Talk:Timber framing

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 October 2018 and 14 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hab044. Peer reviewers: ExxaZhan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Colombage pierroté
In the Canadian Tradition section the use of the "Colombage pierroté" is either archaic or regional, or both. The common term in use in Quebec is "construction à bois massif jointé". In other words, there really isn't much of a Canadian timberframing tradition that is any different from that of France or the British Isles.

Pommier (talk) 04:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I know I am replying to a comment which is years old. Yes, the use of Colombage pierroté is both archaic and regional. An internet search of "construction à bois massif jointé" produced zero hits so the term must be obscure or incorrect. Jim Derby (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

IAM LOOKING FOR SIMPLE FRAMED STRUCTURES

A definition or appropriate link for the word "riven" would be helpful.

Septegram 01:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Taxation
"Home owners were taxed on their ground-floor square footage"

Interesting. One question: where, in particular? I would assume this law wasn't applicable to all countries (and it's conceivable that it was only in particular cities within a country). A source of information on this would be helpful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Why Not A Duck (talk • contribs) 21:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

This was in Colonial America. Trust me, because I don't have time to cite it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.19.205 (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This actually appears to be well-circulated opinion and speculation. This page proposes several plausible explanations for jettying in Tudor England:

"'There are a number of reasons suggested for the building of jetties, where the first floor of the house overhangs the ground floor. They include: for ease of building; as a way of reducing a tax bill; to protect the lower walls from water off the roof, as there were no gutters; as a fashion adopted from the towns, where plots were more expensive.'"

It appears many "citations" about the "fact" that jettying in Tudor England was to minimize ground tax impact are simply circular references to opinions made by various sources, none which resolve back to a historically factual source, it seems. This is why I added the to the page. -- Dossy Shiobara (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I see there are Wiki articles on the [glass tax], [hearth tax], [brick tax], [wallpaper tax], and [window tax]. I would be interested in seeing a reference and history for a tax on the floor area of buildings. I added more reasons about why jetties were used but I hope the article is clear that no one really knows. Jim Derby (talk) 13:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Bamboo and Hardwood (core wood)
Bamboo is can also be used for light frame construction, especially in Brazil many churches and other buildings have been constructed with it. Also, when this bamboo is impregnated, it can last several years before needing replacement (see at bamboost.be-site for pictures of this impregnation)

Also, hardwood, and more specificly the core wood can also be used. Especially with some tree species (that feature insect-repelling plant juices in the core wood, as the Pinus canariensis), the wood can last a very, very long time (e.g. 150 years) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.139.49 (talk) 08:22, 2007 July 19 (UTC)

Further image
I had a mind to include this photograph but am aware article is heavily laden with pictures. It seems like a good quality reasonably high definition image showing clear building features. Will leave regular editors to decide but thought it was worth flagging. Dick G 08:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know who you consider a "regular editor". It is a beautiful photo and would be a nice change from some of the ones in the article that are very similar to each other.  Mattisse  00:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Was just trying not to tread on the toes of any editors who might have an attachment to the article! Thanks for the feedback, image now added. Cheers Dick G 01:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The Wormshill article is very nice. Kudos to you! -- Mattisse  01:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I am going to change the French section of this article, because Alsace (Strasbourg..) half-timbered houses don't belong to a so called "French" tradition, but to the "German" one. Nortmannus (talk) 10:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"Disadvantage" section needs redo
As I see it, many of the points in the disadvantage section don't belong there. They cope with the disadvantages of owning an old half timbered house today, and those disadvantages also apply to every other old house. Imho those points belong into another articles, or at least it should be more transparent which problems are inherent to the building style, and which are due to the old age of most of these houses. If half timebered houses would have had so many disadvantages in the past, they would never have spread all over Europe, and there wouldn't be so many of them still standing after 3 centuries and more!Gray62 (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is the definition of "timber framing". Does this mean (as I suspect you're interpreting it) the classic European timber frame, from the medieval period onwards, the American system of the colonial period (which is very similar, but with different techniques), or "modern" American house construction of two-by-fours and nail guns? "Modern US house" of the immediate post-war period through to the 1980s (and a growing regulatory interest in insulation and robustness) was pretty dire stuff.
 * If anything, I think this article needs to make it clear that it's referring to pre-industrial framing. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, of course I'm speaking about the classic European method, not the post war US variant. My prejudice is that US wood construction homes are not very solid at all, sry. While centuries old timber frames in Eastern Germany were restorated after decades of neglect, I've seen lots of pictures of US houses, for instance in Detroit, that were beyond repair after less of 20 years of being boarded up. Seems like the massive timber structures stand the test of time much better, with only the frame fillings needing renewal, than the lightweight, more modern stuff with its inferior statics.Gray62 (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Misc
From the text of the article: "Today, standardised timber sizing mean that timber framing can be treated incorporated into mass-production methods as per the joinery industry, especially where timber is cut by precision CNC machinery."
 * Maybe "means that treated-timber framing can be incorporated"?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.57.87 (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

From the text: "(most likely from huge problem of topical termites.)"
 * topical termites or tropical termites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.57.87 (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the geographic division of the typical forms in Germany: In all other contexts (e.g. language), Holstein and Lower Saxony would be classified as Lower Germany, Franconia, as Central Germany. Is this different wrt Fachwerk architecture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.242.39.127 (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Half-timber construction
...points here, but the description of this very important topic is unhelpful if one does not know a fair amount about construction. The most relevant section appears to be History and traditions, but from that text one cannot glean whether half-timbers must fully cover the surface of the structure, whether the cut face or uncut face of the half-timbers is exposed, etc. A diagram might help. I came here because today's Google doodle is about Richard Scarry, and that page has a half-timber link that points here. If no one else does this I can do some research and take a shot, but I thought experts here might prefer to get it right. -- Scray (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Where are the watchers to this page?
An editor Fabartus jammed three superfluou pictures into the Introduction.

The pictures were large, obstructive and had nothing to do with the Introduction even though they were closely related to the article itself.

At least a dozen people have made significant contribution to the page since then.

I implore you, as editors, not to let this type of disruptive editing occur! If something is so Obviously in the wrong place, then be brave and delete or move it.

There is almost certainly a section in the article where these pictures would be relevant. I suggest that someone who watches this page reads the whole article through, deletes junk, and shoves all the pictures around so that the illustrate the sections that they are adjacent to. If someone does this, then they will almost certainly discover the right place for one or all of these pictures. Amandajm (talk) 04:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

major revisions of late
I have been making some substantial revisions to timber framing. I am a new editor so I am still learning some basic things. I am being careful to leave original text. I intend on more revisions and clarifications and links in the future. I would like the editor who removed the link to the Timber Framers Guild to undo his/her edit. The Guild is an educational organization and is a significant resource for people interested in traditional timber framing. I am a life member of the Guild so I ask that someone else look objectively at this organization and determine if a link is appropriate. I have submitted a new article about the Guild to Wikipedia so you could wait until that article is accepted or rejected to form an opinion. There are other organizations I am considering mentioning in Timber framing like the National Frame Builders Association. I have hesitated to link to the related Wiki page Post-frame construction because there are quality issues with that page at this time.

By the way, in the images currently on this page: a bit and brace is not a tool used in traditional timber framing and is best left off this page. Also the depiction of the man using an adz is not using the tool in the common manner and is misleading so should be left off the page. Thanks for any feedback.

I can answer many of the previous questions in this talk page, but not today. Jim Derby (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

please edit the advantages and disadvantages section
I have been editing this page and have more information to provide and some cleanup to do, but I am a practicing timber framer and member of the Timber Framers Guild. I have been careful to present factual information, however I disagree with some of the claims in the advantage and disadvantage sections. These sections have an element of judgement, and I do not want to be seen as making judgments since I am biased in favor of timber framing. It would be good for a neutral party to review these entries. One thing which is an issue is some of the disadvantages only apply to half-timber construction, not timber framing in general, but this is not written clearly. Also, creep is not a significant problem in timbers which are large enough to carry the load and can happen in any kind of wood or concrete construction, not just timber framing. Jim Derby (talk) 12:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll have look, but it won't be before this weekend. Pyrotec (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2013‎ (UTC).
 * I'm sorry, its not happened yet, but I will get round to it. Pyrotec (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Good article nomination
I nominated, and then withdrew, this article for Good Article recognition, because comments on my talk page persuaded me the nomination was premature. I hope to revisit the nomination in a couple months, after editors have had a chance to do a little more work on it. ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  23:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is there an underheading hight: "New France" ?
What a befuddling heading. Guess it's just the Francophone creepies spiking English language wikis with their nationalism again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.69.58.27 (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Information about Poland (formerly eastern German)
Information about Poland (formerly eastern German) it irrelevant to the article. Please don't reject those edits. Deleted information doesn't provide any useful ideas. Rather they are discussing some historical issues which in some countries are often controversial. As such they would require further information. For example timber framing in Poland probably did arrive with German settlers in medieval times but in this article mentionied areas which are currently in Poland and Czech Republic are better identified at a regional level (for example Silesia, Sudetes) than at country level. Take Silesia for example: yes now it is in Poland and previously it was in Germany, but before it was in Austria-Hungary, Czech Republic (Kingdom of Bohemia), Poland and for a lot of the time it was actually divided into many independent entities. Saying "Poland (formerly Germany)" brings only connections to World War II. And why do you refer to that in the article? For example article mentions this within styles of German tradition as: "Northern Germany, Central Germany and East German (formerly within Poland)". But afterwards in the detailed specification it lists: Saxony, the Harz foothills and Holstein. It is more of disinformation than information here. Another part is when it mentions: "...the borders of Germany, the Czech Republic, and Poland meet - it is called the Upper Lusatian house" which is referring to an Upper Lusatian style. Anyone interested should know that this region is inhabited by a different nation (even if it is in minority now this style of timber framing is typical for them. Another time information that this part of Poland was formerly within Germany is not informative at all – really, read something about Luzica (Lusatia or Lausitz). At some point all this land was within Germany... Yevaud (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Bla blab bla... nice historical revisionism and relativism there.
 * The reason why it absolutely needs to be mentioned is because it didn't just magically "arrive" with German settlers. They build it, those are German (build) cities. 178.24.245.33 (talk) 06:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

"Modern timber connector method of construction": split rings and shear plates
I would like to contribute information about metal timber connectors which, during WWII, were referred to as the "Modern timber connector method of construction." These type of connectors include both split rings and shear plates. This topic could also be expanded to include more modern timber connectors such as proprietary brands such as Simpson Strong-Tie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hab044 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC) Hab044 (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

National Lumber Manufacturer’s Association. “Airplane Hangar Construction”. Construction Information Series: Lumber and It’s Utilization, vol. IV, ch. 8, 1941. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hab044 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC) Hab044 (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

review
hI! It is an excellent essay! I learned a lot of knowledge form the timber framing. The organizer is great, the history and different type of timber framing are clearly shown the how is the timber framing change and improve. This essay has a very neutral attitude of explaining every kind of timber framing. Also, every timber framing has property explanation, but I think If appropriate with some analysis diagram that would help more reader to understand it. I learned a lot from the timber framing essay, the context inspired me to appeared in my article is more reasonable and logical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExxaZhan (talk • contribs) 22:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

What's "habitade exempt"?
The subsection "Traditional or historic structures" contains this:

"... in such nations as Germany, where energy efficiency is highly regulated, the renovated building may be required to meet modern energy efficiencies, if it is to be used as a residential or commercial structure (museums and significant historic buildings have no semi-permanent habitade exempt)."

What's "habitade exempt"? A quick search of the Web finds mostly copies of the same sentence -- there is a common ancestor (which may well be this very article). Some sort of edit is needed. Oaklandguy (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The images below aren't part of my edit of this talk page -- they were here beforehand. -- Oaklandguy. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -