Talk:Quick return mechanism

Gibberish
This article is gibberish. Nobody reading it would have any clue as to how a quick return mechanism was constructed after reading it. If it wasn't written as a hoax (which would seem the most likely explanation), it was written by someone with no background in either basic engineering or highschool-level physics, attempting to describe something using words and concepts they clearly don't understand. If Wikipedia needs an article on 'quick return mechanisms' (of which there are a large number, of widely differing form, used in widely differing contexts), it needs writing again from scratch. Euan Houzami (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not a hoax, just very badly written. It has been this bad since the first version, two years ago.
 * This mechanism isn't as important as it used to be, but it's still real and it's still around. Whitworth's work on the shaper mechanism is probably the best known example of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I am aware that quick return mechanisms aren't a hoax. I have already said so (I've also used shapers myself). The only question in my mind is whether whoever wrote this intended it to be gibberish or not. Because as it stands it does nothing whatsoever to inform readers, and will likely leave them with the impression that Wikipedia is a repository for uninformed stream-of-consciousness waffle. No article at all (which would hopefully lead the reader to look elsewhere) would be a considerable improvement. Euan Houzami (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well if you're familiar with shapers, then it sounds like you're well placed to fix it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I might possibly be 'well placed' to write a proper article on the subject. I have better things to do with my time though than spend it cleaning up random drivel in a project that lacks even elementary standards of editorial control, and which lets 'articles' like this abomination sit for years despite the apparent scrutiny of contributors (i.e. you, for a start) who seem keen to tinker with headings, categories and the like but are clearly unwilling to actually read the article to see if it makes even a modicum of sense. Put proper quality control standards in place, and I might consider contributing. Euan Houzami (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * On the whole, I think I'd rather manage without. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

images
I chanced upon this one in the shaper article, which isn't that good. We need a better, and we need one in the Whitworth version as well. Mangoe (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It really needs to be animated, in order to show it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)