Talk:Micrometer (device)

Snotty anon (2002) thought he'd proven that WP was useless. (Where is he now?)
Amazing stuff. How come neither maveric149 nor eclecticology (seemingly busy, high profile editors here) managed not to notice that a micrometer = micrometre = 1/1 000 000 metres, not 1/1000, and that the symbol isn't µ it's µm? Especially since the page micrometre gives the correct info, making it trivial to check the data.

Some reference work this is. --Anon

Yes, it was caught by you - such is the wiki way. There is a million things to do around here and you can't expect any one person to catch them all. --maveric149

But I might reasonably expect the editor of a page to do even the most trival fact-checking while doing that one edit ot that one page, mightn't I? But then you seem to think its a good idea to duplicate the definition of micrometre. Duplication of data encourages errors. Why not just leave the link to micrometre?


 * In Wikipedia, there are no editors for a page - everybody is an editor. And since there's so many page, not everybody will read everything. And so there are a lot of errors. But, given enough editors, all of these errors will be found - you just found one, so good job. The reason why there's two different pages is probably because of the measuring device, which is never called a micrometre. Because many Americans may type micrometre when looking for it, there should at least be a reference on this page. And since the article which is to be referred to is so short, it's convenient to included that information here as well. But it is prone to errors, yes. jheijmans

I use "editor" here to mean the person editing a given page at any given time. The history shows that the two users I name above between them created and edited the page into the state it was in when first I saw it. While those acts of editing were going on, the errors were introduced. Since there was a link to the page with the correct info provided, I can only conclude that no effort was put into checking what had been placed on the page, even while knowing that it duplicated info carried on another page. Those users can't claim that this page is one of thousands that they haven't got round to yet, they wrote it in the first place. maveric149 also seems to have taken ownership of the page, undoing the changes to it I made.

While it is a fine idea to expect this resourse to increase in quality through collaborative review, it seems negligent, and an insult to the actual users of a reference work (those who turn to it for information, not the writers of it) to use the expectation of that review as a reason to not bother doing even the simplest, quickest check on new content. As clearly didn't happen in this case.


 * I jumped in on this one because I happened to notice that both articles exist, then made the effort to see which was the older so as to apply the generally accepted rule on American vs. British spellings. It's not unusual, Anon, for someone fixing one problem to completely fail to see another.  When I do see an obvious error of the type you indicate I find it far more satisfying to fix it than to whine about it.  I'm confident that Maveric149 does the same.  Try it sometime! -- Eclecticology, Friday, June 7, 2002


 * So then, what's your problem. Some editors made a mistake. And the mistake may have easily been prevented. But everybody makes mistakes - you too. And all the other reference works you are using. Maybe not with micrometer, but probably with other entries. And those reference works usually have been read by several editors to check for errors - so does this one. Only, everything is directly available to the public, so errors may remain until they are correct. As a user of Wikipedia, you have to know that. If you can't live with it, don't use Wikipedia. But if you want to use it and if you find such an error, point it out or - even beter - correct it. That's what this project is about. And if the error made seems to be made on purpose, you can point that out, and discuss it with the editors. But a simple error such as this doesn't deserve this much talking. It just happens. jheijmans

Article structure (fixed since)

 * is it me or does this article just seem to be structured like a block? I think it could do with some thinning out to make it less of a mountain to find what you're after.. I struggled to skim read the article I was merely looking for 1 cross reference.

Figure 3?
Which figure is Figure 3? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikeblas (talk • contribs).
 * Thanks for the heads up, the images had been deleted according to policy. I've uploaded replacements and adjusted the text to suit, hopefully no errors crept in. &mdash; Graibeard 09:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fix! I linked to vernier scale, and clarified about inch-metric. -- Mikeblas 17:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Requests
Larger outside micrometers don't close the whole way, and are supplied with calibration sticks. How are the calibration sticks used? The article also doesn't describe the ratcheting thimble found on many micrometers. (In fact, it doesn't define "thimble" and "barrel" before using the terms.). -- Mikeblas 17:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: The "sticks" you are referring to are called micrometer standards. They are calibrated to a specific length and are used to ensure that micrometers are accurate. They are used by measuring them with the micrometer, and then setting the micrometer. For instance, if you are using a 6" standard to check a 6"-7" micrometer, you would tighten the micrometer on the ends of the standard to where you can just feel a little dra, then adjust the micrometer so it reads 6.00" [(user: dad7892]) 15:25 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Calibration
How is a micrometer calibrated? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.193.73.194 (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Using "standards", like these: . --Splarka (rant) 08:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Article could explain, if true, that calibration includes adjusting the micrometer so there is no zero error. Outside micrometers come with a small wrench - presumably used to twist the sleeve to eliminate the zero error ? Would a user normally do this themselves or leave it to a formal calibration ? - Rod57 (talk) 12:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Found this Calibration procedure for calibration of External micrometer detailed. Concentrates more on condition of the tips and linearity of the scale.


 * ITTC – Recommended Procedures : Sample Work Instructions Calibration of Micrometers 12 pages of explanation and diagrams. Wonderful, I'll add it to external links. - Rod57 (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

what is the principle of micrometer's measuring and reading techinques
when we read the measured value, normally we have to check the value on thimble which coincides with the axial line on the sleeve which will be added to the value gotten from the sleeve to deduce final result. Why do we do that, what is the principle associated? hope some one can clarify it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Panda cool (talk • contribs) 13:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC).


 * I hope my creation tonight of the "Operating principles" section helps out. The answer to your question is easy to understand once understood, just difficult to describe in words! Imagine the following example: You are using a typical "regular" micrometer (outside micrometer caliper, 0"-1" range). You are going to start from zero and "unscrew" the micrometer to something a bit less than 1/8"—Let's say .123 instead of perfect 1/8 (.125). Now, starting from zero, it takes four turns of the thimble to cover the first hundred thousandths (.100). That reveals the first 4 hash marks on the barrel, which you duly note. The final 23 thousandths (.023) is less than one turn of the thimble. You read the marks on the thimble to see how much of that final (5th) turn you get before getting to your "destination". It is 23 out of 25. This thought experiment shows why when you read a micrometer, you start by reading the linear scale on the barrel, then you finish by read that final, partial turn of the thimble. Hope that helps! — ¾-10 00:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Advantages
The opening paragraph states that a micrometer has "several advantages" over other measuring devices like calipers, but this is never discussed in the article. What are the advantages? Julesd 13:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting question. A mic is less annoying to read than a vernier caliper, and *may* be more accurate than a dial caliper. But if you're comparing a good, high-quality, name-brand version of each (mic and dial caliper), they are both spot-on and can be trusted to inside of one thou. One advantage of the mic is that it may have a vernier scale to read that last ten-thousandth, which the dial caliper doesn't have. But you know, for practical purposes, given high-quality specimens that have been calibrated not too long ago, I think the mic may not have anything on the dial caliper as far as shop-floor pros and cons go. But psychologically the mic is the one that conventional wisdom trusts to be "superior". — ¾-10 00:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I used to teach precision measuring at the College I work at. They still use the course I created that automated practical as well as theoretical assessment in the course. It has fully interactive flash based lessons as well as randomly generated quizzes from test banks with thousands of questions. It is easily demonstrated statistically in the more than 37,500 graded practical measurements we perform in our program every year that the micrometer requires far less skill to achieve accuracy +-.0005" or .00005 depending on whether the mic has a .0001" scale on the barrel or not. Sliding calipers in practical assessment in our program have been shown to only achieve a +-.001" repeatability with the average student. IE: if we tighten up the parameters to grade actual measuring projects within .0005", very few students are successful with sliding calipers as opposed to micrometers. I use dial calipers for most measurement, but when I need to do something within .0005", let alone .00005" it's always a mic. (Njmorin (talk) 12:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Thanks for adding this info. Glad that someone could bring some hard data to the question. I think you summed it up perfectly in that dial calipers are good enough for many applications, and that when you need to be down inside the last thou, checking the tenths with certainty, then a mic is needed. — ¾-10 00:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Parts and Functions
What are they ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.62.62 (talk) 04:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I just filled in this info under a new section, "Parts", with a labeled image. — ¾-10 22:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Instructions vs Description
The sections on reading a micrometer are all fairly similar, but only the last one has the tag. I'm adjusting the phrasing of the content a bit to make it more descriptive of how the system of graduations work and less of an instruction manual.

Pstemari (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Tube Micrometers
Please add diagrams and text detailing Tube Micrometers. -69.87.204.208 (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Large Outside micrometers
Larger Outside micrometers do not close to zero. This is quite an important detail. Please add a picture and text highlighting this aspect, and informing about the terms used to distinguish micrometers that do or do not close to zero. -69.87.204.208 (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I found at Google Book Search one of those great old images of a very large micrometer caliper in use. It is public domain because of age. I created a gallery section to put it in. The resolution is poor, which will probably attract the kind of flies that would rather delete useful images than have them be tolerably low-res, but there isn't much you can do for that kind of fly-brain except revert the deletion. For the rest of us with normal brains, the image is useful and interesting. Cheers, — ¾-10 16:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

History
Please add pictures, diagrams, and more details to the history section. -69.87.204.208 (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

astronomy
What is the use of the micrometer in astronomy? This article makes no mention of it, though several articles which link here are about astronomical uses of the device. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is mentioned briefly under section Micrometer. Could use more detail if anyone can supply. — ¾-10 02:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Microbes
What is the proceedure of mesuring microbes in simplified form? Detail would be apreciated


 * Uh, I think you got the wrong article. Plus you should read WP:NOTHOWTO. Try the reference desk. Wizard191 (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Materials
how are micrometers classified based on the metal with which they are made of ? or what are common metals used in the manufacture of micrometers?

nice content.. thanks..


 * I'm not aware of any classification systems based on the type of material they are made from. Wizard191 (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Me neither. Materials commonly used in their making include tool steel, stainless steel, cast iron, die-cast alloys, sometimes plastics (no idea what type, chemically). Covered by plating and baked enamel paint in some cases. Metal frames sometimes have plastic guards over them to insulate the frame from the body heat of the hand holding it. HTH. — ¾-10 22:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I always thought the plastic guards were for protection from dropping/increased gripping ability. Wizard191 (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that they're body heat insulators. But I don't remember where I first learned that, or if it's certifiably true. Now that I look, the article already mentions this insulation idea (I had thought it didn't). I have to admit I always thought the insulation idea was kind of silly or overblown, like "how much can my hand really affect the measurement? It's only 37.0 °C (98.6 °F)". And many mics, even top-notch brands, don't come with them, so that suggests to me that it's overblown. But I guess maybe it's true that it could mean a few microns. Still, I guess I'll never believe that the effect matters for practical purposes (mfg) unless someone shoves a science experiment in front of me proving that it does! — ¾-10 21:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, re "radiation" versus "light", I had to be a nerd and point out that light is included in electromagnetic radiation. But you're totally right that "light" is the right word to use here, and "radiation" is a poor choice because it evokes Chernobyl/Fukushima in the average reader's mind upon first sight. Whereas "light" is more specific and also plainer/clearer at the same time. So speaking of calibration, thanks for calibrating on "nerd-speak vs le mot juste". — ¾-10 01:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are quite right, it was technically correct; I just wanted to help out our fellow layman ;-) Wizard191 (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Need more textual explanation of "zero error" method
Prof Lookang, can you write a sentence or two explaining what is meant by "zero error"? The term sounds like it is referring to the mic's accuracy and precision or its calibration, but I infer that it actually refers to a certain method of dialing the barrel. I watched the animation but didn't have time to deeply ponder it. What I'd like to do is to describe in words what "zero error" is referring to, in addition to the animation. Thanks for any help, — ¾-10 01:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, thank you, Prof Lookang! Your recent explanation is helpful. Basically you are talking about applying a correction factor to a mic that's known to be out of calibration. Kind of like subtracting a tare weight value from the reading on a weighing scale that's out of calibration. Or subtracting the starting volume of a solution from the ending volume to find the change. Thanks for explaining. — ¾-10 21:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Before seeing this I had just added an introductory sentence to that section. - Rod57 (talk) 11:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

glad to see it is well received by Wikipedia community! (Lookang (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)).

Useless "Zero Error" section.
I'm removing this section because it is useless:
 * any instrument can have a zero error, not only micrometers. The page should give information about micrometers, not lectures about instrument errors and strategies for compensating for them.
 * The previous sections make it obvious that micrometers support adjustment of zero, so the user should simply calibrate zero error away instead of doing the silly arithmetic.

24.85.131.247 (talk) 07:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect measurement?
Maybe it is just late and I am reading it incorrectly, but I think the caption of the first image is incorrect.

The marker appears to be about 0.14mm away from the 1.5mm mark. The marker is between 1.0mm and 1.5mm, so this should be 1.36mm. But the caption currently states 1.64mm (i.e., 1.5 + 0.14 = 1.64, and 1.5 - 0.14 = 1.36).

This image was added to the article all the way back in 2012, which is what is making me wary of my judgement: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Micrometer&diff=prev&oldid=511532066

Tar-Elessar (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Tar-Elessar. You are reading it wrong. The top ticks on the sleeve's scale are marking millimeter positions, while the bottom ticks are marking the half millimeter positions. The top ticks show we are between 1 and 2mm while the bottom scale indicates we are also past 1.5mm. The full measurement is then 1.5mm plus the reading from the scale on the spindle. Because the image is so high resolution, it can be easily seen that the spindle reading is just shy of 0.14mm. Using an estimated tenth, the spindle scale reading should be 0.139mm so that the full measurement is 1.639mm (=1.5mm+0.139mm). Jason Quinn (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Coincidentally, note that the estimated tenth amounts to 0.001 mm or 1 micrometer... reflecting the name of the instrument. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Mahr Micromar 40A 0–25 mm Micrometer.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Mahr Micromar 40A 0–25 mm Micrometer.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 10, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-03-10. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Article very poor
I just made some edits to captions of images to correct the way this article was teaching to read micrometers. The text however still remains FILLED with errors. I will slowly start to improve it but this is going to be a long process. Those who have been writing this article don't understand the proper role of the estimated digit when reading a micrometer, or the importance of providing the error on a measurement. This all needs to be fixed. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

± 0.005 mm / ± 0.0005"
At least 2 images have captions stating the reading on the mic "± 0.005 mm" which raises questions about the caption. One image's caption states "reading of 1.639 mm ± 0.005 mm." and the image shows a reading of 1·638mm. With the size of accuracy, it would make more sense to claim a measurement of "1·64mm" which implies the ± 0.005. Anyone who's used a mic will know that degree of accuracy is easily possibly with careless use in any case. In the case of the second image showing a vernier mic, and also has the ± 0.005mm which is a greater accuracy range than the indicated measurement as it can be read to a greater accuracy than that stated. I can't imagine any decent manufacturer finding this acceptable. I don't know where the ± 005 are coming from but they seem like nonsense to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.0.132 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I believe you are referring to the images File:Mahr Micromar 40A 0–25 mm Micrometer.jpg and File:578metric-micrometer.jpg and their captions. With both those instruments, the measurement is bounded by range of a hundredth of a millimeter, the limit of the precision of the instrument. The "± 0.005 mm" error corresponds to a range of a hundredth of a millimeter and is therefore correct. The reading of 1.639 mm on File:Mahr Micromar 40A 0–25 mm Micrometer.jpg is a valid reading. Your proposed reading of 1.638 mm differs at the thousandths of a millimeter level and would also be a valid reading. This is why the least digit of a measurement using a ruled instrument is an "estimated tenth", it's because you estimate between the two marks corresponding to the smallest interval. There is no perfectly correct answer because it's an estimate. The error range must be large enough to hold all the estimated values and it is. If you round the reading to 1.64mm, by the rules for significant figures, you are implying there is uncertainty at the hundredths of a millimeter level when there is not. And so effectively you are throwing away precision and actually introducing inaccuracy because of the rounding. Jason Quinn (talk) 08:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I did not address your concern about the Vernier mic image, File:5783metric-micrometer.jpg. You may be correct. If the vernier scale is claimed by the manufacturer to add precision, you are correct. A good reading assuming so would be "5.7828 mm ± 0.0005 mm" (the end digits are 28 because the vernier scale lines are not quite matched up at 2 but overshot by 3 so an estimated tenth of 8 seems reasonable). Not all mics manufactured with vernier scales are claimed by the manufacturer to have extra precision and only include the vernier scale to help estimate the tenth at the hundredth of a millimeter level. Seems to me that you make a good case it should be changed. Jason Quinn (talk) 08:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I've made this change. Jason Quinn (talk) 08:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The first two images of metric mictrometers share an advertised resolution of 0,01mm. Interpolating between lines to obtain an order of magnitude more accuracy is not best behaviour and is never recommended in practise. It would be disingenuous to add this additional digit onto the measurement, even if only talking "repeatability". Certainly, no manufacturer would claim that an analogue instrument should be utilised in this fashion. Higher resolution instruments exist for a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.163.23.42 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Micrometer. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111109164636/http://www.mitutoyo.com/TerminalMerchandisingGroup.aspx?group=1560 to http://www.mitutoyo.com/TerminalMerchandisingGroup.aspx?group=1560
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.waybuilder.net/sweethaven/mechtech/mfgtech/precmeasuring/default.asp?iNum=0203&uNum=2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716132738/http://www.starrett.com/download/222_p1_5.pdf to http://www.starrett.com/download/222_p1_5.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719060139/http://www.mahr.de/index.php?NodeID=13120 to http://www.mahr.de/index.php?NodeID=13120
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111005092058/http://ittc.sname.org/2006_recomm_proc/7.6-02-04.res.pdf to http://ittc.sname.org/2006_recomm_proc/7.6-02-04.res.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection?
Every year or so I come back to this article and the readings on the image captions tend to be changed to be incorrect. Most of the time rounding the reading to chop off the last digit of the measurement. There's again some incorrect readings on the article now. The precise reading of micrometers is a delicate subject and one that most people do not properly understand. That's why there's this tendancy to change proper readings to improper ones. I'm thinking that this article would benefit from semi-protection to prevent such regressions. Comments? Jason Quinn (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Removed original research
There was an entire section of what seemed to be original research. Although it was tagged as such for 5 years, it had no inline citations or references to support it. I've went ahead and removed it. Thanks, Gageills (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 28 September 2021

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved.

The discussion shows a sufficient consensus to make the proposed move and create a DAB page at the base name. (non-admin closure) Havelock Jones (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Micrometer → Micrometer (device) – "Micrometer" (the unit of measurement) isn't a misspelling of "micrometre." It is the standard American spelling of "micrometre." In addition, the article on the unit of measurement receives more |Micrometre pageviews. Crossover1370 (talk &#124; contribs) 23:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator. Even though Americans don't use the metric system very much, they still recognise its existence, and Wikipedia should cater for the American spellings too. J I P  &#124; Talk 00:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, noting that is an WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Metre, with Meter (disambiguation) for other meanings. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Question: Doesn't American English generally use "micron" rather than "micrometer"? —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per BarrelProof. Am an American, have always read the unit of measurement written as "micron" not "micrometer".  Micrometer is the device, even in American English.  SnowFire (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m an American. I have seen both “micron” and “micrometer.” Crossover1370  (talk &#124; contribs) 21:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose; outside of American English, the name always refers to the device (assumedly because the device was invented by Americans). It follows that the primary topic is the device, given the number of English speakers outside the United States compared to inside - unless it can be shown to be a common misspelling, I cannot see a valid reason for the move. BilledMammal (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Micrometer" is not a misspelling of "micrometre." It is the spelling of "micrometre" in American English. By your logic, all articles not related to America should use British/Commonwealth English because it is used by more people than American English. Crossover1370  (talk &#124; contribs) 21:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * My point is that the primary topic of "Micrometer" is the device, as evidenced by the fact that the vast majority of the worlds English-speaking population use that spelling solely for the device, and "Micrometre" for the unit. My comment about misspelling was that if evidence can be provided that a significant percentage of that population commonly misspell "Micrometre" as "Micrometer", then that would be evidence in favour of this move, and was making no claim that "Micrometer" was a misspelling in the United States.
 * And yes, I am a firm believer in WP:COMMONNAME. BilledMammal (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The term meter redirects to metre even though "meter" can also refer to an instrument. I am not advocating for micrometer to redirect to micrometre, though, because the device is also a common use of the word "micrometer." However, "micrometer" should definitely be a disambiguation page. Crossover1370  (talk &#124; contribs) 17:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment the situation is certainly confusing, but I'm not sure the proposal is an improvement. Is the suggestion that Micrometer should primary-topic-redirect to Micrometre?  Or would there be a WP:TWODAB disambiguation page? User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 01:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A disambiguation page. Crossover1370  (talk &#124; contribs) 22:04, 5 October 2021 (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.
 * Support and create dab page at base name. Most results in google scholar refer to the unit, not the device (see ). Vpab15 (talk) 10:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Rolling mill micrometer
Male 42.107.192.226 (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)