Talk:Windmill/Archive 1

Archive 1

Previous discussion without headers

Maybe if there was more information about it, it would be great. For example, how it works and how much power it generates.

The article is now very much focusing on US, Chinese windmills are not treated at all, European mills very much underrepresented. The history and development to replace watermills should be added (windmills are one of the main technological breakthrough of the middle ages) Arnoutf 22:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Three sheets to the wind

The term “Three sheets to the wind” originated with the windmill and not the sailing world. A windmill typically has four arms or frames in which a sheet of canvas or sail could be attached by the miller to harness the wind. When the wind was light a sheet of canvas was attached to each of the four frames. If the wind was heavy only one canvas was used. If the wind was moderate two opposing sheets of canvas was used to keep the torque in balance. The millers never used just three sheets of canvas. They discovered that using three sheets would cause the building to gyrate uncontrollable and topple over, like a drunken sailor.(This unsigned post was added 20:11, 8 February 2006 192.223.243.6 (Talk) )

The discussion on the linked page suggests this is not the case: a cite would be helpful194.176.105.39 16:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't cite a positive refutation but an extensive search through both mill websites and the paper literature fails to come up with a single example of this, and my own experience with working mills suggests that the alleged effect of only spreading three out of four sailcloths (collapse of mill) simply would not occur. Similarly, I know of no case where only one cloth of four is spread. Either two opposite cloths, or all four, are spread. The area of cloth on each sail frame can be varied, simply by rolling or twisting the cloth, from full sail to a small triangle near the inner end of the sail. Ghughesarch 21:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)jem lil nemo".maybe we need to look into vibrations as a windmill power source,because the smallest vibration at a tension set will create a huge output,frist rule of resonance,at a high point when a system is controlled added increase makes-new systems.

When invented?

I don't know anything myself on the topic, but were windmills really first invented in the 7th century AD? Some other sources state that they were first invented in Babylon 2000 B.C. http://www.energy.iastate.edu/renewable/wind/wem/wem-04_history.html and http://www.newton.mec.edu/Brown/TE/HOT/STUDENTS/BIALECKI/timeline.html

also, while one of the sources cited (http://web.utk.edu/~persian/windmill.htm) has the windmill invented in 7th century A.D. Persia, the other source cited(http://www.catpress.com/bplanet9/eeolica.htm) has it in 17th century B.C. Persian Babylon. I wasn't able to view the third source because it doesn't seem to link to the appropriate page...

RubyDragon 19:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ireland

I read that windmills always spin counter-clockwise, except for in Ireland. Can anyone verify this?

No, that's not true. The majority turn anti-clockwise, but clockwise mills are not uncommon, for a variety of reasons ranging from the ease or difficulty of re-sharpening millstones dressed to turn in one or other direction, to local preference (many windmills in Cambridgeshire, UK, turn clockwise, for example).Ghughesarch 17:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Windmill

As much as I know, and i'm pretty sure the wind mill was created in Persia.

--Who was that, and what basis do you have for your statement? Since I still haven't found any resolution to the invention of windmills, I've re-added the dubious tag. For some reason somebody took it out. RubyDragon 16:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a passage in the Koran where one Persian comes up to the Caliph and offers to build a such a wind-mill. This is, as far as I know, viewed as the first textual evidence that windmills exist.

Any proof on the single-manufacturer in the US, Aermotor? A web check reveals what looks like a LOT of windmill producers...

Image overdose

As much as I like many pictures on a page, I think this page is a bit over the top heavy on pictures. I would suggest to remove some. (Or add more text). I think the Hessenpark mill (as I see nothing special) may be the first to remove. The UK mill is interesting because of its age. The siberian because of their shape.

The other three are more important (imho) La Mancha because the link to Don Quichotte, The Kinderdijk mills as the Netherlands are most often related to mills; and the Kinderdijk complex is a Unesco world heritage site. The american mill is essential because it illustrates the whole Mills in US section.Arnoutf 19:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I rearranged the images, removed the German one but added a modern example. How's that. Rmhermen 19:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Mergefrom Windpump

I think the windpump article could make a nice contribution to this page, while on its own it seems just a bit too small for a full article, therefore I nominated the articles to be merged. Arnoutf 18:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• oppose merge. both articles are huge in scope. let them develope. or you could bring whatever material you like into windmill from windpump and let windpump be a subarticle of windmill. cheers. Anlace 19:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• oppose merge As Anlace says, there's too much material for one article. Pollinator 03:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Comment Their scope is large, and that may lead to large articles in the future, but currently Windmill is a short, and Windpump a very short article; and both do not seem to expand. Arnoutf 10:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• oppose merge for the reasons statedOxyman42 00:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• CommentI see that despite three opposes and no support, the article has been merged anyway. Why? (I can see that in the US the term "windmill" is applied to windpumps, but that is not necessarily the case elsewhere and both topics have the potential to be stand-alone articles Ghughesarch 03:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The (single) support is of course in the nomination. But I agree there is no consensus. The merge was not conducted by me, but by another editor, so I am not sure about the motivation. What I am sure about though is that since this merge (end februari ie over six weeks ago) no protest has been issued., and that the article including windpumps has received GoodArticle status since. So although I agree the standard procedure is not followed, the end results seems to be a good one.

Al three opposition votes state that there is too much material for a single article; to which I commented and the opposition has been silent after. Have a look at the current combined article and consider whether you agree whether the current article contains that much information the division is necessary at this moment (if the article grows we can always reconsider). Arnoutf 07:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, congratulations. Having merged the articles, someone on 10 December 2007 deleted most of the windpump material as "irrelevant". I've only just noticed the change and it would be nice if someone with the skill to do so could either reinstate it here (without destroying the subsequent edits), or reinstate the "windpump" article as it was before the merge. Thanks Ghughesarch (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

The Early History section of this page appears to have been vandalized. If there is someone who can remove the silly stuff and put back in whatever was likely there before it would be much appreciated. --Black Orpheus 21:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing strange but a very short section. Expansion ok, but to my eyes it looks ok. What do you exactly mean? Arnoutf 21:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. looking through the page history it seems someone has a history of removing various word and substituting "banana" or "chinaman" or whatever. Will keep an eye on it. Ghughesarch 13:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course we should they both are still the same topic!

Mechanics

I think a section on the inner working of the mills should be added. There are some relevant images on Commons; just showing a few. I think that would improve the article.

• 
• 
• 
• 

Arnoutf 16:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That would certainly be a good addition. --Grimhelm 08:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone provide a schematic diagram of how a windmill works; especially how the rotation of the blades gets converted into energy that drives the water pump. Much appreciated.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

As far as I know some kind of bevel gear is used, however rather than using conical gears they use some kind of peg and hole type of gear that are place perpendicular similar to these in the images above. No schematscih though, sorry Arnoutf 13:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

the metal (so-called American) type generally use a crank either on the windshaft or on a secondary shaft geared to the windshaft and driving a vertical pump-rod running down the tower. Here's an Australian one with the cranked windshaft fairly clearly visible [1] and there are numberous detailed photographs linking from here: [2]. I can't find a decent diagram anywhere though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ghughesarch (talk • contribs) 16:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

It's covered under Mill machinery. Mjroots (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Good Article

I have passed this article. It is well resourced, broad, well written and showcases some excellent pictures. It conforms with attribution, manual of style and NPOV. Although it's a minor point, there are some citations needed which need looking into if possible. Great work; JameiLei 00:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Lattice windmills in western Canada

I can't speak for anywhere else, but in the western Canadian prairies, lattice-style windmills remain a common sight on farms. AFAIK, they mainly are used these days for water aeration in sloughs. --Hiddekel 17:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent addition to modern windmill section

I removed the following line by an anon user IP because it was unsourced and badly written:

There are many contreversies about the windmill, including the noise level which can reach a maximum of 78.7decibals! Some complain that it kills many birds a year, which is true but even automoblie crashes cause 98times as many bird deaths.

The maybe something in developing this idea as the IP has a point. But it has to be completely redone, have no time now, but wanted it out of article for now. Arnoutf (talk) 09:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The introduction to the article says it excludes wind turbines. On that basis, should this section be here at all? --Northernhenge (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Humorous overwriting removed

I am fixing the phrase "...where due to great amounts of wind and air, turbines have become very useful" under the Modern Windmills section to read "...where due to great amounts of wind turbines have become very useful" since air is found in most locales on Earth.130.13.28.255 (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Delisting GA

This article is listed as a GA, but is not of GA standard, because it has three maintenance tags. If someone is able to fix the specified problems in the next few days, fine. Otherwise I will assign a B class to the article. Johnfos (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Give me a few days but I'll do my best to address all three of the tags. →Wordbuilder (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No go. This should never have been listed as a GA. At the time of its listing much of what is unreferenced now was unreferenced then too. →Wordbuilder (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate your efforts, Wordbuilder, but I will need to delist the article now, with the hope that it can be re-submitted at WP:GAN when further improvements are made... Johnfos (talk) 01:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Savonius, Panemone and other windmills as Archimedes screw, ...

The Savonius wind turbine, Panemone and certain others have not been described as Water-pumping windmills. These windmills can by the way be build diy. See This article (page 21) for the first 2 andThis article for the others. Also, its best to put the waterpumping windmills on a seperate, new article.

Include in article. Thanks.

KVDP (talk) 10:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What is their notability?, we cannot include every mill type ever designed. Arnoutf (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

See the documents, certain windmills can be easily build diy, ... As such, they can help people in the developing world or hobbyists. They will also thus also allow environmental advantage. Don't have time to do the article myself, busy on other articles. Please include, as I already done the research now.

KVDP (talk) 08:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Does not answer my question, why would hobbyist use of windmills be notable at all? If we want to say something about use in developing world we need refs for that, which are not in the links in detail. I think the research is incomplete; so will not include (busy on other articles as well, aren't we all). Arnoutf (talk) 14:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this would fit better on the Intermediate technology page, but KVDP should be bold and make the edit him/her self. --Northernhenge (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Check out http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/ah810e/AH810E10.htm for much more windpump types. Add types in article, perhaps take over images and provide comparisation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.215.15 (talk) 12:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject

Anybody interested in a Wikiproject on mills? Proposal to form one is here. Mjroots (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

To cover windmills, watermills, etc. Count me in, signed up. New quick link to sign-up is here. doncram (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Films

Moulin Rouge has been added. I've left it in for now, but would like to discuss whether it should remain. The general public would identify the Moulin Rouge as a windmill, but it was never a real working windmill, unlike the other eight that exist in Paris today. So, should it stay, or should it go? Mjroots (talk) 04:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It is imperative that it stay! :) doncram (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I would let it stay. It symbolizes a windmill. Windmills in stories aren't real, working windmills in the tangible sense either (much like Ceci n'est pas une pipe). →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wind pump info

This source provides some specifics that could be used in the wind pump section. Here's a quote:

"Large numbers of wind pumps are also used in Africa, including in South Africa (300,000), Namibia (30,000), Cape Verde (800), Zimbabwe (650), and several other countries (another 2,000)."

Renewable Energy 2007 Status Report Mrshaba (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Wind pump picture

Could we please keep a picture of a farm wind-pump in the article, preferably near the text that says "...windpumps of the type pictured ..." - since the nearest illustrations don't show anything of the kind. I see we've had several good pictures in over the last year and for some reason they keep on being removed. The vaneless derelict British picture, and the Dutch drainage pump, do not illustrate this point well. Isn't there some way to tell Wiki software to render two pictures correctly and not offend the style mavens? The one now near the bottom of the page is from a bizzarre angle, and doesn't show the water tanks. I've got a good one with cows in it...would seem to be an ideal illustration. INformation first, then layout. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you're proud of your picture. However, not everything mentioned in the article needs an accompanying image. While I'm not entirely sure why it is important to illustrate cows in a windmill article, it may be a more appropriate image than the "vaneless derelict British picture". I've removed your image until we can come to a consensus as to which on should be used. There is a Manual of Style for a reason. Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia, not an image gallery with text stuffed between pictures. Adding content with little or no regard for rules and guidelines is why this article lost its GA status. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was of interest to show a windpump at work actually providing a benefit in the 21st century, as opposed to portraying windpumps as dead or irrelevant techology. I've revised the text to remove a reference to a non-existant (and apparently intolerable) illustration. I don't care who's picture is used, the South African one is actually better since mine has the blades obscured somewhat by an unfortunately placed tree behind the wind mill. Thank you for your detailed and patronizing explanation. Thus the encyclopedia grows, and one more editor incrementally approaches Wikiburnout. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I said yours may be more appropriate than the one that is there now. That's what this discussion can determine. I apologize if my response was patronizing. Nevertheless, your comment about offending the "style mavens" comes off as rather sarcastic. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that a picture of an iron windpump would enhance the article. They do not look like conventional windmills and are an important sub-type. Mjroots (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Windpumps and turbines

This article also mentions windpumps and turbines. This should be changed. The article here should only encompass windmills, while the windpumps and windturbines can be given (or have) their own article. I request a move of the windpump article section to its own page. This would allow me to expand the article as suggested at this talk page in a previous thread (Savonius, Panemone and other windmills as Archimedes screw, ...) Using the FAO report mentioned there, I may add other windpumps.

Also, I present following definition rewrite:

A windmill is a mill powered by the wind. It allows to reduces a solid or coarse substance into pulp or minute grains by crushing, grinding, or pressing

The current definition encompasses all wind machines that uses the wind power directly via mechanical transfer (thus without conversion to electricity). I'm not sure what this article should be called; perhaps something like Non-electrical wind devices, but it should not refer to windmill. For this new page the current definition can be used.

Any people looking for a windturbine or pump and end up here can already quickly see where to go by the {{This tag above the page and a link to windpump and windturbine in the see also section.

Thanks, KVDP (talk) 08:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree. While there may be something about your definition which is technically correct it is not an accurate representation of word usage. By modern English language usage the word windmill refers more generally to almost any wind powered device which uses blades to capture wind energy. Specifically, windpumps are almost always referred to as windmills in the vernacular. I believe if you look up windmill in a dictionary you'll see that it also refers more generally to machines powered by the wind. --BenFranske (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• • what about the term windharvester or wind energy harvester; at google it gives some hits and the article energy harvester/energy harvesting already exists; when wind is placed in front of it it would then signify a special type of energy harvesting; which is frankly just what it is

Continued below in confusion about definition section. My take on this: Windmill has become colloquial and indeed semantically accepted term for each and any device that uses vanes/sails to change wind energy into rotational energy for human use. Arnoutf (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved content

The following text was moved from the article page. It had been copied from a news source. olivier (talk) 11:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

press release deleted - no need to retain as it is not a discussion about improving this article --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Confusion of terms

This article reflects the English language's common, but unfortunate, use of the term "windmill" for all kinds of wind turbines. From an engineering point of view this is unfortunate. In my opinion it would be better to cleanly separate "mills" and wind turbines, but to include a section that explains the confusion arising from the common language usage of "windmill". --Sigmundg (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not even a modern confusion, as e.g. sawmills, papermills etc do not truly 'mill' stuff. If you would take this further consistently you need to split of waterpump (most of the famous Dutch windmills are actually windpumps) as well. I am pretty sure that will not make matter better. Arnoutf (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Dutch water pumps driven by wind turbines are not mills! And they should not be so called. I think it would make sense to revise all articles concerned. --Sigmundg (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope you are not serious in this. For 3 reasons

Calling the 17th century power system 'turbine' is pushing it.

In any case, everyone in the world calls the Dutch windmills windmills. For example the UNESO calls the UNESCO world heritage site Kinderdijk windmills [3] while according to you they should be called windpumps. Convince the UN and then come back here.

Even more, the English language is not consistent and has adopted 'mill' for many industrial operations once powered by wind (e.g. sawmill, papermill) although nothing is 'milled'. So following you, the English language is wrong. Well change it then come back here.

Wikipedia should follow mainstream agreement; it is clear Dutch windmills are called windmills, so Wikipedia should adopt that. Arnoutf (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Even our own Wiktionary project is using a narrow definition as it allows all machinery that uses wind energy to create rotational motion through sails a windmill [4]. Seems like windmill is a well established pars pro toto for any machine transferring wind energy to rotational (controlled energy). So indeed the Dutch waterpumps are mills, and even modern windturbines are. Arnoutf (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

As well as the Dutch - the UK only uses the term "windmills" for both mills for grinding and ones for pumping. The term windpump is not used. Even on-line dictionaries do not agree that the only use is for crushing grain - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/windmill says in it's first definition any of various machines for grinding, pumping, etc., driven by the force of the wind acting upon a number of vanes or sails, and Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary says a building or structure with large blades on the outside which, when turned by the force of the wind, provide the power for getting water out of the ground or crushing grain, I can't check the OED as they charge!. Maybe it might be better to merge windmill and windpump into one page (called windmill)?  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The term windpump most definitely is used in the UK, for example [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], though mostly in reference to metal-framed, factory-produced designs which don't look like traditional "windmills". I'm in favour of sticking with one article, probably "windmill" at least as a gateway to these. Ghughesarch (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe used by some organisations, but just try the general public. Not scientific, but I asked several people at work and got many a blank look - the only ones who ventured a guess was for this type [10] of windmill. Everyone I know thinks the "traditional" 4/5/6 bladed windmill to be a "windmill". Maybe "windpump" hasn't gotten to Lancashire yet!  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That is more or less what I was saying - that the metal type in particular is recognised as being a "windpump" rather than a "windmill", so it's wrong to suggest that "the term windpump is not used". The Ordnance Survey has used different symbols for windpump and windmill on its maps (the ones the general public use) without much apparent confusion for about a century now. The problem is how to differentiate between different purposes and types within this article - if you start a seperate windpump article for the metal ones, someone is bound to try to put all the wind-powered pumps into that article and insist they shouldn't be called "windmills". The ones in Norfolk are generally called "Drainage Mills", by the way, wind not mentioned at all. Ghughesarch (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

We do need to answer this issue. At the moment the defintion at the top of the article is mismatched to the content of the article. We could do with a little more on the rest of the world, not just a mention of middle eastern origins. This is possibly due to the article being written with a bias toward a history of windmills. Perhaps this bias is fare considering the amount on windmills elsewhere? But I feel a little more of a summery of contemporary uses would be good, or perhaps we need to write a seperate page that summerises the present day non electricity generating uses of the wind mill? Anyway it would be wrong if this article could be read as suggesting the heyday of the windmill(as described at the top of the article) is past considering the number in use. Pete the pitiless (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)originally posted below

While the numbers may be large, the heyday is definitely over. In its heyday mankind had 3 sources of power. Muscle power (man or animal), windmill and watermill. All major industrial effort in the middle ages and early modernity (pre steam engine) was driven by mills.

At the moment wind and water turbines do not even cover all renewable energy production, and has nothing in relation to fossil or nuclear fuels. Arnoutf (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Fare point, I over stated my case, but the present article does, at least at a casual reading, suggest windmills are a thing of the past- they are not. One way to cure this would be to retitle and change the definition.Pete the pitiless (talk) 11:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed Image

The 14th century windmill illustration has been removed, as it did not appear to be all-ages-friendly. ~Firstthings 15:22, 14 December 2009

I have no idea what you are talking about, it's just a picture of windmill.

Do you mean it sheds doubt on the artistic ability of medievalillustrators? Or are you referring to some kind of perceived problem for kids to look at this picture? In the latter case (whatever your problem might be) that would not be a reason for removal per WP:censor. Arnoutf (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Arnoutf: I had the picture on my computer—I clipped it because I wanted an old looking picture with a windmill in it. Well, it stayed on my system for a while before I finally realized that there was something going on in the corner of the picture that didn't appear to be kosher for public viewing (I'm not exactly sure what's going on, truthfully, but at first glance it looks sketchy)—you can take a second look at the picture if you want. I am sorry if I violated an unspoken Wikipeida rule of conduct. I understand that Wikipedia is not censored, but if you follow the link you will find that it states:

Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available—however, when a cited quotation contains words that may be offensive, it should not be censored.

I suggest that if the user that originally put up the image feels that it must be on Wikipedia, then he/she crop the right side out. ~Firstthings 20:31 December 15, 2009

As you state yourself, you need to look at the image in detail to se that 'something' is going on. You obviously consider a large version of this picture offensive, but you should look at the size it is actually depicted

Whether the 'something' is "not kosher" is not clear. Both people are dressed, the image might as well be an effort of the artist to show people looking in awe up to the windmill; it might be a servant carrying his lady to inspect the mill; and I can probably suggest many more "innocent" explanations of what I see.

In my view it does add a lot to the article by showing an image of an early European horizontal axis windmill (14th century - with introduction in the late 12 th century). Of course if you have an image that predates this one, that would be even better.

In my view you cannot clip the image without destroying the overall composition of the picture; where would the miller look? How to crop the text sensibly?

Of course you might still have a point if you manage to support your points of view that this offends a "typical Wikipedia user" (good luck finding one); and that removal does not make the article less informative. Arnoutf (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I can understand that. I suppose what the peasants are doing here is sketchy enough to remain innocently ambiguous. Was just doing what I thought was a good contribution to the WIkisphere. Firstthings 17:24 December 17, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.182.114 (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary use, use outside Europe and Northern America

I've moved this comment higher up to join ongoing discussion, apologies to Arnoutf (talk)

Pete the pitiless (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Windmill identification

Is "1100 Roe" just a street address, or is there a systematic nomenclature for Dutch windmills? --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've already answered this for the questioner, but for the benifit of everyone else, "De 1100 Roe" is the name of the mill in question. There is another mill nearby known as "De 1200 Roe".See List of windmills in Noord Holland. Mjroots (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Direction of rotation

Is anti-clockwise all over the world except Ireland. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't.Ghughesarch (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Amstel Tower image request

This request was posted on Wikipedia:Requested pictures/Architecture:

I would much appreciate some good images showing mechanical details of - specifically - the Amstel Tower windmill. I can find an image showing the front of the mill, but details are not brilliant and nowhere can I find images of the mechanics of turning the cap - which are at the rear of the mill and also up on the skirt. I would also like to see better details of the doors and windows in these mills - Tower mills especially, where only the cap and sails are turned in to the wind, not the entire post. --FranOnTheEdge 07:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

Jagged 85 (talk · contribs) is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits; he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. That's an old and archived RfC. The point is still valid though, and his contribs need to be doublechecked. I searched the page history, and found 19 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this series of edits). Tobby72 (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Oil mill, bark mill, ... ?

In the description we find: "A windmill is a machine which converts the energy of wind into rotational motion by means of adjustable vanes called sails. The main use is for a grinding mill powered by the wind, reducing a solid or coarse substance into pulp or minute grains, by crushing, grinding, or pressing.[1][2] Windmills have also provided energy to sawmills, paper mills, hammermills, and windpumps for obtaining fresh water from underground or for drainage (especially of land below sea level)."

In an older article I made called Wind energy conversion system, I allready tried to correct some flaws in the article and it seems that after reading some supplemental books on the subject, the article definitly needs work.

It says that "windmills" (which consist of the words: wind + mill ie freely translated: a machine, powered by wind to do the work of milling) can also "provide energy" to sawmills, paper mills, hammermills, and windpumps for obtaining fresh water from underground or for drainage (especially of land below sea level)." Besides the obvious incorrection that it is thus a wind-powered machine that mills, and also provides other work, there also seem to be much more wind-powered machines to provide a particular task.

However, they are not mentioned here, and even more sad, they don't even have their own article. For example, "windmills" can also produce:

• oil (trough "oilmills" or more accuratly windpresses) --> a Dutch article exists: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliemolen
• oak bark powder (trough "bark mills" or more accuratly windpresses) --> Dutch article: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schorsmolen, see also: http://www.braintan.com/barktan/1basics.htm
• powder (ie gun powder, paint/die powder) (trough "powder mills" or more accuratly windpresses)
• paper (ie "paper mill" or more accuratly windpresses)
• animal skin, filt and sheets (trough "volmolen" or more accuratly hammer mill) --> http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volmolen_(machine)
• sawed wood (trough (trough saw mills, or more accuratly, windsaws)
• sawed stone (trough (trough saw mills, or more accuratly, windsaws)
• pumped-up liquids (trough windpumps) --> see also http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poldermolen
• swirled flax (trough "vlaszwingelmolens")

12:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You know what to do. This is an overview of the topic. If there's enough references to support articles on every kind of commodity that was once processed through some kind of wind-driven machinery, write 'em up! Though I think the reader will lose interest long before the part where we describe in minute referenced detail the differences between a windmill that processes hard spring wheat vs. a windmill that processes red winter wheat vs. a windmill that processes flax. But Wikipedia is the home of trainspotter's details like that. A much more interesting point would be the economic value of the actvities powered by wind - was that wind-powered apple-peeler an important part of the local economy, or someone's mad hobby project that never got commercialized? Now THAT would be more interesting than a dry recitation of commodities. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Expansion: Sectional windmills

An excellent essay on sectional windmills (with pictures), which are not mentioned in the article: [11]

Automated mills

The automated mills schematic from "guide du meunier et du constructeur du moulins, avec des additions et des corrections du professeur de méchanique à l'institut de Franklin, en Pensylvanie, et la description d'un moulin en gros perfectionné par C. et O.Evans" needs to be implemented and [[Olvier Evans]$ & Thomas Ellicott need to be mentioned too, see http://www.wing-ops.org.uk/milling.html

windmills that turn to face the wind section does not discuss windmills that turn to face the wind

Um, the windmills that turn to face the wind section does not discuss windmills that turn to face the wind... hello???

173.206.212.208 (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you get as far as By mounting the body this way, the mill is able to rotate to face the wind direction; an essential requirement for windmills to operate economically in North-Western Europe, where wind directions are variable.  ? Or had it been temporarily vandalized out of the article when you looked at it? --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Electricity production

The windmill "as electricity production systems" section is a joke. I know there is another article, but this section should be revised or just deleted in favor of a link to "Wind turbine" Another-sailor (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That was a weak section, even by Wikipedia standards. Suggested link added, with a little bit of text to prompt the reader to click on a link if interested. ( I wonder who was the first miller to belt up a dynamo to his windmill so he could grind grain at night? ) --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Windmill vs traditional windmills

The topic has been discussed before (it's archived now) without much consensus I believe. At the moment this article mostly covers the traditional windmill with some earlier history and very little about the contemporary uses of a windmill (wind pump, wind turbine). There are several other wind power and windmill articles which partly have the same information but also leave gaps and are not systematically connected. Common use of the word windmill includes wind turbines even though some people may find this incorrect. My suggestion is therefore to discuss all types of windmill (an engine powered by the wind to produce energy) here and turn it into a general article on windmills. So subjects would be

• early history,
• traditional windmills (or classical windmills?) covering post mills, tower mills etc.,
• windpumps (the typical rural American type),
• wind turbines and wind power,
• other types,
• some wind power theory (wind energy).

Where appropriate links to main articles should be added with the summery in this article. I think History_of_wind_power should be merged into this article and partly into wind turbine. I propose moving most of the text under "Horizontal-axis windmills" (I don't think anyone uses that denomination) to a new traditional windmill article only leaving a summery here. Traditional windmills also covers the traditional drainage mill, which at the moment doesn't really fit anywhere (thereby addressing the problem which brought me here). Thoughts? Reboelje (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Define "traditional windmill" for a worldwide readership. In Iran and Afghanistan, it would be the early vertical-axis windmill; in Europe, post, tower and smock mills, and their variants; in the New World, probably metal or wooden windpumps (except for the relatively few examples which follow European precedents). I appreciate that this is a difficult one to sort, but creating a new "traditional windmill" article isn't addressing that, it's making it worse. Ghughesarch (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that would solve the problem either. I can see the logic of merging History of Windpower into this article if it can be done without making the article too big and there definitely needs to be more links to main articles on other subjects. The Windpump article also needs to be expanded to give more coverage to the more traditional windpumps such as the Dutch ones and British ones once used on the The Broads. Richerman (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

All right, classical European windmill then. Do vertical axis windmills still exist? It's not clear from the article. Well maybe it was a bit much to suggest creating a separate article. Could we at least agree on more coverage of other types of windmill in this article? Some people are a bit touchy about mixing wind turbines with traditional windmills. Reboelje (talk) 09:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Traditional drainage mills, such as those in the Broads and the Netherlands are in my opinion quite different beasts from the New World windpumps. The latter belong in the windpumps article, the earlier are the same as traditional European windmills with just different machinery attached, a scoop wheel in stead of millstones, so should belong in the "horizontal axis windmills" section. Reboelje (talk) 09:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Which article would you put these into, to take a few random examples which combine features of both the modern windpump and the traditional windmill?: Clayrack Drainage Mill, Crux Easton wind engine, Starston Windpump, Eolienne Bollee, Boardman's Windmill. The division into separate articles is more artificial (and more likely to cause disagreement in the long term over what should be covered in which article) than one big "History of Windpower" article, although I recognise that that would become very unwieldy, very quickly. I share the concern about windpowered electricity generators being merged into windmill, but there have been such things, some with the appearance of classical European windmills, for over a century now.

There are still traditional vertical axis windmills at work in the world: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNp2C8IWOKY&feature=related or Pasloo windpump (Dutch Wikipedia)but even if there weren't, there's no reason to exclude them from the windmills article. As an aside, the bulk of the literature defines "vertical" and "horizontal" windmills by the plane of rotation of the sails, not by the direction of the axis of rotation. Ghughesarch (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I can quite confidently put most of your examples into either windpumps or classical windmills, however I agree that there will always be hybrids and exceptions that can fit into both or neither of the categories. The same goes for wind turbines. The intro says "A windmill is a machine which converts the energy of wind into rotational motion..." so this includes wind turbines. The fact that this rotational energy is not used for grinding or pumping but converted into electricity doesn't mean it is something entirely different from a windmill and doesn't at least deserve a bit more coverage in the article than it has now.

Thanks for the youtube link, very interesting! I wasn't suggesting leaving them out of the article by the way, just changing the headers into 'early history' and 'classical european windmill' in stead of the current vertical vs horizontal axis windmill. But I think we are getting sidetracked. The main question is do we want this article to only cover traditional windmills or should it cover all types of windmill? The problem is that currently the bulk of the text describes traditional windmills but under 'uses' it suddenly mentions all kinds of windmills. Reboelje (talk) 10:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Reboelje - I see you've "been bold" and reordered a lot of the article. Unfortunately there is no consensus here for some of the changes you have made: some of them really don't help the article (the imposition of the invented term "Classical European Windmill" for example), and there are quite a lot of newly-introduced typos and awkward English grammar. I don't want to revert the whole lot, but while your edits are mostly a step in the right direction I wish they could have been discussed a little here, and some sort of consensus reached, before they were made. As it is, I (and no doubt others) will try to iron out the problems and I hope you will continue to contribute. Ghughesarch (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well the discussion here wasn't exactly "hot", nobody had responded to my last post for over a week. Anyways, I was counting on exactly this reaction to my bold edit so this article may be improved as I think you will agree the previous version was not exactly of high quality, which is a pity for such a high profile article. I hope my edit will form the basis of pushing the article back to good quality status. (And I'm sure typos and awkward English (Dutch-isms) won't be that much work to fix.) Reboelje (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

At least you've pushed me to add the news (!) that vertical axis windmills were built in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries :o) Ghughesarch (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Vertical v Horizontal

As far as "traditional" windmills are concerned, the major English language sources (Wailes, Hills, Farries, etc)seem to be generally agreed that what is described in the article as a "vertical-axis windmill" is a "horizontal windmill", and that a "horizontal-axis windmill" is (less commonly, but only as it's the usual type the sources are most familiar with and therefore "windmill" suffices) is a "vertical windmill", in both cases taking the nomenclature from the plane of rotation of the sails. This preference dates back at least to Abraham Rees's "Cyclopaedia" of 1816 where the two types are shown side by side- http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10319643&itemw=4&itemf=0001&itemstep=1&itemx=2 (the one on the left is titled "common vertical windmill", that on the right "Captain Hooper's Horizontal Windmill").

This is also consistent with the terminology used for water mills, in which a "horizontal mill" is the earlier / more primitive type with a water wheel turning in a horizontal plane.

A preference based on "axiality" seems to be an introduction by modern engineers in relation to wind turbines, where it conforms to modern turbine (whatever the power source) terminology.

Given that, I propose changing the headings "Vertical-axis windmill" and "Horizontal-axis windmill" to "Horizontal Windmill" and "Vertical Windmill" respectively, to match the terms used by specialists in dealing with traditional windmills. Any thoughts? Ghughesarch (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The only source I have that mentions vertical/horizontal (Stockhuyzen, when discussing Persian windmills) also refers to the plane of movement of the sails and not the axis orientation. Nice work on fixing the text by the way. Reboelje (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Go for it! The change is backed up by solid RSs, including William Coles Finch. Mjroots (talk) 06:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Windpump, wind engine or wind wheel?

A recent edit to the introduction tells us that the multibladed windpump is called wind wheel on commons. I never heard it called this, but if this is a common denomination than maybe we should change windpump to wind wheel in this article? On the other hand, the (draft) TIMS Dictionary of Molinology calls them wind engines (which is close to the Dutch and German windmotor). Anyway, I think it would save a lot of confusion to change the word windpump to something different as any type of wind powered pumping machine could be called a windpump while what is described here under the windpump heading is the well known windmill from rural America. In the article it would go something like "Wind engines, also known as windpumps, American windmills or wind wheels, are ..." etc. Reboelje (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 August 2012

i would like to add ; A wind mill does not have blades like a wind turbine. The blades on a windmill are wooden and they are more of wide/flat sticks.

Vertical-axle windmill: A small wind wheel operating an organ is described as early as the 1st century AD by Hero of Alexandria.[9][10] The first vertical-axle windmills were eventually built in Sistan, Persia as described by Muslim geographers. These windmills had long vertical driveshafts with rectangle shaped blades.[11] They may have been constructed as early as the time of the second Rashidun caliph Umar (634-644 AD), though some argue that this account may have been a 10th century amendment.[12] Made of six to twelve sails covered in reed matting or cloth material, these windmills were used to grind corn and draw up water, and used in the gristmilling and sugarcane industries.[13] Horizontal axle windmills of the type generally used today, however, were developed in Northwestern Europe in the 1180s.[9][10]

a complete copy & paste from Wikipedia's own page; List of inventions in the medieval Islamic world

203.45.138.185 (talk) 05:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia can't be cited as a source. We need the references hidden behind those numbers. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 14:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

They're not really very hidden. The IP gave sufficient info to easily find the wikitext that needs to be imported. --99of9 (talk) 06:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Question: Why and where (in the article) do you want to add it? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I see no need to add any of the suggested text, as it's already contained in the article (and see the discussion above regarding "vertical" and "horizontal" terminology) Ghughesarch (talk) 11:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Windmill and wind turbine

A windmill is an entire building/structure that uses sails and mills grains, and the word refers to an entire building if it doesn't mill anything. A wind turbine is a structure like transmission towers. "Windmill" is a misnomer for wind turbines and wind turbine structures. Maybe windmills were adapted into wind turbine structures, but it is wrong to use "windmill" to refer to wind turbines. They are NOT windmills. - M0rphzone (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Although that would seem logical I'm afraid it isn't true. Look up the term 'windmill' in any dictionary and it has come to mean any structure with sails or blades that uses the power of the wind to produce energy, or even the childrens' toy - see: [12] , [13], [14] or the OED. Richerman (talk) 11:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

As if any respectable engineer would refer to a wind turbine as a windmill. Windmill is still a misnomer even if it's been "accepted" into the popular definition/connotation. Hopefully, people will learn to stop using it to refer to all types of wind structures, and learn the more specific/correct names. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You've just invented a very complex definition of windmill just to exclude wind turbines. Wind turbines are just the next step in the development of the windmill from the ancient horizontal windmills, to post mills, tower mills, smock mills, American style wind pumps etc. Wind turbines also fit the definition at the start of the article: "a machine that converts the energy of the wind into rotational energy". So it is definitely not wrong to call wind turbines windmills, but to avoid confusing (and annoying) people it may be better not to so. This is also supported by literature on windmills. However this is an argument that will not be resolved any time soon as many people have strong feelings on the subject. My guess is that it has to do with the romantic feelings people have for (traditional) windmills while at the same time they view modern wind turbines as noisy landscape polluters. There are a number of articles on wikipedia that deal with wind turbines so there is no real need to expand the subject in this article beyond a bare minimum. Reboelje (talk) 09:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

They still are not mills. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's more to do with a literal interpretation of the word. 'Windmill' sounds like it should be a machine that mills something using the power of the wind - and that is presumbly the origin of the word. However, as other machines such as windpumps and wind turbines have been developed they have also been called windmills as they used the same source of power and so looked the same. Now the word has come to be used more broadly for any machine powered by the wind. Richerman (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

That's because common, uneducated/ignorant people do not distinguish between them; there's a reason why there are different names for species of insects, rather than just call them all "bugs". - M0rphzone (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

M0rphzone's edit, viz: "Windmills that were developed into electricity-generating structures became known as wind turbines." is very clumsy and gives the impression that non-electricity generating wind machines were converted to that use and became known as wind turbines. This just isn't correct - besides which, some of the early examples of electricity generating wind machines looked like traditional windmills (La Cour's in Denmark, and E Lancaster Burne's in England, for example). Can we revert to the previous version: "A windmill specifically developed to generate electricity is a wind turbine." ? Ghughesarch (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we should. Richerman (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Its what I initially wrote, so fine by me. While we're on the subject of reverting, shouldn't we replace the first Kuremaa picture? It may be a featured picture on commons but the sails look suspicious to me. If they are real and not a later dummy version, than it would be one of the few mills turning clockwise and the miller would need a ladder to fit the sailcloth or boards. Reboelje (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the photo, I agree that it's not a good example (though clockwise mills are/were not "few" in number in the UK, though always a minority - amd this is the English-language wikipedia). Any suggestions for a better picture from commons? Ghughesarch (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

(Didn't know that.) I'd suggest a picture that most people would recognize as a common windmill, maybe a post mill? Reboelje (talk) 09:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

How about rewording it to this: Windmills that originally milled grain were adapted to utilize the rotating motion for other uses such as generating electricity, and later windmill-like electricity-generating structures became known as wind turbines. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds complicated. How about Wind turbines generate electricity from the power of the wind. They can be seen as the next step in the evolution of the windmill which leaves the question of whether or not wind turbines are windmills in the middle. Reboelje (talk) 09:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Reboelje's suggestion is fine by me. M0rphzone's is even more clumsy and inaccurate that his / her previous version. Ironic from someone who describes others as "common, uneducated/ignorant people" Ghughesarch (talk) 12:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not describing you that way, since it looks like you got offended. But the majority of people are in fact ignorant. It's not inaccurate since the windmill structures (that originally milled grain) where adapted/developed to other uses (and I don't mean the same mill, but the structure type). You need to get rid of that arrogant attitude you're showing in your edit wars and behavior here and for other articles. You do not own the article. And by the way, even if that original sentence was unchanged with silence, that doesn't mean it met "consensus". - M0rphzone (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I've never claimed to own this article, my edits are concerned with legibility and accuracy (which your earlier edits did not help, as was agreed by reboelje and richerman, the only other editors to offer a view). Sorry you've got a bee in your bonnet about that, but this is also dragging the discussion well away from the purpose of this talk page. Ghughesarch (talk) 12:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to claim ownership of an article to be possessive. Your edits and edit reverting behavior here and on other articles reveal your ownership mentality of this article and related article on windmills. I'd rather keep the discussion on the topic of issues in the article, so you're not helping much by continuing the flaming. I'm dropping this, so WP:STICK - M0rphzone (talk) 02:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Russian smock mill

Needs to be inserted as I haven't seen any of them here, though they used to be wide spread in Russia. RussianSmockMill.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barsoff (talk • contribs) 07:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Kuremaa mõisa tuuleveski.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Kuremaa mõisa tuuleveski.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 10, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-12-10. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Windmills are machines which convert the energy of wind into rotational energy by means of vanes called sails or blades. Originally used for milling grain, they have been adapted to many other uses. This windmill was photographed in Kuremaa, Estonia.Photo: Ivar Leidus

Amstel Tower windmill

I read on this talk page: "It is requested that an image or photograph of the mechanical details of the Amstel Tower windmill be included in this article to improve its quality." Where is the Amstel Tower windmill located? What is its local name? – Editør (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Tailwinding

16 of the windmills with Wikipedia articles were severely damaged at some point by tailwinding, but the process is nowhere explained. Perhaps this article should have a short section on the subject. Mikenorton (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2015

According to the research article [[Shepherd, Dennis G. (1990) Historical Development of the Windmill, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University, NASA Contractor Report 4337 DOE/NASA.5266-1, prepared for National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Lewis Research Center & Office of Management, Scientific and Technical Information Division, DOI:10.1115/1.802601.]] that it is mentioned in the section of "Further reading" of this wikipedia entry, there is a typo when refering to "Horizontal windmills" and "Vertical windmills". All the information about the "Horizontal windmill" refers to the "Vertical windmill", and vice versa. To fix it, it is just necessary to interchange these two section titles.

24.156.35.15 (talk) 07:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

This has already been discussed and rejected

Talk:Windmill/Archive_1#Vertical_v_Horizontal

the problem is that modern engineering terminology is based on the axial direction of the windmill blades, whereas general usage when referring to historic windmills refers to the plane of rotation. "Horizontal Windmill" in this article is a vertical axis windmill in modern engineering terms, but the modern engineering use "vertical windmill" is unhelpful and irreconcilable with the majority of the source material for historic windmills. Ghughesarch (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Windmill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120619044301/http://www.cgie.org.ir/shavad.asp?id=123&avaid=3609 to http://www.cgie.org.ir/shavad.asp?id=123&avaid=3609

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2015

In the 2nd para of the section titled 'Vertical Windmills', after ref (20) and before the final sentence (These earliest mills were used to grind cereals.) I wish to add the following: When Henry I founded Dunstable, about 1108, he seems to have incorporated a windmill, from his manor of Houghton Regis, in the new town by deliberately diverting the town boundary around, what later documents show, was the site of a windmill [21]. Reference (21) is <Barry Horne et al, (2013), Early Dunstable in Maps and Pictures, Church End Publishing> Grouditch (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I would oppose this suggestion as it appears a rather trivial, England focused detail, which has little effect on the development of windmills in global context. Arnoutf (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Images

The "tower mill near Dalian, China" image which is currently the second one on the page is a rather obvious modern fake built to look like a windmill. Could we substitute a better picture of a real windmill?Ghughesarch (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Goliath Poldermolen.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Goliath Poldermolen.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 6, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-02-06. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A windmill is a mill that converts the energy of wind into rotational energy by means of vanes called sails or blades. Traditional windmills were often used to mill grain, pump water, or both. Most modern windmills take the form of wind turbines used to generate electricity, or windpumps used to pump water, either for land drainage or to extract groundwater.

Here, the smock mill Goliath is viewed in front of the wind farm Growind in Eemshaven in the Netherlands.Photograph: Uberprutser

Terminology

Hi guys,

I've noticed some unresolved discussion pertaining to the terminology used to refer to windmills and related machines. I'm interested in resolving this discussion. It takes place in the following archived Talk sections:

Mergefrom Windpump

Windpumps and turbines

Confusion of terms

Oil mill, bark mill, ... ?

Electricity production

Windmill vs traditional windmills

Windpump, wind engine or wind wheel?

Windmill and wind turbine

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2015

Any ideas?

InternetMeme (talk) 04:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Windmill. 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/20081217063550/http://www.rgu.ac.uk/pressrel/BlythProject.doc to http://www.rgu.ac.uk/pressrel/BlythProject.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828170455/http://www.noblepower.com/our-windparks/GrandpasKnob/documents/07.09.12-NEP-GPKHistoryHandout-G.pdf to http://www.noblepower.com/our-windparks/GrandpasKnob/documents/07.09.12-NEP-GPKHistoryHandout-G.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Windmills in lead

Should the kinderdijk windmills be mentioned in the lead?? I've found some sources and a way to mention them in the lead which doesn't violate lead policy?? I won't edit this article again unless there is consensus for it.JC7V-constructive zone 16:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@JC7V7DC5768: What's a kinderdijk windmill? The article doesn't mention them at all, so I doubt there's a need to mention them in the lead. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Kinderdijk is a group of 19 windmills (or formally windpumps) in the Netherlands dating back to about 1740. It is a UNESCO world heritage site so it is indeed a major historical monument. Whether it should be mentioned on this page, is something else (as Dutchman I think they should as the Dutch windmills (what we are famous for) seems somewhat underrepresented; but then again as Dutchman I may be a bit biased.) So please take this further in open discussion. Arnoutf (talk) 09:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

There is an article Windmills at Kinderdijk which would be the first place to add any new information. The lead of this article is very short at the moment and needs expansion but it should be a summary of information that is already in the article - not new information not already mentioned. Looking at this article I would say that there is more about Dutch windmills in the text than any others at the moment, but a mention that the Kinderdijk has the largest concentration of old mills in the Netherlands, with a link to the Windmills at Kinderdijk article would be ok. Richerman (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Oldest Windmills in the world

https://www.greenprophet.com/2017/04/worlds-oldest-windmills-may-stop-in-nashtifan-iran/

https://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/news/00000159-74ce-da57-a97f-7ecf52560000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by برسام (talk • contribs) 05:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)