Jump to content

Talk:Mechanic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 35 minutes ago by ~2026-57945-77 in topic Short question

Infobox Image

[edit]
Latest comment: 13 hours ago46 comments20 people in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
I'm pretty neutral too, I just think the current image isn't ideal. In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ✉ 17:20, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
I like image 5 more because it is in color, that's all. dualcerbtalk 17:31, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I looked on Commons and found some ideas for the infobox image:
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)Reply
The topic of auto mechanic has a separate article though. NewAccount7295 (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Hmm the images aren't appearing.. Nentricks (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
More than beautiful for its own sake: the prettiest image is also a memorable one. A common problem with the images being posted in this discussion is that the images, even ones that are good in other ways, are either not striking or hide the tip of the tool being used, thus literally obscuring the work being done. The old image, despite the possible lack of candidness, does not have these issues. - Embyarby (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
My suggestion was that the photo should be relatable to everyone because when I looked at the other photo, it showed different types of people. I felt that the photo wasn't relatable to everyone, and the old photo wouldn't be relatable in today's times.
So this photo was perfect; it didn't show who was doing the mechanics, and it seemed like people from today's generation were doing the mechanics, making it more relatable to everyone.
刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 13:44, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

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:

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

Thanks for finding those! In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ✉ 01:37, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Minor note, the but the Commons description for 19 seems confused. Rjjiii (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

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.

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

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)Reply
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)Reply
I also like 14 for those reasons. Wracking talk! 19:11, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Personally not a fan of 14 because it doesn't show the actual mechanic work; whatever the person is doing is hidden by the front of the car. ARoseThorn (talk) 04:17, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
6, 7, 13, and 18 are clearly identifiable as people servicing a piece of heavy machinery, I would be happy with any of those. Of those 7 and 18 have people from different demographics collaborating on a task, which highlights the fact that there can be a "team of mechanics" rather than the stereotype of "a lone genius".
PS This is my first contribution, since I already wanted to start and this showed up on the front page. If this doesn't fit here, please be kind! Mtxyz42 (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

A few more images uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Africa campaigns. All appear to be auto mechanics; I tried to find photos with interesting and clear composition. (I'll try not to add any more, so as not to overwhelm us. Feel free to visit my talk page to ask for help finding media on Commons.)

Wracking talk! 02:48, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think 21 is just as well composed as 14 (the current) but addresses the concerns by @ARoseThorn about showing mechanical work. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
In my opinion, all of these are good options, better than the current image. I think 23 and 25 are best at showing the work of the mechanic; while 24 also does that, it's busier and thus harder to read at a lower resolution. ARoseThorn (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I've changed the infobox image to 23. If there are any problems with it feel free to change it. Nentricks (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for putting it in! I support it. Dreamyshade (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Wracking 21-23 and 25 all pass the "at a glance" test for me. 21 and 24 have the advantage (in my opinion) of showing mechanics collaborating as well. 21 would be my top choice overall if it wasnt for the unfortunate framing with one womans hair blocking the face of the woman behind her, but it is only noticable after looking at a larger scale for more than a second or two, so might not be an issue. Mtxyz42 (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I like this 23 (Ghana) currently in place. The turquoise jumper really makes it pop! Spellbinding Nitwit (talk) 11:15, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I do too. 23 is a good image. HenryMP02 (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I support 23 as well, it seems to be the best. FaviFake (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I proposed at Wikipedia talk:Articles for improvement#Change image on Main Page to update the Main Page image to the current infobox image, which might get a few more readers interested in editing the article. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:43, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Dreamyshade, hello, I saw this discussion at WP:ERRORS and added the image to the main page as someone else had already protected it. I used the caption "An auto mechanic in Ghana". The caption on this article's infobox "An auto mechanic in Ghana repairing an engine" is not correct. I don't see the engine in that photo, so we couldn't say that he's repairing it. He has one hand on the steering box and another on a large box end wrench, working near steering and suspension components. I dunno what he is actually doing, but a shorter caption in the article is less likely to be in error. Hope that helps, Rjjiii (talk) 05:56, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Rjjiii Nice, thank you! I agree about the caption and just cut that extra part from the infobox. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:46, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Wracking did invite me out here. Actually did not had anything to add directly.
In general I would like to say.
There are:
  • 15 images in the article at the moment
  • 7 images are about automotive
  • 5 are of various kind related
  • 3 are from aviation.
1.
Thus prominently images are depicting automotive and aviation sectors. Although images used most often do relate to the writing as they depict what is written and support it; the mechanic trades in the world is actually much wider.
Would like to see that the images chosen and shown is a reflection of the wide array of types of mechanic trades.
2.
Also there was an issue about women or men depiction. Really do not care who or what is shown, only that it relates to the topic and (relative) writing it needs to support. By doing so it would be nice to show both men and women.
(Even if some are a small percentage to the whole, you can not deny they are also involved. Thus the depiction of either would not matter, only that both are shown. Wasn't the war supported by women in factories and men in the field repairing or 'defending' tanks?)
>
For an impression look at Commons
or you might want to scroll down (it was archived)
check here for the images I previously found of various mechanic trades:
Wide_topic_of_mechanics (images)
Public-Publicity (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wide topic of mechanics

[edit]

The trade of mechanics is a wide topic. Reaching from various trades to various countries and various jobs in these countries. This depictions is not really shown in the article (from the start, it does at types). It is only limited mentioned (initially).  

examples of mechanic trades:

    Automotive and motorcycle mechanics

    Diesel and heavy-equipment mechanics

    Aircraft mechanic

    Marine mechanic

    Bicycle mechanic

    Industrial machinery mechanic

    Agricultural-equipment mechanic

    Small-engine mechanic

    Clockmakers and watchmakers, in the broader sense of people who repair mechanisms.

Maybe a side by side view of several mechanic trades can be shown at intro or just below (at the beginning of types) it with caption mentioning each mechanic trade.

Template:Multiple image

I have already looked up some possible images for this:

> G E N E R A L

mechanic in general

> S E C T O R S

industrial mechanic

agricultural mechanic

marine mechanic

> B U I L D I N G

HVAC and refrigeration mechanic

boiler mechanic

Elevator mechanic


> V E H I C L E S

train mechanic

truck mechanic

bicycle mechanic

> O T H E R

Music instrument mechanic

clockmaker


watchmaker


If desired these can be altered, changed or extende.

So my question is:

  • Is this a good idea?
  • Should the width of the mechanic be depicted with a series of images and their corresponding captions side by side?

My second question is then:

  • Maybe the text have to be extended a bit I think.

>

I mean something like this.


Women assembling an airplane engine.
Gen.
Power plant maintenance crew.
Industrial
Installing an exhaust vent, part of the heating, ventilation and air conditioning system.
HVAC
Installing a boiler
Boiler
Shipbuilding: A burner in operation on the deck
Marine
Mountain train gearing is defect.
Train
Repairing a truck.
Truck
Fixing a bicycle.
Bicycle
Various images showing different trades of mechanic

Public-Publicity (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Are we really going to adhere to John Kennedy's quote from 1815 - do we have further, perhaps more recent, evidence that considers watch- and clockmakers to be "mechanics"? Their articles seems to describe them as "artisans", not mechanics. It would follow the argument that anybody working with any mechanism is a mechanic; however, the term mechanism is now very widely used in STEM as a substitute for "process", "functioning" or "way of working", so perhaps that's not the best guide. ~2026-55913-20 (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
You made a valid point.
Actually, that is not what I meant. Placed these trades also to widen the scope. For me and maybe to others also it may be a bit difficult to tell where the trade starts and end. So your mentioning is good. (Was not expecting that it will make it to the article.)
Although the trade of watch or clock maker is highly detailed; they are on another level and the skills required are quite different then for example a car mechanic. Also the same could be sad between the trade of a bicycle repair shop and a car workshop. Is a factory worker an assembly worker or a mechanic worker or maybe both?
However, my questions were not about the specific images mentioned.
It was more like:
Should these various trades be mention with the wide scope of mechanics in the intro. Not to spell out every trade separately but to mention that it is wider then at least - those who work with machinery.
And to complement this, may it not be helpful to depict this in an image with trades side by side.
See my initial comment here. At the end of it, I have put an example. Although does not be exactly like this, it does give an example what I mean. Public-Publicity (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Public-Publicity, you may be interested in participating in the thread #Infobox Image above. Wracking talk! 20:56, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Performance as TWAFI

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago18 comments9 people in discussion

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)Reply

The topic probably seems less interesting compared to the last AFI. Nentricks (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
There's also still a decent amount of attention on Confectionery store. In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ✉ 17:34, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Is there any sort of formal AFI clean up committee? In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ✉ 17:37, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Not yet. Hason-LEK-SIN ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 03:00, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
We should make one. After an article stops being TWAFI and attention drops dramatically, there should be a committee going through for a little while to clean up everything. In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ✉ 11:38, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Confectionery store and frozen yogurt are both related to food. Perhaps that fact could be why people were more interested in the confectionery store than the mechanic.
Side note 1: Food articles tend to need more help in improving, likely because it doesn't break the news and thus sources are not from the news. Also because we usually "just eat" rather than wonder "what is its history?"
Side note 2: I'd move frozen yogurt to the week after the next (so November 9) so there is a variety of topics instead of "every other week it will be related to food", but oh well. BTW, November 6-10 is Diwali (here called Deepavali), so if our AFI wants to be related to current occasions, that could be a consideration for 9 November's AFI.
These side notes can be raised at WT:AFI, I just want to give my comments at one go. Hason-LEK-SIN ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 03:08, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Besides, 2 weeks after Frozen Yoghurt we have Garbage as our article for improvement(ironic) Theeverywhereperson talk here In solidarity! 04:32, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
i contributed to both. :-) Serienjunkie2014 (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Mechanic received 14,657 pageviews on the first day, followed by 9419 pageviews on the second day (a 36% decrease). For comparison, confectionery store received 30,937 pageviews on the first day, followed by 18,762 pageviews on the second day (a 40% decrease). That is half the number of pageviews on the first day as before. However, the decrease ratio is about the same (actually slightly less).
It will be interesting to see fi this is due interest in the subject, or because of the fact that the first TWAFI article received extra attention. It will be easier to tell once there have been several more AFIs. NewAccount7295 (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Despite having less pageviews (a bit better ratio but less total page views) the increase in bytes is actually very similar if not more. It's doing well. In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ✉ 16:28, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm happy about this one. Many of our articles about trades and related equipment (fixed ladder, expansion tank, etc.) are short or outdated, and it's good to invite new editors who may be interested in working in this topic area. Dreamyshade (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

The relationship between the mechanic and engineer.

[edit]
Latest comment: 13 hours ago10 comments5 people in discussion

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)Reply

@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)Reply
@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:
Dreamyshade (talk) 07:40, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply
This section is a good and interesting addition to the article but at the moment still lacks neutral tone. I'm sure it can be eased in the right direction away from feeling anti-engineer. ~2026-55567-51 (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Not sure if you want to iron out all of the discrepancies between the roles as it is a factor at play. Maybe you should or maybe not. You can if you desire. Neutral tone should be in general as it is the basis for Wikipedia. This is the question is: How neutral should it be? Public-Publicity (talk) 10:49, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
The millwright article lists four notable historic civil engineers who initially trained as mechanics (specifically millwrights). In the past, there was less rigid delineation between mechanics and engineers, or at least it was more common for a person's career path to include both. In addition to contrasting the two, some mention of the unifying aspects is appropriate. --Noren (talk) 06:22, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
As background understanding I write this with some help. It should NOT be used in the section as is. If you really want to understand it, do a bit of research yourself. For the article section it is better to keep it short and factual and not very long because it is not a main topic.
To understand the relationship between mechanics and engineers, it is useful to examine how their roles have been represented in society and shaped by education over time. Some of this history has already been discussed in some of the article sections. The points below focus on how specialization, education, and social organization may have contributed to the distinction between the two roles.
  1. Specialization: As technologies and industries changed, work often required more specialized knowledge and skills. This did not happen uniformly, and trades were not once entirely unspecialized; rather, the forms and degree of specialization changed over time.
  2. Separation and hierarchy: As occupations became more specialized, their responsibilities, training, and professional identities could become more distinct. This separation extends beyond the job site: it can also be reflected in how society values different kinds of work and knowledge. However, mechanics’ and engineers’ roles vary across industries and workplaces, and they remain interdependent.
  3. Occupational institutions: Different occupations may have their own training routes, qualifications, professional associations, unions, and employment arrangements. Insurance and pension arrangements, however, do not necessarily correspond neatly to occupational “levels”; they vary by country, employer, and employment status. These institutions can reinforce occupational boundaries, although people in different roles still need to communicate and cooperate at work.
  4. Mass education and theory: Over the past two centuries, education expanded and became more formally organized. In many places, this meant teaching larger groups in classrooms, while some forms of practical learning remained tied to workplaces or specialized institutions. It would be too broad to say that education simply changed from practical to theoretical. A more precise concern is that classroom learning can sometimes become disconnected from the materials, workplaces, and practical problems it is meant to help students understand.
  5. Experiential education: One alternative is to introduce students to real settings and practical problems early, then use theory to help them analyze what they have encountered. This is often described as experiential or practice-based learning. Brazil’s Escola Nova movement and the 1932 Manifesto of the Pioneers of Educação Nova are relevant examples of advocacy for active teaching and public education. They are not, on their own, evidence that Brazilian engineering education generally followed a “job site first, theory later” model.
  6. Access and class: Practical placements, small classes, and close mentoring can be difficult to provide to every student, and access to high-quality opportunities may be unequal. The Escola Nova manifesto itself advocated broader access to public education, even though its ideals were not fully realized. The claim that this approach is now available only to wealthy students needs evidence and should be tied to a specific country, institution, or program.
  7. Cooperation: Training can give students deep knowledge of their own occupation without giving equal attention to how different occupations coordinate their work. Curricula may therefore underemphasize cooperation if they teach each role’s expertise but not how those roles contribute to a shared outcome. This is a point to investigate rather than assume: it can be assessed by looking at course content, workplace practice, and the experiences of mechanics and engineers.
The key distinction in the argumentation is between specialization, which can be necessary for complex work, and isolation, which can make it harder for different occupations to understand and coordinate with one another. Public-Publicity (talk) 10:14, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Was about to elaborate (not to hammer down) what I previous said (to clarify). But the section did improve with latest changes. Still place this here for some more perspective.
(Because there is/were the tendency to write/rewrite from one single perspective, seemingly as one opinion, but this does not tell the whole story.)
Although already good efforts has been made and almost there. It is the tone and balance that may need some fine tuning. Also the last paragraph may still needs some work (from my view) and also with a proper source.
The primary points of contention were:
• The claim that engineers ignore the "foresight of failure": A design engineer would argue this is false. They use specific disciplines like Reliability Engineering and Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) to mathematically predict and prevent failures. The "failure" the mechanic sees is often not a lack of foresight, but a trade-off made for safety or performance.
• The claim that cost-cutting by purchasers is the primary "lifeline" issue: A manager might argue that cost-cutting is a business necessity, not a "culture problem." They might claim that using more expensive, easier-to-fix parts would make the final product too expensive to sell in a competitive market.
• The claim that bringing mechanics into design meetings is a universal solution: Some might argue this is impractical at a massive OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) scale, where a product is designed for thousands of different shops with varying skill levels, making it impossible to satisfy every single mechanic's preference.
In short, nothing in the text is objectively "false" in a factual sense—it is describing a common social and professional conflict. Whether these statements are "true" depends on whether you are looking at the situation from the perspective of the mechanic, the engineer, or the business owner. Even so, the description does (did mostly) not lay down the statements fairly.
The fault in writing was that it was often limited in scope and does not show other perspective fairly.
The text was mostly written with a clear bias toward the mechanic's perspective.
It framed the engineer and purchaser as the sources of the problem (lack of experience, overengineering, cost-cutting) and frames the mechanic as the one suffering the consequences (frustration, difficult repairs). By doing this, it limits the scope of the argument in a few ways:
  • It ignores professional constraints: It doesn't mention that engineers often have to follow strict safety regulations or performance standards that require a design to be complex or "overengineered" to prevent catastrophic failure.
  • It simplifies the economic reality: It treats cost-cutting as a "culture problem" rather than a financial necessity for a company to stay in business.
  • It assumes a "correct" way of working: It suggests that the solution is simply to bring mechanics into meetings, without acknowledging that design requirements for a mass-produced product must be standardized, whereas a mechanic's preference is often based on a specific, individual machine.
Because the text focuses on the friction and the "frustration" of the repair process, it provides a critique of the engineering process rather than a balanced analysis of the entire production lifecycle and the actual roles between the mechanic and the engineer. Public-Publicity (talk) 14:03, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Mechanism

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Perhaps the word mechanism should be used somewhere as it seems relevant to etymology and historical use. ~2026-55567-51 (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

'Twas but a wiki-moment ago that I suggested that this would require some finesse, as not everyone who works on mechanisms (note the disambiguation page) is a mechanic in common usage of English. ~2026-55913-20 (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
No, but that's where the word came from, which is why it's relevant to etymology and historical use, as I said. Happily it has been added. ~2026-57767-13 (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Relationship with engineers section

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago8 comments5 people in discussion

I'm not too sure how to go about it the changes myself but I feel the wording in this section can be a bit redundant and reads a little too much like an essay? How can we re-word this part to trim unnecessary sentences and to sound a bit more professional? ~2026-57308-77 (talk) 08:26, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

it does seem to delve slightly much into relation to concepts like the theory of creation, maybe something can be done about that Greenestguyinhistory (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
@~2026-57308-77 Would you be up for editing the section to make it more concise and professional? It's ok if the results aren't perfect. One of our community guidelines is Wikipedia:Be bold! Dreamyshade (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for bringing this up. I rephrased a run-on sentence. There are other improvements that can be done, though. Macbookair3140 (talk - they/them) 20:13, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Why was a new topic made instead of adding it to the existing one?
Talk:Mechanic#The relationship between the mechanic and engineer.
Anyway tried to improve this sections before. Where it was more off. Do not mind the rewrite but do have some comments about it.
It seems (to me) now to be written from a personal stand of view then a factual presentation of circumstances. Must say like the version before better.
To me it seems to be stated as stand of the mechanics against the engineer. Where it sounds better and is more professional to make it more balanced.
Do appreciate the additional intel. Although my writing is not as good. I would like to comment about the following points in the sections in short:
  • "engineers and purchasers" -> what is this actually called?
  • "cost cutting decisions regarding purchasing of parts and materials" -> by an engineer?, should this not be manager?
  • "at the shop level, it is also important to make sure that there is not an overbearing pay gap"  -> what is this all about?
  • ", they could not, as not only is it not a requisite," -> a bit complicated
  • "so as to notify maintenance and occasionally lend specialized experience to helping the mechanics solve the problem, such as"  -> a bit long sentence
  • "from place to place" -> ? not adding much
Leave it up to you to make it better. Public-Publicity (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Also to conclude with this:
"while they may become increasingly frustrated when these factors were not taken into account during the design process."
And when taken a closer look at this sentence part:
"The theory of repair for the mechanic is simply the act of maintenance,"
It has to be noted that repair is not automatically maintenance. Repair is (part of) maintenance, but maintenance is not repair. Let me clarify as follow. Repairing is to fix stuff that is broken. Maintenance is to maintain in prevention of breakage. When breakage happens then repair is needed.
It is easy to give criticism. Do note that this as supportive criticism for enhancement of the section and not anything else. (Even if I do not agree with all of your choices until now.) Public-Publicity (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
"The theory of creation is not the same as the theory of repair..."—actually originates from a specific article titled "Engineers Are Not Mechanics" by David Tracy, originally published on Jalopnik. But source is not as valid, similar as the one actually used already.
https://www.jalopnik.com/engineers-are-not-mechanics-1795601329/ Public-Publicity (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
See my addition @ Talk:Mechanic#The relationship between the mechanic and engineer. Public-Publicity (talk) 10:15, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Why is the "History" section organized primarily by country, instead of chronological?

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago3 comments3 people in discussion

First three paragraphs feel pretty scattered –  bit of etymology, a jump from the 16th century to the rise of the automobile – and continues going back and forth, from industrial revolution to pre-industrial artisans to 19th century institutions.

What follows is a country-by-country breakdown that starts in Tanzania and repeats many of the same themes (especially around formal institutions and the introduction of automobiles).

Geographical breakdowns can be useful, but I think a chronological approach would better suit a section on the history of mechanics. Ornen (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Would you be up for rough-drafting an alternate structure, perhaps within your sandbox (User:Ornen/sandbox), and making a note here to encourage people to look at it and consider whether we should go that direction? Doesn't have to be perfect, just to demonstrate what you have in mind. Dreamyshade (talk) 05:47, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree with this, even tried drafting it myself before giving up do to a bad mood. Willprove (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Aviation: Computerised Systems possible Wikipedia link?

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Looking through the aviations part, in the first paragraph it includes computerised systems, and I found a link for "Flight control computer" during my search about any links for computerised systems. Just wondering would this work as a link?

Here's the original part:

Aircraft mechanics (also known as aviation mechanics) specialize in repairing and maintaining aircraft, including planes and helicopters. They work on engines, landing gear, avionics, computerised systems, and other mechanical and electrical systems. Captain Sergej (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Under Duties and specialties section there is a link "filters" that currently redirects to Filter press. This really should redirect to a general filter page but the ones I have found are Oil filter and Filtration. I think Oil filter is the best candidate, feel free to go with the best option you can find. Captain Cargo Shorts (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Short question

[edit]
Latest comment: 35 minutes ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Just curious (and this may be a dumb question, let me know if so) but I checked studies and research and apparently "Men make up approximately 95% to 98% of all mechanics across all countries" so I'm just wondering why a picture of two women mechanics was used? Might have been a coincidence, idk. IF so, that makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesertRose3234 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Do you have a source for that claim? Also I assume you are referring to the image on the Main Page. It was present on the article before it was this week's AFI. Eman7blue42 (talk page | recent edits) 18:02, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
UNESCO says so, apparently. I saw others that I could post? This one says 8%. https://www.unesco.at/wissenschaft/artikel/article/internationaler-tag-der-frauen-und-maedchen-in-der-wissenschaft — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesertRose3234 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 30 October 2026 (UTC) Reply
That's a statistic for how many women choose to study engineering in high education, which isn't directly related to mechanics. The source the UNESCO cites is a dead link so I couldn't find out more. You can post other sources. Eman7blue42 (talk page | recent edits) 20:46, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Had the same question, seems to be anachronistically pushing current politics into history ~2026-57934-09 (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! Given that organizations like UNESCO are usable here, it's an interesting topic to talk about and improve the article with. If you or anyone else has more thoughts about it, lemme know! I'm gonna be gone for a while due to academic pursuits, but I'll be back to help improve the article! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-57945-77 (talk) 02:30, 1 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks!

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago1 comment1 person in discussion

... to all who made improvements to this entry as part of "Articles for improvement"! It is nice to see articles improved so much in such a short period of time. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:23, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Occupational hazards section

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply
An angulation-patterned science but with added grounding-pickup through the physics then fingertips' super pick-up receptors. Requiring a strong spine-channel that sends pick-up-agitation back to ground safely through you. ~2026-57430-92 (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Restored from the archive and holding with DNAU since its unaddressed. Eduardo7z (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

[edit]
Latest comment: 17 hours ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Two possible options that occurred to me are:

Kylie Minogue's character in Neighbours, Charlene, who was a car mechanic. It was a pretty famous role that launched her career.


The Studio Ghibli film Porco Rosso has a female main character aero mechanic who becomes an engineer as the film progresses. A lot of plot points ride on her skills with the aeroplane engines and it's all very central to the film.


There is a chariot mechanic in the Asterix books but I think he's a minor character.

I can't think of any other male mechanics from pop culture, but there must be some.


I leave these as options if others would like to discuss the relevance and suitability, or think of more.

~2026-57767-13 (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

We have a related category: Category:Fictional mechanics. The best approach to adding this kind of thing to the article is to find a book or academic paper that discusses mechanics in popular culture, then summarize what it says, which usually makes for a more interesting read than a simple list of characters. Here are a couple examples that you could try using to start a section:
  • A paper about Kylie Minogue that discusses her mechanic character: "Played by Minogue as a young adult, the character Charlene was a defiant teenager with a small frame and a big personality who left school to become a mechanic...Charlene was an early exemplar of what Anita Harris would later dub the post-feminist 'can-do girl'; that is, the self-inventing, entrepreneurial subject who is responsible for and manages her personal and professional success, confidently defying structural gender inequalities to achieve it."
  • "Wheel Men: The Blue-Collar Masculinities of The Fast Saga": "Diesel's character is introduced in The Fast and the Furious not only as an elite-level street racer, but as an auto mechanic, too; throughout the sequels he continues to be pictured in the garage, tuning up his muscle cars...Once again, it's through his skills as both an auto mechanic and a street racer that Dom saves the day."
  • "Elements of Realism in Japanese Animation": "Likewise, the depiction of the mechanic Fio in Porco Rosso is multi-dimensional; she is young, energetic, capable, intelligent, and brave. Her lively character is seen as she all but forces Marco to let her perform the repairs on his airplane. Despite Fio‟s young age (17 years old), she is a very skilled and intelligent mechanic, providing Marco with a better airplane than he had had before for the rematch with Curtis."
Dreamyshade (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
OK, this was a fun topic to research, so I started a section in the article. I find the Google Scholar "Labs" search useful for finding papers on very specific topics like this. Add more! Dreamyshade (talk) 04:52, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
This is coming on well. Anyone for Chitty Chitty Bang Bang? Also, Grease. ~2026-57767-13 (talk) 09:10, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Although on reflection Chitty Chitty Bang Bang features a talented amateur rather than a professional mechanic. And in Grease there is a suggestion that they are working part time as mechanics but this may just be the staging and costumes of the song sequence, so I don't know. But both films illustrate the sheer joy of working successfully with machinery. And it would be nice to get a car to fly at some point in this article. I think Back to the Future probably falls too far into the realm of the inventor.
In a similar vein, I think the shark-jumping Fonz was a mechanic. ~2026-57767-13 (talk) 09:23, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

French interwiki

[edit]
Latest comment: 17 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I don't know why, but the interwiki link for French points to "Loi Astier", which seems incorrect (the French equivalent for "mechanic" is "mécanicien", but it seems there isn't a specific page on the subject). Glützenbaum (talk) 09:05, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Fixed. Seems like the frwiki links got added in text as interwiki links, then moved around after content changed. Wracking talk! 09:22, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

mechanics <> technicians

[edit]
Latest comment: 12 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Another more interesting distinction or similarity may be between mechanics and technicians.

  • Is every mechanic a technician?
  • can every technician be a mechanic?

Do not think that there is a signle right universal awnser.

  • Is every mechanic a technician? Not necessarily. In common automotive usage, the titles often overlap, but a mechanic may focus mainly on hands-on maintenance and repairs, while “technician” often implies additional diagnostic work with vehicle electronics and computer systems.
  • Can every technician be a mechanic? In the broad sense (for automotive maybe) of someone who repairs or maintains vehicles, yes: automotive technicians generally perform mechanical repair work too. The distinction isn’t consistent across the industry, though, and the titles are sometimes used interchangeably.

Some info, not as any good reference but as indication:

  1. https://www.uti.edu/blog/automotive/the-difference-between-a-mechanic-and-an-automotive-technician
  2. https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/finding-a-job/technician-vs-mechanic

For example the changing nature of the automotive industry from combustion engine focus to battery packed EV or just with electronics all wired up car connected to computers locally and at distance. Even when the combustion engine and all connected to it does not go away, the industry has changed and with it the requirements and skills but the jobs titles might still be there or is/might it be different?

For the article a separate section just like with engineering might not be needed. I just wonder how the two are viewed in the article. Most often the technician mentioned in the article is a side role of that of the mechanic and other times it is a replacement for mechanic.

Should there be elaborated on thus; should this be clarified (very short text or sentence)? Public-Publicity (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

History section

[edit]
Latest comment: 12 hours ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Wonder if there is a single year or event that (jump) started the trade of engineering?

Does mechanic has a identifiable beginning?

Then would like to no exactly when, why and how.

The article already does state 1660.

But why 1660? What was it about? Where does the year relate to. Or should it be 1815 or just at the industrial revolution?

History section first paragraph has a bit of confusing start with various occurring things and beginning with the development of the literature meaning of the word mechanic instead of the trade(s) itself. Although the meaning of the word in society can be used in connection to the development to the trade. Public-Publicity (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Actually this article tells that in the old days before the invention of the steam engine mechanic and engineering did go hand in hand. Although not exactly mentioned as such with their titles. And after the invention until end of nineteenth century seen as low value trade taught at trade schools and not (yet) at universities. (< for UK and VS situations) It was about:
"Rigorous logical thinking based on the experience of hands-on applications"
https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/engineering/mechanical-engineering/ Public-Publicity (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Citevar

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago17 comments7 people in discussion

I believe it would be prudent to establish a consensus to change from the current citation style of standard ref/SFN to standard ref/sub references. In the research that led to the creation of sub references, it was found that SFNs are much harder for new users to use. By changing the citation style to use sub-references, it would be easier for new users to edit this article and prevent some of the confusion expressed in the discussion above. 1brianm7 (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

SFN is not as VisualEditor and new user friendly, so I would support trying the new subreference feature instead. Wracking talk! 20:14, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support. I find sub-referencing a lot easier to use than ref/SFN. Dreamyshade (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
For several of the references, they aren't citing a specific page but are pointing to the whole journal article. These can probably just be worked into the article as typical inline references with the full reference as it is now, placed in between "ref" tags. Rjjiii (talk) 03:20, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Strong oppose. It is still my understanding from an earlier discussion that CITEVAR would be respected and established citation styles not changed, particularly with a view to the continuing lack of support for Harvard citation styles that are much easier to use in library research (because they cluster by lead author, which is how books are arranged in libraries). Improvement to sourcing majorly benefits from using paper resources in libraries, especially with the increasing potential for encountering AI-generated "sources" on the internet. Discouraging library research is counter-productive to the project. ~2026-55913-20 (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
What? Citevar says to not change from established styles in an article without consensus. I am trying to establish such a consensus, because SFNs have a large learning curve that is particularly pronounced in articles edited by new users. I do not know what you mean in the rest of that statement. 1brianm7 (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Looks like the first SFN citation was added on 26 October 2026 by @HenryMP02, and @Barçaforlife converted several existing <ref>s to SFN on 26 October 2026. HenryMP02 and Barçaforlife, do you have a perspective on switching over to subreferencing? Dreamyshade (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don't agree that SFNs are harder for beginners to use. I also think using them leads to a much more polished article, and makes navigating footnotes more legible. They're especially convenient for referencing different pages and passages in the same cited work. The problem that sub-referencing claims to "solve" (grouping footnotes under the same reference) is already accomplished by SFNs. As such, I oppose the switch to sub-references. Barçaforlife (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
It's not something you need to agree with. It's a fact backed by research, new editors find it harder to add page citations or citations at all when using SFNs over sub-references. 1brianm7 (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
There's no need to be rude. And way to ignore my actual arguments. Care to share this "research" you're repeatedly referring to? Barçaforlife (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I've found these materials helpful:
Dreamyshade (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
It is worth noting that the research starts from the assumption that Wikipedia should be optimised for readers, and it was stated in an earlier discussion that most readers skip the references entirely. The correct conclusion from the research is therefore the abolishment of WP:V, without which, the second pillar falls. ~2026-55913-20 (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
The linked materials show that new editors tend to be more successful when they use VisualEditor rather than source editing, and that sub-referencing is usable in VisualEditor while SFN footnotes require source editing.
Since the goal of TWAFI is to "focus primarily on helping create new editors while also improving articles", it's reasonable to use a referencing style that is usable in VisualEditor and does not require source editing. I see several relatively new editors who have added <ref>s to this article using VisualEditor, such as Special:Diff/1382477064, Special:Diff/1382444180, Special:Diff/1382199012, and Special:Diff/1382116433. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:39, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
In which you entirely shift the argument from whether subreferencing should be used to whether VisualEditor should be, and none of your examples are of references that require anything but automated expansion of an online source. That is, you have given the exact examples that wouldn't go into a bibliography section, yet that is what we are debating here - does a separate "bibliography" section have merit, and I am strongly arguing that, yes, it does, and you have provided no evidence to the contrary. ~2026-55913-20 (talk) 08:27, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I did not realize there was a newer way to do it. If it makes it easier for new editors, I think that's okay. Do you just add a name to the ref and then do something like 
<ref name="refname" details="p. 7" />
Is that right? HenryMP02 (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it works just like that. It's also easy to do in Visual Editor, which is the default interface for new editors. Wracking talk! 18:47, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Okay, that seems like a good solution. Count me in! check HenryMP02 (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ideas for sources

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion

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:

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)Reply

Thank you! HenryMP02 (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
For Grace (2021), chapter two is likely most helpful. Wracking talk! 05:47, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply

relevant photo?

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 hours ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This picture claims to be of a Ghanan auto mechanic. Looks more like someone salvaging parts off a junked vehicle, to me--not exactly a mainstream task for an auto mechanic. If they're Ghanan, why does their shirt have Chinese lettering in the breast nameplate area? How can this image be verified? Shouldn't a more relevant image be readily available, and used in the featured spot of the article? -- mikeblas (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

The image is from a series uploaded by c:User:Amuzujoe, who is from Ghana. The images were uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Africa 2024 in Ghana. Others in the series include File:Mechanic shop 02.jpg (which includes a Ghanaian license plate), File:Mechanic shop 06.jpg, File:Mechanic shop 07.jpg. Wracking talk! 19:49, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hanzi really does not mean much. Latin characters are found all over the world, including places like China and Japan which have their own, totally-distinct writing systems. Even in the United States, I have seen several scripts like Greek (particularly on fraternities) and Thai out in the wild without really being in any ethnic communities. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mechanic&oldid=1383121641"