Talk:Henry Maudslay

message: Google search indicates vacillation between Maudslay and Maudsley.
S.
: The Joseph Wickham Roe reference spells it Maudslay. I suspect that several things are going on here: (1) There is another notable 19th-century Englishman, a psychiatrist, with nearly the same name, according to his article, Henry Maudsley. So any Google hits that represent correct spellings are going to bring up both of these men. (2) Google hits dredge up all kinds of things from all over the internet, including those endemic internet creatures, horrabel missspelings and stoopid drunkin typnig. Lumbercutter 02:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is more to this story, as covered nowadays in the article at Henry_Maudslay#Pronunciation_and_spelling. — ¾-10 01:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could someone please reference the actual pronunciation?  "reduced /li/ terminal syllable as is typical..." Has no meaning unless you already know what a reduced terminal syllable is (may not be legit linguistic lingo), or already know how an 18th century Englishman pronounces Maudslay.  So this is self-referential and not as useful as it could be. KeithLofstrom (talk) 02:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's nothing illegit about the words "reduced" (see vowel reduction and stress and vowel reduction in English) nor the words "terminal syllable" (see terminal and syllable). But your point (consider the target audience when choosing how to present the info) is a good one. I changed the paragraph to be more useful to a general audience. — ¾-10 20:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Surname spelling OK as is

message: Here's a link to some addition information and photos, but Wikipedia would like external editors to review since this is a link to our own webpage:  http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/research/digital-collections/maudslay.php
Brooklynmuseum 00:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like external editors to review it, too, because it's about a completely different person surnamed Maudslay. (My question for the external editors would be, how many seconds of scanning that page does it take before you realize it's about a completely different person? 3 seconds? 12? Certainly not much more than that.) Lumbercutter 02:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: And now for something completely different

message: "The company was one of the most important British engineering manufactories of the nineteenth century"
That's an understatement. Maudslay was the inventor of the modern machine tool, i.e. a tool that makes other tools. In other words, his tools made tools which made tools ... that eventually became today's machine tools. We can therefore say that any manufacturered gizmo, gadget or widget that you hold in your hand today was made by a tool that was made by a tool ... that was made by Maudslay. The entire industrial output of the world is directly descended from Maudslay's factory.
Grendlegrutch 06:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inheritance 

message: According to James Nasmyth's Biography, there were 'forty-four' in number, not 42. See http://www.naesmyth.com/bio/jn07.htm 20.133.0.13 (talk) 10:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of woodworking machines

message: I believe the section labeled screw cutting should be re-labeled to standards for thread and screw sizes.  Also, the screw cutting lathe I believe is the slide rest lathe, and if so references should be made to that section instead of repeating.  Perhaps better would be to combine them in one section.Phmoreno (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maudslay's slide rest late and screw cutting

message: Does anyone know the difference?  Roe (1916) said he had never seen Wilkinson's lathe, so unless he had a good understanding of it I don't know how he could compare it to Maudslay's.  I posted some quotes about Wilkinson's in his Wikipedia articlePhmoreno (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the answer to this in An Encyclopedia of the History of Technology by Ian McNeil.  Maudslay's lathe was more advanced than Wilkinson's. Wilkinson's did not use change gears so it lacked the ability to cut various thread pitches.  However, Wilkinson's lathe was capable of doing heavier work.Phmoreno (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between David Wilkinson's lathe and Maudslay's 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Henry Maudslay. 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/20070703110826/http://www.pioneers.historians.co.uk/maudslay.html to http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/images/I061/10326590.aspx
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) 03:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified