Wikipedia

Talk:Lumber

timber/lumber

[edit]

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)

I didn't know that.Pollinator 03:14, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
All my British relatives have "lumber rooms" in their houses. We do not have them in the States, we keep unused furniture in the attic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.27.178.252 (talk) 14:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.dictionary.com/e/timber-vs-lumber/
  2. ^ https://www.thomasnet.com/articles/plant-facility-equipment/lumber-vs-timber/
  3. ^ https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/lumber-word-history-lombard

Discussions from Talk:Timber

[edit]

User:Parker007 moved the contents of Talk:Timber here at 22:02, 20 January 2007
--Ken Gallager (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Insularity

[edit]

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.

The meaning of Baltic

[edit]

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 agree this is confusing, go ahead and change it. Also I think in the context of timber Baltic refers to the states which produce similar timbers such as baltic pine and Norwegian spruce. Hobo 04:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was merged. This seems to have happened a while ago, so this close is just a formality. --BDD (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Timber
Lumber
Dimensional lumber

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)[reply]

Against merger

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • I suppose I would tend to agree, that timber and lumber are defined differently in America. Timber really is unfinished wood or raw wood, the material growing and cut in the forest. Lumber is processed timber. A timber yard would only be seen at a sawmill; a lumber yard would be found at the local hardware - Marshman 05:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree. Before trees are cut, they are often referred to as "timber" (e.g. timber cruising), but not frequently as lumber. When they are cut and sawed the material is referred to as lumber. Not a hard and fast rule, but still a distinction. Jeeb 21:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. But there should be a link between these articles. Guy. February 13 2006
  • Also against merger -- timber is not always turned into lumber. For instance, a tree can be cut down (making it timber), and then used for paper pulp or for wood chips, neither of which are lumber -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US and non US

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • I am in favour of merging the articles, although I do use the North American usage. They are all about the same thing. How about calling the merged article Lumber/timber or Sawn wood? The different usages should be mentioned up front in the lead paragraph. Also, Hobo, why not take a gander at it on a sandbox page somewhere, so that others could see what you have in mind. I think it would help convince people. Note that according to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English, the usage should be that of "the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article." According to the edit history, Timber was created first on 25 February 2002, while Lumber was started on 25 June 2002.Timber also ceased being a stub first, on 1 October 2002 compared to more than a year later for Lumber on 13 October 2003. So according to that rule, the article should use British usage. Also, the Manual of Style suggests:
If the spelling appears in an article name, you should make a redirect page to accommodate the other variant, as with Artefact and Artifact, or if possible and reasonable, a neutral word might be chosen as with Glasses.
Words with multiple spellings: In choosing words or expressions, there may be value in selecting one that does not have multiple spellings, if there are synonyms that are otherwise equally suitable. In extreme cases of conflicting names, a contrived substitute (such as fixed-wing aircraft) is acceptable.
hence my suggestion of a combined title (Lumber/timber) or a contrived one (Sawn wood). Luigizanasi 19:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Talk:Lumber

[edit]
I agree, in their current form the three articles have a wide overlap, and all all incomplete. njh 06:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Talk:Dimensional lumber

[edit]
  • I am in favour of merging the articles, although I do use the North American usage. They are all about the same thing. How about calling the merged article Lumber/timber or Sawn wood? The different usages should be mentioned up front in the lead paragraph. Also, Hobo, why not take a gander at it on a sandbox page somewhere, so that others could see what you have in mind. I think it would help convince people. Note that according to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English, the usage should be that of "the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article." According to the edit history, Timber was created first on 25 February 2002, while Lumber was started on 25 June 2002.Timber also ceased being a stub first, on 1 October 2002 compared to more than a year later for Lumber on 13 October 2003. Dimensional lumber was created much later. So according to that rule, the article should use British usage. Also, the Manual of Style suggests:
If the spelling appears in an article name, you should make a redirect page to accommodate the other variant, as with Artefact and Artifact, or if possible and reasonable, a neutral word might be chosen as with Glasses.
Words with multiple spellings: In choosing words or expressions, there may be value in selecting one that does not have multiple spellings, if there are synonyms that are otherwise equally suitable. In extreme cases of conflicting names, a contrived substitute (such as fixed-wing aircraft) is acceptable.
hence my suggestion of a combined title (Lumber/timber) or a contrived one (Sawn wood), but I am not opposed to calling it Timber, with the appropriate redirects. Luigizanasi 19:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My edits

[edit]

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)[reply]

Oppose or Move Timber into Lumber

[edit]
  • Timber is used for heavy construction for example say a Church. (I am an Athiest).
  • Lumber is used for light weight construction for example a town house or house.
  • Dimensional Lumber could be merged with Lumber, but not Timber.
  • If you would see the book "Construction: Materials, Methods, and Techniques"

ISBN 0-314-20537-3 it has a seperate chapter for specifically for Timber p.539-p563.

  • In the same book it states Lumber (or Dimensional Lumber) is used for Platform Framing.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Everything

[edit]

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)[reply]

Say you want to point to the "Treatment" section, then you would use the code [[Timber#Treatment]], note the "#" sign betwen the article title and the section title. Luigizanasi 15:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty Space

[edit]

Trying to eliminate it all... how can I fix those blasted tables? --NaOH 03:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hacksaw Jim

[edit]

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) .

Indian Timber

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have linked it from List of woods, which seems to be the most appropriate article. Luigizanasi 18:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grading Lumber

[edit]

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)[reply]

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.

I agree with needing a grading section. It will also need to note the difference in grading softwoods or hardwoods as it is different. I think a link to the NHLA (National Hardwood Lumber Association) should be added, as they have written a rule book on grading lumber which many in the Hardwood industry use as standards for the selling/buying of lumber. Their rule book also clearly defines the grades of lumber as well as terms for standard defects such as wane, pin knots, pith, etc. I am interested in helping with this page, but I am still quite new at wikis. Busfault 04:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced Content??

[edit]

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)[reply]

I say go ahead and delete the line. Looks like a previous editor may have left a note for themselves and forgot it. No issue there. JungleCat talk/contrib 16:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DoneMarvtixx 17:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Engineered Lumber

[edit]

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)[reply]

I would think plywood is a major part of engineered lumber. Particle board, OSB, and MDF are all engineered wood products. A table of their dimensions would be helpful. Thanks. cbedgar 66.91.234.161 (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citations/Sourcing Needed

[edit]

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)[reply]

Clarification

[edit]

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)[reply]

End of discussions copied from Talk:Timber. Ken Gallager (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History of Logging industry, Effect on tree populations

[edit]

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)[reply]

I concur that a history section would be desirable. As an additional example, it's unclear when dimensional lumber became standard in construction. However, I'm not the one to write that article... Wyvern (talk) 06:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I started working on the History section, I hope I am doing it right! KetaDesign (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we remove the worldview notice under Dimensions?

[edit]

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)[reply]

I agree with this request. I filled in the "Lumber History" section which well explains both global and North America / European lumber history. Apart from Japan, most other parts of the world are not wood-building cultures, they use other materials to build their homes. They might use wood for finishing (IE: India) but they don't build out of wood. Therefore the comment of a more world-view does not really stand. **** KetaDesign (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Wood log" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

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)[reply]

TIMBER!!! calls the woodcutter

[edit]

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)[reply]

CLS Acronym (Canadian Lumber Standard)

[edit]

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)[reply]

See Also section nonsensical

[edit]

In the See Also section there are several topics like deck and cubic ton which I do not believe merit inclusion. Provides very little utility to a user scrolling down and distract from articles main message. 161.45.8.240 (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]