Talk:Cordwood construction

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cordwood construction 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

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Civil engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering 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.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCE articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Inspectors

In general, what do building inspectors think of cordwood construction and what about codes?

Totally depends on the area

Mostly, inspectors know little to nothing about it. Usually what ends up happening them it convincing the inspector that the structure is sound by incorporating timber-frame or post-and-beam support for the roof, and then just considering the cordwood to be wall infill.

FWIW, in my case, I am still planning to build and am lucky enough to have purchased land outside the city limits and the reach of the inspectors.

Two meanings

Should this page now be disambiguated for the building and electronics meanings? --Light current 03:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so. They are very different and likely both worth individual pages. That's just my opinion though. --Kickstart70 03:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, at least given the amount of content on the page right now. The two meanings are exactly parallel and having them on the same page highlights that fact.

Atlant 12:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Light current's proposal. The page should be disambiguated. I note that there is a section on the electronics application of the term in the article on Printed circuit boards. Sunray 02:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The merge notice was posted months ago. Four people have commented. Three spoke in favor and one opposed the merge. Seventy-five percent constitutes a supermajority, which is usually considered consensus on talk pages. I will complete the merge to the Printed circuit board article. Sunray 07:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link added. Sunray 15:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link for Natural Building Network

Someone added this link for the Natural Building Network. It got reverted as link spam, so I checked it out. In my view (and I am into natural building) it is an excellent resource. By this, I mean that anyone seeking to learn more about natural building would find this link informative. For example the site has a "Comparison of Natural Building Techniques" by Michael Smith that is one of the best compendiums I've seen. Given the state of the natural building field (new and rapidly growing), there is a need for good information about it. This link is a valuable addition, IMO and I would like to keep it unless there are compelling reasons for its removal. Comments? Sunray 00:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing this post quite belatedly, but here's why I deleted the link: if you look at the edit history of the guy who added it, you'll see that it was indeed a spam link, even if it did have good content. Besides, under WP:EL, good, relevant content should be rewritten and added to the article, not added as a link, except in the (rare) case of good content that somehow doesn't belong in the article. I know, this isn't always practical, but it is the ideal (and it's policy). Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 00:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds pretty cool

It seem like the sustainability of cord wood doesn't have much going for it. I wonder if it's worth the time and effort besides aesthetics reasons? QueenMonarch 01:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does have a lot going for it in terms of expense, and it's actually a better use of wood than log homes, in my opinion. Of course, that is just an opinion. :) --Kickstart70-T-C 19:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page and references cleanup

I just spent (too much) time doing a decent references and notes cleanup, but I see that a number of the references at the end of the article are not cited from the article content. Does anyone know where these could be connected? Otherwise, they should probably be removed, even if they are good resources, as per WP policy of references used as cites whenever possible.

I also removed the reference to the 'cordwoodguy' website. This was a difficult choice, but there have been so many factual errors discussed regarding his information over at other internet discussion forums, I think it's prudent. --Kickstart70-T-C 19:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup | March 13, 2016

Hello Wikipedia editors,

I have just cleaned up approximately 60% of the page adding tags such as ^{[citation needed]}, and fixing grammar and styling. However, there are some more notes that still exist on this page. Here they are.

1. Beginning- as you may see in the top section, there is a banner stating that the opening statement may not accurately/sufficiently cover the entire article. I may need help with this section, as the information needs to fit accordingly, with not too many words but not too little.

2. Citations - There was a lot of original research found on this article, and information that is stated in a fashion that it was from a proper source, but no citation, so I left the quotes/information with ^{[citation needed]} tags (for those reading this in source, I did add the dates "March 2016" to the tags), hoping some of you could help add the proper sources. If it is discovered that they are not from proper sources, you should remove them.

3. History - History sections, of course, need citations from books, resources, etc. in order for people to trust the facts. In addition, History sections shouldn't be brief, and in this scenario, both of those I just said are true. So, please add more information and sources.

4. Too Many Examples - You may continue to contribute to this issue, but please prevent it. When I was performing cleanup, there were too many examples, so I cut them off into just 2-4.

5. How-To - How to's are not really recommended on Wikipedia, so Process really needs to be redone.

If #1 and #5 are resolved, remove the top banner.

Thanks for reading, and you may revert my edits if they are unneccessary, KnowledgeIsGoodForYou (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cordwood construction. 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/20090106064143/http://www.robpickettandassoc.com/Thermal_Mass_Beyond_R_Value.PDF to http://robpickettandassoc.com/Thermal_Mass_Beyond_R_Value.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 03:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

radial cracks opening up the wall?

what does one do when radial cracks develop in round wood when it dries (before or after construction) reducing the circumference of the log opening up the wall? --HilmarHansWerner (talk) 08:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

cordwoodconstruction.org

I object to this URL being presented as "the URL" to accompany Wiki results in searches such as Duck.com

That is just one external reference among many and not the default reference for this subject.

It needs to be demoted to references and further reading along with all the other urls that are equally credible sources of information on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trajinus (talk • contribs) 16:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]