This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems
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.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human–Computer Interaction, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human–Computer InteractionWikipedia:WikiProject Human–Computer InteractionTemplate:WikiProject Human–Computer InteractionHuman–Computer Interaction
Renaming
Suggest renaming page to maybe, Drafting Equipment
I propose renaming the page technical drawing. This is in line with Category:Technical drawing, is widely understood (and similar to terms in other languages), does not have other meanings which must be disambiguated and is spelled identically in both British and US English. Warofdreams 17:42, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I support this change provided there is a good overview distinguishing the many kinds of technical drawing.
Begs04:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is in line with Category:Technical drawing, is widely understood (and similar to terms in other languages), does not have other meanings which must be disambiguated and is spelled identically in both British and U.S. English. No objections to this on the talk page. Warofdreams 16:52, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Weak Support (with a partial counterproposal) — The "similar to terms in other languages" is irrelevant. This is, after all, the English Wikipedia. However, at issue: I'd counterpropose that Drafting (disambiguation) should be moved to Drafting, as military conscription and sports drafts are just as prominent in usage as the work of architects and engineers. And on the reference on that disambiguation page, I'd link Technical drawing at the end of the sentence rather than Drafting at the beginning of it. —ExplorerCDT 01:11, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've removed an assertion as to how much CAD operators earn - I've not seen any evidence for the figure which is presumably for the U.S. only. Warofdreams13:12, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
These two articles seem to be discussing the same subject, only one discusses the tools and skills and the other discusses the drawing conventions.
I suggest that Technical drawing would make a better title for the merged page than Engineering drawing, because both articles apply not only to engineering, but to architecture and industrial design as well. NeonMerlin17:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree
It is a common misconception that technical drawing, drafting, and CAD are necessarily related fields. The skill-set of each of these fields are radically different from one another, as is evidenced by the multitude of professional paths to them. Technical drawing relates to a process, CAD relates to a technology, and drafting relates to a profession that might or might not use either of those skills. Also, there are many types of drafters, and engineering is only one of them. Architectural and Survey drafters might have no overlap with the engineering field, so merging them into a single description would not reflect the situation. Survey and Civil drafters do not, as a rule, create 'technical drawings'.
However, there is one thing that should be perfectly clear. The profession of drafting is now as distinct and separate a profession as it has ever been, and when one seeks to hire a person to fill the role, one does not ask for someone with an expertise in 'technical drawing', one asks for a 'drafter', to fulfill a 'drafting role'.
I believe it would be incorrect to do away with such a distinction, as it would not clarify the reality of the description.
- asperks
words from a 2d-3d draftsman for the last 12 years
drafting is drafting, either on a board or a monitor. its the process of taking a engineers mental chaos, and turning it into a mathematical representation, that another human, with the proper skills can replicate, in a given material.
its the ability to take an idea, to a functional document, that can express that same idea, in a creative manner.
"Pair of compasses"?
Someone moved "compass (drafting)" to "compasses (drafting)", asserting that what I've otherwise always heard called a "compass" should be called a "pair of compasses", a novel term as far as I can tell.
Technical drawing : the document and the discipline
It seems the English Wikipedia doesn't make a clear difference between the Technical drawing : the document and the discipline, like for example in the German Wikipedia. They offer the two articles with the introduction (translated) :
de:Technisches Zeichnen : Technical drawing is the discipline of creating standarized, technical drawings by architects, design engineer, and related professions.
de:Technische Zeichnung : The technical drawing is a document, that offers in graphical form all information required to construct a component, an assembly, or a complete product. This document is part of the technical documentation.
Now the current English Wikipedia divides:
A technical drawing is a form of graphic communication. This type of drawing is used in the transforming of an idea into physical form.
An engineering drawing is a type of technical drawing, used to fully and clearly define requirements for engineered items, and is usually created in accordance with standardized conventions for layout, nomenclature, interpretation, appearance (such as typefaces and line styles), size, etc.
In 2006 a merge is proposed between those two, which the argument: These two articles seem to be discussing the same subject, only one discusses the tools and skills and the other discusses the drawing conventions.
Now I think both articles are primary about the technical drawing document, and this information could and should be merge in one article. It remains to be seen if a separate article about the range of technical drawing disciplines could be created as well. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to get an idea of the standards involved in technical drawing, also called ANSI and ISO drafting standards. A first search gave me the following standards
ANSI drafting standards
There seems to be ANSI standards for line conventions, dimensioning, tolerance, threads, gears, materials, and multiview, sectional-view and pictorial drawings. For example:
ANSI Y14.2M (1987) : Line Conventions and Lettering
ISO drafting standards
ISO 128: Technical drawings -- General principles of presentation, International Organization for Standardization / 01-Jul-1982, 01-Jul-1982, 15 pages. This International Standard specifies the general principles of presentation to be applied to technical drawings following the orthographic projection methods. However this edition is slowly being phased out and replaced by separate parts. (source: ISO 128 techstreet.com, 2009.)
ISO 128-1:2003. Technical drawings -- General principles of presentation -- Part 1: Introduction and index
ISO 128-20:1996 Technical drawings -- General principles of presentation -- Part 20: Basic conventions for lines
ISO 128-21:1997 Technical drawings -- General principles of presentation -- Part 21: Preparation of lines by CAD systems
ISO 128-22:1999 Technical drawings -- General principles of presentation -- Part 22: Basic conventions and applications for leader lines and reference lines
ISO 128-23:1999 Technical drawings -- General principles of presentation -- Part 23: Lines on construction drawings
ISO 128-24:1999 Technical drawings -- General principles of presentation -- Part 24: Lines on mechanical engineering drawings
ISO 128-25:1999 Technical drawings -- General principles of presentation -- Part 25: Lines on shipbuilding drawings
ISO 128-30:2001 Technical drawings -- General principles of presentation -- Part 30: Basic conventions for views
ISO 7083:1983 Technical drawings -- Symbols for geometrical tolerancing -- Proportions and dimensions
ISO 7437:1990 Technical drawings -- Construction drawings -- General rules for execution of production drawings for prefabricated structural components
ISO 7518:1983 Technical drawings -- Construction drawings -- Simplified representation of demolition and rebuilding
ISO 7519:1991 Technical drawings -- Construction drawings -- General principles of presentation for general arrangement and assembly drawings
ISO 8015:1985 Technical drawings -- Fundamental tolerancing principle
ISO 8048:1984 Technical drawings -- Construction drawings -- Representation of views, sections and cuts
ISO 8560:1986 Technical drawings -- Construction drawings -- Representation of modular sizes, lines and grids
ISO 8560:1986 Technical drawings -- Construction drawings -- Representation of modular sizes, lines and grids
ISO 8826-1:1989 Technical drawings -- Rolling bearings -- Part 1: General simplified representation
ISO 8826-2:1994 Technical drawings -- Rolling bearings -- Part 2: Detailed simplified representation
ISO 9222-1:1989 Technical drawings -- Seals for dynamic application -- Part 1: General simplified representation
ISO 9222-2:1989 Technical drawings -- Seals for dynamic application -- Part 2: Detailed simplified representation
ISO 9958-1:1992 Draughting media for technical drawings -- Draughting film with polyester base -- Part 1: Requirements and marking
ISO 9961:1992 Draughting media for technical drawings -- Natural tracing paper
ISO 10209-1:1992 Technical product documentation -- Vocabulary -- Part 1: Terms relating to technical drawings: general and types of drawings
ISO 10578:1992 Technical drawings -- Tolerancing of orientation and location -- Projected tolerance zone
ISO 10579:1993 Technical drawings -- Dimensioning and tolerancing -- Non-rigid parts
ISO 13715:2000 Technical drawings -- Edges of undefined shape -- Vocabulary and indications
ISO 15786:2008 Technical drawings -- Simplified representation and dimensioning of holes
ISO Standards Handbook - Technical drawings, see here gives about the same listing. Extra in that list are for example ISO 3098 and ISO 3272 and some more:
ISO 3098-0:1997 Technical product documentation — Lettering — Part 0: General requirements Technical drawings, Ed. 4, Vol. 1 Page 2 of 3
ISO 3098-2:2000 Technical product documentation — Lettering — Part 2: Latin alphabet, numerals and marks
ISO 3098-3:2000 Technical product documentation — Lettering — Part 3: Greek alphabet
ISO 3098-4:2000 Technical product documentation — Lettering — Part 4: Diacritical and particular marks for the Latin alphabet
ISO 3098-5:1997 Technical product documentation — Lettering — Part 5: CAD lettering of the Latin alphabet, numerals and marks
ISO 3098-6:2000 Technical product documentation — Lettering — Part 6: Cyrillic alphabet
ISO 3272-1:1983 Microfilming of technical drawings and other drawing office documents — Part 1: Operating procedures
ISO 3272-2:1994 Microfilming of technical drawings and other drawing office documents — Part 2: Quality criteria and control of 35 mm silver gelatin microfilms
ISO 3272-3:2001 Microfilming of technical drawings and other drawing office documents — Part 3: Aperture card for 35 mm microfilm
ISO 3272-4:1994 Microfilming of technical drawings and other drawing office documents — Part 4: Microfilming of drawings of special and exceptional elongated sizes
ISO 3272-5:1999 Microfilming of technical drawings and other drawing office documents — Part 5: Test procedures for diazo duplicating of microfilm images in aperture cards
ISO 3272-6:2000 Microfilming of technical drawings and other drawing office documents — Part 6: Quality criteria and control of systems for enlargements from 35 mm microfilm
"The rules for the structure and drafting of documents intended to become International Standards... They are intended to ensure that such documents are drafted in as uniform a manner as practicable, irrespective of the technical content..."
There needs to be a clarification between the technical drawing and engineering drawing articles. There are a number of redundant loops that have been created, and that may be confusing to persons not familiar with the field of technical drawing. I propose that we have the following hierarchy.
Technical drawing (as a field of study and practice, but maintain a technical drawings types list)
Mechanical engineering (changed from engineering drawing)(generally manufactured products) (remove 'construction drawing' because it is to easily confused with architectural construction or working drawings)
Please ask before editing a post that I have signed. There is a purpose to an outline without links. It is to concentrate the conversation here, so that it may be resolved.
Instead of reoganizing this article at once, I propose you start improving some of the stubs you created first, and create the other new elements you want to put in. Then if you to make a better adjustment between the technical drawing and engineering drawing article, we should discuss what to put in both articles, and not just what to put here.
Don't get me wrong. I have started improving the situation here some months ago, and I am glad you show a lot of new initiative. But I do think you have to learn some more about the basics here. We can discuss this lay out, and some more related things, later. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. You could consider making a draft version, within Wikipeda on you own userpage, where you already start with the situation you like. Herefor you could create a User:Trihoiseachaithne/Technical drawing article where you can experiment whatever you want. Then if the article is all right, you can copy past it here at once.
P.S.S. I referted your latest moves, and initiated the draft version.
Since you allready started rearranging, and I referted those four edits, I will comment some more on your proposal in the next subchapters, one item at the time. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I guess the my most important objection agains your proposal is, that it rearranges the current situation. I thing there is a greater need to improve this situation by removing sections and greating whole new once. I think some of your ideas are a step in that direction as well.
The technical drawing and engineering drawing article issue has been going on for several years, and I have been watching these pages for almost a year. My intent with a complete reorganization is to get this issue moving towards a more stable situation. Your suggestion of making a draft version is similar to what my intentions were for formulating a hierarchal outline of the page. You commented, "I guess the my most important objection agains your proposal is, that it rearranges the current situation". Yes, I suppose so; but again, my intent is to get this issue moving. Judging by the rate you post comments, you may be editing things much quicker than I will be able to; therefore, working on a complete separate draft is not feasible.
In the next talk item I have mentioned six separate subjects (and I will add one more) were and how the article can be improved. You can comment on every items, but if you don't I guess you agree. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I should be clear that I disagree with your proposal to reorganize the current situation. This will not give a more stable situation here.
I appreciate your enthusiasm for collaboration, and I will try to respond to every item. Please do not assume that I agree if I have not posted anything yet.
Ok. You have expressed your intention, and now I have expressed mine. Between the lines I have explained some more why I don't like your initial proposal. Since we both works this article, it is good to know once intention and plans. In the end we both want the same thing. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. One more thing: I share your concern about the adjustment between the technical drawing and engineering drawing articles. However my main concern here is to create an overview article, which gives a survey of all technical drawing aspects explained in the related articles. This article should relate to all kinds of drafters (Aeronautical, Architectural, Civil, Electrical, Electronics, Mechanical, Process...), and people interested in all different fields.
Suggestions for further improvement
Manual drafting
I think the whole "manual drafting" section should not be moved to the top of the article, but should be moved to a separate artcile... and should be improved. The currently it reads like a "how to manual" starting with:
The basic drafting procedure is to place a piece of paper (or other material) on a smooth surface with right-angle corners and straight sides...
I think all graphical projection methods should be in one chapter or subchapter, without other styles of technical drawings such as Assembly, Cross section, Cutaway, Exploded view, Technical illustration and Technical sketching. Those could be in a separate chapter as well. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The application of technical drawing
It is common in Wikipedia articles that the last part of the article explains about the application of technical drawing. That is why I put the section about "drafter" there. This section shouldn't also be moved on top of the article, but should stay there. A section of applications could be improved as well. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. CAD can also be seen as an application and should be on the bottum of the article as well.
Basic drafting paper sizes
The section about "Basic drafting paper sizes" could be moved to the engineering drawing article. I think this information is far to specific here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The paper sizes section refers only to ANSI sizes - if it remains it should cover the European A-series and possibly the historic sizes once used in the UK.
The Yowser (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even the Plan (drawing) article seem to have a section about drawing features. There seems to be a lot of redundancy here. An alternative here, could be to start a template about it and add it to all these article. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree it should be mentioned. Although, the second listing doesn't need to be included because the field (the practice) of technical drawing is in essence speaking of the verb (the act) of technical drawing.
I think the history section could and should be improved as well. I even thing eventually it could be possible to start a separate article about the history of technical drawing.
One fundamental problem here how to determine the existing types of drawings. In the current article in the section "types of drawings" were listed, untill the recent change:
Mechanical engineering (changed from engineering drawing)(generally manufactured products) (remove 'construction drawing' because it is to easily confused with architectural construction or working drawings)
The difference between those two scheme's made me wonder technical drawings van be classified? Now I came up with the idea, that technical drawings can be classified in at least three or four different independent directions:
Now if we somehow agree on this, it seems interesting to integrate this into this article. We should search for reliable sources that confirm these ideas. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, wonderful. Now we are thinking along the same lines. Your "classification" and my "clarification", your "by other types of application" and my "Types of technical drawings ", your "by composition" and my "Styles of technical drawings", are all along the same lines. My main point is that technical drawing (the field) encompasses (and is an umbrella for) all of these classifications, and that the article, technical drawing, should be mainly focused on the field, but have links to all of these different directions. Furthermore, I like the other catagories you have mentioned (by technology and by field of application).
Having two separate classifications "by field of application" and "by other types of application" will be great for clearing up the document vs. discipline issue. Also, the capitalization of the fields and the lower case of the types, further makes the distinction. However, the classification "by other types of application" should be "types of technical drawings" (meaning the document). Each linked article under this catagory would show its own unique characteristics as a type of technical drawing (the document), and should be the reason for having separate articles. Similarly, separate articles for each of the different fields would highlight the difference between other fields of technical drawing.
Ok, I changed the phrase "By other types of application" into "By types of application documents". And I added the term view. I am not sure about the capitalization. The use of capitalization and lower case was unindendend. Wikipedia has explicit rules about this, which we can't change. I think this is all "lower case", so one day some editor will come allong and change all that. Untill then we can use the capitilization (but I guess it won't last).
Second. We should incoporate some of these sources as reference, and maybe more.
And third. I don't expect any source to mention the same classification we are developing here, because all publications seem to be specialized in one particular field.
If we agree on this classification, we can use this as a building block and further rearrange the article. All overview article I created have a similar structure, which I experienced in other stable articles, and gave my articles stability. This structure is (more or less) like this:
Overview
History
Types (Types of technical drawings)
Topics (Technical drawings topics)
Applications
These are the mainchapters. I use some kinds of variants, for example the overview section can be compressed in the first introduction, like it is at the moment. However right now I am missing a part there explaining about the multiple meaning of the term technical drawing, which could be the basic for a new overview section.
But you started this overview to cross reference. It seems to me globally David Goetsch et al (1999) has given three types of classification:
By projection
By view
By application
Now in compare to our classification:
By field of application
By types of application documents
By technology
By composition/view
I think the "projection - composition/views", and the "application - applications" are similar. Goetsch gives a listing of views, which is outside our scope. And we gave a division of "types of application documents" and "technology" which Goetsch doesn't mention.
I just noticed the listing of applications of technical drawings proceeds in the David Goetsch et al. (2000) Technical Drawing with:.
I guess it is even here hard to say, were the listing of types of technical drawings really stops. If it is all right with you, we leave this cross referencing for now. I guess we could conclude our classification scheme seems likely. What do you think? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Undone new rearrangement
I noticed Trihoiseachaithne took the opportunity to rearrange the article in, if I am not mistaken, a similar way he did months ago. I already explained by then, and I can do it again, that this article is has been wikified according to general Wikipedia rules about overview articles. One of those rules is that you first explain about the historical and theoretical issue and later on explain about the applications. In the T's new rearrangement, see here the applications were put on top.
Now I already explained this article contains a structure I implemented in over 1000+ similar articles, while Trihoiseachaithne explains on his talkpage this is the only article his working on, see here; and this is a general structure in Wikipedia. If Trihoiseachaithne wants to experiment just make a subserpage User:Trihoiseachaithne/Technical drawing, copy the content to it, and make all changes you like.
I have had a similar situation and discussion around the architectural drawing article. Eventually I let it go and the article was under construction for over 6 weeks. I am not going to repeat this situation. If you want to reconstruct this article, make a design off line on your userpage and take all time that you need. This is a common practice on Wikipedia. -- Mdd (talk) 09:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, I am aware of our discussion months ago. I believe we have a difference of opinion about what the sections stand for. Second, it would be helpful if you could give a link to those "general Wikipedia rules about overview articles" and the rule "that you first explain about the historical and theoretical issue and later on explain about the applications". Third, I didn't include the history section because you have taken that out and are reviewing it for copyright violations. I'm leaving that for you to do. I will say more later after you respond.
Since there has been no response from Mdd, I will restore my edits.
In an attempt to avoid an edit war, I have waited three days for his response. As a further response to his reasoning, I will try to explain why I did what I did.
First, I have been in discussion with Mdd before, as can be seen on this talk page. I have gathered that he would like this article to flow in the following order, history, theory, and application. My latest edits were an accomodation of those wishes. As I believe that our previous discussions concluded that the article should focus on technical drawing (the discipline), I put all of the sections dealing with technical drawings (the document) at the end of the article. I see the drawings themselves as the ultimate application of the discipline of technical drawing. Before the section on technical drawings (the document), the sections pertain to technical drawing (the discipline). Within those sections, the applications are near the end. This is all in an attempt to work with Mdd; however, Mdd should be aware that he does not own this article. The article flow that he states as a Wikipedia rule may be his own extension of the general manual of style. The manual of style discusses the need for a lead section, sections for the body of the article, then see also, reference, etc. at the bottom. The sections for the body are not perscribed as Mdd thinks they are. Now if Mdd can post a link to where there is a rule of which he is referring, I would be more than happy to examine it. But I say again, that my edits were an attempt to work with Mdd's ideas.
Second, Mdd took it upon himself to create a user page, under my user name, for technical drawing as an attempt to get me to do edits there and then get his approval for those edits to go to the main page. This would be understandable if I were doing major prose editing, but I am clarifying the structure of the article. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and Mdd is preventing that progress by reverting any structural changes. As he said in his statement about architectural drawing, he is "not going to repeat this situation". This means that he will continue to revert any structural changes just because they are not to his liking instead of going through the process of debating the pros and cons of edits. The collaborative process of structural editing is hindered when users go off an edit pretend pages.
Third, since his last major edits to this page in February 2009, the majority of Mdd's edits have been reverting other edits. My edits to add content or to clarify the arrangement of things have been among those that Mdd has reverted. I have not deleted, defaced or vandalized the content of the page, yet Mdd continues to treat my edits as such. This is an unacceptable approach to collaborative contributions.
Sorry for not responding, because of other priorities. I will look into this some more in a few weeks, and respond in more detail to your concerns. But I can tell you one thing. The idea of rearrangement of this article I started last year was to focus this article entirely on the discipline of technical drawing. All material related to what you now call "Technical drawings (the document)", I sort of started moving towards the engineering drawing article . At the moment if you compare this article with the "Technical drawings (the document)" section you will see they are quite similar. Now it is common in Wikipedia to focus any article on (just) one subject. You have rearranged this article focussing on two topics. An this is something I don't accept. A further action could be to rename the engineering drawing article to Technical drawing (document) and move the current section ("Technical drawings (the document)") into that article: I actually mean all not redundant parts, which I believe there are not many right now. As to these Wikipedia standards. We make them ourselves in similar articles. Now I have been developing over 50 similar articles close related here, so I do know what I am talking about. There are no black and white rules here. You have to see for yourself, and trust the people your are working with. You are right I took the history section off line for now and this gives a different perspective. I will restore this in time, but for now let it be. I do appreciate all the rewriting you are doing. It is just a matter of structure: where to put what. But I will leave it for now. -- Mdd (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
These articles all seem to be focussed in parts of the documentation needed to build architecture. Now I question this focuss on several articles.
Working drawings don't relate to just architecture but to several other engineering disciplines as well, such as aerospace -, automotive -, civil -, mechanical engineering... etc.
Civil drawing relates in general to drawings in civil engineering: the drawing of principles of applied civil engineering design. This could be further specified with the "type of technical drawing that shows information about grading, landscaping, or other site details".
With Electrical drawing and Plumbing drawing it is about the same story. It relates to electircal engineering cq. plumbing at first, and then ....
You are right that working drawings does not just apply to architecture. This article should be refocussed. Working drawings are actually a set and could be referred to as a working drawing set. They are also called production drawings. The catagories that I mention are the types of application drawings included in an architectural set. An engineering working drawing set would include detail drawings and assembly drawings.
With regards to a merge with Plan (drawing), it is my understanding that working drawings are the end contract document and they are used by the people actually making the product; whereas, plans can refer to either pre-production or during production. Besides, the term plan seems to more commonly refer to the layout of architectural space. So, maintaining seperate articles, but refocusing each may be another option.
P.S. I will keep the proposal in place for now to see how things evolve.
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.
Article section(s) removed
Due to possible violation of copyright, see WP:Copyvio, I have removed one or more section of this article for now.
I apologize for all inconvenience I have caused here, see also here. If you would like to assist in improving this article, please let me know. I can use all the help I can get. Thank you.
This article or section appears to have been copied and pasted from various Wikipedia articles, possibly in violation of a copyright. This has occurred Feb 9, 2009 when I started this article.
I apologize for all inconvenience I have caused here, see also here. If you would like to assist in improving this article, please let me know. I can use all the help I can get. Thank you.
Thanks User:Wtshymanski for calling the history section "cool history section". Right now I am sorry to repeat, that this section should be doublechecked for possible copyvio problems. Eventually I will restore the section and hope to improve it much further. But right now I would like to ask you to have patience. I allready notified a mod, see here. If you have further questions please do so, or ask PBS. -- Mdd (talk) 23:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. If the text comes from other Wikipedia articles, it's not a copyright violation 9unless it was a violtatino in those other articles?). It looks like user:Mdd contributed that text. if it was a literal transcription of the referenced texts, it may be too long and insufficently set off to be a fair quotation from the original texts - but the snippet view that Google gives of the one text I looked at indicates the test sentence I tried is at best a paraphrase of the source refernce, not a literal copy. So, what Wikipedia articles did the history section come from? Is it copied from the reference texts or paraphrased? I really like history sections in technical articles and would like to see this text restored as quickly as practical. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is a bit confusing. I redesigned the article in 2008 using several sections from other articles, which need to be registered. The history itself is constructed from several quotes from several books. Here I first need to check, rewrite some and/or add quote marks. I will do so (in a while). And you can do so as well if you like : checked the text with the original sources..!? -- Mdd (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not satisfactorily explain the different conventions for projections. They should be covered at least to a basic level with a link to Multiview orthographic projection
I have just modified one external link on Technical drawing. 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.
Why have you reverted my edit adding draughting to the list of alternative spellings? It is the preferred spelling in British English and probably in every English speaking country except for North America. Polymath uk (talk) 07:55, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
