Talk:Carpentry

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Finish Carpenter

In the United States, a finish carpenter is generally one who puts the finishing carpentry touches on a building, such as hanging and fitting doors, base and chair moldings, etc. In contrast, a carpenter who builds cabinets is a cabinetmaker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.79.14.15 (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

This is true, but more often than not they are the same people. Ghettogirlie92 14:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Carpenters who install doors, base, case, and crown, and do other assorted trim work are generally referred to as trim carpenters in the US, while the term 'finish carpenter' is usually used to refer to those who specialize in detail work. SkonesMickLoud (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Move the article

This article should be moved to carpentry. We don't keep linguistics under linguist and this is no different. The difference between the profession and the discipline is one that should be made only in a dictionary. In an encyclopedia the information is always found under the discipline.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this ancient and unfollowed-up proposal. I think it helps clarify the purpose of the article as well. However, it might require significant editing (I dunno, haven't read the article fully yet). Will put up a move tag to promote discussion. Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 08:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Roofer

Where I come from, a roofer is someone who puts the roof cladding on (the tiles, tin, etc.), not the person who puts the roof framing up. This latter is the roof carpenter. Sam Wilson 23:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a big difference, but at hte same time there is not a huge difference. The roof carpenter puts up the framing and the roofer puts the shingles up. they both are carpenters in one way or another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghettogirlie92 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

why are you putting the definition of a roofer when it has nothing to do with carpentry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.17.226.216 (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Carpenter → Carpentry — A carpenter is a person who performs carpentry. This article does not focus mainly on the people doing the job, it focuses on the job they do. Therefore, why is it under Carpenter, adding the extra, unnecessary level of the professional to the profession? We should just be talking about the art itself, with perhaps a subsection devoted to carpenters specifically. Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 08:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Please list at WP:RM. Patstuart^talk|edits 07:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Joiners

The description of Joiner as an obsolete term is US-centric and ignores the historical significance of the distinction, which is worth preserving. A joiner was historically a woodworker who had an additional skill over carpenters, that of making "joined" frames or panels. There is still a distinction today in that joiners work at benches in workshops with planed timber, carpenters work on site with unsquared timber. User:Andy Dingley 17:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagree - joiner is current usage outside the US. Addhoc 20:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that my point? It's currently described on this page as obsolete. That description is US-centric. I have no idea how accurate that is in the US, but it's a current term in Europe. It's also important in the histroy of the development of furniture-making to make the distinction clear. If we had a "History of Furniture" page, then it should even include 'arkwright', which is truly obsolete, but still historically interesting.User:Andy Dingley Andy Dingley 20:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I've heard 'old school' joiners refer to themselves as joiners here in the US. The term may have fallen out of common use, but it still exists here. SkonesMickLoud (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

famous carpenters?

Who researches this stuff? Tim Allen? = Comedian, Bob Vila = Real estate agent turned TV Personality, Harrison Ford? Granddad Skip I had to remove That's Obvious Vandalism at one point or another. Personally I think this section is irrelevant to the article as a whole. ♫Slysplace | ^talk 17:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've cleaned this up a bit more, many of the names were unverifiable, others were misinterpreted Slysplace ^{talk ♫} 16:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyhow no there is no need for showing famous carpenters i am sure theres no way of going back far enough to really point out who the real famous carpenters were —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.67.12 (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

As translation issues are listed below: in many early Greek texts Joseph is said to be a stone-mason, which would make more sense, given the terrain; and, as the difference in Byzantine Greek between stone-mason and carpenter is one character at the end of the word, it would be easy to see how the leap from stone-mason to carpenter would've been a simple transcription/translation error. Be that as it may, there is no reason to believe or evidence to indicate that Jesus, if he existed, took up Joseph's trade. In the cannon Gospels he is never reported as being a carpenter, and he is called 'this son of Mary', meaning that the people of Nazareth believed he was not the son of God, but just another bastard, and in the Ancient World, a bastard does not learn his fathers trade, because bastards cannot legally inherit. Therefore, it is absurd to think that Jesus would have done what Joseph did anyway. This also explains why, when Jesus was 12, his parents took him to Jerusalem, where he impressed the Pharisees with his theological knowledge, and why he was able to impress them, and why he grew up to become a rabbi. In the ancient world, legitimate sons of stone-masons or carpenters learn how to be stone-masons or carpenters as children, not rabbis, and grow up to be stone-masons or carpenters, not rabbis. These are current scholarly and theological arguments pertaining to the person of Jesus, and they cast serious and reasonable doubt on this notion that he was a carpenter. Finnbjorn (talk) 09:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If Jesus Christ is the Son of God, then he probably didn't need to study as a rabbi while growing up. I think that line of logic ("if he was a carpenter, he couldn't have studied theology") is only viable with a reductionist interpretation that ignores the claim of Christians: that Jesus is God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.240.196 (talk) 11:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Brothers of Jesus

I just read up on Jesus on another article, and it says that the passage would suffer translation issues since there was no word for brother (just kinsman). Should it be changed from brothers since some religions would disagree with this?--82.152.177.245 (talk) 11:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

1942 Photo

Is this photo really from 1942? For one thing, it's in color. The resolution looks far too high, the carpenter at work seems to be more muscular than was fashionable in the 1940s, and furthermore the whole thing looks like it was staged on a set made to look like a 1940s-era work site. I doubt the authenticity of the photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.184.6 (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, it looks like he is from a well lit set. Now that it is featured it is more laughable. Giddeanx (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The photo description gives the source at the Library of Congress. They seem to think it's from 1942. Cactus Wren (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

A quick check of Douglas Dam shows a picture of the dam that the picture of the aforementioned carpenter is suppossedly working at under construction. The article on riggers shows a similar picture. Color, composition, and high resolution on both seem to be very close to the same as our carpenter. Technology for such pictures did exist in 1942. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkonesMickLoud (talk • contribs) 00:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Such technology certainly did exist, although it was rare, time-consuming and expensive. It's worth looking into the history of this whole series of images, they were a deliberate attempt to produce an inspirational photographic record of "heroic labour" (awfully close to Soviet propaganda of the period) with the very best techniques possible at the time. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I also believe this is a staged and modern photo - the colors are too rich for the period, the workers physique is uncommon for the period, his stance is unlikely, and is apparently producing wood shavings from a concrete block. Additionally, the tool the model is holding cannot bore into masonry. While the photograph may have value, it is modern and, in my opinion, badly staged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.226.33 (talk) 05:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Check the talk page for the image itself. Such color was possible in the 1940s. His physique while in your opinion may be uncommon, it is not impossible. It is almost certaintly staged, but that doesn't detract from its value. If you look closer, you can see the grain on what is obviously a block of wood, not concrete. Furthermore, this picture is part of a set on file with the Library of Congress. They tend to research the validity of such things, and would have experts on staff that would be able to verify the possibility of such a picture being taken in the early 1940's.SkonesMickLoud (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This photo jumped out at me the first time I saw it. I have been a carpenter in New England since 1987 and this photo just doesn't look right. At the least it is dated, carpenters in the U.S. use cordless drills and electric drills, not a bit and brace. A bit and brace was not large enough tool to use for boring holes in timber framing so the depiction of it being used on a timber is misleading. The juxtaposition of a guy using a hand tool on wood in an industrial site is odd. His clothing is dirty from a way other than doing carpentry. Most carpenters work on residential sites and do not wear hard hats unless on major sites (like where he is) or a crane is on site lifting stuff. It clearly looks staged. It is not representative of a normal carpenter in the U.S. Jim Derby (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I do timber framing in the UK – and I still use a brace and bit. It's dangerous using an electric drill on holes that size, you have to use a specialist drill (low speed, high torque) that costs three or four times what my usual drill costs, and I know that if it ever catches the torque reaction is enough to throw me off a frame. I'll drill by power on the ground, but up in the air I prefer the control of the manual tool. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andy. It is interesting to know you use a brace and bit. You are right about electric drills being a hazard. Can you attest that a brace and bit were used by carpenters in the 19th century and earlier? All the illustrations and paintings I have seen carpenters are using a T-auger. Joiners and cabinet makers in a shop have been portrayed using a brace and bit.Jim Derby (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the T handle point is a good one. Certainly the big stuff I use (treenails etc) is T handle, rather than a swinging brace. So I guess for "framing" in this sense, I'm using T more than a brace. Smaller stuff though, roofing work etc. and I'm using a brace (1950s Stanley). I've also used a "donkey" or "horse", one of those hand-cranked sit-astride drill frames. I know some people have used those at height, but I've only used that in front of cameras. As to old braces, then I have a wooden one here (brass button chuck) that's 1870s style and came from a church paneller who worked on site as a carpenter, rather than in a workshop as a joiner. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Deleting irrelevant link

I'm deleting the link to the "One simple carpenter" Flash video, as it has nothing to do with carpentry. Cactus Wren (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

Some gods of carpentry are listed in the Religious Figures section. The section is stupid... this is what categories are for. Get rid of both lists, IMO. 99.153.133.34 (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Zimmermann?

According to the article, it is derived from the german Zimmer(room), yet according to the german wiktionary it is derived from Zimmern (timber). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.163.161.134 (talk) 10:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

AND WHAT!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.195.51.89 (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge from Carpenter (theatre)

The article in question essentially just says "This person is a carpenter who works on theatre stuff." The information can easily be merged into this article, under "Types and occupations" (where there already does exist an entry for "Scenic carpenter"... that doesn't link to that article). Propaniac (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose merge. Whatever their current state, these two articles have scopes that are clearly definable and distinctly separate. Theatre carpenters are unusual in that they also work with materials (steelwork, canvas, paint) not used by most other carpenters. I'd actually like to see an expansion of articles on the sub-types of carpentry, such as timber framers, green woodworkers, ship's carpenters, construction formwork carpenters - there's plenty of scope there. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, plenty of scope, and no one apparently interested in actually writing any of it. But your comment has made me realize (because you've justified why there could potentially be a decent article about theatre carpentry) that a lot of my problem with the Carpenter (theatre) article is the title, because it implies that the theater usage is a completely separate meaning from all others (in the way that Orange (color) and Orange (fruit) are completely separate from each other) when it's clearly just a type (whether or not it's an especially unusual type) of the meaning described here. So if the merge doesn't happen I'm going to rename it Carpentry in theatre or something like that. It should still be merged in my opinion because the information that's there does not justify a separate article, but at least the title would make more sense. Propaniac (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree your point on the current page name's use of a disambiguated name. As it's an article formeost on the carpenters, I'd favour a title of Theatre carpenter. This meets one of the goals for a good wiki page name, in that it's easily usable from within other bodies of text. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge. Carpenter (theatre) is a "... a carpenter is a stagehand who builds sets and stage elements." That is how it is defined in the lede. A person whose occupation is Carpentry is a Carpenter (occupation).

As another point Carpenter should redirect not to Carpentry but to a disambiguation page Carpenter (disambiguation). Jrcrin001 (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Stagecraft has its own category. Set construction has it's own article (contrast to construction. It makes sense that Carpenter (theatre) would have its own article.--Savonneux (talk) 06:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

also, it's weird this article is named Carpentry when it's mostly about carpenters. --Savonneux (talk) 06:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge - The occupation is Carpenter no matter where those skills are employed. Is the industry different? Yes. Some carpenters work in theatre while others are employed by the construction industry or the auto industry or the agriculture industry. We can't make a separate article for each type of Butcher, for example, otherwise we'd have Supermarket butcher, Packing plant butcher, Deli shop butcher, etc, etc, etc. Take a look at the infobox for occupation it already has a spot to list the "activity sectors".

I suspect that people opposed to merger have an emotional attachment to stagecraft, specifically. I imagine there are about 1,000,000 times as many carpenters involved in Cabinet Making than theatre. Where is their fan club in this dicussion?

--Hutcher (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Neutral (leaning towards oppose)- My only comment would be that stage carpenters are not solely responsible for construction. It's somewhat glossed over in the stub (hopefully soon expanded) but stage carpenters are often responsible for rigging, turn-overs, and automation in addition to set construction. Depending on the labour structure, stage carpenters are also often the crew chief on-stage; and to make things even more confusing, in some venues, the scenic carpenter is responsible for purchasing and constructing sets, and the stage carpenter is responsible for the set once it leaves the shop. DJSparky ^huh? 14:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Carpenter has a specific meaning in theatre which is different from the general meaning. The original commenter was mistaken; a theatre carpenter is not simply "a carpenter who works on theatre stuff". The article on Carpentry states that "Carpenters work with timber to construct, install and maintain buildings, furniture, and other objects." The article on Carpenter (theatre) states that "Working mainly with woods and metals, they [theatre carpenters] use techniques that include woodworking, and welding." A person could work on a set constructed entirely of metal and still be called a theatre carpenter. It seems pretty clear that these are two distinct subjects, even though they happen to have the same name. Augurar (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Carpenter vs. Carpentry

This article needs to be split. The occupation of carpenter is distinct from carpentry. Most everyone on earth has performed carpentry after buying a 2x4 and saw at Home Depot but that does not mean that they are a carpenter by trade. Other occupations have separate articles from the skills they utilize: Law vs. Lawyer; Architect vs. Architecture; Farmer vs. Agriculture; Police vs. Police Officer. If there is no consensus for a split I suggest we merge the articles listed above. --Hutcher (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Carpenters are simply people who have made a career of carpentry. No more, no less. The distinction as you describe (which is real) applies equally to both the trade and the people, but no more or less to each. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be claiming that Carpentry is employment (just a job like the fry guy at McDs) as opposed to a profession (specialized educational training). If so, that is incorrect. Like other trades it requires 4 years of training and the opportunity to master in it (in my country at least). These people are not day labourers. This sad, sad article starts with the line "A carpenter (builder) is a skilled craftsperson who performs carpentry". Your profession of Programmer, for example, has a separate article from Source code.

Ha, that is all irrelevant anyhow. By acknowledging that there is a distinction you are acknowledging that they cannot be considered the same subject within this article. Again, this article is in disgusting shape and needs help and I don't understand the insistence on keeping it that way.--Hutcher (talk) 07:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

And, yes, I was distinguishing the work from the worker not judging either as more or less ... so you lost me there.--Hutcher (talk) 07:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Training - Canada ambiguity

“ In Canada carpentry is a Red Seal trade not requiring a formal apprenticeship and an inter-provincial exam. While each province sets its own standards for exactly how long the apprenticeship takes the average is about 4 years of both on the job instruction and college based training or on the job apprenticeships. ”

These statements contradict themselves. The first sentence states that carpentry in Canada requires neither an apprenticeship nor an examination, while the second implies that it does. I suspect that the inclusion of not in the first sentence is an error. However, for lack of sources I will leave any correction to dedicated contributors. Chell484 (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I imagine the goal of the lines above is to point out that, as a "Red Seal" trade[1], qualified tradespersons from one province can practise their craft in another province without having to go through an apprentice/examination period in the new locale, and that although apprenticeship periods are different in each province, they are considered equivalent for the purposes of this standards program. But I'm only guessing, it's not my area of expertise and I don't have any first hand experience... DJSparky ^huh? 23:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

An Interprovincial Standards Red Seal is obtained through the completion of a) a recognized provincial or territorial apprenticeship[2] and b) an interprovincial Red Seal examination. The use of the word not in the first sentence is contradictory. The section also implies that carpentry in Canada can only be practiced with a Red Seal qualification. This is incorrect. The Red Seal is an optional qualification that can be obtained in addition to a Proficiency or Qualification Certificate. I will edit this section to remove any ambiguity. Chell484 (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

"Woodpecker"?

I've never, ever heard of this nickname for carpenters, and I've lived three out of my four decades of life in the USA. Maybe this is a regional term? and even so, it's gotta be extremely rare; it's certainly not a "common" appellation as the article tries to claim.

71.181.211.88 (talk) 06:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with you: ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.43.69 (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Injecting Order and Formality

The article is indeed sparse and disjointed. Because my first concern was the absence of the professional training program which the carpenter's union administers in the US, I presented an overview of the program in the opening paragraphs. I realize that as the article is organized in better form that it may be desirable to move that piece elsewhere. I have no objection to its relocation. I know that citations are often requested to back the statements made. I'm proactively stating here that I don't have any sources quoted because my knowledge of the program comes from personal experience, as a trainee who went through it. I hope this is acceptable. Cosmo1976 (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Possibly Biased point of view

This article leaves the reader with the impression that for one to be a professional carpenter, one must join a union. This is not true, at least in the United States, where there is no such legislation, and anyone may, as a skilled professional, make and sell their (wood) works without being a member of any trade union or trade organization. No organization holds proprietary rights over the word "carpenter", or the words "framer", "cabinet maker", or "luthier" for that matter. --71.186.225.22 (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

"Carpenters" redirect

I would like to propose that "carpenters" (the plural - not "carpenter" singular) redirect to the article about the American pop singing duo The Carpenters, rather than redirecting here.

I certainly understand that "carpenters" is the plural form for members of the woodworking profession. But I think that when someone wants information about the profession, they would be more likely to enter "carpentry" or "carpenter" (singular) into the search box, and if someone enters "carpenters" into the search box, they would be more likely to want information about the musical group. In my opinion, people don't often look for plural forms in encyclopedias when other forms are in common use, as is the case here with "carpentry."

Add to that the fact that (technically) the name of the musical group is simply "Carpenters," and you can see how it is a bit disconcerting to enter "carpenters" into the search box and end up here, and how it is a bit tricky to find the article on the singing group. You must either go to the disambiguation page, or have the thought to enter "The Carpenters" into the search box. I think it makes more logical sense for "carpenters" to redirect to that article rather than this one. 99.103.15.88 (talk) 03:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Peter J. McGuire

There is some concern that Peter J. McGuire a founder of Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners (US) should not be included as he is more famous for fighting for carpenter's rights than work as a carpenter, but had he not been a carpenter he would not have had a basis for understanding the work. I urge that we leave him in as an important person in the history of carpentry.Kmccook (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Carpentry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090428134522/http://www.preservationnation.org:80/resources/faq/information-sheets/career-and-education.html to http://www.preservationnation.org/resources/faq/information-sheets/career-and-education.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carpentry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070607144019/http://www.bartleby.com:80/61/36/C0123600.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/36/C0123600.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 23 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shi Shuyang.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Industrial design?

Does this article belong in wikiproject Industrial design? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)