I could have deleted the wrong statement outright. Instead, I noted it as a popular, though incorrect belief. I've seen (on PBS [1]) a monkey stripping the leaves from a stick to make it long and skinny enough to poke into a termite mound and pull out some of those yummy critters.

<rant> It seems that many people are convinced that humans are better than animals, and are clutching for something -- anything -- to prove it.

1. "only humans used tools" -- when that turned out to be wrong, they switched to
2. only humans can make tools -- now that that has turned out to be wrong, they switched to
3. only humans use tools to make other tools.
4. while birds and animals and picture plants occasionally make/use tools, humans alone do so in vast numbers. Tabletop (talk) 09:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This seems reminiscent of

1. Only humans can play chess -- until early chess computers.
2. only humans can play a really good game of chess -- until Deep Blue.
3. only humans (currently) can play a good game of Go (board game).

</rant> (Perhaps this rant should be moved to speciesism ?)

Is there any special term for "tools used to make tools", other than "meta-tools"? Those kinds of tools are handy for Autopoiesis. I don't think Machine tool is quite what I'm looking for.

--DavidCary 02:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I figure it means that only humans makes tools from composites of raw materials. Putting a stone axe onto a wooden handle and holding it there with a strip of bark or animal hide. Not sure whether even that statement is true but I would be comfortable enough with it. Is it elitism? Probably, but that word has a negative connotation that is possibly unwarranted. Anyway, if you think it's an unecessary, possibly erroneous statement that adds nothing to the the article then just remove I say. SilentC 02:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW on your other question, I have tools that I have used to make tools and then used these tools to make tools, so I guess any tool could potentially serve both purposes and therefore is the distinction important? eg I use my tablesaw in the making of a crosscut sled and I use this crosscut sled in the making of a workbench. SilentC 03:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I didn't make clear what I want to know: What set of tools is required to make a new set of tools including themselves?. Imagine Robinson Crusoe is stranded on a desert island with a bunch of tools and a pile of raw materials, and he promises to give away his original set of tools a year from now. What should he make first to avoid losing his manufacturing ability? (see http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SelfAssembly ) --DavidCary 00:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Source a grindstone (tool), acquire material suitable for making durable cutting tools (at least as versatile as a knife), manufacture a straightedge (markings optional but add them while you can), manufacture a robust (ideally steel), versatile, longlasting hammer. Finally, beads; to trade with the natives for more metals ;-) but seriously, metals are the key. You can do wonders with organics but the next leap requires the durability that metals provide. (Hmm, better take this to someones talk page if we go any further.) — Graibeard 02:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I remember recently having run across an article about crows and metatool use. The crows were exposed to three boxes at once -- one with food out of reach, one with a short stick in reach, and one with a long stick out of reach. To get the food, the crows had to use the short stick to get the long stick, which was the only stick long enough to reach the food. All of the crows completed the task without error. To me, this seems to dispel the statement "Only humans use tools to make other tools." Any thoughts?

gorillas use tools

"the cases reported here are the first observations, to our knowledge, of wild gorillas using detached objects as tools. ... All great apes use tools in captivity, but until recently tool use in the wild was only regularly observed in chimpanzees and orangutans [12,21,22]." [2] [3]

lists of tools

This list of tools has been inserted into the article and reverted twice.

==Good tools to have around the house==

• Flat-head screwdriver
• Philips-head screwdriver
• pliers
• adze
• axe
• chisel
• clamp
• drill
• file
• hammer
• Halligan bar
• machete
• plane
• saw
• shovel
• stone tool
• knife
• jordi

==Good tools for college students==

• Flat-head screwdriver
• Philips-head screwdriver
• knife(good working knife)
• hammer
• bottle opener
• pliers
• can opener
• tweezers
• wrench
• flashlight

This looks like it would be useful to new college students or new homeowners. It's part of the western culture that people are expected to already know -- but Wikipedia policy is to Wikipedia:State_the_obvious#State_the_obvious.

I agree that the Wikipedia:How-to seems to override that policy.

Would it be encyclopedic if I rephrased it like this ?:

"In western culture ( American culture ???), people are expected to own a collection of tools. Even college students are expected to own tools such as tweezers, can opener, flashlight, scissors, a ruler, a knife, and a calendar. Homeowners are expected to own additional tools such as a hammer, several screwdrivers, a file, a drill, and a pair of pliers."

Is there a WikiBooks more appropriate for this sort of thing? ( Wikibooks:Cookbook:Kitchen Tools and Wikibooks:Carpentry/Hand Tools are very close to, but not exactly what I'm looking for. ) --DavidCary 00:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

No matter how you phrase it I don't feel it would be suitable here. A tool means different things to different people and trying to come up with a suitable (short) list will be difficult, and a long list is pointless. The variations depending on geographic location and culture would be enough to start a talk page longer than the list. (As an aside, I consider expected to a bit strong as I've worked with tradesmen who own virtually no tools, they do everything either at work, by borrowing tools or paying someone else to do it; basically because they are that familiar with tools that they don't want to see them after knock-off time, or too tight to buy them ;-).)

For Wikipedia:State the obvious to be in context here, you'd need to describe why the person may want each item, why would they require an adze, or a Halligan bar around the house. (Why would they want an adze?)

It may well be more suited to Wikibooks as I assume you'd have the freedom to address the american college student or homeowner directly, without accusations of bias. It may actually be an interesting project, but I believe it would end up decidely longer than the original short lists above. — Graibeard 01:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Figurative Tools

"Tool" is often used (in verbal language) in a figurative, rather than a literal, sense. A common insult among young adults in the United States, often used facetiously, is the reference to another person as a "tool" if he allows himself to be "used". Common targets of this use of the word "tool" are people who are used for money, possessions, intelligence, or sex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigstick07 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Bottlenose dolphins???

The article on bottlenose dolphins states that they use sponges as tools, perhaps this should be added.

Page move, tools → Equipment.

Did I miss something here - like a move discussion? I can't say that the term equipment seems all that relevant, especially considering what links here already. I suggest a redirect would have been better, but then I see that there is one already and so equipment. with a period at the end?

I'm listing it for reversion at Wikipedia:Requested_moves — Graibeard ^(talk) 06:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was moved to Tool. Joelito (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Equipment. → Tool … Rationale: The article was originally titled [[Tool]] but has just been moved to Equipment. (note the period at the end of the title). Equipment (no period) already exists as a redirect to Tool, so the page move was redundant anyway. … Please share your opinion at Talk:Equipment.. —— Graibeard ^(talk) 06:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • While the spelling mistake in the title equipment. has since been fixed, the question regarding moving the title back to Tool remains. What links here shows there are just over 1000 links to Tool, (including between 100 and 250 of which are Tools) compared to just over 110 links exist under Equipment (ignoring the Tool and Tools counts). Thats a lot of links under Tool to correct if we remain as Equipment.

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support Move it back, for the reasons listed above — Graibeard ^(talk) 06:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support, but add note at the top for Tool (band). Voice of Treason 14:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support - move it back; this page is about Tools. --JennyRad 16:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support Move it back. The move to equipment should have at least been discussed on the talk page. Anyway, it's about tools, not equipment. This is a pretty important basic page. Luigizanasi 06:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Move it back to tool. MH 12:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. For oh so many reasons. Vegaswikian 04:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Flabbergasted. SilentC 23:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. HGB 00:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Voice of Treason: Pre move the article had a disambig link at the top to other uses, Tool (disambiguation), where tool (band) is listed. The disambig page needs to be reinstated in some form, especially if the page is moved back to its previous title. — Graibeard ^(talk) 22:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

What about the alternative tool, ie "Laura is a tool"?Electrosoccertux 05:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

see Tool (insult) linked from Tool (disambiguation) — Graibeard ^(talk) 06:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Any reason why we don't just move this back the way it should be now? Why do we need to wait? If I knew how to do it, I would do it straight away. It's just ludicrous that we have an article headed 'equipment' that spends it's entirety discussing the word "Tool". The guy who moved it didn't even bother changing the text of the article to suit. I reckon if someone does something dumb like this without consultation, then the fix should be implemented immediately with the same level of discussion ie. none! SilentC 22:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Now, that's pretty much how I felt when I first came across the page move, my initial response above is just a shadow of its former self :-) If it wasn't for the secondary edits where others adjusted the text, and renamed redirects I'd have probably considered the course you outline. However, unlike the page mover, I figured I'd bring it to the talk page and allow a discussion to take place. It shows there is a clear consensus (to date) and that alone speaks volumes. As for the sloppy page move, perhaps it's a good thing the links followed via what links here weren't adjusted as they should be, it will be less work for the revert. — Graibeard ^(talk) 08:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not known for my tact :) If I was to design a process for this kind of thing, especially in situations where an article has been identified as a "core topic", an administrator would imediately reverse the move and either put up a "motion to move" in which people could vote, as we are doing now, or request the mover to do so. Then the reason for the move could be debated without having this interim confusion. It's one of the things that lets the whole project down a bit. And so far not a word from the mover as to the rationale behind it. If you felt strongly enough to go to the effort, then why not give your reasons here? Still flabbergasted - but I wont let it spoil my weekend ;) SilentC 04:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, it's certainly a better approach than this one where we are left to do the convincing, and follows due process so it should satisfy both camps. Yep, I'll pay that one. — Graibeard ^(talk) 07:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tool use in animals

The introduction contains a paragraph about tool use in animals, but if nobody objects, I could start a new section about the topic. If you strongly agree, disagree, or want to do it yourself, please comment. --Gray Porpoise 15:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

hermit crabs?

Hermit crabs use cast off shells from others to use as homes for themselves. Do such homes count as tools?

Tabletop 04:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. --Gray Porpoise 15:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry, during a RC patrol, I accidentally reverted the page back to a vandal's version. My rollback tool normally notifies me when a editor reverts the vandalism, but it must have been a split-second thing. Sorry.--Res2216firestar 21:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Confusing redirect

Why is equipment redirected to tool? The terms aren't always interchangeable. For instance, when one goes camping, s/he brings along camping equipment, not necessarily camping tools. Anthony Rupert 09:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Cat Tool Use

http://cats.about.com/od/behaviortraining/a/cattools.htm Tabby 08:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Tool Safety

It might be a nice addition to the article to include a section on safety - especially concerning power tools. After all, there's a reason so much time is spent on tool safety in shop class. Modern Marvels just informed me that there are over 100,000 power tool-related emergency room trips each year in the United States. Any thoughts? Nemilar 14:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

This article has been vandalized to all hell. Nemilar 19:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it attracts them like flies... SilentC 21:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"algorithm" is a tool?

A couple bits of this article appear not to fall into the category of "a piece of equipment which typically provides a mechanical advantage in accomplishing a physical task", as a tool is defined in the introduction. Examples of stuff that appears to be irrelevant:

• "Tools can also be largely cognitive, such as written language..."
• Listing algorithm as a tool, unless there is an alternate sense of the word of which I am unaware...

--Nethgirb 10:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Since physical tools are the items most often referred to as tools, the category as defined is narrower than need be. Certainly one might think of a shelf as a tool for storing items on a horizontal surface above floor-level, but this use is even more basic than the simple machines. The concept of a tool, and the application in analogous areas, is certainly relevant. A calculator is a tool which provides the advantages of speed and accuracy in calculation; speed might conceivably be considered a physical property, but accuracy is a purely logical function. Thus, things which give a logical advantage are tools as much as a hammer is a tool. Thus, algorithms, mnemonic devices, and software in general are tools.

A wider definition of tool is things which are used for a purpose. Food could thus be considered a tool for continuing life. A telephone is a tool for communication. Civilization is the history of tools and specialization. We are the only species that uses tools to construct tools which are designed specifically for making other tools.

On to the emotional: there are people with Narcissistic Personality Disorder who feel a deep-rooted need to be admired and considered significant by other people. They are willing to use other people to meet this need, regarding them only as important as the degree to which they fulfill that need. To that end, they use people as tools to provide an emotional "advantage", to extend their abilities beyond their natural capacity to self-comfort and self-confide.

I have provided an alternate definition which should satisfy the requirement. --205.201.141.146 16:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't plan to be involved editing this article, but... there are so many uses of the word tool. Your definition provides an ability that is not naturally available to the user might encompass all of them but seems like it might be too broad for an encyclopedia article. --Nethgirb 20:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, it will become exactly an encyclopedic article. I imagine a day when this article describes the history of tool-use, including ancient hand-tools and weapons, tools and machines in Greek-era history, the industrial revolution, and modern tools such as robots and computers. It would include power-amplifying and -reducing tools like waldoes. It would distinguish between hand-tools, power-tools, and machine-tools. It would, in short, be a featured-article candidate. --205.201.141.146 18:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

What you describe sounds like a great article. I'm sure any quibble I have with the definition can be worked out later --Nethgirb 20:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Weapon/tool duality

A weapon is a tool, the primary use of which is to harm or kill, or to threaten to harm or kill. An airliner is a tool for transportation, but on 9/11, several were used as mobile bombs. A gun is a tool designed for firing a bullet in a controlled manner; a bullet is a tool designed either to punch a hole in something, or to transfer kinetic energy, or both. The Marvel Comics villain Bullseye has the ability to use any physical object as a deadly weapon, including paperclips, kittens, and fiberglass insulation. A tool is usually defined by its primary use, but almost every tool can be used for other purposes. Just some philosophical thoughts on the matter. --205.201.141.146 16:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

protect page?

An administrator should consider protecting this page from anonymous editors. This article has consistently attracted regular vandalism. Some recent examples: [4][5][6][7] --Nethgirb 05:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I do enjoy the irony. It seems to attract all the tools, like Moron attracts all the morons. :) SilentC 06:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

agree!! I am constantly undoing vandalism on this page. -- Nemilar 18:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, so what's the process for making it so? SilentC 22:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I put it up on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection --Nethgirb 23:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"Some vandalism, but not enough to justify protection at this time" I wonder how much is enough? Is there a value somewhere, or is this just arbitrary? SilentC 02:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The policy just says "heavy and continued vandalism". OK--There's only a vandalism every 1-2 days maybe on this page. But in my opinion the amount of vandalism should be judged relative to the amount of legitimate edits by anons. Oh well --Nethgirb 07:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Humans as tool-using animals

"Philosophers once thought that only humans used tools, and often defined humans as tool-using animals." -- Which philosopher has said that? I think this is a myth. --84.172.171.101 01:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite possibly. I've tagged it --Nethgirb 01:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find that this was a widely-held belief until people like Jane Goodall reported their findings. I found one reference to it in a journal article:

"Gruber (1969) feels that the use of natural objects 'as if they were tools' does not constitute true tool-using which he would restrict entirely to humans because only this species skillfully and habitually alters objects for use as tools."

The author did not agree, however this indicates that at least one author believed it to be true. There are plenty of other references on the web pulled up by the search string "only humans used tools". Somewhere in amongst them must be a reference we can use. SilentC 05:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That article should be an interesting read (online here) We should also consider that some of this material might be better at Animal intelligence#Tool and weapon use --Nethgirb 06:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible Article Change - Not Necessary But Could Be Helpful????

I was just wondering, what if this article was changed to 'Tools', and the Tool Band article was then changed to 'Tool'??

Just a thought though; no serious considering needed!!!

Ask yourself what the overwhelming majority of people in the English-speaking world would think of if you said the word 'tool' and that will answer your question. If you really think that most people would be looking for the band, then you need to get out more :) SilentC (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

True!! I should actually have thought of that. ;) Tool-apc (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Tool (band)

Surely they should have a link off the top heading. Perry Groves (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

How do we fix it then, because it needs to be there. Perry Groves (talk) 13:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well there is a link to Tool (disambiguation) which lists the band. Looks fine to me. If you can get consensus to change it you find more info at Wikipedia:Hatnote.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be consistent chatter throughout this page already. Perry Groves (talk) 13:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed; I changed it. Better?--Tikiwont (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1