Talk:Drywall

Asbestos

Dear page maintainers, should there be reference in either the history or manufacturing section that "Until the 1980s, Asbestos Was Widely Used in Drywall Manufacturing Across the U.S"

Illustrations, arrrggghhh

@Andy Dingley: @Halgin:The screws in the photo are NOT wood screws. The threads are too close together. Wood screws work partly from friction, but also because wood is trapped between the threads—hence the wider spacing of threads for a larger amount of wood between threads.

The "tapers" in the work photo are hacks. The amount of caked "mud"/drywall compound of the broad knife is extraordinary—real tapers are constantly cleaning the blade on the sides of a tray or hawk. No finisher who had a 5 inch or 6 inch knife would use a 3 inch knife to cover fasteners. Tapered (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

So what do you claim the threads on these screws are intended to be driven into? There might be a trans-Atlantic terminology issue, but here those screws are going into wood - not more drywall, not masonry, not metal. If you think the workmanship before the photo was poor, then maybe you can source a better photo? Because whatever their standards (they're church volunteers, BTW, not necessarily professional), we work with the photos we have available. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

By golly, we're both right and wrong at the same time. The screws on top are designed to attach drywall to non-structural metal studs (tight threads for friction), and the bottom screws ARE wood screws. My apologies! The wood screws appear to be at least 1 7/8 inches American. That's too long for any single layer of wallboard. It's the correct length for 2 layers of American 5/8 inch thickness wall board (= 1 1/4 inches). If you drive screws that long into wood through thinner walboard, the screws tend to go out of allignment, which breaks the paper surface of the wallboard, drastically reducing the screws' holding power. Worse yet (at least here in the USA), plumbers and electricians use metal plates on wood framing members to protect wires and pipes. However, if their installations are far enough from the wood face so that standard length fasteners can't penetrate them, they generally omit the "protector plates." A too long screw can puncture wires or pipes = big trouble. The gentlemen in the photo look like nice, friendly people—as one would expect of church volunteers—but trust me, the accumulation of compound on the broad knife is obscene, from a tradecraft point of view. No picture is better than that picture, with all due respect. Tapered (talk) 02:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, they're both kinds of screw. And yeah, it's a bit messy in that picture and it doesn't look like a pro job, but it's not cause for removal. Some time I'll see if I can get a shot of a pro finisher at a jobsite - hard hats and safety glasses are good at anonymizing the individual. Acroterion (talk) 02:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, that photo deserves to be removed, as a courtesy to professionals who train to do the work. I just checked Cricket, and there was Don Bradman, not some schmuck with a beaten-up old bat! Tapered (talk) 03:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll find a pro on one of my jobsites and get a more creditable picture. Acroterion (talk) 03:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm retired, and none of my photos of myself are quite good enough to upload. Close, but no cigar. Tapered (talk) 03:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

If they're two types of screw, then that's a poor picture. I can see that the Commons description says this, but because of the angles I can't tell them apart in the photo. Certainly I've a box here (I have a study refurb to finish) of UK drywall screws which are identical to those below, intended to drive into wood and certainly not the right thing for metal studs.

As to the other question, then we're (as always) making do with what we have. Now I might take another photo to replace one here, but I'm not going to bring contractors in to finish my study, just so I can get a better picture! Andy Dingley (talk) 10:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Acroterion has said he'll take photos. I trust him, after looking at his credentials. I looked at screws for 30 years (I didn't dream about them). I'm embarrassed at my misidentification. If you look closely you'll much smaller spaces between threads (hence more threads) in the 2 top screws. Those are for non-structural metal studs. Tapered (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Australia and New Zealand - Gyprock term

Referring to this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Drywall&action=edit&oldid=909608358 which took out the sentence. Gyprock is a trademark term and I completely understand the given reason for the edit. Yet at the same time that is also what it is commonly known as (at least in AU) as that is pretty much the only plasterboard that one can obtain from afaik or have seen. It is very much like Formica in which that is also a trademark name, yet that is commonly what most americans know that (composite) laminate as. While in the industry and giving out quotes, if I were to use the term laminate countertop, I often got blank stares because they associated that term more for laminate floors. But using the term formica and then everyone knew what you were talking about even though it was a trademark name brand only. I grew up in America having used the terms drywall or sheetrock, and less commonly hearing other terms used as well such as plasterboard, etc. But after having lived in Western Australia (can not speak of NZ), I quickly learned that if I use those terms I get blank stares. Using the term plasterboard is the correct term to be used here in AU and lot of people will know what I am talking about, especially from all in the industry. Yet there are still many times in which I will still get blank stares from those not in the industry. Using the term 'gyprock' and everyone will know what you are talking about, as best as I can tell that is the only name it is sold in all of AU, but at least in WA. Whether by CSR Gyprock or USG Boral. So while using [gyrock] as even seen in Wiktionary is most definitely a trademark name brand, it is also a common term used in AU. And even has been used in the US if one follows the quoted source link to the referenced quote. This leaves me in dilemma because technically that edit is true and I agree with it, yet it is also the most commonly term used as well, again especially at least here in WA which mostly can only get CSR Gyprock products. Else where in AU one can also purchase USG Boral, which does label as "Plasterboard & Building Solutions by USG Boral" yet also oddly do have term sheetrock on it as well. Yes it does sound like indirect advertising and yes plasterboard is what I would say is the correct aussie term, yet that simply is not how the layman novice will likely know it as. So there really should be some sort of mention and phrasing to this effect, just not sure enough of Wiki guidelines and how best to go about doing this. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 11:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with the term - here in NZ it's most commonly called "gib board" (much more commonly than 'drywall', anyway) and there's no doubt what a gibstopper does for a living. But if "gyprock" is as common on your side of the pond as "gib board" is on mine it makes sense to have the word included on the page. Gib / Gibraltar board is also derived from a trade name. Daveosaurus (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

History

The early history of drywall in this article referring to the start of the industry in the UK lacks citation, and contradicts BPB plc. The other page at least uses patent history to substantiate their statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.180.181.44 (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Australia, New Zealand, ... and UK?

To resolve a Citation Needed alert I executed the following search today 2022-02-02,05:22 UT:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Sheets+are+usually+secured+to+either+timber+or+cold-formed+steel+frames+anywhere+from+150+to+300+mm+centres+along+the+beam+and+400+to+600+mm+across+members

retrieving one useful hit, the first hit, and Cited it, not noting the country of origin of the cited publication appears to me to be UK. So perhaps UK standards are similar to those in AU and NZ.

Cheers, DGoncz — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGoncz (talk • contribs) 05:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)