Talk:Steel square

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Steel square article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Woodworking (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Woodworking, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.WoodworkingWikipedia:WikiProject WoodworkingTemplate:WikiProject WoodworkingWoodworking articles

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Untitled[edit]

What's with the red letters?

just playing with colors. I thought it would it highlight the breakdown of the Steel square. --Johnalden 01:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't follow the style guide of Wikipedia... Wikipedia pages should all have consistent formatting.

Ok, I can change that to all bold black. What else specifically needs to be redone? What parts are not clear. Are more images needed? I need to know what exactly is confusing to other readers in order to fix the problem. --Johnalden 11:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alot of work has gone into this page. I think if the text was all in the proper format, to conform to the style guide of Wikipedia that would help. Some of the images are a little confusing if you don't already know about framing, or using a rafter square.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE

Johnalden, I think we should make the roof section more like the format of the stair section. Instead of referencing images by 1 2 3 a b c, just have the caption describe what the image is about. That way the reader can skim by the page, see the caption, and have a good idea without reading the entire article. Do you agree? Dlarrivee 04:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dlarrive I appeciate the specific feedback. I agree with you. It seems to make more sense to keep the article more uniform and readable. I will try that. Should the caption be more concise and detailed than the existing captions? We need to figure out how to eliminate the texbook and a how to do tone in the article. --Johnalden 21:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John the page looks better already! Elimate the textbook? In my opinion, the captions should basically be their own little info tidbits. You should be able to look at the image, read the caption, and have learned something about 'steel squares' in this instance, without reading the entire article. You're a carpenter for a living right? Dlarrivee 01:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dlarrivee, Thanks for the positive feedback. Check out the link above # 6, this explains the textbook tone. I eliminated the how to do tone and I am not completely clear if there is a textbook tone remaining in the article. I need to work on the captions a little more also. Yes, I am a full time carpenter and that is relevant to the subject matter. I would appreciate any edits that you could introduce to improve the article. --Johnalden 12:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Permission letter for this image has been sent --Johnalden^talk 00:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to contest the deletion of the image, you do not place the hangon tag on the article, you need to go to the image page itself, i.e. here Image:Common rafter 12 pitch A.jpg--Jac16888 (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent permission a second time for this image and there is no response. It was sketched by myself, scanned and uploaded. --Johnalden^talk 01:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3R-T instead of 2R-T

I think the descriptor for the staircase construction had an incorrect algebraic formula in it. The 'Rise' for the stringer is actually 3 times the riser height minus the tread thickness, not 2 times. I corrected the picture...I hope that is alright. Gordon Gcwhitten (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gcwhitten, It is true that when calculating the layout of the stringer the entire opening is considered in terms of the total rise and total run. Generally the last rise is the frame and the stringer is down one riser. There is one more riser than there are treads. Some stairs are built where the final tread is flush or in the same plane as the finish floor. ( In this case the formula would be 3R-T). In the sketch the stringer is down one riser or 2R-T. It is a little confusing.Maybe the sketch needs more clarity. --Johnalden^talk 23:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This new edit on the side cut of jack, hip/valley rafters was inserted in this section since it seem to be the most appropriate place for it. It can be reinserted somewhere else if it provides more continuity and organization in another section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnalden (talk • contribs) 20:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction[edit]

I deleted "A Carpenter's Square is very much like a Steel Square," since this was already mentioned in the previous paragraphs. 73.208.42.69 (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Framing Square blade thickness[edit]

Why is the thickness of the blades of a framing square tapered from the corner to the tips? A carpenter friend was admiring an old framing square I got from my Dad's tool collection, which he got from my Grandfather, a Master Woodworker. My friend was explaining the uses of the framing square and pointed out that the thickness of both blades tapered from the 90 degree corner (thickest) to the blade ends (thinnest). I asked him why that was and he could not remember. Anyone know the answer to this? Larry Quincy, CA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:303:FC06:4739:8555:BC6:BAF2:2764 (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]