Talk:List of woods

Plants High‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany 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.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Forestry (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Forestry, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ForestryWikipedia:WikiProject ForestryTemplate:WikiProject ForestryForestry articles

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

What to include on this list

If ALL woods were included, the list would be several thousand species long! Personally, I think inclusion here should be limited to species of major commercial importance: extensively sold on international markets, and/or widely planted in reforestation programmes. Have removed one or two which are of only very minor local importance. - MPF 10:16, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Also I think that closely related species not separated in the wood trade should be listed as a single entry; the link can provide further details of the species involved for follow-up (e.g. white oaks for the very similar woods of White oak, Bur oak, Swamp white oak, etc., all harvested and sold mixed as a single trade item. Haven't edited on this though: anyone else any thoughts? - MPF 10:16, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the list should remain limited to species of 'major' to 'middle' commercial importance. I feel that the subspecies of white oak are commercially relevant as there is always much discussion between U.S. and European buyers/sellers about color and growing region. Regional 'species blending' is a factor; eg higher percentages of dark (Quercus prinus) or reddish (Quercus bicolor) boards. The same is true of other commercially blended species like Ipé 'lapacho' etc.--Wittsun (talk) 07:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Queries

Does rosewood and sandlewood belongs here? There is another kind of wood used in model airplanes, what is its name?

Balsa wood? Adam Bishop 21:47, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yes, rosewood and sandlewood do belong, as they are commercially important; ditto for balsa. - MPF 10:16, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yew

Changing the "Yew" link from disambiguation page to the Taxaceae family page. Please specify the genus and species if you can. J. Finkelstein 21:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed this to "European Yew" (Taxus baccata), which seems to be the only species in Taxaceae of major horticultural and commercial importance. SCHZMO ✍ 23:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soft vs. Hard wood

How are the two lists in the article classifier? The title and the contents does not match. For example, in the article about balsa, it says it is a VERY SOFT wood, yet balsa is listed under hardwood? I'm confused. Kowloonese 00:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balsa is a "hardwood" because it comes from an angiosperm tree, while "softwoods" come from conifers (or gymnosperm) trees. Note that "hardwood" and "softwood" are a bit of a misnomer. Some softwoods are pretty hard (e.g. yew and douglas-fir), harder than many hardwoods, while you noted that balsa is a soft wood (but not a softwood). The microscopic structure and characteristics of the two types of wood are quite different. Following the links to hardwood, softwood, conifer, angiosperm and gymnosperm should clarify things for you. HTH Luigizanasi 16:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for the explanation. Such misnomers are not obvious to the laymen. IMHO, disclaimers such as "softwood \= soft wood" and "hardwood \= hard wood" are in order. Kowloonese 22:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said that most hardwoods (with a few exceptions like balsa) are in fact harder than most softwoods. So it's not entirely a misnomer. Luigizanasi 02:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by 196.209.42.187

Likes to add misspellings and break links. Recommend immediate undo if spotted.--Wittsun (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of woods. 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:

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) 11:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Janka hardness values

Each tree has an info box containing, among other things, scientific classification and synonyms, etc. I think it would be beneficial to also include the typical Janka hardness value. I understand these values are not exact, but it would be extremely helpful to the curious woodworker if they might have this data on-hand when they are reading up on the various species. How best to handle this? Would it require updating the "info box" with an additional parameter, or would that cause trouble with the other botanical people? 50.32.148.241 (talk) 03:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]