Jump to content

Talk:Trapezoidal thread form/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Trapezoidal thread

I'm considering moving this article to the name trapezoidal thread form, because the trapezoidal thread form is very similar to the acme form and the acme form is a trapezoid. This is the way they are handled in the book "Design of Machine Elements" by Bhandari (seen here: http://books.google.com/books?id=f5Eit2FZe_cC&pg=PA203). I just think its pointless to have two article about the trapezoidal thread and the acme thread, because all of the info is the same except one is 29 degrees and the other is 30 degrees. Does this make sense? Wizard191 (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was move to trapezoidal thread forms. Wizard191 (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Acme thread form → Trapezoidal thread form — Better get this move discussed. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose, as per WP:Commonname, see "sniff test" above where Google Books hits are about 15:1 in vfavor of "Acme Thread". Not all trapezoidal threads are Acme, but all Acme threads are trapezoidal. Which search term gets more views in a month? --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I think from a logical standpoint that it makes sense to move this, but based on a policy standpoint it makes sense to leave it as is. Wizard191 (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
    Another sniff test, in August, September and October "Acme thread form" got around 6000 page views per month while "trapezoidal thread form" got fewer than 30 per month. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
    The reason why I would move it despite Wtshymanski's entirely valid point about search hits or page views is superset-subset logic. If you're going to have one article about all trapezoidal threads (nonmetric and metric), then the name for it should be the generic name of the superset. Analogy would be this: *If* all colas shared one article, then you wouldn't name it "Coca-Cola" even if Coca-Cola was 10-to-1 more popular than Pepsi. You'd name it "cola" and have ==Coca-Cola== and ==Pepsi== as sections of it. Now, you could have Acme thread be its own article, and then have another article to cover trapezoidal thread forms as a class. That would work. I just think that you could easily fit all the content into one article, so may as well. However, as a structurist, I can't argue that it *needs* to be one article. So I guess my position comes down to Support but not willing to fight about it—I think from a logical standpoint that it makes sense to move this, but based on several other standpoints (eg, apathy, policy, zen) it's acceptable to leave it as is. — ¾-10 23:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
    BTW, my position includes the idea that the name "Acme" should be reserved to refer only to the 29° nonmetric thread. The 30° metric thread ought not be called Acme. I'm usually not one to fight sloppy natural language overlap, but in this instance I think it's worth fighting against (preserving the distinction). Oh well, guess I'm done pondering this topic for now. — ¾-10 23:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
    What do the authorities say? That's the only thing that should matter on Wikipedia. Never mind what my "idea" is - I might be ignorant, ill-informed, mistaken, or just plain evil. But find a reference that says "The Acme thread form refers to thus-and-so family of threads" and we're out of the woods. My Machinery's Handbook is packed away somewhere in one of 140 boxes, but that's where I'd go if I wanted to find out what an Acme thread was. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
    We've got an article Please read:A personal appeal from Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales Screw thread, no, wait, actually it's just called Screw thread (cut'n'paste picks up stuff that we can't see?), is there anything about trapezoidal threads that distinguishes them from Acme that could usefully be explained there? Even "Machinery's Handbook" won't spend more than a paragraph or two on any one thread form, so it might be thin for a whole article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
    I think your stance that we are all to stupid to determine how to define supersets and subsets is pretty dense. If you continue that thought-path we should only be able to structure the sections of an article based on how the references do, because we aren't smart enough to figure it out on our own. Or for that matter why on earth did we (the community of Wikipedia) allow sections at all because that's WP:SYNTHESIS. Sorry, but that's idiotic. Wizard191 (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
    Also, "Design of Machine Elements" by Bhandari (seen here: http://books.google.com/books?id=f5Eit2FZe_cC&pg=PA203) states that Acme is a subset of trap. threads. See page 204, halfway down on the left side. Wizard191 (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
    I've noticed when I ask for a Coke in a restaurant, I generally get some kind of bubbly brown sweet liquid, though it may come in a blue can instead of a red can. Why isn't the term "trapezoidal thread" showing up more often? Have we been traumatizing readers who type in "trapezoidal thread form" in a search box and are instantly whisked here to read about Acme threads? Could we not merge this into Screw thread and do an overview of the different thread forms and why they are used, and ditch the detailed tables of dimensions that no sensible person would trust off Wikipedia anyway? Show example dimensions for one similar size, where it illustrates differences betweeen similar-appearing thread forms, but no-one is going to base hs QA inspections on a Wikipedia table. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
    I strongly disagree with merging this isn't screw thread, that article is already quit bloated at 33 kB, so WP:SIZE has kicked in. And I'm not sure how all of the sudden that content is now under scrutiny when we are just talking about moves. If you want to talk about merging you might be able to convince me to merge this article (and the other power screw thread forms) into power screw. But none of that really answers the structure aspect...I think this might be a compelling case of WP:COMMON to override WP:COMMONNAME. Wizard191 (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I actually see all valid points here. But you have to look at the whole elephant rather than the fire hose and the four tree trunks. Thus my net result would be the same line of thinking that Wizard191 is talking about. What's happening here is that what the experts prescribe and what the laypeople actually do are *both* relevant to the encyclopedia-building, and we have to decide how to properly balance them in this instance. This is a case where "what people usually call the whole class" is actually a sloppy (imprecise) use of the name of the most prominent member of the class. It is very analogous linguisitcally to the genericization of a trade name in natural-language usage. This is why the cola-vs-Coke analogy is actually quite apt. Wtshymanski is entirely correct that in many places, for example, widespread throughout the American South, people use the word Coke to mean any cola. To answer his earlier question about how the experts define the name Acme thread, yes, it is indeed the name of a specific subset of trapezoidal thread with a 29° thread angle and non-metric (inch-based) standardized dimensions (the standard is defined by ASME/ANSI B1.5-1988, per Machinery's Handbook 25e pp. 1716-1717). However, as with cola-vs-Coke, natural language does not consistently follow the usage prescription of the experts. Where this leaves us as encyclopedia builders is that this theme recurs across hundreds of instances in life, and for each instance, we have to decide our appropriate balance point on the spectrum of prescriptivism versus descriptivism (in layperson's language, that simply means "how language should be used versus how it actually is used"). Wizard191 is entirely correct when he points out the dynamic tension between WP:COMMON and WP:COMMONNAME. It would be an inferior result if we declared a theoretical principle that either one of those should always defeat the other, independent of instance-specific factors. In this particular instance, I feel that the smartest thing to do is to follow the superset-subset logic (and stick to the expert [ASME/ANSI] distinction). We are effectively (but gently/respectfully) saying to the readers who don't stick to the prescription, "You're using the term "Acme" too loosely; it rightly refers to a specific nonmetric standard. The generic term for this whole class of threads is "trapezoidal" (because the thread form is based on a trapezoid)." Same with cola-vs-Coke. With full respect to the U.S. Southern culture, Wikipedia should still call its article on cola "cola" instead of "Coke". — ¾-10 17:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

If you were one of the 6000 people last month who typed "Acme thread form" and got to this article, you should have been told that an Acme thread is an instance (variation, cousin...) of a trapezoidal thread form. If you were one of the two dozen who typed "Trapezoidal thread form", you should have gotten to *something* on that topic, which might have alluded to the Acme form as being another popular variety. But no-where on Wikipedia do you find *why* there are two different thread forms, or what they are used for, how they developed, who uses them, etc. Wikipedia articles tend to be too much about leaves and not about the forest. What are the people who typed "Trapezoidal thread form" looking for, I think is the question. Never mind subset/superset theory, we can't even tell them why it's called "Acme". --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Dude, you are getting off-topic again. The point isn't how this article can be expanded or if its lacking in areas (which it is), but if it should be moved/merged. Feel free to start another conversation about how this article needs help, if you feel so compelled; or just fix it. Wizard191 (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I jut think it's funny that we get more commentary on the names of articles than we get on the hollow pieces of crap that most articles are. --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
A lot of times I find that it can be hard to expand an article because the scope is so poorly defined. So sometimes it helps a lot to give a real solid definition in the lead or (as in this case) move an article to a more appropriate name, so everyone has a better understanding exactly what should be in the article. Wizard191 (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Wtshymanski, by your edit summary ("the most important encyclopedia job is giving articles obscure names that have some theoretical justification"), it's clear you're annoyed, but you're off-base on at least this instance even if you're right about some others on Wikipedia. Readers who come here with a vast blank slate of ignorance can benefit from some context-framing, overview-style, brief education (including even in the pagenaming logic itself), which gives them orientation for the further de-ignorancing which they are about to receive. This is in fact a big part of the very forest whose scarcity on WP you (rightfully) bemoaned earlier. I'll give you a concrete example from real life of another instance of the principle that sometimes the human species needs education of the most broad, basic, forest-level kind, and yet the era's current "experts" might not even have an adequate iteration of it to give them. In 1979, retronymy had been a prominent part of human language for a long time, and had been positively booming for at least the preceding half century (because of the increased pace of technological change), and yet no one had any name for it, or had given it enough conscious analysis. Then in 1980 Frank Mankiewicz coined a name for it, and bam, the world was ready to jump all over the concept and expand upon Mankiewicz's initial spark, precisely because there had been a sorely lacking vacuum where the name should have been. As Wizard191 said, it helps to frame what you're talking about so that you can talk about it better. — ¾-10 23:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

[chronology branch]

I think we can address the users' needs (described above); it will just take further development. In a sense it almost doesn't matter what we move to where (or not move), as long as we can lead the users through a path that fulfills their need (including having links between articles, *if* there ends up being more than one article). [That said, though, I think one article may be enough, in which case, there is no reason not to call it "trapezoidal".] I will take a stab at it this week. — ¾-10 20:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
3/4-10, your edits are a huge improvement. Thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reference needed

I don't suppose you'd care to tell us *which* Google Book had the 1893 reference? The only one I found was 1895, plus a reference to an "Acme Screw Machine Company" founded in 1895 in Connecticut, but no indication if the thread was named after the company, or the other way, or just a coincidence. I generally respect references more if they don't dwell at length on their own ignorance; Wikipedia has enough credibilty problems, we don't need to dwell on it here. It's not like the knowledge is lost to history, it's jsut that our band of volunteen editors hasn't found a reference yet. Don't make the name more mysterious than it has to be. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Although I totally get your point, I must respectfully disagree that it applies to a crowdsourced reference work like Wikipedia. There's no reason to hide anything on Wikipedia. We don't need to fear Toto lifting the curtain to reveal the man behind it, because we never tried to claim there was a wizard in the first place. We're transparent like that. Contrary to the old epistemological paradigm ("I generally respect references more if they don't dwell at length on their own ignorance"), Wikipedia derives its credibility *because* it doesn't try to pretend, or deny, or avoid mentioning, or fail to admit any existing epistemological limitations or knowledge gaps (either its own or the literature's). Given Wikipedia's crowdsourced nature (with the epistemological risk that that entails, which everyone always points out), it's the very transparency itself that makes Wikipedia come from behind in the trustworthiness department to be the dark-horse winner. It ends up being something that people trust provisionally but yet quite a bit—never entirely, but much more than the naysayers would predict, and at the end of the day, *more* than they trust many non-crowdsourced sources of information (which the naysayers would call "counterintuitive", although I don't agree with them that there's anything surprising or remarkable about it). It's unsurprising because while the traditional model includes *putting on an air* of knowing for sure (or else keeping one's mouth tightly shut if one doesn't know), Wikipedia never put on any such air in the first place, which means that it can never be embarrassed when "the truth eventually leaks out and there's a man behind the curtain"—Wikipedia always kept the man on full display, and let the viewers make their own trust judgments. I thought about shortening the info, but the only nonessential part is the mention of the neoclassical bent of the late-19th-early-20th-c; and that bit is not irrelevant to the topic (it explains why the word "Acme" was chosen as a name for various corporations and products back then [most now extinct and obscure, of course]). I just don't see any reason why we need to lose that neoclassical blurb (if we lose it, then people will just be asking all the stronger, "where did the name come from", i.e., "why Acme instead of Chaswozzle or any old thing?"). The information "is what it is." It's useful to the extent that it's available, which isn't much, and no one needs to hide the fact that humans only know as much as they know—which ain't as much as pre-Web epistemological traditions liked to pretend. The only difference is that before the Web, the average Joe could *believe* that "someone out there knows the right answer or the whole story." Now the average Joe knows different, i.e., that that's often true, but also often not. If anyone uncovers more definite or specific info about the topic, they're welcome to come here and overwrite whatever we currently have with something better. But until that day, we don't have anything that we need to hide; and we're "paradoxically" *more* trustworthy to the public for not even *trying* to hide anything than we would be if we did try. PS: as for pointing straight to the 1893 result, I know that's what my advanced-search parameters turned up last time I ran it, although I can't find the 1893 result now. From now on I'll paste a URL while I have the chance. — ¾-10 00:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, but if I wanted to listen to Cliff Claven saying "There's conflicting theories on that, Normie" - I'd have gone to Cheers. Wikipedia shouldn't waste the reader's time. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Wtshymanski, why pick on this blurb of text, which has some sort of reference, when there's over 60% (or at least that's what's tagged) of Wikipedia that is unreferenced. Why don't you just blow that 60% away right now, I'm sure no one will notice. While this piece of text isn't perfectly cited, its doing better than the majority of Wikipedia. Wizard191 (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
The time-wasting topic is a valid concern generally, although in this particular instance it's a stretch to apply, because the blurb in question is too short to be a problem. The anonymity topic ("the only difference here, is that nobody knows your name") is actually not a problem, either (more below). The best answer on time-wasting in general is that it depends on each reader. Most readers probably don't want that bit of info (the origins blurb), although some (no doubt a minority) do specifically seek it. So we should work toward only presenting that paragraph to those who actually want it, and sparing the others the time to read it. Toward that end, I'm thinking of moving it to a subsection like "Origins" or whatever the heading would be. Thus people not interested can steer clear of that text just by judging from the heading alone. Relatedly, I do object to deleting the info entirely, because deletion would sacrifice the wants/interests of the (origin-curious) minority in service of the (hurried and not very curious, just-need-the-specs) majority. So sequestering is better than deletion. Regarding the anonymity topic, I see your point; yet that's where the "Wikipedia as ecology of information" concept comes in (including but not limited to m:Darwikinism—please understand that I'm not a social darwinist; I'm just exploring what pieces of reality present themselves, including aspects of natural selection pressure seen in various domains of life). Through this ecology-of-information view, it's totally irrelevant who any of us are (or who we aren't). All that matters is that there's this one main place for all humans to find information about topic XYZ (in this case, Acme threads), and the best info wins, regardless of who put it here. And if the best info sucks, but there's nothing better available, than it's still what wins. Of course, the ecology of info is a double-edged sword, as it not only means that experts have to spend time (sometimes even waste time) dealing with amateurs (con), but also that no one gets to have the mantle of expert except to the extent that their information is demonstrably superior (pro). In other words, it's a darwinian process where identity is worthless (for better and worse) and superior information (where even just "no one really knows for sure" is a form of information in itself) is the only thing that can win. I've considered correlating my main identity to my WP username, but I don't want people who know me face-to-face (F2F) to be checking Special:Contributions for a timestamped record of what I was doing at a certain date and time (e.g., say, "last night at 6:47 PM"). Then I'd have to accept being judged by F2F peers for how I spend my free time, and, frankly, when your job is a hell fiendishly created by some combination of dishonesty and utter ignorant incompetence of PHBs, you end up running to your hobbies more than you should, just to escape. The difference between someone whose hobby is Wikipedia and someone whose hobby is watching ESPN is that the former generates a timestamped public record of how he spent his off hours. I may still correlate my F2F and WP IDs sometime, but I'm reserving the option for now because it's unidirectional—once you've done it, you can't entirely undo it. And while you've not yet done it, you still have a choice. It may not even matter so much as all that—who cares what timestamp anyone can check; fuck 'em—I'm just allowing myself to think leisurely about it. Anyway, I wrote all this just as much for me as for this talk thread. And if you gave up reading before this sentence, I wouldn't blame you. Good night, all. — ¾-10 03:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
J. Random Reader asks himself "Why do they call it Acme thread? I know, I'll look it up on the Wikipedia!", comes here, and moistens keyboard with his tears when he realizes Wikipedia doesn't know either, and that it spends a whole paragraph explaining that one contributor looked at his whole bookshelf and spent 7 minutes with Google and couldn't find it out either! Knowledge of what you don't know might be knowledge of a sort but it's not the sort of knowledge the encyclopedia user is seeking; especially when it's not a fundamental limitation of what can be known, but only an artifact of insufficient resources put into research. Doubtless some 1880's edition of 'Scientific American' has an article on 'New form of screw thread', but our volunteer crew hasn't found it yet; though Wikipedia as a whole has hundreds of thousands of contributors, any one topic usually has no more than maybe 10 or 12 editors who contribute content; if they get stumped, the myriad is no help either. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
A good perspective, and one I'll be thinking about more. I have to differ with one aspect of your observation ("Doubtless some 1880's edition of 'Scientific American' has an article on 'New form of screw thread', but our volunteer crew hasn't found it yet"). The word "Doubtless" sounds likely in theory but turns out to be sometimes wrong when tested empirically. You're entirely right that this is very possibly so; but as most honest/non-ego-trip academics could vouch, it turns out to be untrue at a rate that many people would find surprising/disappointing. For example, I read not long ago a sentence by a Real Expert™ on machine tool history (i.e., an academic, non-crowdsourcing-participant one) noting that humans' body of knowledge on machine tool development between 1900 and 1915 is lamentably lacking; that we have much more of a paper trail of most eras from 1800 to 1900 than we do for 1900-1915 (a time when automobile production was rocketing machine tool development forward, but many of the most effective/innovative builders during those years weren't writing down public records or taking photos for posterity). As a similar example, check out the first page of Chapter V of Roe 1916 (p. 50). Roe is a giant of Real Expert™ machine tool historians and his 1916 book is a seminal classic—i.e., as "R" as any "RS" is gonna get—and yet if you were to read the text of page 50 as text on Wikipedia, you might feel tempted to delete it all because "this clown is admitting that he doesn't have enough good information. Maybe he shouldn't have tried to write this chapter at all." But that would be a loss; as a reader, I'm quite interested in whatever incomplete info he was able to find. My gut tells me that if we tried to implement your perspective too strongly (across all instances, with no complementary mitigating factors), we'd have to delete a lot of information from Wikipedia that many a reader would be glad existed for their possible perusal when they happened to want it. The resulting deletion would be throwing out too many babies with the bathwater, for no reason except "not everyone is interested in, or impressed with, this particular bit"—something that's not as horrific, or embarrassing, or tear-inducing as was suggested. I disagree that many readers would cry over their keyboards for finding such bits on Wikipedia. Most would simply say, "meh, this is lame, I'm gonna go look at something else" or "damn, I was hoping to answer my curiosity; oh well, screw this, time to go do something else." A few would feel motivated to try to be the one who found better info and enter it here, overwriting the old version. I don't think many would say, "someone ought to delete any such bit as this from existence, because I feel insulted for having read it." And to the few who did say that, I would answer, "Well, that's fine, for you, but the rest of us don't have to do so because you told us to. Live and let die. You're free not to read whatever you're not interested in." That's where the structuring (sequestering the info into a headed section rather than deleting it) comes in. I'll probably do it this weekend. — ¾-10 17:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Update: I made that modification (article structuring). Cited Flather 1895 as earliest written attestation that Google Books offers as of this writing. Better info welcome when unearthed. — ¾-10 17:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
A real expert writing in a quality book that says "sources are lacking" is one thing...but again, a half-dozen cb handles saying they couldn't find anything is embarrassing. Goody, a citation - at least it predates the greeat blank space of the flapper era. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Faulty citation for first occurrence of Acme thread form name in 1895

The Acme thread form name appears as early as 1895.[4]

It may do - but not in the source cited. I've just been through the cited text with a fine toothcomb and there is no mention of the Acme thread in Flather, John Joseph (1895), Rope-driving: a treatise on the transmission of power by means of fibrous ropes (1st ed.), New York, NY, USA: J. Wiley & Sons, LCCN 06034155.

What's happened here is rather interesting and, I suggest, should be a salutary tale for all Wikipedia editors who fail to take the time to check properly their online sources before citing them. Google Books, which is usually so reliable, at http://books.google.com/books?id=hQ9IAAAAIAAJ inadvertently has added the text of the first edition, fourth impression, published in 1919, of Henry D Burghardt's Machine Tool Operation: Part 1 - The Lathe (Bench Work and Work at the Forge) after the online text of Flather, John Joseph (1895), Rope-driving: a treatise on the transmission of power by means of fibrous ropes (1st ed.), New York, NY, USA: J. Wiley & Sons, LCCN 06034155. This is not apparent at first sight when you look at Google Books' online list of Contents for Flather. It does become apparent, however, when you use Google Books' Search Inside to search for Acme and you get 16 results - which are all to be found in Burghardt, not in Flather.

To appreciate fully what I have described here, you need to download the PDF version of Flather from archive.org (if you don't have a US IP address) or from Google Books if you do. Also read the online version of Burghardt at http://books.google.com/books?id=iD5IAAAAIAAJ and download the PDF version to check that they match. 198.23.103.98 (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for uncovering that error. Even without the Burghardt/Flather conflation error, I should not have cited that book directly anyway (the 1895 book that I thought I was seeing the first written attestation in). What I should have done at that time (February 2011, see previous Talk thread) was what I just did last night, belatedly, after you pointed out this error: Create a footnote that says "In the text corpus of Google Books and Google Ngram Viewer, the first printed references to the Acme thread appear in the 1890s." This removes that error and shows all readers exactly what evidence was used (which they can verify themselves as well). Thanks again, — ¾-10 17:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Inventor of "Acme" screw thread

In November 2016, I added information about the "apparent" inventor of the "Acme" screw thread, Albert Ward Handy. At that time, I knew that more information about the invention of the Acme screw thread was available in the January 1895 issues of American Machinist magazine, but those issues weren't accessible at the time that I submitted my contribution. Since then, those issues have become available on Hathi Trust, and those issues reveal that the Acme screw thread was invented by A.M. Powell, president of the Powell Planer Co. of Worcester, Massachusetts. See:

According to the letter from Mr. Powell on p. 66 of the American Machinist (24 January 1895), Mr. Powell conceived the new standard thread and asked Mr. Handy to have gauges made for the threads. Mr. Handy approached the Brown & Sharpe Manufacturing Co. to make the gauges, but somehow Brown & Sharpe's staff misinterpreted Mr. Powell's specifications, so Brown & Sharpe proposed a different set of specifications, which Mr. Handy accepted and had published — without consulting Mr. Powell. Furthermore, Mr. Handy proposed that the new standard be named the "Acme" thread; at the time, Mr. Handy was a sales representative of the Acme Machinery Co. of Cleveland, Ohio.

I'll edit this article to incorporate these findings. VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 01:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Trapezoidal thread forms which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 2 July 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 08:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


Trapezoidal thread forms → Trapezoidal thread form – No reason this title should be plural. A move was suggested in 2010 from "Acme thread form" to "Trapezoidal thread form". Unclear from discussion why the article was instead moved to the plural form. Rracecarr (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trapezoidal_thread_form/Archive_1&oldid=1265203105"