This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
I took the liberty to remove the merge timber note, because frankly, there are only a few bits and pieces in the present timber article that relate to timber. That article should be renamed to something like The History of the British Timber Trade. It is more about trade and economics than timber. It is historic and makes no mention of contemporary timbering. And it is completely Eurocentric about a worldwide topic. I would suggest that timber and lumber might well both have pages, since timber refers to the raw material and lumber to the finished product, but the current timber article isn't the one. If timber is merged with lumber, it should of course have good redirects. Pollinator 14:46, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
From
User talk:Pollinator
Hi Pollinator - just added a note at
talk:lumber. The real problem is that the very title 'lumber' itself is strongly US-centric; the word simply isn't used in other countries (apart from perhaps Canada?) -
MPF 16:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Timber is standing trees. Harvested timber (trees cut down) is logs, but can be referred to as timber. Lumber is manufactured wood products, made from logs. So lumber is NOT timber. [1] [2] I think there is some confusion regarding the British meaning due to the historical use of "lumber" in English as: the word had been around in Britain for many decades before it showed up in America: as a verb, meaning chiefly “to move ponderously,” and as a noun, meaning chiefly “surplus or disused articles that are stored away.” [3] KetaDesign ( talk) 19:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
References
I propose that the following articles are merged as there seems to be overlap between them which creates confustion are all about the same thing.
This will also allow a for a better quality, more interesting article. I propose that all the articles are put under the title of Timber with their appropriate sub-headings. Hobo 04:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The Lumber/Timber Articles Should Not Me Merged For They Have Sperate Maenings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.67.206 ( talk) 00:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Maine, Oregon, Washington, and California? Did the Midwest suddenly disappear from the forestry history books? Wisconsin was once a great center of the lumber industry in the United States. Someone very familiar with American forestry history has to add to and edit the History and Geography subsection of the article:
[Wisconsin lumber history http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/turningpoints/tp-027/] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.90.19 ( talk) 09:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Dimensional lumber merged with Lumber.
I note though that those tables are ugly. Anyone care to fix them?
Also, I'll do the merger with Timber, too, if people want.
-- NaOH 05:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
User:Parker007 moved the contents of
Talk:Timber here at 22:02, 20 January 2007
--
Ken Gallager (
talk) 17:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
This article does not have the international perspective that should be expected of a Wikipedia article. The world is not divided into North America and everywhere else. Rewriting to remove such insular references and provide a proper global perspective would go someway the lifting this article above its current B-Grade status.
This article's usage of
Baltic seems somewhat confusing. It's surprising to see
Norway mentioned as a "Baltic" country, and one can further suspect that
Finland and
Sweden, and maybe even
Russia, are thought of as historically important producers of timber for Great Britain. Maybe
Northern Europe should be read in most places where no stands the Baltic?
--
Ruhrjung 06:30, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I propose that the following articles are merged as there seems to be overlap between them which creates confustion are all about the same thing.
This will also allow a for a better quality, more interesting article. I propose that all the articles are put under the title of Timber with their appropriate sub-headings. Hobo 04:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
In the US, a timber is a piece of wood larger than what is normally used in light construction. If the articles are merged, it would confuse Americans to call it timber or confuse non-American English speakers to call it lumber. I like timber the way it is now. However, I think it would be reasonable to merge lumber and dimensional lumber. Nobody is likely to look up dimensional lumber without a link anyway. JBickner 05:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
As I now understand it the meanings of "Timber" and "Lumber" are different depending on where in the world they are used. Correct me if I am wrong but "lumber" in the US is the same as "timber" elsewhere. Hence the two articles are about the same thing. This causes confusion. I still propose merging the articles as they are discussing the same thing, keeping them separate just causes confusion. Prehaps we need to break the aticles into two sections each as a US and Non-US section in each. Hobo 04:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the ambiguity needs to be cleared up merger or not so if anyone else has any ideas please post them here. Hobo 05:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I've restored Dimensional lumber and Lumber for the moment after User:NaOH merged the 3 together.
The merger for Dimensional lumber to Lumber looks good, so dimensional lumber should probably be changed back to a redirect (assuming that's fine).
The merger for Lumber to Timber still looks to be under debate. I've added merge tags to everything to get a better consensus, and moved all talk here. -- h2g2bob 22:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
ISBN 0-314-20537-3 it has a seperate chapter for specifically for Timber p.539-p563.
Lumber/Dimensional lumber/Timber merged with redirects.
One thing I notice is that throughout the article there is links to lumber and the like. How do I make those links point to the specific points in the article which refer to those topics instead of back to the original pages which now only contain redirects? -- NaOH 06:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Trying to eliminate it all... how can I fix those blasted tables? -- NaOH 03:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Changing to clear up ambiguity, in that it is unclear what he has adopted the 2x4 for, his child? Building? etc. it's his weapon of choice, and i'm chainging it as so. -Coleman! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.124.112.248 ( talk • contribs) .
The section on Indian timber feels out of place, given its level of detail regarding a relatively minor area that is highlighted seemingly without reason. Should it be moved into a new article? -- Frostyservant 07:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. It should go on its own page, linked from Trees_of_the_world. Anyone feel free to move it. I would but have to go now. DrVeghead 02:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've moved the section to List of Indian timber trees, but I wouldn't link it from Trees of the world because it doesn't list all the trees native to India, only those that are used for lumber. SCHZMO ✍ 12:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
This article needs a section on the terms used to grade dimensional lumber -- and a dicussion of knots, bark, cracking, listing the typical defects. 69.87.194.162 23:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
FAS – Highest grade 83-1/3% or better clear cuttings. 6” or wider, 8’ and longer. Some species allow for narrower boards and shorter lengths (Walnut and Cherry for example).
FEQ – First European Quality – Roughly equivalent to FAS
FAS 1F – FAS grading requirements are met on one face or one face and portion of the second. Second side must be #1 Common or better.
SELECTS – Selects are 4” and wider and 6’ and longer. Primary face grades FAS reverse side grades #1 common or better.
>#1 Common – #1 common yields 66-1/3% or better in smaller (than FAS) clear cuttings, 3” and wider and 4’ and longer.
>#2 Common - #2 Common yields 50% or better in small clear cuttings. Typically used for flooring and production furniture, or where component parts, and the required clear cuttings, are small.
There is a line that says "Leading International Producers ??????? ??????? ??????" at the end of the "Softwood" section of "Dimensional Lumber". Shouldn't this be on the discussion page instead of the article itself? I'm not going to remove it until I can at least get a second for removal or an explanation. Marvtixx 16:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Done Marvtixx 17:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm a builder, not a framer or lumber salesman, but I noticed that there was nothing at all concerning an important part of lumber, which are engineered products; I can't build a home without them. I may have missed something and if someone who is a framer or is a lumber sales rep could add to that section or correct any inaccuracies it would help. Marvtixx 17:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I added a source for my Engineered Lumber section. It doesn't source everything I added as I didn't have the time/desire to search for one at the moment, but I'll add one later or someone else can gladly do it. It shouldn't be a problem at this point as the entire article is lacking sourcing citations and at least I did provide one for about 85% of what I added. Marvtixx 17:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that the Classifications section need clarity. I am not quite sure what was trying to be conveyed before. I am not quite sure what the author originally meant by “actual sizes” it is a little too vague considering that lumber is sold as the thickness of the board before kiln drying and planing. Boards are cut, at least in hardwoods, to quarter thickness ie 6/4 5/4 4/4 (inches) and are sold as thus even though some of the thickness is lost in the kiln and will be planed off. Busfault 21:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
End of discussions copied from Talk:Timber. Ken Gallager ( talk) 17:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't have a decent source for this, but my understanding of the reason behind modern lumber being smaller than its name is that the old 2x4s were actually sawn to 2inches by 4inches. Modern buildings do not require as heavy cuts due to better quality control in sawing it, and better design and building methods. Anyone have a dependable source, one way or the other, on the matter?-- Talroth 00:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey everyone. I own a directory of lumber and wood related companies. It is not the only one of it's kind, but I thought you might be able to give me some direction and ideas to put in more categories for the site. It is located at www.lumberjakk.com. Any response would be greatly appreciated, email me at torkildson@gmail.com Sushilover boy 20:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The lead section is presently (lks omitted):
Having stated my reasoning for those changes, i'm going to
edit boldly by doing that much, and counting on colleagues to fix it if i've overlooked something in that reasoning. (And someone is likely to find a better place for the two sentences i moved.)
--
Jerzy•
t 07:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm removing
because these are not about the topic, but merely about what superficially appears to be the same word. The first item looked likely to fit on
Logging if not covered there, and i reworded it and used the result in
Logging#Logging and safety. The second seems unencyclopedic to me.
--
Jerzy•
t 07:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I just removed this paragraph:
Now, it's true that many buildings (say, ca. 1900 in the U.S.) do use rough-cut lumber, with the "real" dimensions, i.e. a 2x4 is actually 2"x4". However, it's also clear that this wood is rough (not planed) -- run your hand along it and you'll get lots of splinters.
I have no doubt (though I can't supply a source) that modern building codes are based on the strength of dimensional lumber using today's finished dimensions.
Certainly, there's been some cost-saving along the way; I'll bet that a precision, modern sawmill can get away with planing down to a 2x4 from a rough cut that was smaller than 2" x 4". But it's also true that the planing (which, believe me, for the most part we'd all rather have the benefit of) is an additional expense.
I'm not sure what, if anything, to replace the uncited paragraph with. Certainly, the existence of old houses with "real" 2x4's is a fun fact, but I'm not sure this is the article for it. — Steve Summit ( talk) 23:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Glad to see that a page that was once too eurocentric has succesfully been turned into a page that has absolutely no relevance at all to someone looking up the word Timber from britain. I especially like the stated fact that "Non-American lumber" is usually sold in 300mm lengths equivalent to a foot - with the implication that we just cannot bring ourselves to part from the good old us of a's basic unit - wood isn't sold in 300mm lengths it is sold in meters (approx 1 yard). I agree with the comments about the word lumber - lumber is a word that has more to do with getting out of bed lazily than wood, it is never heard here. But really the reason I came here in the first place was to confirm the different legal status between 'timber' and 'wood' - something I would have thought was fairly encyclopaedic - but no - here we have an american trade directory page for builders - no good to me, I'm off to find a real source of information. 81.102.245.243 ( talk) 23:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
References
On reading about the problems that seem to have dogged this page regarding the terms timber and lumber - and some of the glaringly biased decisions regarding what should stay and what should go.
I have to agree that making a 'british timber trade' page was a good idea - unfortunately what is left is an 'american timber trade' page called 'Lumber' - why not go the whole hog and strip out all of the really trade specific stuff and make an 'american timber trade' page. perhaps then we could make a generic page that dealt with the subject more evenly, perhaps even one that got to the bottom of the different usage, and had room for some historical a and even legal detail (these are aspects of timber too). as it is the page is a real frightener. 81.102.245.243 ( talk) 23:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The logs pictured as "headed for the sawmill" are horribly checked and rotten and I can see at least one with a ring shake that probably runs the length. It's good for nothing but pulp (you couldn't possibly make a profit trying to saw that stuff into lumber) and most likely it is headed for the firewood splitter rather than a sawmill. Why not have a picture of fresh-cut or properly sealed timbers, to more accurately represent the vast majority of timber used to create boards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.27.178.252 ( talk) 14:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a lot of info in criticisms in the article, like deforestation which is destroying the earth? http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/deforest/deforest.html so we stop all lumbering & give every person a Guaranteed Minimum Income. Stars4change ( talk) 05:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The various warping categories listed in
Wood warping are also defects and should be included in this article.
Warping is a defect caused by a problem in conversion and seasoning of lumber (timber) and should not be treated separately.
Geoff (
talk) 15:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
We do see to be getting into complicated discussions over timber sizes.
Timber may be supplied rough sawn or planed/dressed and the dressed size could less than quarter of an inch or 6mm less than the specified size.
This is called the nominal size or 'EX'. On contracts such as for domestic buildings this would be specified and there should be no misunderstanding.
Geoff ( talk) 18:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
i was wondering if anyone could help with a history running back to egyptian cedars. europe/north america, and current as south america.
what been going on with the populations, virgin forests are usually decimated along the map, but how many of which have been replanted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.208.33.254 ( talk) 11:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I started working on the History section, I hope I am doing it right! KetaDesign ( talk) 19:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
This article seems to be written in the United States point of view. In other words, somebody wrote this article the " familiar" way, not the worldwide or Universal way. Slayer2448 ( talk) 22:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Slayer2448 Slayer2448 ( talk) 22:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I moved the non-sequitur note regarding timber piles from the section on dmensional lumber and placed in into its own. It needs attention from someone knowledgeable. -- Theodore Kloba ( talk) 20:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Had a go at editing the US size table entering in Norwegian standards.
and in my search for good references I see there is quite the range of differences between the EU nations when it comes to sizes, and no doubt other parts of the world. So I'd like to put forth the idea of making a sub/list page where tables for each country or region could be entered. as placing these on the main article would get rather messy.
Anyways. Here, for now is my ugly creation, needs a bit of sorting and polish, and I need to make more room for the boards, still have in excess of 20 dimensions to add..
Nominal (in) | Actual | Nominal (in) | Actual | Nominal (in) | Actual |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
25x50(1 × 2) *1 | 23 mm × 48 mm | 50x50 (2 × 2) | 48 mm × 48 mm | 100x100 (4 × 4) | 98 mm × 98 mm |
38x75 (1+1⁄2x3) | 36 mm × 73 mm *2 | 50×75 (2x3) | 48 mm × 73 mm *2 | 100×150 (4x6) | 98 mm × 148 mm |
38x100 (1+1⁄2x4) | 36 mm x 98 mm | 50x100 (2x4) | 48 mm × 98 mm | 150x150 (6x6) | 148 mm × 148 mm |
38x125 (1+1⁄2x5) | 36 mm x 123 mm | 50x150 (2x6) | 48 mm x 148 mm | 50x250 (2x10) | 48 mm x 248 mm |
38x150 (1+1⁄2x6) | 36 mm x 148 mm | 50x175 (2x7) | 48 mm x 173 mm | 50x150 (2x5) | 48 mm x 173 mm |
38x200 (1+1⁄2x8) | 36 mm x 198 mm | 50x200 (2x8) | 48 mm x 198 mm | 32x50 (1+1⁄4x2) *1 | 30 mm x 48 mm |
38x225 (1+1⁄2x9) | 36 mm x 223 mm | 50x225 (2x9) | 48mm x 223 mm | 38x50 (1+1⁄2x2) *1 | 36 mm x 48 mm |
(*1 often split from larger blanks yielding 2 or 3 actual pieces, thus nominal do not necessarily refer to the unfinished size but based on nomenclature)
(*2 "3 inch" widths in 36 and 48 mm appear as both 73 and 68 mm for untreated wood, the 68mm being the most commonly used for indoor partition walls, fitting better together with standard door frames (93 mm) when the usual 12mm of wall cladding either side is added)
Raymond Holmoey (
talk) 20:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
2 points: Timber seems to be the word that the English speaking world outside of North America uses for the wood used in industries, construction, paper, furniture, etc and by North American English speakers for large wood used in construction, etc. Lumber is used only in North America. Timber seems more inclusive. Sawn wood seems a good compromise
Wood and timber have different pages. There is a worldwide distinction between wood (a raw material, used for a very wide range of purposes, from firewood, art, utensil making, etc., often on a small, craft scale) and timber, an industrial raw material used for construction, paper making and industrial level furniture. This distinction is contained within the respective wikipedia pages. There is a discussion on the Category:wood page whether individual types of wood known by names of trees should be included in the category pages. I believe there should be a Category:Timber page to provide a encyclopaedic guide to what timbers there are out there. What do youse think?
Brunswicknic (
talk) 17:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I think this should be a separate article. We have defects due to growing / silviculture or lack of. AND we have defects due to processing/transportation. It makes sense to split this very long article. As the German wikipedia does. the German wikipedia also has a separate section for standards (think paper size standards) and that can be kept here or split too. But defects are quite lengthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.95.7.115 ( talk) 16:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
It's just annoying me a bit, being there for three years. The information there might lend weight to North America, but multiple other continents are discussed, and the information is not malicious, biased, or negligent. Wikipedia should give a detailed general overview, and notices like these should be used in more important instances Nuvigil ( talk) 22:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
There is commentary in the body of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yupthisrlyismysn ( talk • contribs) 20:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Timber truck. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 ( talk) 00:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wood logs. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 ( talk) 00:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wood log. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 ( talk) 00:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
is it true that a woodcutter yells 'Timber!' at the moment a tree falls down after being cut ?? if so, thats a 'trivia' or some a like !!!! 85.149.83.125 ( talk) 23:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
This page makes no reference to the CLS acronym, which is very commonly used (at least in the UK) to refer to a specific type of dimensional lumber that is planed on all four sides and has rounded corners (see this page which has a brief intro and is the first hit on google, but I imagine isn't a reliable source?). Is this the right page to add such information, and if so where would be appropriate. What sources would be needed to ensure a paragraph or two passes review? I haven't edited wikipedia before, but would be willing to attempt a draft if given some guidance. CharlieDA~enwiki ( talk) 17:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
I took the liberty to remove the merge timber note, because frankly, there are only a few bits and pieces in the present timber article that relate to timber. That article should be renamed to something like The History of the British Timber Trade. It is more about trade and economics than timber. It is historic and makes no mention of contemporary timbering. And it is completely Eurocentric about a worldwide topic. I would suggest that timber and lumber might well both have pages, since timber refers to the raw material and lumber to the finished product, but the current timber article isn't the one. If timber is merged with lumber, it should of course have good redirects. Pollinator 14:46, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
From
User talk:Pollinator
Hi Pollinator - just added a note at
talk:lumber. The real problem is that the very title 'lumber' itself is strongly US-centric; the word simply isn't used in other countries (apart from perhaps Canada?) -
MPF 16:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Timber is standing trees. Harvested timber (trees cut down) is logs, but can be referred to as timber. Lumber is manufactured wood products, made from logs. So lumber is NOT timber. [1] [2] I think there is some confusion regarding the British meaning due to the historical use of "lumber" in English as: the word had been around in Britain for many decades before it showed up in America: as a verb, meaning chiefly “to move ponderously,” and as a noun, meaning chiefly “surplus or disused articles that are stored away.” [3] KetaDesign ( talk) 19:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
References
I propose that the following articles are merged as there seems to be overlap between them which creates confustion are all about the same thing.
This will also allow a for a better quality, more interesting article. I propose that all the articles are put under the title of Timber with their appropriate sub-headings. Hobo 04:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The Lumber/Timber Articles Should Not Me Merged For They Have Sperate Maenings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.67.206 ( talk) 00:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Maine, Oregon, Washington, and California? Did the Midwest suddenly disappear from the forestry history books? Wisconsin was once a great center of the lumber industry in the United States. Someone very familiar with American forestry history has to add to and edit the History and Geography subsection of the article:
[Wisconsin lumber history http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/turningpoints/tp-027/] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.90.19 ( talk) 09:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Dimensional lumber merged with Lumber.
I note though that those tables are ugly. Anyone care to fix them?
Also, I'll do the merger with Timber, too, if people want.
-- NaOH 05:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
User:Parker007 moved the contents of
Talk:Timber here at 22:02, 20 January 2007
--
Ken Gallager (
talk) 17:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
This article does not have the international perspective that should be expected of a Wikipedia article. The world is not divided into North America and everywhere else. Rewriting to remove such insular references and provide a proper global perspective would go someway the lifting this article above its current B-Grade status.
This article's usage of
Baltic seems somewhat confusing. It's surprising to see
Norway mentioned as a "Baltic" country, and one can further suspect that
Finland and
Sweden, and maybe even
Russia, are thought of as historically important producers of timber for Great Britain. Maybe
Northern Europe should be read in most places where no stands the Baltic?
--
Ruhrjung 06:30, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I propose that the following articles are merged as there seems to be overlap between them which creates confustion are all about the same thing.
This will also allow a for a better quality, more interesting article. I propose that all the articles are put under the title of Timber with their appropriate sub-headings. Hobo 04:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
In the US, a timber is a piece of wood larger than what is normally used in light construction. If the articles are merged, it would confuse Americans to call it timber or confuse non-American English speakers to call it lumber. I like timber the way it is now. However, I think it would be reasonable to merge lumber and dimensional lumber. Nobody is likely to look up dimensional lumber without a link anyway. JBickner 05:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
As I now understand it the meanings of "Timber" and "Lumber" are different depending on where in the world they are used. Correct me if I am wrong but "lumber" in the US is the same as "timber" elsewhere. Hence the two articles are about the same thing. This causes confusion. I still propose merging the articles as they are discussing the same thing, keeping them separate just causes confusion. Prehaps we need to break the aticles into two sections each as a US and Non-US section in each. Hobo 04:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the ambiguity needs to be cleared up merger or not so if anyone else has any ideas please post them here. Hobo 05:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I've restored Dimensional lumber and Lumber for the moment after User:NaOH merged the 3 together.
The merger for Dimensional lumber to Lumber looks good, so dimensional lumber should probably be changed back to a redirect (assuming that's fine).
The merger for Lumber to Timber still looks to be under debate. I've added merge tags to everything to get a better consensus, and moved all talk here. -- h2g2bob 22:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
ISBN 0-314-20537-3 it has a seperate chapter for specifically for Timber p.539-p563.
Lumber/Dimensional lumber/Timber merged with redirects.
One thing I notice is that throughout the article there is links to lumber and the like. How do I make those links point to the specific points in the article which refer to those topics instead of back to the original pages which now only contain redirects? -- NaOH 06:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Trying to eliminate it all... how can I fix those blasted tables? -- NaOH 03:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Changing to clear up ambiguity, in that it is unclear what he has adopted the 2x4 for, his child? Building? etc. it's his weapon of choice, and i'm chainging it as so. -Coleman! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.124.112.248 ( talk • contribs) .
The section on Indian timber feels out of place, given its level of detail regarding a relatively minor area that is highlighted seemingly without reason. Should it be moved into a new article? -- Frostyservant 07:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. It should go on its own page, linked from Trees_of_the_world. Anyone feel free to move it. I would but have to go now. DrVeghead 02:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've moved the section to List of Indian timber trees, but I wouldn't link it from Trees of the world because it doesn't list all the trees native to India, only those that are used for lumber. SCHZMO ✍ 12:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
This article needs a section on the terms used to grade dimensional lumber -- and a dicussion of knots, bark, cracking, listing the typical defects. 69.87.194.162 23:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
FAS – Highest grade 83-1/3% or better clear cuttings. 6” or wider, 8’ and longer. Some species allow for narrower boards and shorter lengths (Walnut and Cherry for example).
FEQ – First European Quality – Roughly equivalent to FAS
FAS 1F – FAS grading requirements are met on one face or one face and portion of the second. Second side must be #1 Common or better.
SELECTS – Selects are 4” and wider and 6’ and longer. Primary face grades FAS reverse side grades #1 common or better.
>#1 Common – #1 common yields 66-1/3% or better in smaller (than FAS) clear cuttings, 3” and wider and 4’ and longer.
>#2 Common - #2 Common yields 50% or better in small clear cuttings. Typically used for flooring and production furniture, or where component parts, and the required clear cuttings, are small.
There is a line that says "Leading International Producers ??????? ??????? ??????" at the end of the "Softwood" section of "Dimensional Lumber". Shouldn't this be on the discussion page instead of the article itself? I'm not going to remove it until I can at least get a second for removal or an explanation. Marvtixx 16:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Done Marvtixx 17:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm a builder, not a framer or lumber salesman, but I noticed that there was nothing at all concerning an important part of lumber, which are engineered products; I can't build a home without them. I may have missed something and if someone who is a framer or is a lumber sales rep could add to that section or correct any inaccuracies it would help. Marvtixx 17:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I added a source for my Engineered Lumber section. It doesn't source everything I added as I didn't have the time/desire to search for one at the moment, but I'll add one later or someone else can gladly do it. It shouldn't be a problem at this point as the entire article is lacking sourcing citations and at least I did provide one for about 85% of what I added. Marvtixx 17:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that the Classifications section need clarity. I am not quite sure what was trying to be conveyed before. I am not quite sure what the author originally meant by “actual sizes” it is a little too vague considering that lumber is sold as the thickness of the board before kiln drying and planing. Boards are cut, at least in hardwoods, to quarter thickness ie 6/4 5/4 4/4 (inches) and are sold as thus even though some of the thickness is lost in the kiln and will be planed off. Busfault 21:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
End of discussions copied from Talk:Timber. Ken Gallager ( talk) 17:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't have a decent source for this, but my understanding of the reason behind modern lumber being smaller than its name is that the old 2x4s were actually sawn to 2inches by 4inches. Modern buildings do not require as heavy cuts due to better quality control in sawing it, and better design and building methods. Anyone have a dependable source, one way or the other, on the matter?-- Talroth 00:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey everyone. I own a directory of lumber and wood related companies. It is not the only one of it's kind, but I thought you might be able to give me some direction and ideas to put in more categories for the site. It is located at www.lumberjakk.com. Any response would be greatly appreciated, email me at torkildson@gmail.com Sushilover boy 20:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The lead section is presently (lks omitted):
Having stated my reasoning for those changes, i'm going to
edit boldly by doing that much, and counting on colleagues to fix it if i've overlooked something in that reasoning. (And someone is likely to find a better place for the two sentences i moved.)
--
Jerzy•
t 07:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm removing
because these are not about the topic, but merely about what superficially appears to be the same word. The first item looked likely to fit on
Logging if not covered there, and i reworded it and used the result in
Logging#Logging and safety. The second seems unencyclopedic to me.
--
Jerzy•
t 07:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I just removed this paragraph:
Now, it's true that many buildings (say, ca. 1900 in the U.S.) do use rough-cut lumber, with the "real" dimensions, i.e. a 2x4 is actually 2"x4". However, it's also clear that this wood is rough (not planed) -- run your hand along it and you'll get lots of splinters.
I have no doubt (though I can't supply a source) that modern building codes are based on the strength of dimensional lumber using today's finished dimensions.
Certainly, there's been some cost-saving along the way; I'll bet that a precision, modern sawmill can get away with planing down to a 2x4 from a rough cut that was smaller than 2" x 4". But it's also true that the planing (which, believe me, for the most part we'd all rather have the benefit of) is an additional expense.
I'm not sure what, if anything, to replace the uncited paragraph with. Certainly, the existence of old houses with "real" 2x4's is a fun fact, but I'm not sure this is the article for it. — Steve Summit ( talk) 23:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Glad to see that a page that was once too eurocentric has succesfully been turned into a page that has absolutely no relevance at all to someone looking up the word Timber from britain. I especially like the stated fact that "Non-American lumber" is usually sold in 300mm lengths equivalent to a foot - with the implication that we just cannot bring ourselves to part from the good old us of a's basic unit - wood isn't sold in 300mm lengths it is sold in meters (approx 1 yard). I agree with the comments about the word lumber - lumber is a word that has more to do with getting out of bed lazily than wood, it is never heard here. But really the reason I came here in the first place was to confirm the different legal status between 'timber' and 'wood' - something I would have thought was fairly encyclopaedic - but no - here we have an american trade directory page for builders - no good to me, I'm off to find a real source of information. 81.102.245.243 ( talk) 23:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
References
On reading about the problems that seem to have dogged this page regarding the terms timber and lumber - and some of the glaringly biased decisions regarding what should stay and what should go.
I have to agree that making a 'british timber trade' page was a good idea - unfortunately what is left is an 'american timber trade' page called 'Lumber' - why not go the whole hog and strip out all of the really trade specific stuff and make an 'american timber trade' page. perhaps then we could make a generic page that dealt with the subject more evenly, perhaps even one that got to the bottom of the different usage, and had room for some historical a and even legal detail (these are aspects of timber too). as it is the page is a real frightener. 81.102.245.243 ( talk) 23:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The logs pictured as "headed for the sawmill" are horribly checked and rotten and I can see at least one with a ring shake that probably runs the length. It's good for nothing but pulp (you couldn't possibly make a profit trying to saw that stuff into lumber) and most likely it is headed for the firewood splitter rather than a sawmill. Why not have a picture of fresh-cut or properly sealed timbers, to more accurately represent the vast majority of timber used to create boards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.27.178.252 ( talk) 14:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a lot of info in criticisms in the article, like deforestation which is destroying the earth? http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/deforest/deforest.html so we stop all lumbering & give every person a Guaranteed Minimum Income. Stars4change ( talk) 05:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The various warping categories listed in
Wood warping are also defects and should be included in this article.
Warping is a defect caused by a problem in conversion and seasoning of lumber (timber) and should not be treated separately.
Geoff (
talk) 15:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
We do see to be getting into complicated discussions over timber sizes.
Timber may be supplied rough sawn or planed/dressed and the dressed size could less than quarter of an inch or 6mm less than the specified size.
This is called the nominal size or 'EX'. On contracts such as for domestic buildings this would be specified and there should be no misunderstanding.
Geoff ( talk) 18:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
i was wondering if anyone could help with a history running back to egyptian cedars. europe/north america, and current as south america.
what been going on with the populations, virgin forests are usually decimated along the map, but how many of which have been replanted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.208.33.254 ( talk) 11:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I started working on the History section, I hope I am doing it right! KetaDesign ( talk) 19:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
This article seems to be written in the United States point of view. In other words, somebody wrote this article the " familiar" way, not the worldwide or Universal way. Slayer2448 ( talk) 22:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Slayer2448 Slayer2448 ( talk) 22:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I moved the non-sequitur note regarding timber piles from the section on dmensional lumber and placed in into its own. It needs attention from someone knowledgeable. -- Theodore Kloba ( talk) 20:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Had a go at editing the US size table entering in Norwegian standards.
and in my search for good references I see there is quite the range of differences between the EU nations when it comes to sizes, and no doubt other parts of the world. So I'd like to put forth the idea of making a sub/list page where tables for each country or region could be entered. as placing these on the main article would get rather messy.
Anyways. Here, for now is my ugly creation, needs a bit of sorting and polish, and I need to make more room for the boards, still have in excess of 20 dimensions to add..
Nominal (in) | Actual | Nominal (in) | Actual | Nominal (in) | Actual |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
25x50(1 × 2) *1 | 23 mm × 48 mm | 50x50 (2 × 2) | 48 mm × 48 mm | 100x100 (4 × 4) | 98 mm × 98 mm |
38x75 (1+1⁄2x3) | 36 mm × 73 mm *2 | 50×75 (2x3) | 48 mm × 73 mm *2 | 100×150 (4x6) | 98 mm × 148 mm |
38x100 (1+1⁄2x4) | 36 mm x 98 mm | 50x100 (2x4) | 48 mm × 98 mm | 150x150 (6x6) | 148 mm × 148 mm |
38x125 (1+1⁄2x5) | 36 mm x 123 mm | 50x150 (2x6) | 48 mm x 148 mm | 50x250 (2x10) | 48 mm x 248 mm |
38x150 (1+1⁄2x6) | 36 mm x 148 mm | 50x175 (2x7) | 48 mm x 173 mm | 50x150 (2x5) | 48 mm x 173 mm |
38x200 (1+1⁄2x8) | 36 mm x 198 mm | 50x200 (2x8) | 48 mm x 198 mm | 32x50 (1+1⁄4x2) *1 | 30 mm x 48 mm |
38x225 (1+1⁄2x9) | 36 mm x 223 mm | 50x225 (2x9) | 48mm x 223 mm | 38x50 (1+1⁄2x2) *1 | 36 mm x 48 mm |
(*1 often split from larger blanks yielding 2 or 3 actual pieces, thus nominal do not necessarily refer to the unfinished size but based on nomenclature)
(*2 "3 inch" widths in 36 and 48 mm appear as both 73 and 68 mm for untreated wood, the 68mm being the most commonly used for indoor partition walls, fitting better together with standard door frames (93 mm) when the usual 12mm of wall cladding either side is added)
Raymond Holmoey (
talk) 20:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
2 points: Timber seems to be the word that the English speaking world outside of North America uses for the wood used in industries, construction, paper, furniture, etc and by North American English speakers for large wood used in construction, etc. Lumber is used only in North America. Timber seems more inclusive. Sawn wood seems a good compromise
Wood and timber have different pages. There is a worldwide distinction between wood (a raw material, used for a very wide range of purposes, from firewood, art, utensil making, etc., often on a small, craft scale) and timber, an industrial raw material used for construction, paper making and industrial level furniture. This distinction is contained within the respective wikipedia pages. There is a discussion on the Category:wood page whether individual types of wood known by names of trees should be included in the category pages. I believe there should be a Category:Timber page to provide a encyclopaedic guide to what timbers there are out there. What do youse think?
Brunswicknic (
talk) 17:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I think this should be a separate article. We have defects due to growing / silviculture or lack of. AND we have defects due to processing/transportation. It makes sense to split this very long article. As the German wikipedia does. the German wikipedia also has a separate section for standards (think paper size standards) and that can be kept here or split too. But defects are quite lengthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.95.7.115 ( talk) 16:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
It's just annoying me a bit, being there for three years. The information there might lend weight to North America, but multiple other continents are discussed, and the information is not malicious, biased, or negligent. Wikipedia should give a detailed general overview, and notices like these should be used in more important instances Nuvigil ( talk) 22:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
There is commentary in the body of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yupthisrlyismysn ( talk • contribs) 20:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Timber truck. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 ( talk) 00:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wood logs. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 ( talk) 00:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wood log. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 ( talk) 00:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
is it true that a woodcutter yells 'Timber!' at the moment a tree falls down after being cut ?? if so, thats a 'trivia' or some a like !!!! 85.149.83.125 ( talk) 23:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
This page makes no reference to the CLS acronym, which is very commonly used (at least in the UK) to refer to a specific type of dimensional lumber that is planed on all four sides and has rounded corners (see this page which has a brief intro and is the first hit on google, but I imagine isn't a reliable source?). Is this the right page to add such information, and if so where would be appropriate. What sources would be needed to ensure a paragraph or two passes review? I haven't edited wikipedia before, but would be willing to attempt a draft if given some guidance. CharlieDA~enwiki ( talk) 17:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)