Talk:Wheel construction

Copyright issue
I'm concerned that this page contains too much "close paraphrasing" of this website. any thoughts as people who worked on this draft a bit? only (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've gone over the sections in question, and I think I nixed all of the too-close paraphrasing; please let me know if you think any of the sentences need more work., please take note of how I restructured the sentences and how different they now are from the source. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 00:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much,, I note the changes. Sinner (talk) 00:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm more concerned that a discount tyres website is being used as a source for an engineering article. The article is in desperate need of more reliable sourcing. Cordless Larry (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you let me know what source is that,, so that I could try to find an alternative source, please! Do you mean to say source? Sinner (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I mean the source linked to above,, although the one you just linked to might not be considered reliable either (it looks self-published). Engineering books and journals would be better sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @, Please tell if and  sources are reliable, these can solve our problem to some extent. Sinner (talk) 10:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to say that they're outright unreliable, though they are a bit blog-like. As I wrote above, engineering books and journal articles would be better sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Cartwheel
Is a cartwheel in scope? e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2009/jun/27/coachbuilders-rowland-and-son Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

flawed definition
, Hi you recently participated in the deletion discussion for this page and I have just come across it in the New Pages Feed. I am little worried about this article. Not because it is not notable because the construction or manufacturing or building of wheels is IMHO a notable subject but because of the unsourced definition in the lead "Construction of wire-spoked wheels is generally termed as wheelbuilding, so wheel construction refers to construction of non-wire wheels, e.g. wheels of cars and other heavier vehicles." This presumes that because "wheelbuilding" refers exclusively spoke wheels. When one looks for "spoke wheel constructors" there are a lot of sources. I think that wheel building could be limited to spoke wheels but to say that by extension wheel construction is limited to anything other than spoke wheels is a formal fallacy. There are no sources to prove that this term is restricted to all wheels other than spoke wheels. The terms "construction" "manufacture" and "building" are synonyms. Maybe you guys could give me your views on this. --Dom from Paris (talk) 09:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * At a quick non rigorous view I believe the article seems to have reasonable scope that seems hard to succinctly define. The definition of construction in the lede  may well be original research. To some extent Wheel construction, Wheelbuilding and Wheelright are all a little inconsistent.  This seems to (most?) cover vehicular wheels, but perhaps not some railway wheels including SAB wheels ... .... don't have an exact answer.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree with Djm-leighpark. We cannot generalize wheel construction with a few instances of automotive wheels. The primary source of this article is a Tyrerack site which is a company  closely associated with the subject.  Most of this information is already covered in  Alloy wheel so this article can be merged with that which is a more natural location. --  Hagennos  ❯❯❯  Talk  15:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge proposal then? WP:MERGE I think I'd do with that .. but I'd not necessarily resource the move.  I don't think there's anything from history here that isn't covered in Wheel Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)