Jump to content

Talk:Cooper (profession)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Siroxo's comments

[edit]

Don't want to upset anyone, but hyphens are not appropriate in this circumstsance: "Sometimes - in more modern times - the profession". The most common thing to put is em dashes without spaces, although some use en dashes with spaces. Anyways, thats why I changed those back. —siroχo 09:29, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Photo mix-up

[edit]

Was there a mix-up with the photos on this article? The second picture talks about barrel manufacturing but displays a facade with "COOPER UNION" written on it, presumably from the university.

The Cooper

[edit]

Hello all,

I recently changed a large number of things on the "Cooper" definition. I am a historian on the trade of the Cooper emphasizing the 18th century. I wanted to mention that most skilled trades were traditionally refered to as the "art and mystery." Original apprentice contracts of most trades, contain reference to the said party learning the "art and mystery" of the said trade; the blacksmith, the bricklayer, the wheelwright, the cooper, etc. Coopering and Wheelwrighting are two different trades. Each requires seperate training, tools, and skills. Evidence exists that specific tradesmen lacking work in their particular trade would branch out into other trades to meet demand. This does not mean a cooper always made wheels.

Cowper 15:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie

[edit]

Once I completely figure out this "Wikipedia" thing, I'll put up footnotes, bibliography, links, and citations.

Cowper 15:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History?

[edit]

During what century did coopering start up? Also, throughout history, what materials have the "hoops" been made of? —pfahlstrom 03:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The trade of coopering has existed for over 2000 years. Cooperage is mentioned in the Bible. There are images on the walls of Egyptian tombs depicting coopered buckets and tubs being used to produce a type of alcoholic beverage. The trade could possibly be three to four thousand years old. Metal and wooden hoops used to hold cooperage together evolved similtaneously. Wooden hoops have predominated in the trade because they have always been cheaper than metal hoops; up until now, thanks to the Industrial Revolution and the cheap manufacture of steel. We know wooden hoops did not predate iron or copper hoops because to make a wooden barrel or bucket you need iron tools. If they had the technology to make metal tools they could easily make metal hoops. Despite popular belief, rope and leather were not traditional methods of hooping cooperage. These materials stretch too much and they are not rigid enough. They may have been used by someone other than the cooper to repair a cask or bucket. -cowper

Use of the term "cooperage" for bottle deposit

[edit]

In the 1950's my father said he was returning his empty beer bottles to get the "cooperage" back. Was that just a midwestern (and possibly incorrect?) usage? Thanks for any feedback. Roger in Denver (someday I'll sign up properly) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.34.143 (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The term "cooperage" used for bottle deposit is very interesting. The word cooperage is used to describe collectively everything that a cooper makes. It is also used to describe the building that a cooper works in. I recently read an article in the Virginia Gazette from the late 18th century. A brewery located in Maryland charged extra deposit on barrels of beer. If you returned the empty barrel and it was still "sweet" then your deposit was returned. There may have been similiar situations throughout the history of the trade. The trade of coopering survived into the 20th century. Barrels were still being used to ship beer, wine, and countless other dry goods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowper (talk • contribs) 00:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bending fire?

[edit]

Nothing about the fire?--194.144.23.124 (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a profession

[edit]

Isn't cooper really a trade or occupation rather than a profession? --Bermicourt (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded.

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper (profession) → Cooper — The profession of "cooper" is easily the primary topic and the only one on the current Cooper disambiguation page that is not a compound name (like "Cooper Island") apart from a lunar crater and a couple of obscure names with no articles behind them. Bermicourt (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. All the wooden barrels in the world are made by coopers! Look it up in any dictionary - hardly obscure! And the firm you describe is not called Cooper but PriceWaterhouseCoopers (merged from Cooper & Lybrand, previously Cooper Brothers) - it's a completely different name. --Bermicourt (talk) 08:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Only three of the entries at the dab page are called just "Cooper" (and several entries shouldn't even be there per WP:DAB). — AjaxSmack 04:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The criteria for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is based on how likely anyone entering the term in question ("Cooper") into the Search box is to be looking for the subject in question (the profession). The profession receives about 7880 views per month, while the dab page itself at Cooper gets over half as many, about 4000 (obviously people get to pages not only through Search, but through wikilinks and google search results, etc., but that's not relevant to primary topic determination). Now, anyone searching for someone with surname Cooper is likely to enter just Cooper in the search box. Just one subject with surname Cooper, Gary Cooper, is viewed over 66 thousand times per month. So even if only one out of ten people viewing that article enter Cooper in the search box, that's about as many as view the article about the profession. Plus, there are all the other topics listed at the Cooper dab page that are likely to be searched for by entering just "Cooper" in the Search box. I just don't see how a topic with less than 8000 views per month could be "much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters [Cooper] in the Search box." --Born2cycle (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Sorry but Gary Cooper is a different title from Cooper and therefore not in the running. Ditto for everyone else with the surname "Cooper". Wikipedia is not supposed to make up for sloppy navigation by people entering "Cooper" when they want "Gary Cooper". And if they do, they will either see Cooper (surname) pop up or the hatnote at "Cooper" will point them at the dab page where they need to go. Go look at Ball which is not the page for everyone looking for "Fred Ball" etc. Or Miller or Butcher or Baker... --Bermicourt (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, in many cases it's perfectly justified to provide a navigation aid for people searching with just a surname. For example, Churchill redirects to Winston Churchill even though there are quite a few towns in the world that are just called "Churchill". Similarly, someone searching for Hitler is more likely to be looking for Adolf Hitler than Hitler (1996 film), which is why the name redirects to the former article. Jafeluv (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly. Again, what matters most is what people are likely to enter (sloppily or not) when searching for each topic in question. I suggest a strong argument can be made for having the respective dab pages be at Miller and Baker. I do think the profession might be the primary topic for Butcher, but even there there appears to be dozens of other uses. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cooper (profession). 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cooper_(profession)&oldid=1206786629"