WikiProject iconMetalworking Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Metalworking, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Metalworking on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Popular pages report[edit]

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Metalworking/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Metalworking.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Metalworking, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup List[edit]

Hi, the links for the cleanup list on the project page are not working. Can I fix them with this link ? THX JP1308 (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Project restart[edit]

Hi everybody, I will try to restart this great project and I hope you will support this project too :-) THX JP1308 (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on board to contribute to topics regarding metal cutting in general. I'm also fairly confident to talk about topics relating to CNC, specifically milling and turning. I'm going to go through the list of articles for a bit and try improving them. If anyone wants to work with me on this, hit me up!
Стиво (talk) 09:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When is a screw machine not a screw machine?[edit]

I'm thinking a link is misdirected.

Article Screw-cutting_lathe contains two links for the term Screw Machine.

In-text there is a link to Screw_machine_(turning_center) which then redirects to Metal_lathe#CNC_lathe_/_CNC_turning_center.

The See also has a link to Screw_machine_(disambiguation) which then redirects to Screw_machine. (Apparently there's a screwy history to this - "Screw machine" was the original article and then was split and cut down to disambig page from the 2010 version of page )

That disambiguation page then has links to

Uh... so what should "Screw Machine" in the Screw-cutting lathe in-text point to?

Have we reached peak split/merge/redirect yet? This is turning my stomach. Shenme (talk) 04:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its the same. I dont think there actually are any lathes that can only cut screws and nothing else. The only difference in this class of small part, mass production lathes really is the implementation of the automatism method, be it old mechanically with cam gears and alike "repeating movement" gears, Punched tape(NC) or CNC and the tool construction (multiple toolheads, revolver, toolswitcher with magazine) which was always common since the parts produced with these machines (far from only screws btw.) are usually manufactured in a few seconds and thus among the earliest automated machines. Producing these manually only makes sense for unique single parts or very small series. I would recommend to simply delete that term, make a redirect at best. --Kharon (talk) 10:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

moved from project page here to the talk page and replied[edit] is a reliable website for different industrial material grades. References for this website in several articles of Wikipedia actually adds authentication and value to the articles lacking sources. It increases the depth of the technical areas discussing material grades. Those articles are already lacking depth and reference sources. Therefore I need your expert opinion on these contributions which is in no way spamming. Waqasatb (talk) 06:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For some context, several single-purpose accounts with similar usernames, including Waqasatb, have repeatedly added links to to multiple articles. Since this comes across as spamming, I reverted these additions and asked Waqasatb to get consensus from other editors that the external links is useful and appropriate before continuing. Can anyone from this project comment on the suitability of external link? Deli nk (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there are several of them, Deli nk, you probably want Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. There is also blacklisting for links that keep getting added. This is for future reference, as I trust this is long resolved. HLHJ (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A new newsletter directory is out![edit]

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool[edit]

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement![edit]

Please note that Hammer, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by MusikBot talk 00:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team[reply]

The Metalworking Barnstar[edit]

I don't know if this project is active anymore, but I made the Metalworking Barnstar. Awarded to users who've shown great editing skills in improving metalworking related-articles. Jerm (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jerm! It caused me to find this project when searching commons for an image. HLHJ (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incandescent metal pictures, please?[edit]

Looking for a photographic version of this, please

Hello, metalworking editors. I'm looking for a series of photos of metal (any metal!) at different temperatures against a darkish background, illustrating the range of colours and how they change with temperature. I'm trying to show the viewer that the temperature can be judged surprisingly closely by the colour. Ideally, such a series would contain a few shots of the metal being too cold to glow at different temperatures (to show that metal at, say, freezing, room-temperature, and boiling temperatures is equally dark, though it radiates more heat when hotter, and will look brighter on an infra-red camera/night goggles). I haven't been able to find anything like this. Can anyone who could point me to such an image which I could use in an article? HLHJ (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HLHJ I know this is a bit late but are you sure this applies to all metals, even heat-resistant superalloys? X-750 List of articles that I have screwed over 11:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
X750, I think it probably would. The colour is determined by a basic physical process, black-body radiation. Ceramics and other materials show the same colours; pretty much anything, heated above the Draper point, will be visibly incandescent in this pattern. Planck's law has some explaination of why. I don't know of any exceptions. Of course not all radiation is incandescence. so there are other emission spectra, there's fluorescence and emission lines and so on. I think such effects get visually drowned out by incandecense at temperatures over the Draper point, but there may be exceptions I don't know about. I know some heat-resistant materials are deliberately made with high emissivity, which means they emit more efficiently and more like a perfect blackbody. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics might be able to give you a more definitive answer, and I'd be interested. HLHJ (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient metal sculpting terminology and related less-than-ancient English terminology[edit]

This is perhaps of interest to no one be me. I have been encountering terminology related to this Wikipedia entry:
The source is 19th century and named The Imperial Dictionary of Universal Biography. Within this source are found the adjective toreutic and noun toreutes.

These words do not appear anywhere else in the IDUB. Three of them are authored by
The following information is discoverable but I don't know how to determine whether copyright precludes reference:

Klarm768 (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Klarm768, copyright can never prevent the copying of individual facts, or citation of a source. Database copyright, protecting original collections of facts, does not exist in many jurisdictions. Additionally, a way of stating a fact can only be copyright if it is sufficiently original (something like "London is the capital of England" is too simple to qualify, it's like trying to copyright an image of a red square). Plus, if your source 19th-century, it's in the public domain anyway and you can quote it verbatim in an article (giving credit in the edit summary and refs is WP good practice but not a legal requirement). This info would certainly be of interest to editors on Wiktionary; try Wiktionary:τορέω for a redlink list for your Greek vocabulary, and Wiktionary:toreutic and Wiktionary:toreutics for the English (an entry at Wiktionary:toreutes does not seem to exist yet). I'm sure creating entries for such redlinks would be useful to the project. If you have any questions, you can ask at the Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Information desk, too. I'm not very experienced on Wiktionary, but if you post on my talk page I'll do my best to help. HLHJ (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not easy to find the "Ironmasters" category from the "Iron founder" page[edit]

I've suggested that "Ironmaster" and "Iron founder" might be merged, based on their current content. Whether or not this is a good idea, as things stand it is possible to read the "Iron founder" page without becoming aware of the more extensive Ironmaster page or of the various categories of Ironmasters pages. These two topics need to be crosslinked at the very least. Theoh (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article review for shielded metal arc welding[edit]

I have nominated Shielded metal arc welding for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 23:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Project scope[edit]

I noticed that @Johnsoniensis: tagged Nittany Furnace as an article for this project recently. Nittany Furnace was a hot-blast pig iron producer. My intuitive notion of "metalworking" is that it consists in processes carried out on metal that's already been more or less smelted or otherwise extracted from ore; I'd consider the production of wrought iron, or even cast iron objects, to be in scope, but I don't think furnaces like this, that were primarily for smelting, ought to qualify. Any thoughts? Choess (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not well informed about this topic; perhaps the processes of getting metals from their ores belong to WP Technology instead.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

former thread UNEF is not mentioned in the table.[edit]

It is a pity that the size UN (former UNEF) 5/8 32 2B is not included in the table. Is anybody able to do that? Thanks This is nowadays often used in camera's, lenses, microscopes, a.s.o. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:83A3:9100:9DF2:8F1B:E584:860A (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blast furnace[edit]

Blast furnace, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One editor has made some improvements. But it needs more to keep GA. Can anyone else help out? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tandem rolling mill[edit]

The article Tandem rolling mill needs cleanup to adhere to wikipedia standards, especially our policy WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a text book / instruction manual). After my PROD was contested I am posting here as you are the experts who may be able to clean this up. Or possibly merge elsewhere. I'll leave it to you. Polyamorph (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since then I have added many new sections and re-arrange others. I have also changed the text to better describe "what is done" and not "what should be done". AutoElectEngr (talk) 08:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User script to detect unreliable sources[edit]

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from ((cite web)), ((cite journal)) and ((doi)).

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

a list of the largest blast furnaces[edit]

how many would be in that list? for any given number of minimum daily capacity, but not limited to presently operating units.

should wikipedia not strive to compile such a list?

i was recently trying to learn how many of those were operational in the Kaiser Fontana mill in California or in the Geneva mill in Utah.

The Geneva article informed me that Kevin Bacon once danced in the plant, but neither of the two articles above did tell me how many giant blast furnaces were being run there. What gives? Nowakki (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]