 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Move?
edit- The following is a closed discussion 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 proposal was not moved. Easy enough to resubmit the request once the article is rewritten to reflect the process rather than the device. --rgpk (comment) 18:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- The topic should be at the process name not the equipment name. Wizard191 (talk) 18:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment the article is written to be about the equipment... perhaps there should be a discussion on whether the equipment or the process should be the primary name. 184.144.164.115 (talk) 05:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- I understand that, I am planning on moving the article and then re-writing it to reflect the new name. Don't put the cart in front of the horse. Wizard191 (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- So maybe rewrite the article in user space first, then we can see if an article so written makes more sense than the current article about the equipment. I'm not sure that the title change is necessarily the horse rather than the cart in this situation.--Kotniski (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- For those interested, you can see the re-written version at User:Wizard191/Sandbox1. Wizard191 (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- So maybe rewrite the article in user space first, then we can see if an article so written makes more sense than the current article about the equipment. I'm not sure that the title change is necessarily the horse rather than the cart in this situation.--Kotniski (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I understand that, I am planning on moving the article and then re-writing it to reflect the new name. Don't put the cart in front of the horse. Wizard191 (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment the article is written to be about the equipment... perhaps there should be a discussion on whether the equipment or the process should be the primary name. 184.144.164.115 (talk) 05:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Create two articles - like writer and writing. Marcus Qwertyus 09:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Qwertyus, there's an unwritten rule at the Metalworking WikiProject that if the machine used for doing the process is only used for doing that one process then the information for the machine and the process should be on the same page (with the title of the article being the process name), because there just isn't enough info to warrant two articles. Wizard191 (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- That is an unusual rule. I note that welder and welding have two separate articles (welder is a job so not really synonymous). I recommend dropping that rule. Marcus Qwertyus 14:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- In that case the welding article was too large to contain the welder info, because of WP:SIZE. There's lots of good examples of it: hobbing, forging, extrusion, and all of the casting processes found at casting (metalworking). Wizard191 (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- That is an unusual rule. I note that welder and welding have two separate articles (welder is a job so not really synonymous). I recommend dropping that rule. Marcus Qwertyus 14:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Qwertyus, there's an unwritten rule at the Metalworking WikiProject that if the machine used for doing the process is only used for doing that one process then the information for the machine and the process should be on the same page (with the title of the article being the process name), because there just isn't enough info to warrant two articles. Wizard191 (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Looking at the rewritten (sandbox) article, it still seems to be almost entirely about the device rather than the process, so I don't see a great need to change - unless (as claimed) the change of title is needed to provide consistency within a series of articles, in which case I won't object.--Kotniski (talk) 08:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well I didn't add any new info, I just reorganized it to show you what it would look like initially. More about the process definitely needs to be added. Unfortunately my time is quite limited these days. Wizard191 (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.
Inaccuracies
editIt's worth noting that sheet metal can be roll bent as well as bars. This article should be rewritten to reflect that. I don't have a reference about my person at the moment, but I'll try to pull one together as soon as I can. In the meantime, if somebody with a bit more experience in the area could make the appropriate changes then I think the article would be greatly improved. Kierkkadon (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Update: I did at least part of this myself, but it still needs to be done. This article could be pretty heavily expanded, I'm sure, if someone was to come along with an engineering or manufacturing textbook. Kierkkadon (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)