Talk:Diamond tool

Copy edit

I performed a copy edit. Given the lack of sources to work from, and the rough, technical nature of the text, errors may have crept in during the edit. I'd appreciate an expert on the topic checking to make sure no inadvertent problems were introduced. The article could also use more references and information. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion

It seems to me that Diamond blade contains a lot of the same information as this page, and that a diamond blade is a kind of diamond tool. Much of the information in the diamond blade article is better written, too. I suggest merging the two articles. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Strong agree, per Macwhiz. Wizard191 (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest not to merge the two articles. The reasons are as follows:

1. There are thousands of kinds of diamond tools. If they are all described in the diamond tools article, the article will become very long, and it will be difficult for the reader to find the information they need.

2. The diamond blade is in fact also a big category in diamond tools. There are still many things that can be talked about it.

3. Diamond blades are fairly commonly used, and there should be many readers who want to find their information. Leaving a separate article is convenient for these readers to find the information.

I think the better solution is adding a category called "Diamond tools", and modifying the "Categories" section of the "Diamond blade" article to the new "Diamond tools" category.

If I later have time, I may revise the "diamond tool" article also, and add some contents.

Bigradish (talk) 04:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

There may be thousands of kinds of diamond tool, but only a handful are discussed on the two pages in question. So, your first point doesn't really seem applicable, unless you're suggesting that merging the two articles will suddenly cause a rush of editors expanding the article...?

It may be possible to add more information about diamond blades, but at this time no one has done so. If the article grows, it can later be split according to the appropriate guidelines. The decision should be made based on what is, not what could be. Based on WP:MERGE, I suggest that rationales 2 and 4 apply, that the resulting article would not be too long as much of the two articles duplicate each other, there is not enough material for expansion at this time, and the topics are not discrete subjects. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Macwhiz, I think the key point now is that the "Diamond tool" article is not a well-written one and it contains many contents that should be merged in the "Diamond blade" article. Actually, there are many things should be talked in the "Diamond tool" article, but currently it lacks. I think the "Diamond tool" article should introduce diamond tools in general. I should have time to revise the article and add some contents in a few days. Bigradish (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Each article is currently around 10 kB, and with the amount of overlap between the two, I think the merged article would be around 15 kB, so we are way under the limit for making the article too big. I say merge it and expand it. I highly doubt there will be too much information for one article. Plus if it's all here, then the reader doesn't have to bounce between two articles. Wizard191 (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Wizard191, I think if the two articles are merged, the readers will feel somewhat frustrated. Suppose that a reader who want to find information about another diamond tool sees many contents about diamond blade, while a reader who want the information about diamond blade sees the introductions of diamond tool.

More importantly, could you tell your PURPOSE to merge the two articles? Bigradish (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I see the merge as a good thing for redundancy purposes. It's bad to have the same information in two places, when you simply say it in one place. As for your worry that people will be frustrated about seeing two topics, I'm not worried about that because the article will be properly sectioned up. If they want to read about a diamond blade they can go the diamond blade section, but if they want to read about how diamond tools work in general, they can read the "principles" section. (Note that these are hypothetical section names and we'll use whatever makes the most sense, if/when the merge occurs). Wizard191 (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think merging the two articles is a good option to remove the redundant contents. And the merging is inconvenient for the readers to read the two topics.

I've begun revising the article yesterday and will finish later today. You will see what the article will become. Bigradish (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Disagree, as for the 2 articles having the same information that's a problem with how the articles are written and not reason to combine the two. The articles simply need cleaned up to include only relevant information.

For instance having a picture of a diamond cutting wheel wouldn't belong in a diamond tool page since a diamond tool is not a wheel.Woods01 (talk) 06:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No consensus. Removing tag. Szzuk (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Some confusion?

I wouldn't consider myself to be an expert however having completed 4 years of a trade school using such equipment im pretty confident in saying diamond blades are usually not used for cutting metal. I've only ever heard of diamond blades being used to cut tile/glass and other like material.

I don't see why this article is requested to be reviewed by an expert since the information provided seems very good and while some inconsistency's may exist anyone can improve the article.Woods01 (talk) 06:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I use a specific diamond tool which could be called a blade or disc on my grinder, to sharpen my stone chisels. Metalcutting, that is. ;-)--Satrughna (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree the article doesn't need an expert but it does need cleanup. Szzuk (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This article needs an expert and a LOT of cleanup. There is no mention of these keywords and concepts: diamond dust, diamond powder, particle size, the difference between an industrial diamond and a natural diamond. There is a section about Polycrystalline diamond compacts, for example. In this section, a wikilink goes to the hole saw article because it is talking about drill bits... okay... but then the article quotes the Department of Energy about drilling feet. What a mess. Drilling feet is almost assuredly discussing bits for oil wells (and possibly water wells), not the hole saw. It is a "D" not a "C" in my book. This article needs tons of disclaimers on how poorly and inaccurate and messy it is. Not even the picture conveys any useful information.

As for an expert, I would say DEFINITELY. I would fix all of this if I was an expert, but I simply can't without a lot of research and references. Here's a few: http://www.mazaldiamond.com/blog-en/what-is-diamond-dust/ and http://www.mazaldiamond.com/blog-en/what-is-diamond-powder/ I like to saw logs! (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)