Talk:Clockwise

Which way round?

"In a mathematical sense, a circle defined parametrically by the equations x = r sin t and y = r cos t, where r is the radius of the circle, is traced clockwise as t increases in value." -- isn't it the other way around? (pun not really intended) --Gutza 19:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

No, it is correct. This circle starts on the upper Y-axis and moves right. I find it a bit confusing though, as the usual parameterisation of a circle is x = r cos t, y = r sin t, which goes in the other direction. --Zero 00:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that tricked me too. I thought there must have been a catch, it couldn't have escaped everybody's attention. Maybe we should post a very short notice drawing attention to this in the article? Thank you for the reply! --Gutza 05:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I've left the usual counterclockwise parameterisation first in the text but added a quick mention of the clockwise alternative as well (as the article is 'Clockwise'). 31.49.249.182 (talk) 04:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

title of page is incorrect

Title of page should be anti- not counter-clockwise
WE gave you the language use it properly.
do not call me a nutcase im merley speaking th truth.
Words have the letter u in them like coloUr and honoUr and neighboUr.
the title of the pages should be the corect orgin of the word anti not counter.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.205.148.82 (talk • contribs) .

Please sign your comments on talk pages. Also please read WP:MOS#National varieties of English. Any regional variant of English is acceptable as long as the article is internally consistent. It is not consistent for the title of the article to contain "counterclockwise" but the text to use the term "anti-clockwise". In any event you should not have altered the choice of words of the first major contributor. Therefore I am changing back to "counterclockwise". --Mathew5000 13:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Unsigned Poster, whilst I agree that 'anti-clockwise' is better than 'counter-clockwise', I however disagree with you on the basis of your reasoning. Perhaps, next time, you would not butcher the language and instead insert some punctuation, grammar, spelling and the like so that your comments are not mocked as I am doing now. Thank you, --Colourblind 03:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Both right, thats why it's on CLOCKWISE! I use the language properly, you're being an annoying freak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunakeet (talk • contribs) 17:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Why on Earth does Wikipedia allow people to post anonymously? All it facilitates is nerds, twerps and basket-cases! Nuttyskin (talk) 08:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Move to Clockwise

Any reason that we shouldn't just call this "Clockwise"? We should still use "counterclockwise" as the main word within the article, but it would fix some of the dialectal arguments and it is a more standard name. violet/riga (t) 13:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I wholey agree this woudl resolves the above discussion will move in seven days if no comments or objecys are posted.--Lucy-marie 18:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

On Counter Vs. Anti

Perhaps there should be a section explaining the Etymology of the word and the diferent usages in different countries, similar to the section in Aluminium. 194.82.121.38 20:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

In the section marked, why is AE explicitly called "Northern American English"? Is English the official language anywhere else in America? I think not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.123.25 (talk) 11:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

British English is spoken in South America in Guyana, as well as in Caribbean countries such as Jamaica, or Trinidad and Tobago. __Just plain Bill (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Usage

What's with the odd reference citation for the common mnemonic? And why does it even need a citation? Furthermore, the two sentences following are redundant given the previous discussion of plane face selection which is generally obvious/de facto with a bolt or screw as generally one end has an accessible fastener. I'm not so sure the right-hand rule is "simple", nor is the procedure describe dparticularly helpful as you must "know" the handedness of the threads (no mention of the the general right-handedness of screws). The next "paragraph" sort of covers this last point, only it then switches back to "clockwise" without any solid linkage between handedness and -wise being established; it's made in a (doubly) parathentical clause in the "Etymology" section. --Belg4mit 19:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree that there's something peculiar about that mnemonic being cited - with nothing in the references. Why might it need a citation? I'd like to know who to blame for the mnemonic's very existance, frankly; I teach the use of tools and I've found that the mnemonic, to false beginners (tyros), is far more a viral security blanket than anything useful, and the people who do understand it reveal, on close questioning, that they are interpreting it through another system (typically better, but not typically made explicit).

The right-hand rule is an improvement (relative to the mnemonic) as it is tactile and more concrete and, therefore, teachable and relevant for being immediately applicable. There being relatively few reverse-threaded objects (there are less than 10 in bicycle-dom, for example), the handedness of threads need not be discussed exhaustively, nor is it really necessary for the practitioner to know whether a thread is reverse or conventional - it's usually sufficient for them to know that 'some cows got horns, some don't'. I'm tempted to suggest that, there being only two ways to move a nut, bolt, or screw, a faster method than either of the two referenced would be "guess" i.e. apply the tool and attempt to turn the object, in either direction... the person doing this will learn quickly whether they're having the desired effect.

However, as for fasteners... sometimes there is both a nut and a bolt. A subset of these pairs requires only one tool (consider the wide variety of methods for securing a bicycle seat-post...). For those pairs that do require only one tool, knowing which of the two objects to turn is, of course, important, but so is the matter of proper address of that object with the required tool.

In still other cases, direct address of the part (nut, bolt, screw, etc.) is not possible, and some 3-space translation must be done... it can get quite fussy to thoroughly describe all of the possibilities, and all of that quickly becomes an endless series of tangents from the main subject - CW and CCW, not nuts and bolts.

Curmudgeonistically (talk) 09:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

With reference to the paragraph on 'the opposite sense of threading being used for a special reason', I believe that the statements "As the vehicle moved forward, the lug nuts tend to tighten." and "For bicycle pedals, the one on the left is reverse-threaded, or the pedal will unscrew during use" are mistaken. I suggest that the opposite is the case. The pedal on the left is left hand threaded, but this would tend to make the pedal spindle become loose in use, if it wasn't tightened sufficiently. The reason is so that the spindle doesn't become over tight in use, and difficult to remove. Pedals are installed by starting the threaded spindle in the crank, and rotating the crank backwards (contrary to normal forward pedaling) while preventing the spindle from roating with a wrench (eg: an Allen key). Conversly, they are removed by holding the spindle and rotating the crank forwards. In normal forward pedalling, the pedal may be rotating anti clockwise, as viewed from the left side of the bike, but the force on the spindle (from friction in the bearings) is in a clockwise direction relative to the crank. A similar situation pertains to the right hand threaded lug nuts on the right side of an automobile or truck. These would tend to loosen as the vehicle moved forward (unless sufficiently tightened); the reason is the same: to prevent them from becoming too tight in use. Folkie XL (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

In humans

This section is nearly useless without discussion of how right-handed folks behave for comparison; presumably the opposite. Also, perhaps the bit about supination belongs here?

Also, the bit about which direction humans explore unfamiliar buildings is interesting, but I've often heard the companion statement that "death comes from the left", which has led many adventurous individuals to always take a left turn in unfamiliar circumstances. Steamboat28 (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This all makes sense. Another data point: visitors with experience going to amusement parks often recommend that newcomers go very early, when the gates open, and circulate clockwise (turn initially to the left). Apparently this is because most visitors enter and turn right. [Marzolian, not logged in]208.185.201.194 (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

With respect to the belief that "right handed people circulate in buildings clockwise", I submit that this is really cultural and hence is a learned habit. For example, people in India, where traffic keeps left, have a tendency to circulate in buildings in clockwise direction and not anti-clockwise. Unless double-bind experiments have been done that eliminate cultural bias, this will be difficult to prove one way or another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.204.15.13 (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The source is dubious. It would possibly require not only a more recent source, but even more importantly more sources as this is a type of experiment that is most open to various types of bias and errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.178.240.193 (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Aa a right-hander, I draw circles in a clockwise direction. [Marzolian, not logged in]208.185.201.194 (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

As do I. This all strikes me as so much unscientific (or maybe even pseudoscientific) hogwash. Nuttyskin (talk) 08:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

In shipping

Very important addition to demonstrate the importance of the streams in international shipping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorroisback (talk • contribs) 16:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

abbreviations

Search for "CW" and you at least get to the disambiguation page; type "CCW" and it brings you straight here.. but there's no reference to this commonly-used abbreviation in the article. I was linking the image editing use of the term where (in image orientation or image rotation) it's in regular use. I'd be inlined to put it in the lead para here, as it warrants only a brief mention. Any objections? mikaul^talk 14:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

widdershins

Moving counterclockwise is also called widdershins. Shouldn't this article and the one for widdershins be either linked or combined? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.204.150.101 (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

In shipping

Diff

The removed section does not cite any reliable source, and is becoming the focus of an edit war. If any editor wants to restore it, reliable sourcing must be shown. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Rotation-axis direction should be clarified

The clockwise rotation is

1. left-handed when the rotation-axis direction is from back to front,
2. right-handed when the rotation-axis direction is from front to back.

Kkddkkdd (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

clockwise is taken as negative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.88.55.227 (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Counter-Clockwise Hebrew Clocks

There is an indication in the article that there are several European Hebrew clock towers that run counter-clockwise. I am only familiar with the one in Prague next to the Altneu Synagogue. Can record of a second - currently existing or historical - be found? I'm also not satisfied the reason was due to the opposite direction of the Hebrew language. Most modern timepieces use Arabic numerals, and Arabic is also right-to-left. This reasoning might make sense if back in the 16th century (when the Prague clocktower was built) the only other clocks used Roman numerals. Also, if this were the reason, one would think 'counter-clockwise' Hebrew clocks would be a lot more common than one example. And I am unaware of any other example. Gavroche42 (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

"Arabic" (Hindu-origin "Eastern Arabic" or "Arab-Indic") numbers are written left to right in Arabic, just as they are in languages using the Latin and Cyrillic alphabets.

For an example of a clock using Arabic numbers, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Clock-in-cairo-with-eastern-arabic-numerals.jpg Note that it runs in the usual clockwise manner.

The likely reason for the hands on clocks rotating in a clockwise direction is that that was the direction that the gnomon's shadow moved on a northern hemisphere sun dial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.94.226 (talk) 09:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree...the counterclockwise Hebrew letter clock in Prague is an anomaly, not an example of a known thing. The original comment by Gavroche42 was in 2013, and now it is 2022, and nobody can show any more examples of another Hebrew clock that runs counterclockwise. Meanwhile, that sentence has no citation! So, I'm editing that sentence in the article to reflect the reality that it is surely interesting, but not an example of a genre. It is simply not possible to prove the negative, but without any proof to the positive, it doesn't belong in this article. SunshineSet (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Bolivian clock

I do some changes about the Bolivian clock reference.

1) According to the same reference given, it was only one clock:

In the latest – and by far the most literal – sign that times are changing in Bolivia, the numerals on the clock that adorns the congress building in La Paz have been reversed and the hands set to run anticlockwise in proud affirmation of the Andean nation's "southernness".

2) I change the word regime because «modern usage often gives the term a negative connotation», as Oxford English Dictionary defines: "a government, especially an authoritarian one". So I replace it with "presidency" that has no connotation.

Eloy (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Change in paragraph "In humans"

Hi, I don't understand why the sentence I added was deleted? The reference seems to be allright. I found it while surfing on the internet and it relates precisely to the point of view exposed in the paragraph Rsrikanth05 Mathew5000 Hexagone59 (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm extremely extremely sorry. A very serious error of judgement on my part. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

'from above the South Pole'

HI, technically it should read 'from behind the SP'. Thanks in advance. --Backinstadiums (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Anticlocks

• See this Google search for plenty of pictures of anticlockwise clocks. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Sentence

I need a sentence please 2600:1011:B001:99BD:0:44:9C4E:D601 (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Title change

I think the title should be changed Clockwise and Counter-clockwise. It would be more fitting. Ilikggfriedrice123 (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)