Talk:Mechanic

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2026

Change the photograph caption from "Two aircraft mechanics servicing a rotary aircraft engine, 1918" to "Two aircraft mechanics servicing a radial aircraft engine, 1918." See the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radial_engine. ~2026-57098-49 (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the Imperial War Museum, the source of the image, it is a rotary engine: https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205317473 InfernoHues (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

To avoid having this come up repeatedly, please see our article on the rotary engine. Though hard to distinguish from a radial engine when not running, the rotary engine differs in that the crankshaft is fixed to the aircraft bulkhead, and the crankcase, cylinders etc revolve around it - the propeller is fixed to the crankcase. At the time they were in use in aircraft (they were occasionally used in other vehicles) this was an effective solution to cooling problems, as well as making for a very smooth-running engine. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Ideas for sources

It can be hard to find things on the right topic, given the many meanings of the word 'mechanic', but I did some searching and here are some open-access scholarly sources that might be useful:

• Mokyr, Joel; Sarid, Assaf; van der Beek, Karine (2022). "The Wheels of Change: Technology Adoption, Millwrights and the Persistence in Britain's Industrialisation". The Economic Journal. 132 (645): 1894–1926. doi:10.1093/ej/ueab102. SSRN 3488587.
• Pearson, Michael P. R. (2024). "Grease monkeys: A history of Australia's motor mechanic trade, 1900–1970". Asia-Pacific Economic History Review. 64 (2): 260–266. doi:10.1111/aehr.12293. -- That's a journal publishing a summary of a dissertation; the full dissertation is here and strikes me as usable under WP:THESIS
• Grace, Joshua (2021). African Motors: Technology, Gender, and the History of Development. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. doi:10.1215/9781478021278. ISBN 978-1-4780-1171-2.
• Krebs, Stefan (2021). "Maintaining the Mobility of Motor Cars: The Case of (West) Germany, 1918–1980" (PDF). In Krebs, Stefan; Weber, Heike (eds.). The Persistence of Technology: Histories of Repair, Reuse and Disposal. Science Studies. Bielefeld: transcript. pp. 139–161. ISBN 978-3-8394-4741-3.
• Krebs, Stefan (April 2014). "'Dial Gauge versus Senses 1–0': German Car Mechanics and the Introduction of New Diagnostic Equipment, 1950–1980" (PDF). Technology and Culture. 55 (2): 354–389.

Some further paywalled sources that look promising are:

• Borg, Kevin L. (2007). Auto Mechanics: Technology and Expertise in Twentieth-Century America. Studies in Industry and Society. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-8606-5.
• Schneider, Henry S. (September 2012). "Agency Problems and Reputation in Expert Services: Evidence from Auto Repair". The Journal of Industrial Economics. 60 (3): 406–433. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6451.2012.00485.x.
• Shaw, Annapurna; Pandit, Kavita (April 2001). "The Geography of Segmentation of Informal Labor Markets: The Case of Motor Vehicle Repair in Calcutta". Economic Geography. 77 (2): 180–196. doi:10.1111/j.1944-8287.2001.tb00160.x.
• Afutu-Kotey, Robert Lawrence; Yeboah-Mensah, Maxwell; Agyekum, Boadi (September 2025). "The Nature of Apprenticeship Training and Quality Assurance Practices in the Informal Automobile Sector in Accra, Ghana". International Journal of Training and Development. 29 (3): 343–355. doi:10.1111/ijtd.12365.

This thread might be a good place for others to leave useful-looking sources as they are found. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! HenryMP02 (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

For Grace (2021), chapter two is likely most helpful. Wracking ^talk! 05:47, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Used the "African Motors" one to start a subsection under history for Tanzania. Hopefully this'll help globalize it. In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 15:41, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Second paragraph of the Duties section

I believe the second sentence is unnecessary considering that it isn't sourced, all of the types are described immediately after in the next section, and the only source I could talking about that specific distinction (and the one I believe the person who made the edit used) is this. Wowimsonick (talk) 03:48, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Looks like someone already took care of it. Wowimsonick (talk) 04:01, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

I think whats more important is that the Duties section is just the Types of mechanics section with less info. Unless it's intended for a different purpose I think we should just remove it. HewwoBai (talk) 05:09, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

nevermind, it's the latter HewwoBai (talk) 08:53, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Occupational hazards section

The currently used study for sound levels is based on self report "Hazardous workplace noise exposure was defined as self-reported exposure to noise at their current job that was so loud that the respondent had to speak in a raised voice to be heard.", sourcing it with more recent and with better methodology would be welcomed (e.g. https://noise.shinyapps.io/noiseJEM/)

On scope, task type matters within the trade: Willson-Kerns and Brazile 2021 studied tire shops separately from auto mechanic shops: "Mechanics are likely to have more variety in their daily tasks than tire repairers and changers, which may lead to more variability in their noise exposure" so they excluded mechanics who did not do tire work on the sampling day; maybe something worth noting in the article. Eduardo7z (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

I keep sifting through databases but it always thinks I'm talking about the other definition of mechanic, so I often get "Mechanics of [thing]" and "Quantum Mechanics" at the top. Ugh! In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 15:20, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Infobox Image

This edit (by another editor) was reverted. I agree with the reversion; there's no consensus, and also the edit summary indicates a WP:ADVOCACY mindset. However, it did make me think about it, and I think it may be appropriate to replace the century-old image. Any thoughts? In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 17:15, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Spellbinding Nitwit as editor who did that and @Dualcerb as the editor who reverted it. In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 17:17, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

I reverted it only because it would need consensus, I actually am neutral on changing it, as I have no opinion on if either image would be better. dualcerbtalk 17:18, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm pretty neutral too, I just think the current image isn't ideal. In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 17:20, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Images 4 and 5 both look good, with the former being the one featured on the Main Page. I'd consider switching it to either of those. NewAccount7295 (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Image 4 is great if we're being more conscious of systemic bias (it has both a man and a woman) and image 5 is great if we're focusing on modern relevance. I support both, good suggestion. In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 17:28, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

I like image 5 more because it is in color, that's all. dualcerbtalk 17:31, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

I looked on Commons and found some ideas for the infobox image:

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5
• 
  6

There's alot more images of vehicle mechanics I found compared to other types of mechanics. Let me know what you guys think. Nentricks (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

The topic of auto mechanic has a separate article though. NewAccount7295 (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

How would the image convey all the types of mechanics then? Pull a confectionery store and have a gallery? Nentricks (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Hmm the images aren't appearing.. Nentricks (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Number 6 is represented of one of the most common types of car mechanic (not in auto sport or the military). If we do a collage we should try to get a variety e.g. one historical, one aircraft, one car, one military etc. (obviously one image can tick multiple boxes). Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I think the current image is really beautiful, and there's some charm in showing an almost mythological image of a mechanic. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

It seems posed; the wrench is too big and it wouldn't be able to turn due to hitting the nut above. InfernoHues (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

The guy also is in a pretty awkward and unrealistic position; it seems to me like it'd be more comfortable to crouch or something. Not to say that the job is without awkward positions, but it seems like he's actively seeking it out. In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 20:12, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it's obviously a posed and aesthetic image, that practically belongs in a movie like Metropolis -- that is why I said it was beautiful and almost mythological. I'm not opposed to switching it to something more modern and prosaic, I just wanted to point out that beauty can also be a desirable quality in an image. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

I believe a modern image has value for communicating that the article covers contemporary practice, not just history, and I find image #4 (the motorcycle mechanics) appealing: strong colors, dynamic composition, puts the viewer in the action. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

7 could be an interesting modern replacement for the current aviation image (and front-page image), and the others may be helpful as people expand the article:

• 
  7
• 
  8
• 
  9

Dreamyshade (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those! In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 01:37, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

More images, some of which may be helpful. See also c:Category:Repair shops and its subcategories. I've also included the type of work and country, when available.

• 
  10 (automobile, Finland)
• 
  11 (automobile, Kenya)
• 
  12 (automobile, Mozambique)
• 
  13 (automobile, Cameroon) (see also the category)
• 
  14 (automobile, Ghana)
• 
  15 (truck, Guatemala)
• 
  16 (Machinist's mate, US Navy)
• 
  17 (aircraft, US Navy)
• 
  18 (aircraft, US Navy)
• 
  19 (aircraft, Switzerland)
• 
  20 (sewing machine, Ghana)

Wracking ^talk! 02:19, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, especially for the ones from the Global South. I kind of want to include a Global South one as infobox image, because it's something we rarely do. In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 02:29, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Nice! 14 has good lighting and composition, and it reads well at a small size. I'd be happy to see that in the infobox and/or the homepage. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:42, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I mentioned above I like 6. I also like 10 and 15 for similiar reasons. We might want to avoid 19 as he is potentially an inspector and not a mechanic. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Performance as TWAFI

How is this article performing as the current AFI? Confectionery store seemed to have more interest from new editors and more activity. Maybe it is because the black-and-white image or subject isn't as compelling? Or could it be that the other article got more activity since it was the first one featured on the Main Page? NewAccount7295 (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

The topic probably seems less interesting compared to the last AFI. Nentricks (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

I think it is just because Confectionery store was the first TWAFI. Confectionery store got vandalized much more than Mechanic, we won't know until pageviews come in for today. dualcerbtalk 17:29, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

There's also still a decent amount of attention on Confectionery store. In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 17:34, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Sadly it got semi-protected, so attention is much lower than it would be without the semi-protection. dualcerbtalk 17:35, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Although that might be a good thing because it can be cleaned up and sent to WP:GAN. dualcerbtalk 17:36, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Is there any sort of formal AFI clean up committee? In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 17:37, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

I was thinking that as well, although the other suggestion might be correct. Even if this article doesn't turn out as popular, I'll still be glad we tried something different and saw how things worked out.

By the way, frozen yogurt is currently scheduled as the next AFI. It has a more compelling image and was almost a stub when I promoted it, but @~2026-57142-52, who is also working on this article, has done some expansion already. (Any comment from them?) NewAccount7295 (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

People likely interact more with candy than mechanics in a given week, so the level of interest is likely different. The difficulty of sourcing might also be a factor. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

i contributed to both. :-) Serienjunkie2014 (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Even then, the article over ~33 hours since becoming the TWAFI has expanded from 6,000 to 53,000 bytes. For one, that's an 800% increase, and then it also shows that TWAFI on the main page really helps with improving articles. Theeverywhereperson talk here ^{In solidarity!} 15:07, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

B or C class?

I just noticed that this article was changed to B class, and I think that this is way too soon given it took multiple days for Confectionery store to get B class and this was changed to B class within 24 hours of appearing as TWAFI. Also the article still has a lot of tags. I changed it back to C for now. dualcerbtalk 17:27, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it should be kept as a C or start-class article for now. NewAccount7295 (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

It is definitely not start class anymore that's for sure. I think it is still C. dualcerbtalk 17:36, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Rater predicts that it's B, but I'll check again tomorrow. I think it might still be C, but who knows? Maybe Rater'll be more certain. Theeverywhereperson talk here ^{In solidarity!} 15:06, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Reordering the Types of Mechanics

Hello all just thought I would pop in with an idea, I was wondering if the section for “Types” should be alphabetized, it currently is not in alphabetical order and I think it would improve readability.

Just a thought. Carlo2026 (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me, go ahead! Dreamyshade (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Technology and Society in American History

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 24 August 2026 and 18 December 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AMST151N (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by AMST151N (talk) 03:40, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

The relationship between the mechanic and engineer.

I've put in an edit on this article about how the engineer relates to the mechanic in the occupational hazards section, in a light-hearted and humorous manner which has since been reverted, but how do I actually go about this? I know from experience working on my own truck that I want to curse the name of every engineer who worked on the engine and their bloodline, as any other mechanic would working on anything really. What could I add in here? TheOutlaw223 (talk) 05:28, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@TheOutlaw223 Personal experience can be very good inspiration! The best next step is to try to find a "reliable source" (such as a newspaper or magazine article, a book chapter, or a reasonably authoritative type of website) that talks about the thing you have in mind, then figure out how to summarize that source in a neutral and factual way.

For example, I found this Jalopnik post titled "Engineers Are Not Mechanics", which seems to speak to what you had in mind, and Jalopnik is a pretty well respected online magazine. So you could read that post, come up with a brief summary statement to put into this article (one or two sentences), and add a citation to that post at the end of the statement. As you've found, humor is good to save for the talk page... for better or worse, Wikipedia "house voice" is relatively serious, but ideally in plain language with ordinary words instead of getting overly academic or formal. Dreamyshade (talk) 05:54, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@TheOutlaw223 Here are also a couple more sources you could use to help strengthen a factual section about the relationship between the roles of the mechanic, the engineer, and the technician:

• "Automotive Mechanic vs. Automotive Technician: Key Career Differences" - from a vocational school website
• Mechanics and The Essence Of Technology - this is a dissertation, which is typically ok to cite for non-controversial information (this guideline is described at WP:THESIS). I'd skip to the section called "The New Factory System" on page 24 of the PDF.
• "I am a Mechanical Engineer, Not a Mechanic" - Machine Design magazine

Dreamyshade (talk) 07:40, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I have attempted to improve this section to emphasize cooperation and mutual benefit rather than conflict. While reality often differs, establishing a consistent methodology is essential and should remain the focus of the writing style. This approach best refines the article’s tone. Ultimately, all trade must align toward the same goal and benefit the same target group. Public-Publicity (talk) 11:41, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@Public-Publicity Thank you for revising this section! This is exactly the way to build up a good Wikipedia article: one person adds material, another person refines it, and somebody else comes in and adds citations or balances it further, so that the section is grounded in strong citations from several sources. This process can take some patience and negotiation, but by combining expertise and research from several people, ordinary people can end up with something that is pretty informative for a reader. I appreciate you both jumping in and encourage you to try making other careful improvements, whether to this article or another one that catches your interest. Dreamyshade (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

History: use of word "mechanic" before the industrial revolution

Is it worthwhile to mention the older usage of the word mechanic[al]? E.g., Shakespeare, The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, Act I, Scene 1.

Being mechanical, you ought not walk / Upon a labouring day without the sign / Of your profession? [1]

A crew of patches, rude mechanicals,

That work for bread upon Athenian stalls,

Were met together to rehearse a play…--A Midsummer Night's Dream, Act III, scene 2, Weka511 (talk) 05:36, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

When something like this comes to mind, a great next step is to try to find a decent article or other relevant source that speaks to the topic, such as something about the history of the word "mechanic". Then you could add a sentence to this article that summarizes a relevant part of the source, and cite it to that source. For example, I just found this article on JSTOR about the word "mechanic" that looks promising. You could check it out and see if it's worth citing (if you can get access to it, such as via a local library or by requesting a copy (Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request). Side note: there's a fun article at Mechnical (character)! Dreamyshade (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Why is there a sources section?

I noticed that there is a sources section in the article, this does not seem to apear on any other article, so could someone either incorperate it in to the refrences section or delete it? Thanks. ~2026-56466-23 (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! The sources sections is being used for a kind of citation called shortened footnotes. It is used in many articles, such as Vermont Sesquicentennial half dollar and The Kinks. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for more info on how sources can be cited. Eman7blue42 (talk page | recent edits) 16:21, 27 October 2026 (UTC)