Ibbel

November 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Ebony, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dr.K. (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Rift sawn

I have nominated Rift sawn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —dgies^t_c 07:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Image in quarter sawn

I'm not a woodworking expert, but the image you added to the article on quarter sawn looks like rift sawn wood to me, exhibiting very straight grain and minimal ray fleck. Are you sure that was quarter sawn, or is it just the wood species? —dgies^t_c 08:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks pretty exemplary quartersawn to me. The rays are not very high in this wood, so they don't show that prominently, in terms of total surface. But they are unbroken radially, so the orientation of the surface is almost exactly radial. - Ibbel (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Splitting Quarter sawing and Quartersawn

Hey, I'm certainly not an expert on the subject, but is there really enough material to justify two separate articles? The two concepts are very closely linked, as one is just the process for producing the other. Also, WP:ADJECTIVE discourages creating articles with adjective names. You can respond here, as I'm watching this page. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No, not really. The problem is that the two topics are not closely linked. As entries go, "quartersawn" is a basic necessity, as it is a fundamental concept in woodworking and furniture construction. On the other hand "quarter sawing" is of very marginal interest, and hardly rates a mention. So, as far as I am concerned, "quarter sawing" could easily be eliminated altogether, leaving only quartersawn. The problem is that I tried to write the proper entry quartersawn (here) but quarter sawing was pushed into it (here), emphasizing the commercial angle, which rather destroyed the usefulness of the entry.

As to the adjective, I cannot help that. Basically, it is possible to use "edge grain", which is the same, but it looks to me to be both an American colloquialism and rather different from usage in other languages. - Ibbel (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Iroko / Milicia

Re Iroko (hardwood) vs Milicia (genus): Why do you want separate articles for this plant's economic uses and its natural history? Melchoir (talk) 05:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That is relatively simple: the notable topic is Iroko, and there is some actual information on that. Milicia is one of uncountable genera; there is no information available on the topic, beyond what floats around in databases on the internet. As such, Milicia is not notable enough to rate an entry, but that entry is going to be here anyway, as one of very many similar database entries, essentially empty. So, the existence of that page probably cannot be helped, but it would be really silly to subsume the actual encyclopedia page into the empty database page. - Ibbel (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I object to this reasoning on many levels. The simplest is this: what makes you think the taxon isn't notable? See [1]. Melchoir (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That does not look very convincing (except perhaps to show that the timber is notable).

However your basic argument is flawed; if Milicia is notable by itself you should be able to write a worthwhile entry about it without referring to the timber. You would not have the timber to draw on if you were describing a non-timber yielding genus, so why take a different position in this case? At the moment your Milicia does not have actual substance; what is there could be moved to Wikispecies, without loss (actually, the entry at Wikispecies already is better, with more information). Not that these facts are relevant, as Wikipedia has plenty of such empty entries (for instance Perebea), and it is pointless to try and get rid of them. - Ibbel (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course the timber is notable, but it is not the only way the plant is approached in the literature; see [2] for a very conservative search.

You seem to be fixating on the current substance of the Wikipedia articles rather than the encyclopedic potential of their topics. If Durian didn't have a filled-out "Species" section, would you also advocate a separate article for the genus Durio, and then remove the taxobox from Durian? Melchoir (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Surely that effectively proves the point, doesn't it? Eliminating those terms reduces the number of hits by two thirds. Very convincing by itself! What is quite noticeable is that by eliminating the english terms what is left are the other-language hits showing the prominence of the timber.

A quick look at Durian suggests you are undercutting your line of argument here also. You are arguing that Milicia as a genus is so notable that the timber should be subsumed in it. The Durian-page has at least three different topics 1) the fruit, 2) the genus Durio and 3) the species Durio zibethinus, and just look at it! Clearly there would be a much better chance of cutting down on the confusion and the amount of error if these three topics each had a separate page of their own (actually there already is a page on the genus, sort of, except it is not called that). Obviously not the way to go. - Ibbel (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)