Talk:Disc cutter

	This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Technology Technology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Large Addition

This page had very little information, and not much of it was very useful. So, I added sections, in which I went into a fair amount of detail on the different aspects of a Disc Cutter answering common questions like, what makes something a disc cutter? What are the types of discs? What can a person use a disc cutter for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YourFriendMatt (talk • contribs) 17:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Units of measure

This article does not have use a convert template to provide units used outside the United States. Avi8tor (talk) 08:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 October 2025

It has been proposed in this section that Disc cutter be renamed and moved to Diamond disc cutterDiamond disc cutter. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Disc cutter → Diamond disc cutterDiamond disc cutter – I have proposed renaming article so that the community can decide whether to retain the old article—without inline references and with redundant content—or prefer the updated version, which I have restructured and referenced. The main reason for the change is that disc cutters differ from abrasive saws essentially in the type of blade they use.

Although both tools may seem similar, the disc cutter uses segmented diamond blades, designed for cooling and precise cutting, while the abrasive saw uses non-metallic abrasive-type blades, which are more prone to thermal wear. Previously, there were two articles that dealt with virtually the same topic, without a clear distinction between the two technologies.

I have modified the disc cutter article because most current manufacturers produce motorized machines with diamond blades, which better reflects contemporary industrial reality. Furthermore, this distinction has practical and documentary relevance.

For example, in the Louvre robbery (October 2025), a portable gasoline-powered saw with a segmented diamond blade was used, not an abrasive saw. To avoid duplication and confusion, I have excluded all information on abrasive blades from the updated article, which already has its own specific article.

Therefore, this renaming proposal seeks a vote on whether to retain the old article—without inline references and with ambiguities—or consolidate the updated version, with clear technical differentiation and multiple inline references.--Mcapdevila (talk) 10:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 11:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If Disc cutter and Abrasive saw are the same thing, keeping two articles is not an option. See WP:CFORK. 162 etc. (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You would be 100% right with the old "disc cutter" article compared with "abrasive saw", but the new modified article deals only with the machines that use the discs contained in the commons category "Diamond disc cutters" with the 2 sub categories Diamond angle grinder discs (12 F) and Diamond blades (1 C, 12 F). The caracteristics and applications defined in the article "Diamond disc cutter" that can not use "abrasive discs" they can not be applied to the article "abrasive saw" .. that deals with products in the commons category "Abrasive saws" and Abrasive saw blades (1 C, 11 F)

With such a reasonement, we should have to merge "Circular saw" with "Abrasive saw" and "Cold saw" because they are the same machines with different blades..

Resuming, they are not a "redundant content fork", because "Diamond disc cutters" are much more efficient at cutting hard materials as: ceramic tile, glass, concrete, and stone, compared to abrasive saws. Although they may look similar, they differ in the type of blade they use, and the tasks they can perform.

Main difference between the two articles: "An abrasive blade cannot be fitted to most diamond disc cutters, and using one on the above mentioned hard materials would result in improper operation." .. Furthermoore, diamond disc cutters often require water-cooling systems, which are incompatible with abrasive saws.", see => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Benzin_Trennschneider_BTS_web.jpg --Mcapdevila (talk) 07:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Technology has been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 11:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of the louvre robbery

In my opinion the robbery should not be mentioned in this article, it is not defining for a power tool that is was used in a robbery. Just my thoughts, what do others think? Squawk7700 (talk) 11:00, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for your opinion, I agree with you that it is not fundamental in the article, I've just included as a trivia, if others agree with you I'll remove it. On the other hand, defending the fact to keep at least a portion of the paragraph.. if it wasn't for the robbery I would never have arrived at this article. I searched for lots of badly classified pictures in Commons, grouped them into a newly created “Category:Diamond_disc_cutters”, and modified the article accordingly.cheers.. Mcapdevila (talk) 13:08, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]