Moar Meh!
Talk:Wood
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search This is not a forum for general discussion of Wood.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
Wood is part of WikiProject Woodworking, a project to improve all aspects of the woodworking area. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, and to visit the project page, where you can join and see a list of open tasks to help with.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance for this Project's importance scale.
Wood is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Additional information:
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
This article is one of the supplemental core articles, which every encyclopedia should have.
Wood was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Delisted version: September 22, 2007
Contents
1 Use of 'till'
2 Thanks
3 Wood grain
4 opening definition
5 Heartwood
6 External link to matbase
7 Solid
8 Wood cutting
9 GA On hold
10 In Popular Culture (see http://xkcd.com/446/)
10.1 What really matters
11 The missing See Also Section
12 Please don't protect
[edit] Use of 'till'
Some helpful soul changed the article to read 'until' instead of 'till', because the later has no relation to the former. The edit was reverted by someone who was obviously not a native English speaker; could it be corrected please? Simplyw00x (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Till, sometimes spelled 'til, is synonymous with until (in addition to being something you do to soil), as per Wiktionary. More information can be found here. And usually one contrasts "the former" with "the latter" rather than "the later". Finally, I wouldn't presume someone is not a native speaker simply because they speak differently than you would. skeptical scientist (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
"Till and until are both old in the language and are interchangeable as both prepositions and conjunctions: It rained till (or until) nearly midnight. The savannah remained brown and lifeless until (or till) the rains began. Till is not a shortened form of until and is not spelled 'till. 'Til is usually considered a spelling error, though widely used in advertising: Open 'til ten." (Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.) To me personally "until" sounds more formal than "till", but again I'm not a native speaker, too. --79.192.207.45 (talk) 05:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
You mean you're not a native speaker either :-)--194.29.32.100 (talk) 07:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
This page really helped for my project on wood! Wikipedia has been the source that has been the most reliable for my classmates and me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.139 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 19 December 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Wood grain
I've been trying to eliminate as many links as possible to the disambiguation page grain (trying not to link to it), and I've mostly handled the ones that mean cereals, or seeds, or the unit of weight. I could get rid of a few more of the remaining links if I could point them to an article on wood grain or grain (wood), but no such article exists. I'm hoping to find some wood and Wikipedia sages who could give me advice. Should such an article exist? Should I set up a redirect from those titles to this article? Is there another possibility I'm missing? Thanks — Pekinensis 00:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] opening definition
Wikipedia:Lead section suggests we should start with a definition. I'll take another crack at it. The article is about wood, not merely the usage of wood. Samw 00:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I think most people reading this page would already know, but nowhere in the opening section is anything said about where wood comes from. Though you may know that wood comes from trees, this article should cater to those who do not happen to know this24.161.53.152 03:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I've fixed the vandalism. Samw 04:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Heartwood
What is the proper way to deal with common words like Heartwood which have been used as the name of important organizations (www.heartwood.org). I see Heartwood Institute has its own page, which can be distinguished by the extra word.
See Wikipedia:Disambiguation Samw 03:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] External link to matbase
From my talk page:
Re [1]: If you endorse the link that's good enough for me, but note that these links were added by someone affiliated with the site who will have a commercial and promotional gain from it, thus it's linkspam by definition. Femto 18:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I don't claim I've reviewed matbase in detail but it looks like a reasonable source to me. If others have opinions, we can discuss it here and delete if needed. Samw 18:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Solid
Would wood be classified as an amorphous solid or a crystalline solid? James Callahan 23:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Neither? Both? Wood is complex, and there are both amorphous and crystalline components.--Curtis Clark 03:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Wood can be considered a solid, but it's also the only possible state of wood. It can never be liquid or flow alone because wood can't melt. In a gaseous state, the wood would have to be hot enough to give off carbon emmissions which produce charcoal. JustN5:12 02:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wood cutting
Is here allready a section on wood-cutting? Otherwise, I intend to make it! Swami Woodcutter 14:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Lumber maybe? Samw 22:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] GA On hold
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.
The lead needs to be trimmed per WP:LEAD. It's not a very long article, so there isn't a need for more than maybe three paragraphs. Additionally, it should summarize the article while introducing no new information (anything not expanded upon in the body). Many of the stubby paragraphs in the lead can be combined into larger paragraphs as well. And, last, consider rewording the prose to avoid starting almost every paragraph and sentence with "Wood".
Referencing needs to be consistent. Currently, the article uses the footnotes style and Harvard referencing. While both are appropriate, they should not be used together; only one or the other.
This article also needs further inline citation for verification. Currently, entire sections are unreferenced. One citation per paragraph is my recommendation for this article.
I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GA/R). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Regards, LaraLove 18:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The article has been delisted. Regards, LaraLove 02:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I clarified the reference section a bit by adding a general subsection to the references section, it still could use more citation and references. Please add them in, especially if you have access to the two books in the reference section or better sources.
--D27061315 (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] In Popular Culture (see http://xkcd.com/446/)
In comic #446 of xkcd, the wikipedia article on wood is chosen as an example how useless and random popular culture sections can become. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paniq (talk • contribs) 16:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
In episode 7 of Firefly, Jaynestown, Jayne is given a wooden Rain stick by a villager.
wasnt it actually episode 7 "Our Mrs. Reynolds"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha Cluster (talk • contribs) 00:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
No, it was episode 6, "Our Mrs. Reynolds" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.224.234 (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
In the Buffyverse, Buffy often slays vampires using stakes made of wood.
The wand used by Harry Potter is made of wood from a Holly tree.
The Fence around the back yard of the house in The Simpsons
In the 2004 TV Series, Battlestar Galactica, all of the wood on each of the 12 Colonies of Kobol has been destroyed by a Cylon attack
Except for the fact that it had not been desstroyed, evidenced by the woods Helo and Sharon move through after the Cylon attacks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.253.112 (talk) 11:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
How about this? --QuicksilverJohn (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't the point of that comic how pointless and random popular culture sections are? Trying to add this to the actual articles reminds me of the Ali G fans who try to act and dress like him in real life--comepletely missing the point that they're the butt of the joke. Dinoguy2 (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The recursion in the irony, is the irony in itself... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.232.132 (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I could have sworn that the point was that Wikipedians are silly, but then again what do I know? User:CorbinSimpson 05:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.234.224 (talk)
For anyone wondering what this is about, today's xkcd comic referenced this page and these edits. --Stéphane Charette (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I interpret the comic as a pretty sad, yet accurate picture of the state of many of the articles we host on the English-language Wikipedia. [2] Results 1 - 10 of about 130,000 from en.wikipedia.org for "in popular culture". (0.26 seconds) JBsupreme (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
In Popular Culture sections have a place - for example, when a religion is extremely misrepresented, the setion could be use to describe how. Things like that. Otherwise, unless it's so extremey well-known that a particular reference is the only reason it's known (which, if there was a meta-article about the Wood article, might be true of the xkcd reference...) pop culture references probably don't need a mention. --Kinkoblast (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
There is a meta-article. You're reading it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.142.124 (talk) 05:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
i interpret the comic as a pretty funny, yet accurate picture of how wikipedians take everything too seriously. hotaru2k3 (talk) 05:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I interpret the existence of this discussion as how Wiki editors (including myself) take everything too seriously. :) Buspar (talk) 07:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
As a note, the episode shoul be Our Mrs Reynolds, not Jayestown. :) Camajsterek (talk) 07:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.26.0 (talk)
-squeeze in- its jaynestown, not jayestown. inaccuracies like this ruin WP ;) --Echosmoke (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Ooh, your powers of deduction are exceptional. I can't allow you to waste them here when there are so many crimes going unsolved at this very moment. Go, go, for the good of the city. --CBG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.211.201.174 (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Moderators: Unlock this article at once, so that it may be amended to cite critical Popular Culture reference in xkcd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.161.36 (talk) 07:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I looked back at the revisions section and noticed that the first thing added after the comic came up was simply an acknowledgement of the comic itself. It seems that the edits involving the exact satirical text from the comic were not added until after the first edit was deleted. What I must ask, and understand that if this is a ignorant question it is meant in good faith, what is wrong with mentioning the comic? I understand why you don't want a "In Popular Culture" section that contains more information then the rest of the article and I understand why you don't want the text of wikipedia to match a satire of wikipedia verbatim, but isn't leaving in the mention of the comic a reasonable comprimise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.99.251 (talk) 09:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
No, because this is not an article about articles in Wikipedia that have been referenced in webcomics; it is an article about wood. The xkcd satire is entirely irrelevant to the particular subject covered by this article. Shmuel (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Shmuel, that makes sense. Also, I'm starting to pick up the Talk page guidelines. 71.34.99.251 (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The title text of that particular comic says:
Someday the 'in popular culture' section will have its own article with an 'in popular culture' section. It will reference this title-text referencing it, and the blogosphere will implode.
Clearly this comic is a satire of Wikipedia. Let's not conform to our negative stereotypes, guys. --Slashme (talk) 07:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Wait!! If that happens wikipedia will divide by zero!! Oh shi- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.32.190.3 (talk) 08:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Popular_Culture —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.75.131 (talk) 07:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles —The imp (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Brilliant! I also came here to reference the xkcdcomic. Great mind think alike. 11:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagleapex (talk • contribs)
And fools seldom differ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.1.66 (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I came here to laugh at the fools who would inevitably be trying to vandalise this page, I was not disappointed. Derobrash (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The thing is that trivia sections are discouraged by WP policy. What XKCD is satirising is a degenerate WP page, not a healthy one. The Wednesday Island (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Sure, except some very well-established editors fight tooth-and-nail to retain entire "In Popular Culture" articles at AfD. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I think things like knocking on wood, magic wands, divining rods, vampires, Dryads, Hamadryads and the flag of lebanon should be mentioned in the article somewhere (e.g "in different cultures" section) --George (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The above users are all lemmings. Why not attempt something original, no reason to execute Mr. Munroe's ideas. He is a big boy, he can do it himself. Fafnir665 (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, shouldn't it be “Wood in poplar culture”? 86.156.98.61 (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
It should, but we'll just have to be content with the fact that there's now a protection log for the article. :) --Chaos386 (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought that ;p Daedae (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I love the xkcd comic about Wikipedia, I love that xkcd fans immediately tried to make life imitate art, I love that Wikipedia moderators locked the article in response. For me, this is the internet operating to perfection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew-Galvanize-Davies (talk • contribs) 18:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we ought to at LEAST include a "In Popular Culture: xkcd - Webcomic xkcd featured a spoof on popular culture references to Wood in comic #446 :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.11.150 (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] What really matters
Look, people, we all love xkcd. We all think it's awesome that xkcd has referenced Wikipedia, and some of us want xkcd to mould real life to be more like xkcd. What needs to be understood is that xkcd's strip was a parody, a joke. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be logically and semantically cohesive, and anything not directly related to the topic of "wood" should not be in this article. If you care about xkcd and how people shouldn't use the internet for stupidity, obscenity, and arguments, then please, think rationally about what should be in this article to make it a verifiable, comprehensive, accurate, and well-written article about wood. If you can't think rationally, there are other games you can play with Wikipedia that don't fuck it up for the rest of us. Thanks, {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 15:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
sigh* There are enough idiots with established accounts that I think we should request full protection until at least Wednesday, when the next comic goes up, with semi through the weekend. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me for interrupting, but this doesn't seem to be in keeping with Wikipedia's core principle of Civility. 71.34.99.251 (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
What really matters is the wiki "popular" subculture. You can have 1 article about wood, but a article about ONE episode of battlestar generates as much content on Wikipedia as a non fiction article like wood. :Sterremix (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the incivility of Nihiltres is shameful. The request was made in a much more polite manner above and these comments are intentionally inflammatory. LeilaniLad (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I say open up the article. Dudes already know about wood. ;-) --72.95.164.138
From a purely informational standpoint, I must side with those who wish to keep the "popular culture" references (for the most part, anyways). I also feel it is a bit hasty to label this as vandalism, for no other reason than the fact that the references are valid. I think the core function of a wikipedia article is to grow as knowledge on one subject is pooled by many, and even though the comic points out the comedic (sometimes unintentionally so) nature of the popular culture section it plays a major role in many articles. I'd be willing to bet there are a great many wikipedia articles out there that would find a popular culture section a meaningful addition for as many that have it as a frivolous add-on. I applaud the comic for stirring up this debate, and I think it really highlights what makes wikipedia so above and beyond an encyclopedia. Whether or not it means there will be such a section in the final wood article is secondary to that fact--I'm glad to see that the wikipedia community is alive and kicking. (hope this doesn't violate the talk page guidelines too much...)
Psualan (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)psualan
Psualan, what you are missing is the distinction between information and useful information. The fact that Harry Potter uses a wooden wand may add information to the wood article, but it adds nothing useful. If someone is looking up an article on wood, they are likely to be curious about its structure or uses, but not how various TV shows incorporate wood. Adding useless information clutters otherwise helpful articles. This is not an argument against "in popular culture" sections in general, but rather an argument that each fact should be considered for whether it truly merits inclusion. The idea is not to prevent useful information from getting out there, but to prevent repeats of exactly the phenomenon that today's xkcd comic was denigrating. Remember that the purpose of an encyclopedia is to quickly give the reader a decent understanding of the topic, and if they want to go further they can check the references; adding too much trivial information only hinders this goal. -skeptical scientist (talk) 07:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we could have a long discussion as to what constitutes as useful information and what doesn't as well as who gets to decide such things. I'm not saying the above 'in popular culture' references are useful or not, however who really has the authority to determine the usefulness of a particular bit of information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.233.202 (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
What's more, copying the 'in popular culture' section from the comic could be considered plagiarism, given that the comics are under an attribution license. If User:xkcd really wanted that section in the article, he'd add it himself (and be reverted.) --Angelastic (talk) 07:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Skeptical is right. I remember what my ICT teacher said on the first lesson I went to: "information with meaning is knowledge". I don't see any knowledge being made here. Sceptre (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
How on Earth does the fact that "the fence at the back of the Simpsons' house is made of wood" constitute "knowledge" about wood? I do hope you're joking, Psualan. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The missing See Also Section
In the kerfuffle of the past 24 hours, the "See Also" section has been deleted. (See [3].) It probably should be restored. -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I've re-added it. --- RockMFR 16:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
It's been re-removed and re-added at least four times over the last day, perhaps due to the increased visibility of this article. Let's work out whether it should be kept, rather than continuing the revert-war. skeptical scientist (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it's just kids messing up when they try to add xkcd stuff. 21:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.5.140 (talk)
Not true. Look at the edit summaries:
section is unnecessary - JBsupreme
most of these links should be here - RockMFR
Undid revision 224155684 by RockMFR (talk) no explaination given for why these are needed - Coccyx Bloccyx
adding back see also - Zyrxil
this section, while unrelated to xkcd, is completely superfluous - RFerreira
It's not superfluous; how should people find such related pages, if there are no links to them? As I see it, this only enriches the page. - Alatius
It's a clear edit war, albeit between two points of view rather than two people. All I'm saying is that we should have the discussion here rather than continuing to edit the see also section back in and back out of the page, with one-line explanations hidden in the edit summaries. skeptical scientist (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Please could you add a link to Xylophagy into the See Also section? Or better yet, unprotect so I can write a short section about the topic. Anxietycello (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not unprotecting. Personally, I think there should be a short see also, but the XKCD fanatics are trying to make it overly long on purpose. Superm401 - Talk 14:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Please don't protect
I've seen Wikipedia pages get referenced in XKCD before, and this always happens. Massive numbers of eyeballs come to the page, and everyone wants to make a joke. Here's the thing. What Wikipedia is about is the idea that eyeballs are good. That a thousand people poking at an article will produce good results. And that's what I've seen every time. Stupid edits get made, and responsible wikipedians remove them, but the extra attention means that a handful of constructive edits get made too, and a week later, that's all you see - the benefits of extra attention to the page.
Protection defeats all this. Protection squanders a valuable opportunity for improvement. In my experience, that's precisely what it nearly always does.
Please un-protect.
-MBlume (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I stated this case more clearly a few months ago, when Foreplay was featured - here's my comment -MBlume (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that it's not like a featured article, where the traffic mostly comes from people who were on Wikipedia anyway. It mostly comes from the kind of weenies whose immediate response is to add a reference to the xkcd link to the article. See also: anything Stephen Colbert mentions. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
To clarify, the Foreplay article was featured in XKCD. 139.80.123.36 (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Most of the added attention is in fact negative. If people are coming to contribute, they will have no difficulty finding articles to work on (Template:Opentask is a good start). As for making a "joke", criticizing Wikipedia's faults can be funny; adding more is not. I'm not unprotecting early. Superm401 - Talk 14:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems that the article was locked due to temporary vandalism, and that lock will disappear tomorrow - not a very long time off. As for now, though, I'm concerned with the heightened number of attack phrases used in talk pages, by various editors. I know we don't have to like each other, but can we please keep it civil? Thanks. X-Kal (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The folks who think it's funny and harmless to add little jokes or XKCD easter eggs should take some time to read and consider Kant's categorical imperative. Anyone with the slightest spark of creativity could easily find hundreds of amusing changes to make to Wikipedia, but consider what would happen if each of over a hundred million readers per month acted on the whim and made only a single change? ... and what might be a cute in-joke to you could well be misleading to someone else, will likely be not funny to many others, and could well be an embarassment to people who put in considerable time creating good content. Of course, ... a few pieces of humor here and there wouldn't bring about the end of the world. But whos humor? Yours? Mine? Shall we edit war over which joke stays in? Wikipedia's meatball:SuperordinateGoal of being a free content encyclopedia, along with policies like WP:NPOV allow us to come together and agree on content, but there can be little stability in easter eggs. I hope that the XKCD readers can understand this and realize that Wikipedia isn't a bunch of humorless bureaucrats trying to spoil their fun, though a glance at the XKCD forums doesn't give me much hope. --Gmaxwell (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
After unprotecting, add link to Dendrochronology in initial section. --Speedevil (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wood"
Categories: B-Class Woodworking-related articles | High-importance Woodworking-related articles | WikiProject Woodworking articles | B-Class plant articles | Top-importance plant articles | Articles to be included in Wikipedia 0.7 | B-Class core topic supplement articles | B-Class Version 0.7 articles | Natural sciences Version 0.7 articles | Delisted good articles
Views
Article
Discussion
Edit this page
New section
History
Personal tools
Log in / create account
Navigation
Main Page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Interaction
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact Wikipedia
Donate to Wikipedia
Help
Search
Toolbox
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Printable version
Permanent link
This page was last modified on 8 July 2008, at 23:18.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search This is not a forum for general discussion of Wood.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
Wood is part of WikiProject Woodworking, a project to improve all aspects of the woodworking area. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, and to visit the project page, where you can join and see a list of open tasks to help with.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance for this Project's importance scale.
Wood is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Additional information:
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
This article is one of the supplemental core articles, which every encyclopedia should have.
Wood was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Delisted version: September 22, 2007
Contents
1 Use of 'till'
2 Thanks
3 Wood grain
4 opening definition
5 Heartwood
6 External link to matbase
7 Solid
8 Wood cutting
9 GA On hold
10 In Popular Culture (see http://xkcd.com/446/)
10.1 What really matters
11 The missing See Also Section
12 Please don't protect
[edit] Use of 'till'
Some helpful soul changed the article to read 'until' instead of 'till', because the later has no relation to the former. The edit was reverted by someone who was obviously not a native English speaker; could it be corrected please? Simplyw00x (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Till, sometimes spelled 'til, is synonymous with until (in addition to being something you do to soil), as per Wiktionary. More information can be found here. And usually one contrasts "the former" with "the latter" rather than "the later". Finally, I wouldn't presume someone is not a native speaker simply because they speak differently than you would. skeptical scientist (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
"Till and until are both old in the language and are interchangeable as both prepositions and conjunctions: It rained till (or until) nearly midnight. The savannah remained brown and lifeless until (or till) the rains began. Till is not a shortened form of until and is not spelled 'till. 'Til is usually considered a spelling error, though widely used in advertising: Open 'til ten." (Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.) To me personally "until" sounds more formal than "till", but again I'm not a native speaker, too. --79.192.207.45 (talk) 05:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
You mean you're not a native speaker either :-)--194.29.32.100 (talk) 07:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
This page really helped for my project on wood! Wikipedia has been the source that has been the most reliable for my classmates and me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.139 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 19 December 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Wood grain
I've been trying to eliminate as many links as possible to the disambiguation page grain (trying not to link to it), and I've mostly handled the ones that mean cereals, or seeds, or the unit of weight. I could get rid of a few more of the remaining links if I could point them to an article on wood grain or grain (wood), but no such article exists. I'm hoping to find some wood and Wikipedia sages who could give me advice. Should such an article exist? Should I set up a redirect from those titles to this article? Is there another possibility I'm missing? Thanks — Pekinensis 00:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] opening definition
Wikipedia:Lead section suggests we should start with a definition. I'll take another crack at it. The article is about wood, not merely the usage of wood. Samw 00:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I think most people reading this page would already know, but nowhere in the opening section is anything said about where wood comes from. Though you may know that wood comes from trees, this article should cater to those who do not happen to know this24.161.53.152 03:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I've fixed the vandalism. Samw 04:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Heartwood
What is the proper way to deal with common words like Heartwood which have been used as the name of important organizations (www.heartwood.org). I see Heartwood Institute has its own page, which can be distinguished by the extra word.
See Wikipedia:Disambiguation Samw 03:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] External link to matbase
From my talk page:
Re [1]: If you endorse the link that's good enough for me, but note that these links were added by someone affiliated with the site who will have a commercial and promotional gain from it, thus it's linkspam by definition. Femto 18:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I don't claim I've reviewed matbase in detail but it looks like a reasonable source to me. If others have opinions, we can discuss it here and delete if needed. Samw 18:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Solid
Would wood be classified as an amorphous solid or a crystalline solid? James Callahan 23:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Neither? Both? Wood is complex, and there are both amorphous and crystalline components.--Curtis Clark 03:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Wood can be considered a solid, but it's also the only possible state of wood. It can never be liquid or flow alone because wood can't melt. In a gaseous state, the wood would have to be hot enough to give off carbon emmissions which produce charcoal. JustN5:12 02:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wood cutting
Is here allready a section on wood-cutting? Otherwise, I intend to make it! Swami Woodcutter 14:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Lumber maybe? Samw 22:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] GA On hold
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.
The lead needs to be trimmed per WP:LEAD. It's not a very long article, so there isn't a need for more than maybe three paragraphs. Additionally, it should summarize the article while introducing no new information (anything not expanded upon in the body). Many of the stubby paragraphs in the lead can be combined into larger paragraphs as well. And, last, consider rewording the prose to avoid starting almost every paragraph and sentence with "Wood".
Referencing needs to be consistent. Currently, the article uses the footnotes style and Harvard referencing. While both are appropriate, they should not be used together; only one or the other.
This article also needs further inline citation for verification. Currently, entire sections are unreferenced. One citation per paragraph is my recommendation for this article.
I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GA/R). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Regards, LaraLove 18:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The article has been delisted. Regards, LaraLove 02:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I clarified the reference section a bit by adding a general subsection to the references section, it still could use more citation and references. Please add them in, especially if you have access to the two books in the reference section or better sources.
--D27061315 (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] In Popular Culture (see http://xkcd.com/446/)
In comic #446 of xkcd, the wikipedia article on wood is chosen as an example how useless and random popular culture sections can become. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paniq (talk • contribs) 16:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
In episode 7 of Firefly, Jaynestown, Jayne is given a wooden Rain stick by a villager.
wasnt it actually episode 7 "Our Mrs. Reynolds"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha Cluster (talk • contribs) 00:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
No, it was episode 6, "Our Mrs. Reynolds" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.224.234 (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
In the Buffyverse, Buffy often slays vampires using stakes made of wood.
The wand used by Harry Potter is made of wood from a Holly tree.
The Fence around the back yard of the house in The Simpsons
In the 2004 TV Series, Battlestar Galactica, all of the wood on each of the 12 Colonies of Kobol has been destroyed by a Cylon attack
Except for the fact that it had not been desstroyed, evidenced by the woods Helo and Sharon move through after the Cylon attacks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.253.112 (talk) 11:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
How about this? --QuicksilverJohn (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't the point of that comic how pointless and random popular culture sections are? Trying to add this to the actual articles reminds me of the Ali G fans who try to act and dress like him in real life--comepletely missing the point that they're the butt of the joke. Dinoguy2 (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The recursion in the irony, is the irony in itself... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.232.132 (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I could have sworn that the point was that Wikipedians are silly, but then again what do I know? User:CorbinSimpson 05:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.234.224 (talk)
For anyone wondering what this is about, today's xkcd comic referenced this page and these edits. --Stéphane Charette (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I interpret the comic as a pretty sad, yet accurate picture of the state of many of the articles we host on the English-language Wikipedia. [2] Results 1 - 10 of about 130,000 from en.wikipedia.org for "in popular culture". (0.26 seconds) JBsupreme (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
In Popular Culture sections have a place - for example, when a religion is extremely misrepresented, the setion could be use to describe how. Things like that. Otherwise, unless it's so extremey well-known that a particular reference is the only reason it's known (which, if there was a meta-article about the Wood article, might be true of the xkcd reference...) pop culture references probably don't need a mention. --Kinkoblast (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
There is a meta-article. You're reading it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.142.124 (talk) 05:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
i interpret the comic as a pretty funny, yet accurate picture of how wikipedians take everything too seriously. hotaru2k3 (talk) 05:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I interpret the existence of this discussion as how Wiki editors (including myself) take everything too seriously. :) Buspar (talk) 07:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
As a note, the episode shoul be Our Mrs Reynolds, not Jayestown. :) Camajsterek (talk) 07:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.26.0 (talk)
-squeeze in- its jaynestown, not jayestown. inaccuracies like this ruin WP ;) --Echosmoke (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Ooh, your powers of deduction are exceptional. I can't allow you to waste them here when there are so many crimes going unsolved at this very moment. Go, go, for the good of the city. --CBG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.211.201.174 (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Moderators: Unlock this article at once, so that it may be amended to cite critical Popular Culture reference in xkcd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.161.36 (talk) 07:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I looked back at the revisions section and noticed that the first thing added after the comic came up was simply an acknowledgement of the comic itself. It seems that the edits involving the exact satirical text from the comic were not added until after the first edit was deleted. What I must ask, and understand that if this is a ignorant question it is meant in good faith, what is wrong with mentioning the comic? I understand why you don't want a "In Popular Culture" section that contains more information then the rest of the article and I understand why you don't want the text of wikipedia to match a satire of wikipedia verbatim, but isn't leaving in the mention of the comic a reasonable comprimise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.99.251 (talk) 09:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
No, because this is not an article about articles in Wikipedia that have been referenced in webcomics; it is an article about wood. The xkcd satire is entirely irrelevant to the particular subject covered by this article. Shmuel (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Shmuel, that makes sense. Also, I'm starting to pick up the Talk page guidelines. 71.34.99.251 (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The title text of that particular comic says:
Someday the 'in popular culture' section will have its own article with an 'in popular culture' section. It will reference this title-text referencing it, and the blogosphere will implode.
Clearly this comic is a satire of Wikipedia. Let's not conform to our negative stereotypes, guys. --Slashme (talk) 07:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Wait!! If that happens wikipedia will divide by zero!! Oh shi- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.32.190.3 (talk) 08:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Popular_Culture —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.75.131 (talk) 07:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles —The imp (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Brilliant! I also came here to reference the xkcdcomic. Great mind think alike. 11:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagleapex (talk • contribs)
And fools seldom differ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.1.66 (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I came here to laugh at the fools who would inevitably be trying to vandalise this page, I was not disappointed. Derobrash (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The thing is that trivia sections are discouraged by WP policy. What XKCD is satirising is a degenerate WP page, not a healthy one. The Wednesday Island (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Sure, except some very well-established editors fight tooth-and-nail to retain entire "In Popular Culture" articles at AfD. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I think things like knocking on wood, magic wands, divining rods, vampires, Dryads, Hamadryads and the flag of lebanon should be mentioned in the article somewhere (e.g "in different cultures" section) --George (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The above users are all lemmings. Why not attempt something original, no reason to execute Mr. Munroe's ideas. He is a big boy, he can do it himself. Fafnir665 (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, shouldn't it be “Wood in poplar culture”? 86.156.98.61 (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
It should, but we'll just have to be content with the fact that there's now a protection log for the article. :) --Chaos386 (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought that ;p Daedae (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I love the xkcd comic about Wikipedia, I love that xkcd fans immediately tried to make life imitate art, I love that Wikipedia moderators locked the article in response. For me, this is the internet operating to perfection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew-Galvanize-Davies (talk • contribs) 18:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we ought to at LEAST include a "In Popular Culture: xkcd - Webcomic xkcd featured a spoof on popular culture references to Wood in comic #446 :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.11.150 (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] What really matters
Look, people, we all love xkcd. We all think it's awesome that xkcd has referenced Wikipedia, and some of us want xkcd to mould real life to be more like xkcd. What needs to be understood is that xkcd's strip was a parody, a joke. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be logically and semantically cohesive, and anything not directly related to the topic of "wood" should not be in this article. If you care about xkcd and how people shouldn't use the internet for stupidity, obscenity, and arguments, then please, think rationally about what should be in this article to make it a verifiable, comprehensive, accurate, and well-written article about wood. If you can't think rationally, there are other games you can play with Wikipedia that don't fuck it up for the rest of us. Thanks, {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 15:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
sigh* There are enough idiots with established accounts that I think we should request full protection until at least Wednesday, when the next comic goes up, with semi through the weekend. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me for interrupting, but this doesn't seem to be in keeping with Wikipedia's core principle of Civility. 71.34.99.251 (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
What really matters is the wiki "popular" subculture. You can have 1 article about wood, but a article about ONE episode of battlestar generates as much content on Wikipedia as a non fiction article like wood. :Sterremix (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the incivility of Nihiltres is shameful. The request was made in a much more polite manner above and these comments are intentionally inflammatory. LeilaniLad (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I say open up the article. Dudes already know about wood. ;-) --72.95.164.138
From a purely informational standpoint, I must side with those who wish to keep the "popular culture" references (for the most part, anyways). I also feel it is a bit hasty to label this as vandalism, for no other reason than the fact that the references are valid. I think the core function of a wikipedia article is to grow as knowledge on one subject is pooled by many, and even though the comic points out the comedic (sometimes unintentionally so) nature of the popular culture section it plays a major role in many articles. I'd be willing to bet there are a great many wikipedia articles out there that would find a popular culture section a meaningful addition for as many that have it as a frivolous add-on. I applaud the comic for stirring up this debate, and I think it really highlights what makes wikipedia so above and beyond an encyclopedia. Whether or not it means there will be such a section in the final wood article is secondary to that fact--I'm glad to see that the wikipedia community is alive and kicking. (hope this doesn't violate the talk page guidelines too much...)
Psualan (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)psualan
Psualan, what you are missing is the distinction between information and useful information. The fact that Harry Potter uses a wooden wand may add information to the wood article, but it adds nothing useful. If someone is looking up an article on wood, they are likely to be curious about its structure or uses, but not how various TV shows incorporate wood. Adding useless information clutters otherwise helpful articles. This is not an argument against "in popular culture" sections in general, but rather an argument that each fact should be considered for whether it truly merits inclusion. The idea is not to prevent useful information from getting out there, but to prevent repeats of exactly the phenomenon that today's xkcd comic was denigrating. Remember that the purpose of an encyclopedia is to quickly give the reader a decent understanding of the topic, and if they want to go further they can check the references; adding too much trivial information only hinders this goal. -skeptical scientist (talk) 07:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we could have a long discussion as to what constitutes as useful information and what doesn't as well as who gets to decide such things. I'm not saying the above 'in popular culture' references are useful or not, however who really has the authority to determine the usefulness of a particular bit of information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.233.202 (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
What's more, copying the 'in popular culture' section from the comic could be considered plagiarism, given that the comics are under an attribution license. If User:xkcd really wanted that section in the article, he'd add it himself (and be reverted.) --Angelastic (talk) 07:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Skeptical is right. I remember what my ICT teacher said on the first lesson I went to: "information with meaning is knowledge". I don't see any knowledge being made here. Sceptre (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
How on Earth does the fact that "the fence at the back of the Simpsons' house is made of wood" constitute "knowledge" about wood? I do hope you're joking, Psualan. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The missing See Also Section
In the kerfuffle of the past 24 hours, the "See Also" section has been deleted. (See [3].) It probably should be restored. -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I've re-added it. --- RockMFR 16:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
It's been re-removed and re-added at least four times over the last day, perhaps due to the increased visibility of this article. Let's work out whether it should be kept, rather than continuing the revert-war. skeptical scientist (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it's just kids messing up when they try to add xkcd stuff. 21:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.5.140 (talk)
Not true. Look at the edit summaries:
section is unnecessary - JBsupreme
most of these links should be here - RockMFR
Undid revision 224155684 by RockMFR (talk) no explaination given for why these are needed - Coccyx Bloccyx
adding back see also - Zyrxil
this section, while unrelated to xkcd, is completely superfluous - RFerreira
It's not superfluous; how should people find such related pages, if there are no links to them? As I see it, this only enriches the page. - Alatius
It's a clear edit war, albeit between two points of view rather than two people. All I'm saying is that we should have the discussion here rather than continuing to edit the see also section back in and back out of the page, with one-line explanations hidden in the edit summaries. skeptical scientist (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Please could you add a link to Xylophagy into the See Also section? Or better yet, unprotect so I can write a short section about the topic. Anxietycello (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not unprotecting. Personally, I think there should be a short see also, but the XKCD fanatics are trying to make it overly long on purpose. Superm401 - Talk 14:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Please don't protect
I've seen Wikipedia pages get referenced in XKCD before, and this always happens. Massive numbers of eyeballs come to the page, and everyone wants to make a joke. Here's the thing. What Wikipedia is about is the idea that eyeballs are good. That a thousand people poking at an article will produce good results. And that's what I've seen every time. Stupid edits get made, and responsible wikipedians remove them, but the extra attention means that a handful of constructive edits get made too, and a week later, that's all you see - the benefits of extra attention to the page.
Protection defeats all this. Protection squanders a valuable opportunity for improvement. In my experience, that's precisely what it nearly always does.
Please un-protect.
-MBlume (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I stated this case more clearly a few months ago, when Foreplay was featured - here's my comment -MBlume (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that it's not like a featured article, where the traffic mostly comes from people who were on Wikipedia anyway. It mostly comes from the kind of weenies whose immediate response is to add a reference to the xkcd link to the article. See also: anything Stephen Colbert mentions. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
To clarify, the Foreplay article was featured in XKCD. 139.80.123.36 (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Most of the added attention is in fact negative. If people are coming to contribute, they will have no difficulty finding articles to work on (Template:Opentask is a good start). As for making a "joke", criticizing Wikipedia's faults can be funny; adding more is not. I'm not unprotecting early. Superm401 - Talk 14:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems that the article was locked due to temporary vandalism, and that lock will disappear tomorrow - not a very long time off. As for now, though, I'm concerned with the heightened number of attack phrases used in talk pages, by various editors. I know we don't have to like each other, but can we please keep it civil? Thanks. X-Kal (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The folks who think it's funny and harmless to add little jokes or XKCD easter eggs should take some time to read and consider Kant's categorical imperative. Anyone with the slightest spark of creativity could easily find hundreds of amusing changes to make to Wikipedia, but consider what would happen if each of over a hundred million readers per month acted on the whim and made only a single change? ... and what might be a cute in-joke to you could well be misleading to someone else, will likely be not funny to many others, and could well be an embarassment to people who put in considerable time creating good content. Of course, ... a few pieces of humor here and there wouldn't bring about the end of the world. But whos humor? Yours? Mine? Shall we edit war over which joke stays in? Wikipedia's meatball:SuperordinateGoal of being a free content encyclopedia, along with policies like WP:NPOV allow us to come together and agree on content, but there can be little stability in easter eggs. I hope that the XKCD readers can understand this and realize that Wikipedia isn't a bunch of humorless bureaucrats trying to spoil their fun, though a glance at the XKCD forums doesn't give me much hope. --Gmaxwell (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
After unprotecting, add link to Dendrochronology in initial section. --Speedevil (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wood"
Categories: B-Class Woodworking-related articles | High-importance Woodworking-related articles | WikiProject Woodworking articles | B-Class plant articles | Top-importance plant articles | Articles to be included in Wikipedia 0.7 | B-Class core topic supplement articles | B-Class Version 0.7 articles | Natural sciences Version 0.7 articles | Delisted good articles
Views
Article
Discussion
Edit this page
New section
History
Personal tools
Log in / create account
Navigation
Main Page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Interaction
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact Wikipedia
Donate to Wikipedia
Help
Search
Toolbox
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Printable version
Permanent link
This page was last modified on 8 July 2008, at 23:18.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Labels: XKCD 333
posted by ~ at 4:27 pm
1 Comments:
Warning: this comic occasionally contains strong language (which may be unsuitable for children), unusual humor (which may be unsuitable for adults), and advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors).
We did not invent the algorithm. The algorithm consistently finds Jesus. The algorithm killed Jeeves.
The algorithm is banned in China. The algorithm is from Jersey. The algorithm constantly finds Jesus.
This is not the algorithm. This is close.
Post a Comment
<< Home