Archives
- /2007 •
- /2008 1 - 3
- /Archive 4
- /Archive 2009 January
- /Archive 2009 February
- /Archive 2009 March
- /Archive 2009 April
- /Archive 2009 May
- /Archive 2009 June
- /Archive 2009 July
- /Archive 2009 September
- /Archive 2009 October
- /Archive 2009 November
- /Archive 2009 December
- /Archive 2010 January
- /Archive 2011 January
- /Archive 2011
- /Archive 2012
- /Archive 2013
- /Archive 4
- /Archive 5
- /Archive 6
- /Archive 7
- /Archive 8
- /Archive 2014
- /Archive 2015
- /Archive 2016
- /Archive 2017
- /Archive 2018
- /Archive 2019
- /Archive 2020
- /Archive 2021
- /Archive 2022
- /Archive 2023
Andy... again?! after all this time? Riventree (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Nomination of Bridge rail for deletion
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bridge rail is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridge rail until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Rolls-Royce C Range Diesels
Hi Andy
You may remember some years ago (2015?) we had a conversation about the correct title for Rolls-Royce C type diesels - "Range" or "Series". I did mange to find a photo on the www of an RR engine makes plate. This shows that they are "C Range". You can find the photo on the following page: https://www.trms.org.au/rm_engine_frame.htm
Regards Bruce
Speedy deletion nomination of Internally riffled boiler tubes
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/15/Ambox_warning_pn.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_pn.svg.png)
A tag has been placed on Internally riffled boiler tubes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022
Hello Andy Dingley,
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/New_page_reviewer_of_the_year_cup.svg/120px-New_page_reviewer_of_the_year_cup.svg.png)
Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.
Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.
Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/2022-10-16_NPP_backlog_chart.jpg/450px-2022-10-16_NPP_backlog_chart.jpg)
Suggestions:
- There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
- Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
- Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
- This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.
Backlog:
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8c/Everlasting_Fireworks_looped.gif/80px-Everlasting_Fireworks_looped.gif)
Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!
- Reminders
- Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
- If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
- Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
- If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
- To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023
Hello Andy Dingley,
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/83/Npp_backlog_2022-Dec.jpg/400px-Npp_backlog_2022-Dec.jpg)
- Backlog
The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.
- 2022 Awards
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/New_page_reviewer_of_the_year_cup.svg/74px-New_page_reviewer_of_the_year_cup.svg.png)
Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!
Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)
New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js
to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js
Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.
Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.
- Reminders
- Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
- There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
- Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
- If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
- To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023
Hello Andy Dingley,
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/81/NPP_April-June_2023_backlog.svg/400px-NPP_April-June_2023_backlog.svg.png)
Backlog
Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.
Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.
WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.
Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.
You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.
Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).
Reminders
- Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
- There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and #wikimedia-npp connect on IRC.
- Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
- To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Maersk Hangzhou has an RfC
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
Maersk Hangzhou has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.
Hi Andy. My apologies - I triggered the 3RR when removing the facebook sourced material and I rolled back my own edit after the summary got mangled. See my entry on the talk page. Springnuts (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- One could argue if this is currently 2RR or 5RR. But you're certainly edit-warring. All on an article where a 1RR restriction might too be argued as being in place. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, fair point. The original revert was of the IP edits when the status was changed to “on fire” and then the tense changed to “was a ship …”. I failed to notice that your edits were more nuanced. Time will tell whether this news is true or not. Springnuts (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- I’m not seeing any RS of anything at all actually having happened here - just a bare assertion picked up and repeated (and overlinked). Do you still feel that this is noteworthy? Springnuts (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Why would you expect any updates? Levchenko is still at sea (burning or not) and no-one outside will know until she's back to Severmorsk. At which point this uncertainty collapses to either confirming the fire, or giving a slant on fake Ukrainian propaganda (which isn't something they've used so far). But as yet, we don't know, and there's no change since the first news. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- I minded to ask for a third-party opinion about whether this information should be in the article at the moment. Would you find that helpful? Springnuts (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley, you obviously feel very strongly that this should stay in the article: what do you think about a third opinion? Springnuts (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- You would always be at liberty to seek one.
- But your repeated deletions of this have argued it on the basis of inadequate sourcing, which is untrue. The sourcing needs two sources to be cited, the primary one from Pletenchuk and a competent secondary commentary on that. The Kyiv Independent is entirely adequate for that. We don't even need all the others that were added, they simply duplicate this.
- We still don't know the state of the ship. Not that we can't reliably source a rumour, we just have no idea at all. There (AFAIK) has been no further comment made from either Ukraine or Russia. A lack of denial from Russia (even AFAIK on Russian Telegram) is surprising, if it's really unaffected or the fire was minor. But as yet, still we just don't know. Until we do know, we shouldn't make major changes to this content, in either way.
- The point is that the Pletenchuk claim is still significant enough to belong here, whether it's true or false. It isn't even the first major Russian ship fire, but as a piece of black propaganda from Ukraine it would be exceptional if it turns out to be a false claim. Obviously a major edit would be needed, but only if it turns up soon without any fire damage!
- If you think that the claim is false (which is pure WP:OR) then I wouldn't object if you added that. Once we have any indications one way or the other, we certainly should. But what we can't do is undo the statements that have happened so far. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley, you obviously feel very strongly that this should stay in the article: what do you think about a third opinion? Springnuts (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- I minded to ask for a third-party opinion about whether this information should be in the article at the moment. Would you find that helpful? Springnuts (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Why would you expect any updates? Levchenko is still at sea (burning or not) and no-one outside will know until she's back to Severmorsk. At which point this uncertainty collapses to either confirming the fire, or giving a slant on fake Ukrainian propaganda (which isn't something they've used so far). But as yet, we don't know, and there's no change since the first news. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- I’m not seeing any RS of anything at all actually having happened here - just a bare assertion picked up and repeated (and overlinked). Do you still feel that this is noteworthy? Springnuts (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, fair point. The original revert was of the IP edits when the status was changed to “on fire” and then the tense changed to “was a ship …”. I failed to notice that your edits were more nuanced. Time will tell whether this news is true or not. Springnuts (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Deletion to German language wiki page, why?
There are times when the English language pages are inadequate or sparse, and a foreign language wiki page is more articulate. That is why I posted the link. Not in the body. But at the bottom in the Further Reading section. It is innocuous and generous, not malicious or meanspirited. TW Maple leaf eh (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is for Sd.Kfz. 2 and [1].
- We already link to the German language wiki article. You pasted in a link that firstly didn't work (and you clearly didn't check whether it worked), so was basically useless. Also you did it in a way that explained how Wikipedia and auto-translation works, in the confines of an already too-short encyclopedia article on Kettenkrad.
- But mostly, this just isn't our practice for articles. I'm sure the German language articles on Berlin or Sachertorte are better than our English language ones too, yet we don't add paragraph-long footnotes explaining how to use Wikipedia, and we don't add that same footnote to every likely article. We do already link to the German article; this is stored in Wikidata and adds to Wikipedia pages automatically. That's considered sufficient (by our established practice in editing many, many articles).
- If you're suggesting that editors might benefit from using the German article to expand the Wikipedia article here on the English language Wikipedia, then there's a templates for that: {{Expand German}}. Such an expansion is much better (because it gives an expanded and more useful article in the place they're already at) than simply pointing editors at foreign-language sources and telling them to auto-translate. But even that's rarely needed, as for many such articles (like Berlin, Sachertorte and indeed Kettenkrad) it's obvious and implicit. But there are a few unexpected ones, where the German language version just happens to be remarkably good. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't feel like arguing. Your mind seems closed and you managed to tell me off enough times to not want me to care anymore. TW Maple leaf eh (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Since we can't seem to discuss anything in a civil manner...
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Note - I won't be responding here or on my own talk page while this is open. Danners430 (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- On this particular topic, looks like there's actually been some movement elsewhere that looks like it'll probably satisfy everyone - sub-referencing... does away with the need for both SFN/Harvb tags and bibiographies, and {{r}} and {{rp}} templates... thoughts? Danners430 (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
On gun motor carriages and such
Andy, if you think a proper discussion is worth having, feel free to start one at a place of your choice, preferably where it will get noticed (as opposed to my talk page). An RM to capitalize some of those would be one option. Or ask for my moves to be reverted, and I'll open an RM, as I said before. Or open it at a project talk page. Don't start with a personal attack, but with some actual information about why you think capitalization would be appropriate, in light of guidelines, sources, or whatever. A tangent inside an unrelated RM, full of your personal attacks, it not going to be useful. Dicklyon (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Actually, you did also start one at Talk:M40 gun motor carriage#Undiscussed page move. But then you've ignored my attempt to engage on the question there. Why? Dicklyon (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
July 2024
Hello, I'm Dicklyon. I noticed that you made a comment on the page M18 Hellcat that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Your CIR edit summary was nothing but personal, gave no info on why you reverted me. Dicklyon (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Your unnecessary personal crusade against all capitalisation is not an excuse to introduce real errors into articles. Especially not when you're edit-warring to keep re-making them. If you can't do it right, don't do it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- You could say what error I introduced instead of just calling me incompetent. Dicklyon (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I did not call you incompetent. Please do not fabricate things, just so that you can try and construct another fatuous ANI filing. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Did I misinterpret your use of WP:CIR in your edit summary? Sorry, I did overlook the words before that, which were informative; fixed. Dicklyon (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I did not call you incompetent. Please do not fabricate things, just so that you can try and construct another fatuous ANI filing. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- You could say what error I introduced instead of just calling me incompetent. Dicklyon (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Teahouse copyvio questioner
Noticed your response to this Teahouse comment about a claimed copyright violation. You wrote that it "isn't particularly a problem, as your edits have fixed that", implying in your next comment that WP:REVDEL is optional after deleting the edits containing copied content. But that is a misunderstanding of copyright policy. Removing the offending edits did not fix the problem, and REVDEL is not optional, if the edits are confirmed copyvio. Instead, we should tell copyvio questioners that they should tag the article with one of the copyvio templates, which will attract the attention of volunteers who can investigate further, and if confirmed, carry out the revdel.
No page at Wikipedia, whether it be article, Draft, user page, template, or anything else may house copyrighted content, and that includes old pages that can be found in the history. That is the whole point of REVDEL: to take them out of the history as well, so the copyrighted content is no longer accessible from Wikipedia anywhere, period. Copyright policy is one of our policies with legal implications that stems from the Terms of use and local law, and can never be ignored. Going forward, please advise users asking about suspected or confirmed copyvio to tag the article with one of the copyvio templates mentioned at WP:COPYVIO such as {{copypaste}}, and volunteers will show up to take care of it. If it turns out to be a copy violation, those edits will be revdel'ed, as these edits were, a short while later. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- There was no copyvio in the article. Their edit had fixed it. There is no point in copyvio tagging an article that's not an issue, that's just likely to have the article deleted altogether.
- There was only a marginal copyvio in the first place. It wasn't good writing and it would fail our standards for 'close precis', but it was also so short that it's arguable as to whether it was ever truly a copyvio in the first place.
- I told them to revdel it anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Perrycroft
A note to thank you for your Perrycroft uploads, which I have now used here. Hope you like the article. KJP1 (talk) 11:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- You're welcome. It's a nice book, very useful for our purposes. I really must get round to scanning the other half of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank God
I was beginning to think that while I wasn't paying attention, some disease had killed of all the people with a modicum of sense. EEng 21:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Are you here to write an encyclopedia, or to follow sacred policies to the letter? There's a reason I'm not a rabbi. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm all for adhering to policy. It's people who insist on adherence to policies they don't understand that get my goat. Perhaps you didn't notice, but this guy's been trying to edit war this one word out for EIGHT years. EEng 21:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC) P.S. And check this [2] out.
"Ivorine" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Ivorine has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 16 § Ivorine until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive
New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive | ![]() |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Crank in rotary mills
Hi Andy Dingley! Recently you deleted my contribution, because you said the sources didn't support my claims. Here you have a summary from sources(no verbatim, no copyright violation), to show my sources support my claims. I claim:
- -That the rotary hand mill comes from Spain, between 6th and 5th BCE
- -That a rotary hand mill is a crank
- Source 1
- "Moliendo en ibero, moliendo en griego»: aculturación y resistencia tecnológica en el Mediterráneo occidental durante la Edad del Hierro"
- -Page 23 names the device, as rotary hand mill
- -In page 25 Figure 1C, there's a drawing of rotary hand mill
- -In page 28 describes the rotary hand mill, composed of two circular stones and a handle/crank (depending on the translation)
- -In page 29 says the rotary hand mill is an Iberian invention(Iberian were natives of Spain before Roman conquest)
- -In page 29 dates the invention between 6th and 5th BCE
- -In page 30 says the rotary mill expanded from Spain to East(Greece and Middle East)
- My Source 2
- "A Relief of a Water-powered Stone Saw Mill on a Sarcophagus at Hierapolis and its Implications", Journal of Roman Archaeology"
- -Page 158 says the rotary hand mill emerged in Spain in the 5th BCE and expanded East(Greece) and North(France)
- -Page 159 says the rotary hand mill is a crank. With the handle being the crank and the person's arm being the connecting rod
- My Source 3
- Lucas 2005, p. 5, fn. 9
- -Says: the rotary quern is a crank
- Wikipedia already contains my very same claim( with the same sources:):
- -Crank page picture. Description: "Tibetan operating a quern (1938). The upright handle of such rotary handmills, set at a distance from the centre of rotation, works as a crank."[My Source 2 page 159][My Source 3]
- -Crankshaft page picture. Description: "Querns are a form of hand-operated crank"[My Source 2 page 159][My Source 3]
- Both pages:
- -"The Chinese used not just the crank, but the crank-and-connecting rod for operating querns"[Source: Science and Civilisation in China, Part 2, Mechanical Engineering, p118-119]
- Compare to my claim:
- -My Source 1: Verbal description and depiction of a device, identical to the pictured above, a rotary hand mill with a handle.[My Source 2][My Source 3]. See summary above for pages.
- Why is the same device a crank in one place but not in other?
- New source: Source 4
- Science and Civilisation in China, Part 2, Mechanical Engineering
- -Page 186 says: the rotary hand mill or quern, with the eccentric handle, it's a crank