Talk:Mill finish
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Did Tracton 2005 actually say that? edit
The article currently starts, "Mill finish refers to the surface texture (or finish) of a machined part after it exits a milling machine." But that's not the usual definition of mill finish. Mill finish is the finish of bar stock, plate, sheet, etc—in other words, mill products—as they come from the mill, as in the "steel mill", "rolling mill", or aluminum mill sense of the word "mill"—not the milling machine sense of the word. Does the Tracton book (2005) actually claim that mill finish refers to machined surface finish from a milling machine? I'm not denying that there may be some people who use the term that way, but we should get across that it's not usual ... — ¾-10 23:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hurm. Here's the actual page I pulled most of the article from, I may need to go back and do some reversions. That's what the name suggested to me, and what it looked like the book said. It was harder than I thought to find references for this; it doesn't seem to be mentioned often. I don't actually know, so I defer to you as someone with more experience in the metalworking field. If what I've put is inaccurate, I'll go through and change/revert as necessary. I've put a
{{disputed}}tag on the article for the time being; if you confirm what you've said I'll go around and fix it up. --Kierkkadon talk/contribs 00:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds good. I will gladly fix it some time, too, although I don't have any references to cite, offhand. I agree with the goal of better referencing, and can only apologize that it's not within my time resources to go after references more quickly and completely than I do on some topics or subtopics. Not that I wouldn't like to, just that the opportunity cost of the free time is too high ... One reason why I haven't always given enough references when I build up Wikipedia content is only that there are some things I know from work and from other parts of life (talking to others about their work, for example), and I want to get that info captured into WP articles (so I enter it in), but I've never actually read textbooks or trade journal articles about that particular subtopic, so I don't have any references to cite off the top of my head. This "rate-limiter" is a common one among Wikipedians, though (not unique to me). There's no magic wand to wave it completely away with, but at least there is the comfort that we can always build gradually and backfill reference citation density over time. — ¾-10 02:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm precisely the opposite; as a student, I lack expertise but I have access to lots of sources. So when I can I'll bury myself in the university library and get some references going. From what I can tell you've made great contributions to WP:FORGE. I'm just trying to do my part. --Kierkkadon talk/contribs 05:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Why does the article restrict the term to steel? edit
The article currently starts, "Mill finish refers to the surface texture (or finish) of steel stock ...". But that's not what the references (or common usage) say. The first reference describes copper alloys, while the second reference concerns aluminium; neither mention steel. I would suggest replacing the word steel with metal. 87.113.16.169 (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for bringing attention to this. — ¾-10 04:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
