Talk:Scroll saw

I'm afraid I don't know what this means. Why don't the curves made by other types of saws have "edges"? Cjrother 02:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Cjrother Attempted to clarify in revision [1]. My interpretation was that the intent was to describe the ability to cut angled edges and a word was missed or something like that. JJbloon (talk) 08:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone added a request for paragraphs on the following subjects be added to this article:

• Intarsia,
• Fretwork,
• Compound cutting,
• 3-D cutting,
• Large Fretwork Clocks,
• Marquetry and Inlay and
• Antique Scroll Saws
• Lathart

I removed it as it wasn't appropriate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links like Intarsia, Fretwork, 3-D cutting, etc are primary project type that are widely discussed and are elements commonly associated with this topic. They are absolutely relevant. If a user is looking for info on scroll saw, like for example, what are the typical applications, then the exclusion of these elements does the reader a great injustice. If there is content in the history that gives a brief description of these elements and a link to the full article, then that content needs to be restored.

Gloden (talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 20:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I've placed the tone template on this article as it doesn't read as an encyclopaedic article should. A lot of it resembles a buyer's guide offering specific recommendations and in other places it directly addresses the reader (you, you're etc), which is a style specifically recommended against. I may come back in a few days and clean it up but I'm tagging it now pending any comments since that will inevitably mean the removal of some content.

Well I've belatedly gone ahead and refactored the article. There were many comments that I simply removed because they were advisory in nature or inherently opinion. I also removed a fair chunk on intarsia since it didn't seem very appropriate here - that belongs in the page on intarsia. In any case, it apears to be that mosty of the comments made could eaulally have been applied to marquetry.

talk) 22:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Tone seems pretty good at this point - this discussion topic could probably be archived. NillaGoon (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some assertion that http://www.scrollsawer.com/ should not be included as part of this article, even though it is generally recognized as a primary hub in the scroll saw community. The site is operated by Fox Chapel Publishing, but the site and incredible respository of information is free for all. Other than some banner adds and such, this site hosts forums on the range of project types and interests. The sites' focus is not commercial and thus the link between the sponsoring publishing company and the actual function of the site is thin at best.

The reasonable assumption of a user accessing this site to gain information about "Scroll Sawing" would be to get a good overview of the tool type and, in the case of crafts that have a huge community focus and support mechanism, a link to those locations is consistent with the article goals. Worse yet, the links that remain are not reflective to the community involvement as a whole.

Ultimately, we should be looking to strengthen the article and yet, after a considerable amount of time, the article remains minimalist and sterile. Are we going for little more than a definition? The current article does not represent the diversness and breadth of the craft nor give the user any meaningful depth into the topic. The "guidelines" should be applied with "Common Sense." Part of that responsibility is to "inform" the user of critical elements of the topic, including the community aspects of the topic.

Gloden (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See

MrOllie (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

There is also strong evidence to suggest a conflict of interest (as I outlined on

talk) 22:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

First of all, SAW site, which you have allowed, also has forums and has some level of funding, right? And I notice this is on of the few links from Intarsia? And participating in a community and adding links to the host site is different than if I worked a Chapel Hill Publishing. That was the intent of the principle, right? And the quick threats to blacklist are blantant disregard for the principle of "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution - Discuss with the other Party." Interesting that didn't come up until I engaged (and quit reverting) Thats point to vindictivness which the community also say they dislike. Please note, that the article has not been reverted since I understood what was going wrong, yet you continued to escalate. That, my friend, is a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloden (talk • contribs) 06:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way it is, that section is completely irrelevant: either state all brands, either this section must be removed as it is currently utterly "un-encyclopedic". IMHO, only those having brought major advancements could be stated in another section for that matter (like "History" or "technologies", whatever). --HawkFest (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a meaningless statement. Kerf either desperately matters or it does not (either the pieces need to be able to be fitted, which means kerf must be taken into account, no matter how small, or they don't need to be fitted, in which case the kerf is irrelevant). There's no such thing as "invisible kerf". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.36.168 (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]