Talk:Hardwood

Comments

Congratulations on the page. Some comments were too long for the editing comment box:

1. We write for an international audience. The section 'American hardwoods' suggests a U.S. bias, which is not advisable.
2. Stick to the topic:
   1. You don't have to teach other subjects, such as photosynthesis and chlorophyll, because there are other pages on the wiki which do the job better. Stick to the subject.
   2. You have got yourself into trouble by talking about 'appearance'. The external look of a tree is irrelevant to the topic. A page on hardwood could talk about the appearance of hardwood, not the appearnce of its leaves.

Best wishes, Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. The reason I wrote about the appearance of hardwoods is that the article is not just about lumber sawn from hardwoods, but about the whole group of trees and shrubs and their appearance is a key to distinguishing them from the softwoods, whereas their specific gravities (I.E.: hardnesses) are not. As for the American hardwoods, this is a beginning of an article; it will be expanded by me soon. I felt the article, while not finished by any means, was at a stage where its inclusion in the mainspace would now be of benefit to the readership in understanding the hardwoods. Regards, Sgt. Detritus and the Piecemaker (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There are already pages on the major botanical groups, and it does not make a page better to try and cover everything under the sun. But go ahead and do whatever you want. I've said my piece. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, is there something upsetting you? I have spoken quite civilly to you and explained myself with cogent argument and I get "But go ahead and do whatever you want. I've said my piece." Sgt. Detritus and the Piecemaker (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)