Talk:Pivot

message: I read loads of books.  Some of them contain military, and therefore rank names.  This also happens in movies.  But what the *** is a Pivot-Major/Pivot ?  "Against all Odds" by Elizabeth Moon has someone "busted down" to Pivot, so it's a rank?  Then why can't I find a  clearcut definition of what rank it is or is equivalent to? This disambiguation page would seem the ideal place to enlighten me and others like me. (Oops, wasn't logged in when I wrote this originally.) Lokimaros 00:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disambiguation pages are not really intended to give information, but to direct readers to articles that do give that information (in this one, that rule has been somewhat loosened, but it shouldn't). If you do find out about a "pivot" rank, then by all means collect the information and write something about it, maybe creating a new article Pivot (rank). —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing entry/article

message: An editor replaced this disambiguation page with an article about a mechanical part of a hinge. This was wrong. A pivot is not one particular mechanical part. The term pivot is an abstract term that is not tied to any particular concrete object, many things can be a pivot, e.g., an object, a person, a point in time, an event. A pivot is any focal point that is a center of turning, rotation, or simply change. Depending on the specific instantiation of a pivot, pivots often have more specific names, such as pivot turn, pivot joint, pivot point, etc. and these are the topics that are properly contained in this dab page. No single specific instance should monopolize the title of this dab page. Kbrose (talk) 04:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (moved from personal talk page)
You claim that a pivot is not a part, yet I provided an article with citations that describe a pivot as a part, acting as a fulcrum in a hinge or joint.  All other uses of pivot are derived from that concept.  You will need to justify your actions.  You will need to explain why the main article is incorrect and use citatinos to do so.  Until then, I will maintain the main article.  I will create a discussion onb the main article talk page.  Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

text: The article was rather incomprehensible and did not provide reliable sources. It quoted two pages on joints and hinges and a patent which is not a reliable source. Any notable dictionary describes a pivot as a general concept of a turning point, listing examples of what may act as a pivot. It is not only a specific part. While in some instances this may appear so, these parts have specific names, namely shaft, pin, fulcrum, and others. It is easy to find many sources that use pivot as if it is uniquely a term for some specific situation, in finance, in sociology, mechanics, etc., but it is absurd to single out a single instance of a pivot, namely the mechanical one in some kind of hinge as the definition of the general term. WP disambiguation page is the correct way to handle this term.  Kbrose (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

text: The 'article' stated:  "a pivot is a part of a joint or hinge that acts as the fulcrum about which the other parts rotate".  This is incorrect usage of both pivot and fulcrum.  It should read: A fulcrum is  ... (a support) ... that acts as a pivot about which somethings rotates. I.e. a fulcrum is a part and a pivot is an abstract point. Kbrose (talk) 21:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

text: By your own terms, a pivot main article would then describe the concept of a pivot, with a separate pivot (disambiguation) page to itemize the various derivatives. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On WP, we use the generic term as the dab page, and only when a primary topic has been clearly established, is a 'topic (disambiguation)' used. In this case the existing configuration is proper. Kbrose (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I will do some more reasearch to substantiate pivot as a primary topic.  Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

text: The last version of this questionable article can always be viewed HERE. It should not be restored over the proper disambiguation page as it exists CURRENTLY. Kbrose (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: dab page replacement

message: The above editor has made several incorrect claims:
# The disambiguation page was not replaced.  It was moved to Pivot (disambiguation), with a proper disambiguation reference placed at the top of the main article page.
# A pivot may be used as an abstract term, but the abstraction is grounded in tangible examples.
#* It is used by metalworkers and engineers to refer to a specific part of a hinge or joint in a linkage system.
The pivot article, prior to editing on 25 December 2009, was in the form of a disambiguation page and was suitable for placement in a disambiguation title location.  The first entry in the pivot article on 25 December 2009, contained the core concept of a pivot as a part, with the rest of the article taking a disambiguation form around that core definition. I moved the entire article to Pivot (disambiguation).  I then took the core concept of pivot and developed a draft of a proper article for it. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 20:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was rather incomprehensible and did not provide reliable sources. It quoted two pages on joints and hinges and a patent which is not a reliable source. Any notable dictionary describes a pivot as a general concept of a turning point, listing examples of what may act as a pivot. It is not only a specific part. While in some instances this may appear so, these parts have specific names, namely shaft, pin, fulcrum, and others. It is easy to find many sources that use pivot as if it is uniquely a term for some specific situation, in finance, in sociology, mechanics, etc., but it is absurd to single out a single instance of a pivot, namely the mechanical one in some kind of hinge as the definition of the general term. WP disambiguation page is the correct way to handle this term.  Kbrose (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

text: The 'article' stated:  "a pivot is a part of a joint or hinge that acts as the fulcrum about which the other parts rotate".  This is incorrect usage of both pivot and fulcrum.  It should read: A fulcrum is  ... (a support) ... that acts as a pivot about which somethings rotates. I.e. a fulcrum is a part and a pivot is an abstract point. Kbrose (talk) 21:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

text: By your own terms, a pivot main article would then describe the concept of a pivot, with a separate pivot (disambiguation) page to itemize the various derivatives. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On WP, we use the generic term as the dab page, and only when a primary topic has been clearly established, is a 'topic (disambiguation)' used. In this case the existing configuration is proper. Kbrose (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I will do some more reasearch to substantiate pivot as a primary topic.  Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rebuttal 

message: Members of Wikipedia should be allowed to vote on the drafts.  To vote, the members should be allowed to view both drafts, the main article and the disambiguation page.  I therefore propose that the disambiguation page and main article pages be restored to their separate forms, to allow users to view and/or update the pages for a reasonable amount of time. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The last version of this questionable article can always be viewed HERE. It should not be restored over the proper disambiguation page as it exists CURRENTLY. Kbrose (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote 

message: what is piot friction ?? Ahmed.4570 (talk) 05:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  friction