Talk:Drywall/Archive 1

Wallboard Chemistry
The chemistry on the page is somewhat incorrect. Gypsum is calcium sulfate dihydrate (CaSO4*2H2O). Plaster, aka stucco, is calcium sulfate hemihydrate (CaSO4*1/2H2O). The material in the core of a gypsum wallboard panel is gypsum, the dihydrate moiety. The process for making a panel involves taking raw gypsum and "calcining" it (removing most of the water of hydration) to plaster. In the production facility, the plaster is mixed with water into a slurry and sandwiched between the facers (usually paper). When mixed with water, the stucco rehydrates to gypsum and forms crystals. These crystals are what gives wallboard its strength. What is evaporated in the dryers is the excess water needed to make the stucco slurry pumpable. I may edit the page to reflect this correction. 75.21.190.65 (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)DLove

Anonymous users
I wonder why so many editors of the Drywall page are anonymous. Take a look: http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?pagetitle=Drywall --Achim 23:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The name sheetrock
≈Also called sheetrock in many parts of the united states - --24.16.167.207 06:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

is this what is called 'plasterboard' in the UK? It is still plastered over in the UK -- beware USPOV: we need a general approach. -- Tarquin 17:07, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Sheetrock is a brand name of drywall, for the record.

The word plasterboard
I believe plasterboard and drywall are one and the same. It's usually skim plastered over when installed in the UK, AFAIK. But I'm not a builder, so I'm not in a position to be authoritative. -- The Anome 17:12, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC) There are two different products here. The plaster lath board is usually 2' by 4' and is grey in colour. It is applied to the studs and then plastered over. It is an alternative to the metal or wood lath used in the past. Drywall is usually 4 feet wide (or 1200 mm) and has a tapered or recessed edge which has a joint treatment applied before priming and painting. 18:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In some installations it is still covered with several thin coats of plaster rather than directly painted.

When directly painted, are the nail-heads/screw-heads and joins between boards just painted over, and therefore visible as bumps, or is some method used to hide them? -- The Anome 17:19, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * The nails and joints and corners are covered in mud (also called joint compound) usually in two or three coats with much messy sanding in between. But the entire board is not covered. By the way some in the US call it plasterboard still. Rmhermen 17:24, Sep 30, 2003 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rmhermen, however, there ARE contractors out there known to mud the ENTIRE surface that is drywalled. Likely due to inexperience? I'm not sure, However, my understanding from talking to my father who has 15+ yr's exp drywalling says that this is not a normal practice and is a waste of time and material. The normal practice is to mud the seams and over the screws and anywhere else that is uneven. Magu 04:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

In the U.S. at least, a lot of the higher-end construction utilizes "skim coated" "Blue-board" (a sheetrock/plasterboard/drywall product). The coating is plaster instead of joint compound, and provided a harder, smoother, more uniform surface that is somewhat resistant to minor dings and abrasions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.129.4 (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Plasterboard and "Cheap" (lowest-cost) Comments
Metal Lath or even thin strips of cedar or other timber (home-made lath) predated drywall. So, the term "plasterboard" may be in use, but it's really just blarney. One story behind the switch from lath and plaster to factory-made boards, is that price-fixing on behalf of the plaster trade caused the emergence of the boards, which then shiften trade jurisdiction away from the plasterers and towards the carpenters. I have yet to see any real documentation about that but I know from decades of construction experience, that this would not be any particular surprise. And yes, I believe that drywall is cheap stuff, compared against its more massive competitors, such as masonry and cast concrete. Also, in passive fire protection, the stuff is a huge liability. Drywall assemblies "relax" towards the fire. They shift and move back and forth a tad, but mainly sag towards the flame in a standard 100ft² or 9m² test furnace. This is a documented fact. The walls do this but the penetrants don't follow this movement, which puts a strain on the firestops, that is deliberately kept out of test regimes for firestops in drywall assemblies. All drywall assembly fire-resistance tests typically use FULL SHEETS, with as few joints as possible. In the field, they cut and fit and jig-saw-puzzle all over the place. They test one one straight wall. In a masonry or cast concrete wall, I'm not concerned in the slightest about a chnage in direction. Corners with drywalls are a different kettle of fish though and the use of any corners in reality are really a leap of faith. They call this "grandfathering". There is a lot of it going on, particularly when it comes to drywall. However, it's cheap, and the issue is too complex to ever become an election topic or anything. So, I applaud the use of the term "lowest cost" when referring to such insubstantial building methods as drywall. The tolerance of stuff like this is what makes North American buildings in particular vulnerable to rapid destruction by strong wind. See hurricane preparedness. I am cognisant, of course, that drywall is not on the outside of a building, but the issue is one of culture, which translates to the construction of entire buildings in this lightweight manner.--Achim 19:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Screws
Any chance someone could add some info about the screws used for drywalling? - Check at Home Depot. Screws can be installed one at a time or with a strip of 15 or so in a special drywall screwdriver.134.163.253.128 09:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah. The screws are long and thin, with a sharp point, a flat head (type e here, more or less), and widely-spaced threads.  (About 1/16 of an inch from each thread to the next, much more than most other screws.)  They self-pilot and drive very quickly.  You can easily drive one into pine (such as the 2x4 "studs" in most walls) with a plain old ordinary manual screwdriver.  They're usually black.  (Update:  can't do the photo, sorry; this old digital camera just can't zoom in tight enough on something that small to show the detail adequately.)  Drywall nails are also long and narrow, with a sharp point, usually black, and have rings on them so that they hold better.  Sometimes drywallers will put a few screws in first, to get to the point where they can let go of the sheet, and then finish up with nails.  For ceilings they usually use the screws exclusively, because they hold better than the nails.  Drywall screws do not stand up particularly well to lateral force, i.e., bending; whether this is because they are not very big around, or because of the black material they are made from, or a combination, I don't know.  This is all from personal experience.  Feel free to augment the article with any of this info that seems sufficiently pertinent; I put in one parenthetical remark about their general structure.  --Jonadab, 2006 Jun 11.
 * I added some more details about screws. Not sure how to cite it but I work construction and much of my work is hanging drywall. Bluecollarchessplayer 04:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The photo shown at the front of this piece should be changed. It shows drywall hung on a wall with screws (they better be screws!) spaced vertically more than the 16 inches recommended for a properly hung board.66.234.209.188 14:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)…cateyedude

I originally posted this question. I have since aquired a good digital camera. I don't have any drywall screws but when I get a chance I'll get a picture of one for the article. I initially posted the question not for personal information, jsut information I thought would be good to have in the article. Magu 04:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have access now to a better camera than before (still consumer-grade, but much newer), and was able to get a mediocre shot that at least shows the general design. It's not the clearest photo ever taken, but I added it to the article for now, until someone can take a better one. --Jonadab, 2008 January.  —Preceding comment was added at 18:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Screw Types: Generally you will find two types of screws at your local home improvement depot. Coarse and fine thread. Coarse thread are for wood studs and fine thread are steel studs. Many lengths are available, generally 1-1/4" for 1/2" drywall and 1-5/8" for 5/8" drywall. Contrary to the above statement, many drywallers I have worked with will hand nail a sheet until it supports itself then come back and screw off the sheet later. Mostly because it is easier to hold a hammer in your nail bag than a screw gun. When driving nails or screws the most important thing to remember is the strength of the drywall is in the paper. If you drive the nail or screw through the paper it will loose its strength. The fastener should be driven so it dimples the surface but does not tear the paper. Professional hangers have special drywall guns that have an adjustable tip that will countersink the screw and not tear the paper. Aproxamatley one pound of screws will apply nine 4 x 8 x 1/2" sheets of drywall. A little less for 5/8" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.195.73 (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

drywall bidding
Measure lineal footage of walls and multiply by height in feet will give you the square footage of wall space. Example: a 12' x 15' room will have 54 lineal feet of wall, if the wall height is 8' you end up with 432 square feet of wall space. Each sheet of 4x8 will cover 32 square feet. Divide the total square footage by 32 and this will give you the minimum amount of sheets. In the example above the result would be 13.5 sheets. I generally add 10% to this number, for waste, so I would order 15 sheets of 4 x 8 x 1/2". The ceiling is figured the same way, except 5/8" material is used. 1/2" on a ceiling will sag over a short amount of time. There is a product called 1/2" No Sag but generally not for the weekend warrior. In the example above the ceiling has 180 sq feet, divided by 32 plus 10% I would order 7 sheets of 4 x 8 x 5/8". Fasteners are approximately nine sheets per pound, so I would order 3 pounds of 1-1/4" screws for the walls and 2 pounds for the ceiling. I generally will order a little extra because, I would much rather return a $1 pound of screws at my leisure when the job is done rather than run to Home Depot with my hair on fire because I am 1/2 pound short. 3 boxes of 3-1/2 gallon drywall compound will cover 1000 square feet of drywall for tapping. Texture varies greatly depending on the type of texture. Tape is approximately 12' per sheet plus corners. The tape is very inexpensive, purchase extra, see above. Outside corner is purchased is figured per piece. Actually performing the job is where the true skill is required. If you have gotten this far and are not lost, good luck. See you at the local home improvement depot!

drywall compound
A long time ago I added a parenthetical noting that drywall compound (which now seems to be called "joint compound" in the article) is also known as "spackle" (no writeup of spackle), which was summarily removed by an anon who said it's not the same thing. I am no expert on this and I do not dispute that spackle can refer to other compounds, but is it not the case that drywall compound is commonly referred to as spackle, or is this a complete mistake? I have definitely heard this term used by builders in both Pennsylvania and New York, and also to the activity of plastering seams and nails as "spackling," so correct or not it might be worth mentioning. NTK 04:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "Spackle" is the trademark for a compound used to patch holes and irregularities in walls before painting or papering. Muralo Company owns the trademark, although it's pretty much genericized by now. Things like "Polyfilla" or "Resurfo" are two other brand names I am familiar with. They are usually non-shrinking and Plaster of Paris-based, unlike drywall compound. But that doesn't stop certain construction tradespeople from calling drywall joint compound spackle, and from using it as a patching/spackling compound for which there are better products. Luigizanasi 04:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The common term here is "plaster"! So you would either talk about getting your wall plastered or stopped... --Limegreen 07:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Joint compound comes in two types: Either ready-mixed or powder form. The ready-mixed is made with latex and other fillers is supplied in plastic tubs or cardboard boxes with a plastic liner to contain the mix. This material dries like a paint and resealed container will keep the material workable. The powder form requires on-site water and will set in 90-360 minutes. Generalstaff 18:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

references for the "most common building material used globally"
Hi, Can the writer please present some references to where he got this data ("most common building material used globally") from? thanks Ashan vpss 15:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That statement was put in by User:Amaxson back in March 2005. See . Maybe a question on his/her talk page might be more effective. Luigizanasi 16:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I can vouch for that. The stuff is cheap and it has product certification, is eligible for bounding and that's what drives the commercial success of construction products, pretty much exclusively.--Achim 02:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Really? There's a huge building boom going in in Asia, but (from what I've seen) I don't think they've ever heard of the stuff. Ewlyahoocom 06:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Out of curiousity, what do they use for interior walls?


 * I'm pretty sure the most common building material used globally is wood, the only other possible contender being cement, with drywall a rather distant third. In much of the third world drywall is too expensive to even be considered, and in the first and second worlds drywall is normally attached to (wait for it) wooden studs (except in urban high-rise construction, which accounts for a very small percentage of construction overall).  However, drywall is certainly _one of the_ most common and most important building materials used globally and is used for most interior residential and white-collar wall surfaces in the developed world.  Note, however, that the wording in the article is qualified, "for the construction of interior walls and ceilings".  With that qualification it's _probably_ true, since in the third world they mostly don't construct interior walls and ceilings.  Nonetheless, a citation would not go amiss.  --Jonadab


 * I hope this adds something to the discussion: at least down here in Brazil, I only saw drywall used as a cheap material to build cheap tiny apartments. "Real" houses are built with masonry, which is by far the most common building material over here. Wood is also almost not used at all.


 * Yeah, masonry (especially cement, but also other forms, including ceramic tile, brick, stone, ...) is extremely common also. If all masonry were considered as a single material, it is almost certainly more common than wood, but I was thinking of cement, stone, brick, etc. as distinct materials.  I suppose cement might even be more common globally than wood (I did say it was the other possible contender), but in any case my point was that wood and cement are both (globally) much more common in general than drywall.  However, as I said before, these things are used in a wider variety of ways, including for structurally significant stuff; whereas, drywall is only used for interior wall (and ceiling) surfaces, for the most part, the same sorts of uses to which plaster was put (and, in places with cheap labor, sometimes still is).  --Jonadab

Maybe not the most common, but I believe the most wide-spread building material is the concrete block. How many places are they not used? --Kalmia 07:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, concrete blocks/bricks/masonary is much more predominant, especially in countries where timber is extremely scarce i.e. South East Asia. - Ozzykhan 20:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In most of sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, wood is fairly common but cement not so much (though they do use mud block, which could be considered a form of masonry in general). Still, cement is indeed very common, certainly more common in general than drywall, which was the point here.  --Jonadab

Image captions
Wow! Those are some looooong image captions. Ewlyahoocom 16:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look like they are necessary. Is it a plumber's safety manual or something? I think its too big of a detour from drywall theme. Saulelis 15:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this article seems to be more about fire safety regulations then about what drywall is, suggest splitting the majority of the fire safety info off into a dedicated article, what do you guys reckon? 3:20 21 May 2006 (BST)

I agree, it reads like some kind of fire safety manual. It's not directly relevant to the article, but it seems like good info. It would be good to move it into a separate article, or maybe even a dedicated sub-section within this article. Hcsteve 17:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. Those image captions are so preposterously long that they push relevant images, such as the screwdriver, off the bottom of the article.  They should at minimum be turned into a section, but frankly I'd rather see them in a separate article or even just plain tersified.  Additionally, there seems to be more than a little implied advocacy, as if the writer is arguing for the establishment of an entire industry of fire-safety subcontractors, and an encyclopedia article is not the appropriate venue for such advocacy. --Jonadab, 2006 Jun 11


 * I shortened the captions. If anyone gets around to doing a separate article about the fire safety details, feel free to look in the article history for the information they contained. --Jonadab, 2006 Jun 12

New look
Hey,

Just edited the article and added new headings, a new section for the drywall market and made few other minor changes...What do you think?

Housing boom image
Is the last image, "housing boom" infringes any copyright laws? I'm not sure...please someone clarify
 * That is a worthwhile question. The fair-use reason given in the image history does not sound like a usual fair-use reason to me, but IANACL.  I've left it in place for now, but someone should review this. --Jonadab

two layers at right angles
For soundproofing or fire resistance, two layers of drywall are sometimes used laid at right angles.

That doesn't make sense to me - should this read "parallel"? Unsigned comment by User:Singkong2005
 * I guess it's not clear. The first layer is laid with, say, the long edge vertical. the second layer is laid on top of it with the long edge of the sheet horizontal. So the long edges of the drywall sheets are at right angles to eache other. I hope this clarifies it. I can't think of a better way of putting it right now. If you have an inspiration, please fix it. Luigizanasi 05:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Drywall market
I corrected a misquote in the Drywall market in North America section, as it previously said the average home instead of the average new home as the source specified. But still, the source baffles me, as they say that an average new home has 7.31 metric tons of gypsum, which to my mind is quite a lot. They make it out to be 571 square meters, which in my calculation makes it 12,8 kilograms per square meter. Now that's some sturdy drywall. At you can have a look at average weights for one manufacturer, close in my experience to the ones I've handled. How can the average new American home be built with an average of 19 mm thick drywall - 10 and 13 are regular sizes for normal walls? And no, they're not counting the waste i.e. the gross amount of wallboard that is brought to the construction site, as they specifically state that the houses contain that amount of wallboard.

I'm not sure what to think of the amount either, even an average of 571 square meters sounds like a lot for an average new home, seeing as how not all houses are built with the material. There are still wood-based alternatives (even plywood in some cases) in use, and of course the various kinds of bricks and concretes that don't require a drywall on top of them - and both are used in interior walls as well.

Also, the first sentence of the Drywall market section seems a bit weird - it says "North America hails as one of the largest gypsum board users in the world with a total wallboard plant capacity of 40 billion sq. feet per year" but how does production capacity automatically correlate to usage? Sounds kind of like saying Africa is one of the largest users of diamonds in the world, what with the mines and all.


 * Given the weight of typical drywall, shipping is a major concern and I would venture to guess that most drywall is shipped and used within 1500 km from the place of manufacture (vs. diamonds which are easily shipped worldwide). As for the production capacity to usage correlation you are probably partly correct. This begs the question, however, of a business' decision to create the production facilities without sufficient market demand to support those facilities. In the end, it will all be market-related and without an in-depth study it may be very difficult to determine actual usage with respect to localities on a global scale. With this in mind, maybe it would be best to remove the statement altogether? Any further comments? --Jared Madsen 02:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * On the matter of the name of the article, is drywall really a good name? Wouldn't a technical name like gypsum wallboard be better? I haven't ever done building work in an English-speaking country so I'm no expert on the matter, but drywall sounds more like workman's lingo than an exact term to me. Someone who has experience with construction in English might want to take a look at this, I'm out of my depth here. CarlosCoppola 10:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * On the weight & quantity, I did a calculation on my 1288 sq. ft., probably less than the current average new house in North America. Roughly 5,900 square feet of drywall on the main floor (not counting the finished basement) or 550 square metres. Assuming it is all half-inch (12.5 mm) drywall (the standard for walls, ceilings are often the thicker 5/8 inch), this amounts to 6.85 cubic metres of gypsum. According to Glover's Pocket Ref, gypsum board is 845.8 kg per m3, giving about to 5,800 kg of gypsum in my house. Given that new houses are on average bigger than mine, and than many contain more than one finished floor, the seven tonnes is probably not far off.


 * On the name, from my Canadian perspective, either is fine unless "drywall" is not commonly used in the UK or Australia, in which case it should be changed. Luigizanasi 20:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The terms drywall and sheetrock are not used in the UK. Its called plasterboard, and the walls are called stud walls, or sometimes frame walls. However 'drywall' is a term with huge usage worldwide, so I'm not sure there's good reason to object to an article called drywall. Tabby (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Levels of Drywall finish
Anybody else think that the different levels of drywall finish as defined at http://www.nationalgypsum.com/literature/GA-214-96.pdf are relevant? ·64.231.61.62 14:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Move / Rename page
I am going to move this page to Gypsum board. Many names are more common in different parts of the world, but it is all made of gypsum, right? The other names can redirect to the gypsum board page. --Kalmia 07:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, I just reverted the name change. I count about 10 links to "Gypsum board" and 100 links to "Drywall" from other pages, so on that basis I would say Drywall is the more common name.  This isn't exactly a fledgling page either, its been around for three years and a hundred people have contributed to it, so if you want to propose renaming it, put it to a vote and get a consensus. &mdash;Kymacpherson 12:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Citing References & May Require Cleaning Up Tags
I think that the tag about this article not meeting Wikipedia requirements has been on this article since May of 2006 can now be removed. The tag about not citing references can also be removed as there are now 4 references listed. I just wanted to make sure that everyone else was on the same concensus as me before I went and removed them. Thanks - Eric 22:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Tags removed as suggested. --Achim 23:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sheetrock redirect
Sheetrock is a brand name of the USG corporation so isn't it kind of wrong to redirect it directly to the article without any mention of them? 24.149.201.226 (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Huge "Fireproofing" section
The material in the fireproofing section is interesting but out-of-scale with the rest of the article. It should probably be moved to a separate article (or perhaps a section of the "Fireproofing" article?) or, at the very least, introduced by some text which explains that fireproofing in gypsum board presents unique challenges which justify the very large number of examples and photographs presented here. Actually, both might be best, along with cutting down the number of photographs somewhat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tls (talk • contribs) 14:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with cutting the huge-ness to content that's reasonable and encyclopedic. Anyone else?--Teda13 (talk) 05:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagree. Fire-resistance is a key element in the building code. It is integral to the marketing and use of drywall. Just ask a drywall contractor or architect. You can look it up in the building code too. There is already a fireproofing article which is a scope all its own. This is the correct forum for that subject because when you build a fire-resistance rated assembly, it is definitely NOT fireproofing. Fireproofing is when you increase or lend fire-resistance to something, like spraying an intumescent onto timber or structural steel. Here, the drywall IS the barrier. Whenever you're walking down a corridor in an apartment building, it is typically ALL rated, 1 of 2 hours. A very large proportion of drywall sold is in fact Type X, which means it has glass fibres added. Joe Average may not think about it, but he should, because if he messes with that drywall, AND HE DOES, he affects the whole fire protection plan for the building. This information is indisputably in the right place and it is all 100% relevant. --Herbert Blenstein (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed
"Drywall panels are available in 4 ft (1219 mm) wide sheets of various lengths. Newly formed sheets are cut from a belt, the result of a continuous manufacturing process. In some commercial applications, sheets up to 16 ft (4.9 m) are used.--Teda13 (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Larger sheets make for faster installation, since they reduce the number of joints that must be finished.[citation needed]" I can't believe this.  Why is a citation needed?  Surely a child could see that if you used larger boards to cover a wall there would be less joins. Forton (talk) 09:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Much of the section that goes before the citation is unsourced material and questionable with regard to it being encyclopedic and not correctly cited - see the requirements as to original research. I also don't believe there is agreement yet on the terms used or what sources will be acceptable.  Excellent references are available for all this information from neutral sources, yet few are given because they do not support the thesis term "drywall".--Teda13 (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. In this para the first two sentences do cite unsupported data. But why have you put the Citation Needed againts the 3rd sentence? Is there no WP mechanism to indicate you mean the whole para, or more than this para?

As a matter of interest, I looked for the term "drywall" precisely because I was unsure what it was (we call it plasterboard in the UK, as I think he does say). So I'd like to suggest that it's good and useful for pages like this to be in WP, even if the author might not be an encyclopedian; he might be "in the trade" and very knowledgeable.

Indeed, in this sort of topic maybe the strictures against Original Research are unhelpful? Yes of course it would be better if an appropriately qualified person created an article from your excellent sources, but a tradesman might have more up to date practical knowledge than a research journal reader.Forton (talk) 07:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that these statements constitute original research; they're merely unverified statements.
 * If Teda13 thinks that they are factually inaccurate, then he should tag them. Presumably this is the case:  he's uncertain that fewer joins is faster than more joins.
 * If he thinks that they're factually correct (except, perhaps, using a term that he personally dislikes, but has never been able to produce a single source that directly says "Drywall is not gypsum board"), then they should probably have been left alone. The relevant policy doesn't require citations for everything (just for direct quotations and material whose factual accuracy is being challenged).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

From what i've read on this subject, I believe many of the passages here are copied straight from articles written about Gypsum Board, by manufacturers and trade organizations - where the term Drywall has been substituted for Gypsum Board, or Plasterboard, or Wallboard - throughout. Does the relevant policy say anything about plagiarism.--Teda13 (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)--Teda13 (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Plagiarism has quite a lot of say about that issue. So does WP:COPYVIO, if they're cut-and-paste copyright violations.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Installation
It is mentioned in the Article that: Drywall screws have a curved, bugle-shaped top, allowing them to self-pilot and install rapidly without punching through the paper cover. These screws are set slightly into the drywall. I have seen many documents and certificates that according them the screws are penetrated through the paper cover and gypsum board. Could you please anybody advice. --Bakhtiyari 11:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't a how-to reference or discussion forum. Try Wikibooks, instead, for how-to information. Any fastener, screw or nail, can be driven through wallboard if sufficient force is used.  So, what's so mysterious about that? &mdash;QuicksilverT @ 16:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Drywall installation and finishing processes
TROUGH THE YEARS IN BUSINESS PEOPLE HAD BEEN CONCERN ABOUT HOW HARMFUL SHEETROCK DUST AND JOINT COMPOUND DUST IS TO THE HUMAN BODY. MANY PEOPLE BELIVE THAT IS NOT HARMFULL AT ALL, OTHERS THAT IT IS, BUT IT HAS TO BE UP TO SOME POINT.

WE WANT TO KNOW!!!

PLEASE WRITE AN ARTICLE ON THAT MATTER.

THANK YOU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.37.150.249 (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * An encyclopedia is not a venue for original research. Original articles of that nature need to be published first in other kinds of sources (e.g., magazines and journals), so that there are secondary sources to consult (and possibly cite), before it would be appropriate to address the matter in an encyclopedia article. --Jonadab  —Preceding comment was added at 19:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * But it tastes so good :D Nimmo (talk) 07:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please STOP SHOUTING. Until you learn how to use your Caps Lock key, Mr. 74.37.150.249, please don't show your face on Wikipedia. &mdash;QuicksilverT @ 16:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * : And what a nice, warm welcome to Wikipedia :) MaxVT (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's be civil. --Legs2010 (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Chinese drywall
Interesting article:

Chinese drywall poses potential risks http://finance.yahoo.com/news/AP-IMPACT-Chinese-drywall-apf-14904693.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangerine Cossack (talk • contribs) 10:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * See the article Chinese drywall. Wizard191 (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Gypsum Board
This article should be titled Gypsum Board. Teda13 (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC) I would also accept the term Wallboard.--Teda13 (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Why? Wizard191 (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This article has precious few sources and, except for the "2009 Chinese drywall controversy" one it does not have sources that refer to it as drywall.--Teda13 (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The Construction Specifications Institute MasterFormat refers to this type of product as Gypsum Board because it's a more comprehensive term. Drywall is more specific and Sheetrock is a trade name like Kleenex®. --Teda13 (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC) 09 21 16 Gypsum Board Assemblies--Teda13 (talk) 05:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * American Gypsum reports it "is a premier manufacturer of high quality gypsum wallboard products" (American Gypsum employs 446 people.) Teda13 (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)... then another major manufacturer claims
 * "CertainTeed is the world leader in the supply of gypsum board."  (CertainTeed employs approximately 22,000 people in North America and more that 206,000 people in 57 countries world-wide)--Teda13 (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * and also National Gypsum says it "is a fully-integrated manufacturer and supplier of products and services used in building and construction, with primary emphasis on Gold Bond® BRAND gypsum wallboard, joint treatment products ..." (National Gypsum, employs 2,800 people.)--Teda13 (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * then too, USG starts out saying that they actually invented drywall, they continue on by disregarding that term entirely saying "USG is North America's leading producer of gypsum wallboard, joint compound and a vast array of related products..." --Teda13 (talk) 06:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC) (United States Gypsum employs approximately 4,831 people, the parent corporation USG employs approximately 12,700 people)--Teda13 (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The source referenced in this article entitled 'Mercury Release from FGD Gypsum' published following 2003 the International Ash Utilization Symposium, Center for Applied Energy Research, University of Kentucky refers to "gypsum wallboard" throughout and does not use the term drywall.--Teda13 (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Trade consensus for the term Gypsum Board - - quoting from the article: ""In 1990, four major trade associations, the Association of Wall and Ceiling Industries International (AWCI), the Ceilings and Interior Systems Construction Association (CISCA), the Gypsum Association (GA), and the Painting and Decorating Contractors of America (PDCA), presented the consensus document Levels of Gypsum Board Finish..."--Teda13 (talk) 06:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's stick with the more common term — Google finds 640,00 uses of "gypsum board", but 8,760,000 uses of "drywall".  --CliffC (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's not let believe that checking with Google is any kind of meaningful research whatsoever.--Teda13 (talk) 04:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not calling it 'research', just pointing out reality. We're not writing for the trade, we're writing for the public.  --CliffC (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm surrounded by public that calls it Gypsum Board and I wouldn't even limit that group to the many of them in the construction industry. If we want to dumb down our Wiki articles for the consumption of children or someone's backwoods grandmother somewhere then I suppose we should go back and re-title the Concrete article as Cement or Pavement (pronounced "PAY-ment" hon) since that's the widely used way of referring to a slab structure "composed of cement (commonly Portland cement) as well as other cementitious materials such as fly ash and slag cement, aggregate (generally a coarse aggregate such as gravel, limestone, or granite, plus a fine aggregate such as sand), water, and chemical admixtures."  I think I would like my Wikipedia to be a place where people who know something about specific or complex subjects - - write that something about them directly; not just a place where Johnny 7th grader can find an article about the book he's doing a report on next week.  So what are they in your opinion, by the way, Facial Tissues? or Kleenex? / which of those do you think gets more hits on the all wise Google--Teda13 (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Use of the more-prevalent and perfectly accurate term in an encyclopedia isn't 'dumbing down', it's just good writing. Your backwoods-grandmother rant suggests you have a good knowledge of the construction trades, but that only makes me wonder about this seemingly unnecessary citation for the uncontentious statement "Drywall is also commonly known as gypsum board", why it has a "TRACKID=FromWikipedia" parameter, and why it belongs in the lede, rather than (if anywhere) among the external links.  --CliffC (talk)

Two comments - First to Teda, WP:TITLE states that the most common recognizable name in the English language be used. I know for me, I had never herd the term "gypsum board" prior to seeing it in this article. However, if it turns out that you can prove that "gypsum board" is more common I have no problem changing it. Second to CliffC, a google search is never a legitimate source; see WP:GOOGLE for more info. Wizard191 (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC) 1. Popularity - Identifying how popular (or how little-known) something is (often called the 'Google test') 2. Usage - Identifying how and where a term is commonly being used, and by whom... Depending on the subject matter, and how carefully it is used, a search engine test can be very effective and helpful..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizard191, it looks like you need to go read WP:GOOGLE again. Google is not a reliable source, but it can be useful for many purposes, specifically including determining the relative popularity of names.  See what WP:GOOGLE actually says, e.g., "'A test using a search engine is intended to help with the following research questions:

Arbitrary section break
"Drywall" is the commonly-used term in North America; it is not construction slang. "Gypsum board" is rarely used outside of specifications (although gypboard is sometimes heard). I use Masterformat/Masterspec every day, and they've called the spec section by three or four different names over the past couple of decades, beginning with "Gypsum Drywall" some years ago to distinguish it from veneer plaster and exterior gypsum sheathing. I'm sure the name in the master specification formats will change again when the spec section gets reorganized. I see nothing wrong with saying that is also commonly known as gypsum board, but that's as far as I'd take it. The industry trade groups may decidethat it should be called "wet-formed calcium sulfate-paper sandwich finishing sheet" in their literature, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia should use such a term as the primary title unless it becomes a prevailing norm. Architectural Graphic Standards uses the term "drywall construction." Let's leave well enough alone.  Acroterion  (talk)  18:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Bravo Acroterion for getting up and reaching for a book! As to the other discussion: if some of the effort and chatter tearing me down here could simply be put toward examining the actual article and substantiating - with current data - the line after line of unreferenced material, we would have something further to talk about. The "prevailing term", Gypsum Board or Gypsum Wallboard for a while now, according to ASTM C 840, Specification for Application and Finishing of Gypsum Board -  American Society for Testing and Materials, and that's the one cited throughout the International Building Code. Since 1898, ASTM has been a voluntary body creating "consensus standards...developed at ASTM are the work of over 30,000 ASTM members. These technical experts represent producers, users, consumers, government and academia from over 120 countries. Participation in ASTM International is open to all with a material interest, anywhere in the world." - from their "About" page:about ASTM--Teda13 (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * From the comments so far, i'm not sure anyone commenting is familiar with how significant these bodies are, especially since everyone here seems to think the work of the Construction Specifications Institute isn't relevant to an article about a major building component. I also don't really expect anyone commenting to look at the overview, but the free summary: C840 overview and I won't be uploading my full copy but here's a choice passage "Materials categorized under this specification include: gypsum boards, gypsum wallboards, gypsum backing board and coreboard, water-resistant gypsum backing board, exterior gypsum soffit board, and gypsum ceiling board."  Believe the oldest 'Historical' versions of that document discuss only Gypsum Board going back till 1999, though if I dig around my office I may be able to find an older version that mentions Drywall, since i'm nostalgic for artifacts in a folksy way.  Also wondering about the version of the Graphic Standards being referenced since i'm fairly sure the term drywall as a noun has been revised out by the groups that put that together.  Don't have mine with me today and since this group will need to see something on a computer rather than at a bookstore anyway, look at (by the same authors and publishers) " The Graphic Standards Guide to Architectural Finishes By Elena M. S. Garrison, ARCOM. (producers of Masterformat/Masterspec), American Institute of Architects, Published: John Wiley and Sons, 2002 ISBN 0471227668, beginning page 72, section "09260 Gypsum Board Assemblies" ... of go down to the local bookstore and browse through the 11th Edition of Architectural Graphic Standards.--Teda13 (talk) 04:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)  --Teda13 (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right, it's an old version of AGS. Did you read anything I said below? The article needs an extensive rewrite to describe that construction method - drywall, according to USG (the laterst version) - as opposed to just the material. Don't select material that supports only your position, and don't assume that industry terminology legislates away common usage. The IBC terminology is famously opaque (fire dampers/radiation dampers, fire barriers/walls/separation assemblies/partitions) and is scarcely English. If we write Wikipedia the way IBC is written, nobody will know what we're talking about.   Acroterion  (talk)  04:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ("old version of AGS" = old Architectural Graphic Standards)--Teda13 (talk) 07:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct. However, it's in the past umpteen versions of Graphic Standards (I get tired of paying Wiley every five years when they move the pictures around, so I haven't bought the last couple of editions), and Home Depot's still calling it drywall. However, my point is: the article confounds the construction technique and the material in its present state. In my opinion, ideally, the article should be about the construction technique, which employs gypsum panels, commonly called drywall, to produce a rapidly-constructable interior finish surface. I partly agree with you: drywall is at least as much a construction technique as a material. The industry references employ the term in that manner consistently.  My assumption concerning why it's so important to them to create a neutral "gypsum panel" usage is that "Sheetrock" has indeed been misused as a generic, as has "Dens-Glas" for the yellow fiberglass-mat-faced exterior sheathing.  There's been a proliferation of variations on gypsum panel products which can't all be described as "drywall", and the industry is trying to consolidate on a generic term for the materials. That said, I see no grounds at all for renaming the Wikipedia article, but I do see considerable scope for rewriting it.   Acroterion  (talk)  13:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding these statements, should I now miss the chance to slam you Acroterion, for "sharing your personal opinion" on the talk page of this article as I was, by WhatamIdoing and CliffC further down the page?! No, I think not.  Since this is a talk page, and because you represent yourself as a professional, I will respect your professional opinion and give you credit for allowing that other industry experts in the wide world may have different views.  --Teda13 (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. To summarize, I understand the argument to be that, despite 100 years or so of the usage of the term "drywall", in the past ten years or so the gypsum products industry in North America has campaigned, with mixed success within the construction industry technical documentation, to discourage the use of the term. This (in my opinion) is because of the proliferation of gypsum panel products that are not drywall by anyone's definition. This effort has, however, had little or no effect on the usage of the term in society at large, and has no effect at all on the definition of "drywall construction," a technical definition which involves the placement of gypsum panels on a substrate without the use of plaster as a finish material (per the latest USG technical manual, noted below).
 * This technical definition you're paraphrasing describes the act: "to drywall". --Teda13 (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting trend that merits (brief) mention in the article. The article itself is not one of Wikipedia's finest, as it muddles a lot of things that aren't drywall. It really should reflect the term's origin as a description of a construction technique, distinct from plaster, that gave its name to the principal material. If there's a separate article that describes gypsum panels in all their glory (the unfinished materials come in a rainbow of startling colors so they don't get mixed up on the jobsite, and to advertise a little - a recent building of mine had brilliant purple sheathing until it was covered over), that's wonderful, as long as it's not used as a content fork. This article should focus on drywall construction, and as far as I'm concerned, could be called "drywall construction" and rewritten accordingly.  Acroterion  (talk)  17:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Skewed some things and I believe the timeline you mention is off but i'll take the conclusion: separate verbum and nomen articles. --Teda13 (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My interpretations, not anybody else's. But I believe we're making progress. I may make an initial stab at it this evening.  The article will get uglier (and shorter) before it gets better. I'm not going to rename it until we've heard from others and allowed some time for further comment; I'm not ready to declare a consensus of two participants.   Acroterion  (talk)  19:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * One crucial thing that's missing from the article is the derivation of the term "drywall"; it was used to distinguish it from the "wet" process of plastering. I'll have to find a source for it somewhere.  Acroterion  (talk)  19:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You might try http://home.howstuffworks.com/drywall.htm/printable for size (I'll be glad to write a "History of drywall" section myself from this source). The section starting "The U.S. Gypsum Company (USG) invented drywall in 1916" article seems to cover all the bases.  HowStuffWorks has a good reputation for being complete and easy to understand.  --CliffC (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wondering if the 'HowStuffWorks' rewrite would cite only the Bambi Turner internet article or reach all the way back to the two main sources the author gives - one being a blog post (self published source)/ Allen, Mark. "Drywall." WFMU. November 19, 2006 and another article being, Arrol Gellner's " Plaster Walls Fall by Postwar Wayside." by "the real estate industry's most authoritative source" Inman News. December 12, 2003.  I see three Bambi provides links in the article to three big Gyp Bd manufacturers that have been much maligned thus far, a link to  Construction Materials Recycling Association for the passage about reclamation, and generally to United States Geological Survey for the Gypsum.--Teda13 (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)  --Teda13 (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)--Teda13 (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can understand why an article written by someone named Bambi, in a style possibly accessible to "someone's backwoods grandmother", might be lightly regarded by some here. Teda13, feel free to write a history from whatever sources you choose; I withdraw my offer because I don't wish to extend my involvement with you beyond this talk page.  Meanwhile, I believe howstuffworks.com to be a reliable source, an opinion supported by Wikipedia's currently housing over 2,000 links to it.  I'm sure someone here will correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware of any policy requiring that editors vet a reliable source's own sources for reliability.  --CliffC (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * @Teda13: The HowStuffWorks is a decent, accessible article that even cites its sources. I see no need to malign it or its author, especially on the basis of her name, nor CliffC for finding it. The Gellner article would be useful, but I haven't found a way to access it.  Acroterion  (talk)  04:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't "malign" anyone personally or anyone's name. I mentioned the authors name a second time simply to distinguish her from the other sources she quotes in her articles.  It is CliffC who pulled the quote from my much earlier and unrelated to the article post, bolded Bambi's name then tries to find fault with me.  If I wasn't a big grown up fella myself I suppose, from some of the passion in the comments directed at me, I might be getting close to feeling personally "maligned" myself - I might even question the evenhandedness of the administrators comments.  My sources have been questioned which is fair.  I have placed a query on the reliable sources discussion to show my willingness to be introspective and open to other  ideas; I suggest CliffC post a similar query for the 'How Drywall Works' article at that same notice board.  The Bambi Turner article has not been provided as a reference for the article, the blog and real estate website article she uses as references have also not been posted to support the content of the article.  I believe ASTM will be a reliable source for how Gypsum Board assemblies are put together so I would like the Wikipedia opinion of it's usefulness before I refer to it in the article.--Teda13 (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You might not have intended it that way, but that's how it appeared to me; my apologies if I was mistaken. I'm pleased to say that this discussion seems to be working its way to a solution that will improve the encyclopedia (as a result of your proposal, to give credit where credit is due), which is more than can be said of many such conversations elsewhere on the wiki. You are mistaken about my role here: I am not acting as an administrator, and may not in these circumstances. I may take no administrative action concerning this article nor any editor with whom I disagree on a matter of content. I am acting as an editor with an interest in the subject matter, and am entitled to have and to express an opinion on the subject.
 * Of course ASTM is a reliable source; none better for the characteristics of materials. However, they're not arbiters of English, and they'll name the reference however the relevant committee wishes. In any case, I believe the ASTM reference covers all of the varieties of gypsum panel, not just those employed in drywall construction (I don't have the reference to check). Which brings me to my essential point:
 * All drywall panels are gypsum panels.
 * Not all gypsum panels are drywall panels.
 * This article should address the subset of gypsum panels that are used in drywall construction. There needs to be a parent article on gypsum panels to cover their use in sheathing, veneer plaster, tile base, roof underlayment and the like, with mention of their use in drywall.  I encourage you to write such a parent article to pull what are presently some very loosely connected threads together.   Acroterion  (talk)  18:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I just pulled the United States Gypsum Gypsum Construction Handbook (known in the A/E industry as "the gyp book") off the shelf (second edition rev. 12/82, therefore somewhat old). Chapter 1 is titled "Drywall and Veneer Construction." Looking for newer guidance, the sixth edition, available here : "Chapter 1: Drywall and Veneer Plaster Products." "Chapter 5:Finishing Drywall Systems." "Drywall" is used throughout the book to distinguish from veneer plaster, which also uses a gypsum board product as the base, to which finish plaster is applied. This is the standard industry reference on the subject. The USG reference, concisely put, uses "drywall" to discuss the construction technique in which a particular sort of gypsum panel is used.  Since the article is (or should be) about a construction system, not the actual boards viewed in isolation from all else, "drywall" is the best title. The lede really ought to be rewritten to focus less on the material and more on the construction method.   Acroterion  (talk)  21:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The article plaster veneer is actually wrong; the plaster isn't applied over drywall, it's applied over a gypsum board substrate. Correcting now.  Acroterion  (talk) ' 21:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Are these terms identical?
Going back to Teda13's comment: "The Construction Specifications Institute MasterFormat refers to this type of product as Gypsum Board because it's a more comprehensive term. Drywall is more specific", that says the two terms are not synonymous. In that case, the title isn't an arbitrary editorial choice, but should reflect the topic of the article. So what's the difference, specifically, what gypsum board is not drywall? Is anything related to the larger gypsum board idea covered in this article? DMacks (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Among non-experts, the preferred name may be regional. Consistent with the Google search, I certainly hear more "drywall" than "gypsum board" -- but I hear more "sheetrock" than either of those. I'd don't think that a trademarked name is a good choice, but I'd support "plasterboard" before "gypsum board." If there is a distinction between the two products (according to our best reliable sources), then we should certainly explain the difference in this article, and use that information to determine the title. At this moment, though, I'm not expecting any proper sources to be found, and mere speculation about why this group or that group might have made a particular choice is insufficient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The dictionary I checked says gypsum = drywall. I have been unable to find a source that draws a distinction between the two terms.  US Gypsum routinely conflates the two choices into "gypsum drywall".

No I don't agree they are synonymous.--Teda13 (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing your personal opinion. Are you aware of any published reliable source that claims that the terms refer to different things?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * British Drywall's glossary is here, making no significant distinction between the terms ("gypsum plasterboard" over there).  Acroterion  (talk)  04:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Useful to note that this definition for "drywall" talks about the assembly or partition, a product of drywall construction / the action, rather than the panels themselves which it names with the archaic term "plasterboard". --Teda13 (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Just-added employee counts
Teda13, it would be helpful if you'd stop revising talk page comments that people have already seen and replied to; please put new thoughts and comments at the bottom of the thread or start a new section.

What is the significance of these counts? --CliffC (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's to show that these are major companies. Unfortunately, the claims are cherry-picked.  For example:


 * American Gypsum says, "The front and back papers of our drywall products are produced from 100% recycled paper..."
 * Thanks. As I look at the page link I count: eighteen mentions of Gypsum Board and one mention of Drywall.  Sixteen of the mentions are in Title-links to informational articles that discuss various Gypsum Board Assembly techniques and systems--Teda13 (talk) 06:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)--Teda13 (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * CertainTeed says, "Gypsum drywall is often called board, wallboard, or plasterboard and differs from products such as plywood, hardboard, and fiberboard, because of its noncombustible core."
 * Odd, yet this index page at CertainTeed, lists all their "Wall and Ceiling Board Products" mentioning Gypsum Board twenty-three times and doesn't mention Drywall once.--Teda13 (talk) 06:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC) --Teda13 (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * US Gypsum offers their construction manual, which is a "Reference guide of construction procedures for gypsum drywall, cement board, veneer plaster, and conventional plaster."

(and so forth). These are all good companies to consider for this purpose, but what's presented above has been carefully selected to create an impression that they completely support his personal opinion. If you look at their websites yourself, it looks like they use the terms interchangeably. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the websites, and related material from the sources above - it doesn't look "like they use the terms interchangeably".--Teda13 (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Motion to close
It looks like this debate has been resolved with a consensus of "no move". Can we remove the RfC template now? (The bot will automatically remove the tag after 30 days, but you're supposed to close these debates when they're done, instead of leaving every dispute on the RfC pages for the maximum length of time.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Dissagree--Teda13 (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Every single person commenting here has rejected your proposal. Your sources for the existence of a material difference between the various terms are weak, and ultimately amount to your personal guess that one organization's unexplained decision to use term "X" instead of term "Y" means that the various terms are non-synonymous -- a guess that is not supported by a single source, much less by a reliable one.
 * Do you still think that there's any realistic chance of changing everyone's minds? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * American Society of Testing and Materials, International Building Code, Construction Specifications Institute, ARCOM. (producers of Masterformat/Masterspec), American Institute of Architects, current editions of Architectural Graphic Standards for at least 10 years, four major trade associations, the Association of Wall and Ceiling Industries International (AWCI), the Ceilings and Interior Systems Construction Association (CISCA), the Gypsum Association (GA), and the Painting and Decorating Contractors of America (PDCA) - - all have settled on the term Gypsum Board or Wallboard.--Teda13 (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup, but not one of them has said "drywall is not the same as gyp board or wallboard: 'drywall' is a board that has these phyiscal characteristics, and 'gyp board' has these other characteristics", and that's the kind of statement you'd need to prove to me that drywall is not gyp board or wallboard.
 * You've proven that certain parts of the industry use this term or that term more frequently than other terms. You've not proven that the various terms actually mean different things.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So in your opinion I must prove a negative that "X" ≠ "Y".--Teda13 (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not exactly: I'm saying that you have to prove that someone other than you said that drywall/gyp board/wallboard are not synonymous terms.  The reason I demand this is because we have plenty of sources that that say that these terms refer to the same physical objects.
 * I know that if I go over to the lumber yard and say, "We've got a hole in the drywall", I'm going to be taken to the same stack of (in this case, Sheetrock-brand) stuff as if I walked in and said, "We've got a hole in the wallboard". Every source that has cared to comment says that the terms are interchangeable.  If you can produce one source that says (not "implies" or anything like that) that drywall (the object, not the technique) is different from gyp board (the object), then I'm willing to consider -- but you've not done that.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm unconvinced that user:WhatamIdoing has read the sources i've given in support, or looked carefully at the credibility of the passages user:WhatamIdoing favors personally. The "I know that if I" and "we have plenty of sources" without any attempt to improve the article accordingly doesn't give me any hope for constructive collaboration toward a better article and makes me feel the user is really just interested in throwing up POV roadblocks.--Teda13 (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have looked at the sources. I found many that use one term in preference to another, but none that actually say that the terms are not interchangeable, or that name a reason for their choice of terms, or name even one specific difference between "drywall" and "gyp board" and any of the other terms.
 * And if I've unaccountably missed such a plain statement, I invite you to quote it for me, right now. If I haven't, and you're instead just drawing your own conclusions about the pattern of usage in selected sources, then I invite you to stop claiming that the reliable sources actually say something that they don't.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Construction Techniques
look at style, referencing, and layout for this section especially, a mostly un-sourced article overall--Teda13 (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)--Teda13 (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Architecture forum
Further discussion on Drywall is at the defunct WikiProject Architecture/Architecture Forum. ProfDEH (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Green board
I've been told by a professional that 'greenboard' is no longer used. Since I'm not in the profession, I'd like to see a knowledgeable addition/correction/removal of greenboard references in the article.

Can anyone help with that?

Dick107 25 Mar 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dick107 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

DIY repair
In the lead paragraph, "It also is an exellent [sic] quick DIY repair" was changed to "It is also an excellent quick DIY repair tool". Neither of these statements fully make sense to me. Drywall itself is neither a repair nor a tool; it is a material that can be installed with tools and can be repaired. If the damage is large enough it is repaired by replacing the damaged section with a an undamaged piece. Perhaps the original author meant that repairing drywall can be done yourself (as a DIY repair)? Or perhaps this sentence doesn't add significant value to the article and should be removed or moved to a detail section? --hulmem (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Drywall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110611151656/http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/obj/irc/doc/pubs/nrcc41733/nrcc41733.pdf to http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/obj/irc/doc/pubs/nrcc41733/nrcc41733.pdf
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Markets/StatusRpts/Inerts.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Drywall. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090708171905/http://www.gypsum.org:80/mediaguide.html to http://www.gypsum.org/mediaguide.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Drywall. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gypsum.org/mediaguide.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130412234001/http://www.epa.gov/cair/ to http://www.epa.gov/cair/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)