Talk:Wheelwright

Sources

Most of the information in this article is presented as factual but without any given sources. Two of the listed references are dictionary pages. Would be great if we could get some citations in to make the page reliable Equirax (talk) 03:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Equirax: I added two new sections ("History" and "Parts and materials") with appropriate citations. At the time, I could not really figure out how to merge my new content with the older content, so now there are some duplicate concepts. There is more work that needs to be done.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Split

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There was no consensus to split.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

---

Seems like this article is talking about two separate things here. Wooden wheel (and related cart wheel, wagon wheel (transportation), etc.) is notable enough for a separate article. 162 etc. (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, wooden wheels and the occupation of making them are technically 2 separate subjects. But they overlap each other close enough and neither is covered well in other articles. And they are small enough on their own that they may become prey to deletionists - many of who will speedy delete articles based sorely on being small. See WP:MERGEREASON. It is fine as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stepho-wrs (talk • contribs) 23:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose – The thing, how it is constructed, and who constructs it are intimately related. You are welcome to expand this article. If it gets large enough, then we can reconsider a split, but for now it is not warranted.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 15:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I am the one who added the section on "parts of a wheel" in my work on horse-drawn vehicle topics. This article was the closest one I could find to put it into.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 15:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I mean, a cooper and a barrel are related, but that doesn't force them to share an article? The individual notability of the topic, not the size of the article, is what matters. See WP:GNG. 162 etc. (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Which content do you suggest go elsewhere, and what would that elsewhere look like?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

At the very least, the "Parts of a wheel" section can split off. That section relates to the wheel itself, not the wheelwright. 162 etc. (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

For what benefit? I'm often OCD about these things too but this is more like a solution looking for a problem.

You mentioned WP:GNG but that makes no mention of whether 2 related topics can share a single article. Whereas I mentioned WP:MERGEREASON that explicitly mentions 2 small topics sharing a single article.

Cooper (profession) and barrel are indeed separate articles. They are also massively bigger than this little article.

If we split this article into 2 smaller articles, then I guarantee that a deletionist will slap speedy delete on them for being stubs. Then we lose both topics. If we try to recreate them (either split or combined) then they will be rejected because it was previously rejected. A total loss to Wikipedia.  Stepho  talk  23:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

A topic that meets WP:GNG will survive an AfD regardless of article length. Articles are deleted or merged when they are not notable, not when they are too short.

I'm of the opinion that these are two separate, independently notable topics, for which significant coverage in secondary sources exists. 162 etc. (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

"A topic that meets WP:GNG will survive an AfD regardless of article length" - ah, to be young and naive again.

A deletionist will label it as a stub and have it speedy deleted - regardless of notability. WP:STUBDEF says "If a stub has little verifiable information, or if its subject has no apparent notability, it may be deleted" (what we all want to avoid) "or be merged into another relevant article." (the current state).

They are closely related subjects, so there is nothing saying that they have to be separate articles. And WP:MERGEREASON and WP:STUBDEF allow for them to be together when they are closely related and small.  Stepho  talk  01:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@162 etc.: Since you're the one with the vision (that the rest of us aren't seeing), perhaps a better action might be to create a new "wheel" page (or whatever you're imagining), then suggest a split here, or just go ahead and make it in summary style or simply wikilink the two articles together. If you think this split proposal was to encourage someone else to do it for you, I think that has fallen on deaf ears.

I'm less interested in the Wheelwright article than I am in horse-drawn vehicle information so I have taken my "parts" section and copied it into Carriage, then modified it to reflect both historically-wooden as well as modern non-wooden wheels used in horse-drawn vehicles today. Do with this article whatever you want—within the bounds of consensus with others.

Note that "products" created by a trade do belong in the article about the trade. As do "tools", which are missing here. The content of the parts section might get placed somewhere else within the article, or be worded differently, but the concepts and definitions belong in this article, and the sourcing has already been done. The usual action is to expand an article until it is too big, and it is clear that there are two topics that could exist as separate standalone articles with both notability and sufficient sourcing. Sort of like putting an author's information in a standalone article about a book, especially if the author is only known for their one book—if the author writes another book, then the author information is sometimes split out into its own BLP article. Are wheelwrights known for anything more than wooden wheels?

Happy editing.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 01:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm certainly not trying to do anything against consensus, and honestly am a bit surprised at the pushback here. A look at Category:Wheels shows that there are several wheels with standalone articles. Many of these, it could be argued, have less notability than a wooden wheel.

A wooden wheel and a wheelwright are not the same thing.

A wooden wheel and a carriage aren't the same thing. 162 etc. (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Arguing with editors and editing are not the same thing. Go edit!   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My text reverted

Resolved --Altenmann >talk 04:39, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

not relevant to wheelwrights.

I disagree with this judgement. By tgis logic the whole section "Parts of the wheel" is "not relevant to wheelwrritht" and must be moved elsewhere. --Altenmann >talk 00:14, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Inclusion of modern metal wheelmaking doesn't belong here

@Altenmann: Re your insistence that this edit is relevant...

...this article is called Wheelwright and is about the profession of wheelwrights ("a craftsman who builds or repairs wooden wheels"). It is relevant to carriage-era and contemporary professionals who make wooden wheels. Modern metal sport wheels don't even have felloes or naves, and aluminum sulky wheels rarely have spokes. They are not made by wheelwrights. That content rightfully belonged in the Carriage article (from where you copied it) because marathon carriages and sulkys are carriages.

The content:

Modern sport carriages such as the marathon carriage have hard rubber tires and all metal wheels. Some lightweight carriages, such as the sulky, have metal "bicycle spokes" and pneumatic tires.

doesn't belong here.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:21, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, disagreed. The article is about wheelmaking of wheels for carriages, modern or not. --Altenmann >talk 00:24, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Heck, the article itself proceeds to say "During the industrial age, iron strakes were replaced by a solid iron tyre custom made by a blacksmith after the wheelwright had measured each wheel to ensure proper fit". --Altenmann >talk 00:28, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

There is NOTHING in this article that is about general wheelmaking. The entirety of the article is about the making of WOODEN WHEELS. Iron strakes are pieces of iron rather than an entire hoop of one piece. Artillery used wooden wheels, as well as hand-pushed market carts. Whatever gave you the idea this was about carriage-wheel making?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:33, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Marathon carriage is a carriage and its wheel is a carriage wheel. --Altenmann >talk 00:38, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Here is a trade-off: I cut the sentence and moved it to the bottom. IMO to inicate a historical connection is perfectly normal. --Altenmann >talk 00:41, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

A marathon carriage wheel

It being a carriage is irrelevant, and the inclusion here is WP:UNDUE. This article isn't about carriage wheels, it's about the profession of wheelwrights and the making of WOODEN WHEELS. Marathon carriages do not have wooden wheels. They are made of welded metal, have no naves nor felloes, do not use tenoned spokes, and usually have hydraulic disc brakes like an automobile. Such wheels are made by metal fabricators, not wheelwrights. Mentioning one isolated example of a modern, non-wooden wheel type is tangential and gives it undue weight, especially out of context.

Tell me why you think this article is about "carriage wheels"?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:58, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I do not think this article about carriage wheels. The section is about carriage wheels. I do not think that a 6-word sentences is "undie weight" here. --Altenmann >talk 02:48, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Wheelwrights made wooden wheels for numerous vehicle types including: artillery wheels for cannons and field guns; agricultural wagons and equipment; human-pushed carts, barrows, and dollies; early municipal water carts and fire engines; mine carts; logging wheels; parade and festival floats; children's toys, wagons, hobby horses, goat and donkey carts; and early bicycles.

None of these are "carriages", so inserting a sentence about a single modern carriage type—even if just 6 words—is definitely UNDUE. It also disrupts the flow of the section by abruptly introducing to the reader a modern, non‑wooden wheel that has no structural, historical, or craft continuity with the wooden wheels thus far being described—and which isn't made by a wheelwright.

This article is about the craft of making wooden wheels, not about "carriage wheels" as a category.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:30, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

OK. as I see, you added a blurb about wheels of marathon carriages into "Carriage" article. That's fine with me. My major concern was loss of information. So I am self-reverting the disputed sentence from here.--Altenmann >talk 04:38, 21 March 2026 (UTC)