User talk:Famartin

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4

Ash wood

I see you reverted my edit. I suppose "ash wood" can be defined variously, but by most definitions this image tells nothing about ash wood. It is a stump of an ash tree, as is already recognized by several other categories. It could be said to show something about felling a tree, as there are traces of sawing. It can also be said to show broken bits of decaying branches, and a bit of ground. None of this is informative, or worth mentioning.

Anybody looking for any kind of visual information on ash wood will be very hard put to find anything of the sort in this picture. This is very close to dedicating a picture of a street five minutes after a famous person walked through (maybe) to that person. - Brya (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I completely don't understand you here. A tree is made of wood. A stump is freshly cut wood, last I checked. It clearly shows wood. Famartin (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

For example, how is my photo any different from these: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fraxinus_excelsior_crosssection.jpg , https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fraxinus_excelsior1_cross_beentree.JPG , https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tronco_freixo.jpg , https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schotten_Betzenrod_Logging_Fraxinus_excelsior_DSHWood.png ??? Famartin (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

To put it bluntly: "a tree stump is that part of the trunk that is not converted to wood but is left to rot in the ground". That is, when wood is regarded as a material, something that people make things out of. And there are two basic arguments to regard wood as being a material. Firstly this is how a very large group of people views it, because they do use it that way (for example "this chair is made of wood"). Secondly, Commons needs categories for pictures of material, otherwise a very great deal of the real world could not find these pictures. To the world at large, the fact that "ash wood" is derived from trees of Fraxinus is close to immaterial. Of course this is more clear with imported woods: if a wood is imported from Africa (say 'sapeli'), practically nobody in the US will have much of an idea what the tree that yielded it looked like.

        The point of view that "A tree is made of wood" can be adopted by somebody examining the internal mechanics, or hydraulics of a tree. But outside such narrow perspectives, this is not a particularly useful point of view. Anyway, such perspectives belong almost exclusively to the tree as a whole. Once the tree has been cut the internal mechanics, or hydraulics of a tree have been destroyed, so this point of view becomes a lot less useful.

        But you are certainly right that the examples you mention are very dubious inclusions in this category. They only fit in the category on an intermediary basis. Especially https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schotten_Betzenrod_Logging_Fraxinus_excelsior_DSHWood.png only belongs there as illustrating an aspect of logging Fraxinus-trees. And logging is an essential step preceding conversion to saleable wood. Without logging there would be no (tradeable) ash (wood). But for most purposes it would be inadequate to say these logs are ash (wood): they are (or can be) on the way to becoming that, and only vaguely belong there (or somewhere in there). But certainly, this placement is less than ideal. - Brya (talk) 08:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be making a distinction between biological wood and lumber wood. I’d suggest you make more specific categories if you prefer only lumber wood to be in such categories. Famartin (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

That is an odd bit of semantics (see here, for example). Your "biological wood" is mostly a theoretical construct. In practice all dealings people have with wood occur only after it has been cut and processed: "ash wood" in practice is unambiguous (in Wikidata the item "ash wood" has some hundred incoming links from items of pieces of furniture or sculpture). The common way to refer to the "biological wood" of Fraxinus is "ash tree". What happens inside an ash tree is beyond the unaided perceptions of any human. Only if somebody brings a piece of equipment is it possible to bridge this gap. - Brya (talk) 11:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You're looking at it from a wood-cutter's perspective. Think of it from the average random person. Wood is wood. If you want to specify a category for Ash wood (lumber), then by all means. Famartin (talk) 12:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

No, I am taking into account the various several perspectives of all kinds of 'average persons', including those who use furniture, who use stairs, who use gardening tools, who walk on floors, who view sculptures, etc. If you feel that those with x-ray vision are in need of a category "Ash wood (biological wood)" then go ahead and create that category, although I am not clear on what files you could include in such a category. - Brya (talk) 11:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

You're thinking is flawed. Aside from you still thinking general people don't include a tree as being wood, if you go to the top-level category https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wood, there's all sorts of categories related to general wood, not this specific "Ash wood lumber" that you think should only be included in "Ash wood". If you have a problem with what's included in that category, go argue with someone else. Famartin (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

My position is that people think of wood as being material, and of trees as being trees. This top-level category Wood has 55 categories, and I cannot spot any category among these that does not treat wood as being material, perfectly in line with ash wood being a material. There, "wood" is even summarized as "fibrous material from trees or other plants". - Brya (talk) 12:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I grow tired of this ridiculous debate, so I've taken care of it. Famartin (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)