This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of screw drives article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||
The following images are needed to complete the list:
@Inductiveload might I convince you to add these, so all of the images match your wonderfully accurate style?
Also, these images in the article are not yours, and would benefit from your updating them:
PetesGuide ( talk) ( K6WEB) 22:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
It is necessary to add the hexagonal ball screw drives. Folio ( talk) 21:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
This was apparently intended as a joke, but to get it into the record [1] MarkMLl ( talk) 12:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
This article has four /info/en/?search=File:Screw_Head_-_Slotted.svg images next to Dzeus. WHY?? All those agglutinated images and text are confusing.
George Rodney Maruri Game ( talk) 20:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I have a couple of Phillips-style screwdriver bits labelled P0R, P1R, P2R, et cetera, and so I tried to find out what they are. I can't find a really usable reference, so I can't put this into the main article, but it seems that they are "reduced shank" bits - appears to be the same tip geometry as Phillips, but with a slimmer shank.
And now somebody trying to do the same research I was trying to do might be able to find this comment... :-)
(Not clear whether these are a distinct drive system, or just a different tool geometry. Is there a better repository for the codes for screwdriver bits?)
Jordan Brown ( talk) 04:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
... and I can't find it to fix this myself.
2001:16B8:48E5:9C00:DDC3:174A:C98B:19DB ( talk) 22:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Everywhere I looked people pronounce it like "pozi drive" but is it the intended pronunciation? And if so, isn't it written incorrectly? -- 87.71.54.120 ( talk) 04:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
There is a type of screw, common in electrical boxes, which can be turned with either a flat, a Phillips or Robertson screwdriver. It has a slot straight across, a square in the center, and cross radiating out from the corners of the square. Why is this type not mentioned in this article, and what is it called? More missing types are seen here: http://resources.tannerbolt.com/articles/what-type-of-screw-is-this/ Landroo ( talk) 15:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Also called ECX bits here in the US. I just bought some at the store. This should be added since it is common on most electrical outlets, electrical panels, and European cabinet hinge hardware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.127.21 ( talk) 03:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
"Screws with a plus-minus profile have become the clear standard in recent years. Background to this trend: they can be used universally for both high and low torques. While low torques are required for relay bases, for example, high torques have to be transferred in the case of surge-protection components. “With this in mind we also use plusminus screws almost exclusively for our new electronics products; for instance, with relay modules from the RIDERSERIES, or with our power solid-state relays,” says Electronics Product Manager, Frank Polley." From: http://cmswebdav.weidmueller.de/cms/com_int/WIN/WIN_SPS_IPC_Drives/Screwdriver_plus_minus.pdf -- DazB ( talk) 22:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I believe the OP is speaking about "Combo" bits. These are made and sold by Ideal and Klein. However, there is some difference between the two brands. The issue is surrounding the current crop of screws found in switches and receptacles from major building supply stores. You can try slotted, Phillips, or square recess bits on them as they appear to be a combination of those, but they will tend to slip, or cam-out, badly. The combo bit appears to be a compromise. We need to have some electricians put in their two cents on this issue. - KitchM ( talk) 20:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
The Pozidriz section has the image that (apparently) belongs ing the Motorq section, and the Pozidriz image seems to be missing. Would someone who knows how please fix this ? Many thanks ! Darkman101 ( talk) 20:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that user Marchjuly removed all screw profile images from this entire article since they were located inside of section headings which technically doesn't adhere to the Manual of Style. In this case I think an exception is merited since the images provided very substantial value to this list article. I reverted the removal, but happy to discuss other options for image layout that provides as clear user benefit and works well across both mobile and computer. Simply removing all the images doesn't improve the quality of this article. DVZ2 ( talk) 00:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Not contain images or iconsand that
These restrictions are necessary to avoid technical complications, and are not subject to override by local consensus.So this is policy level (technical accessibility) rather than guideline level (MOS), and it's justifiable (if not ideal) for an editor to remove them on the spot without discussion. They're still there in the edit history, so no need to panic, any other editor can put the images into the section bodies.
the picture serves as the typical example of the subject of the article and offers no further information – no caption neededthough here we're talking about a section – and the small image is unlikely to stray away from the text regardless of browser width or reader platform. Without a caption, we could also forgo the frame around the image so it takes up less space. The images should have alt text.
I don't support removing the section iconsmean you still think the images should still remain in the section headings even if a table is added or that you're OK to having them added within their relevant sections below the section headings as was suggested above? I'm assuming it's a case of the former because you left the images as they were when you made your last change, but please clarify if that's not the case. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
fairly major accessibility for screen readersand this fix is
a very clunky solution, then perhaps we should be working with the MOS (not against it) in trying to find an alternative way to present these images. As I posted above, we can't really change or make exceptions to MOS:ACCIM here in this discussion; that's something that would need to be done at WT:MOS. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
a very clunky solutionrelates to the reader or editor. I'm much less concerned about the latter than the former. DVZ2 ( talk) 16:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
New section for a table mockup; please keep the main discussion above. I think there's a way to get mouse-over text for the images without captions, but it's eluding me at the moment. – Reidgreg ( talk) 18:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Category | Types |
---|---|
Slotted |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Cruciform |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Square |
![]() |
Multiple-square |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Internal hex |
![]() ![]() |
Pentalobular |
![]() ![]() |
Hexalobular |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Combination |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
External |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Tamper-resistant |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Category | Types |
---|---|
Slotted | |
Cruciform | |
Square |
![]() |
Multiple-square | |
Internal hex | |
Pentalobular | |
Hexalobular | |
Combination | |
External | |
Tamper-resistant |
Category | Types |
---|---|
Slotted | |
Cruciform | |
Square | |
Multiple-square | |
Internal hex | |
Pentalobular | |
Hexalobular | |
Combination | |
External | |
Tamper-resistant |
Category | Types |
---|---|
Slotted | |
Cruciform | |
Square | |
Multiple-square | |
Internal hex | |
Pentalobular | |
Hexalobular | |
Combination | |
External | |
Tamper-resistant |
Same results could be gotten with literal separate columns for image vs text. Currently, every column in the multicolumn is the same width; some clever re-organization to put the longest types at the end of the list in each category might allow narrowing the columns generally (placing the images closer to each other) and leaving only the last column wider. I might have to read the manual *grumble* to figure out that non-uniform-column magic. DMacks ( talk) 04:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
For comparison, here's an example of what it would look like if the image was at the beginning of the first paragraph of a section.
Bob K31416 ( talk) 18:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Should TACL be included in this article? It was used to some degree in french cars of the 60s/70s? https://www.garagejournal.com/forum/threads/tacl-screwdrivers-by-facom.417016/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.72.54.198 ( talk) 11:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
It seems to me from some reading that there is a relatively new standard ISO 8764 that specifies "Screwdrivers for cross-recessed head screws", and apparently the latest revision of this standard specifies a driver that is designed to be able to successfully drive both traditional Phillips and traditional JIS fasteners. I assume it is distinct from both and essentially something in between the two. This article makes no mention of this whatsoever, and I think we should incorporate it. I don't know of there is an official common name for this type of driver, but it's very clear that manufacturers of drivers just call it "Phillips", EVEN IN JAPAN, where it is often abbreviated with a "P" or "Ph" prefix before the bit size number. Moreover, I have feeling that most modern "Phillips" bits/drivers are in fact made to this standard, rather than the traditional Phillips one. See here for some details that do not cite authoritative (standards body/driver manufacturing industry) sources: https://bike.bikegremlin.com/10583/phillips-vs-jis-vs-pozidriv/ or https://rtstools.com/jis-vs-phillips-screwdrivers-and-where-to-buy-a-jis-screwdriver/
Surlyhacker ( talk) 23:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
There was not a lot of information about the Mortorq drive system so I researched more about it. There was no information about why this type of drive was made and what it is used for, just a small description of what it is. To this term I added why this drive bit is used, what its benefits are. How the head height reduction has its benefits. The design of the recess and how it works. The aesthetic design points were added to it. The different recess sizes that are available. Then I added a quality assurance section talking about the Phillips Screw Company quality control of this drive system Richyrich1776 ( talk) 17:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
The clause "that close to a near-vertical surface to drive the screws into the drivers, […]" seems incomprehensible to me. If I knew the inteded meaning I’d edit it to make it clearer. Can anyone enlighten me? Spel-Punc-Gram ( talk) 03:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
The Torx Plus Tamper-Resistant head is problematic on this page. It's Torx, so it makes sense listing it with the other Torx heads - but it's also pentalobular, so listing it as a "Hexalobular (Torx)" head isn't completely correct. Is there a way around this? Grutness... wha? 14:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Standoff drives do not seem to be covered. It would probably be a good idea to add them to make the article more complete: [4], [5], [6]. They have a little "nipple" in the center. Mercy11 ( talk) 02:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
The various table mockups from a couple of years ago were apparently abandoned because of their width and the possible effect on some screen layouts. Nevertheless I've put perhaps the best table in to see how it can be worked with. I put it in a first section (now with a lead!), perhaps some text would be good in that section too. And I moved the very long table of contents to the right, at the risk of sandwiching the table even more. Because of the extra demand on that area of the screen, I removed {{ screw drives}} which is a sidebar with multiple links to this article, and just a couple to separate articles. Perhaps existing individual articles could be wikilinked in the summary table? Lithopsian ( talk) 14:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
References
Hi all, one cannot help but notice that in the main table, showing the most common fastener head designs, there are two rows entitled "Pentalobular" and "Hexalobular" - i.e with 5 or 6 internal lobes, respectively. Unfortunately, the "Torx Plus" security fastener (which includes a protruding central pin) is of a Pentalobular pattern, but has been grouped together with other Hexalobular designs.
The devil, as always, is in the details. Have a safe and successful 2024,
Nick Herbert, Licensed Aircraft Engineer (retired) 136.158.49.61 ( talk) 11:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of screw drives article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||
The following images are needed to complete the list:
@Inductiveload might I convince you to add these, so all of the images match your wonderfully accurate style?
Also, these images in the article are not yours, and would benefit from your updating them:
PetesGuide ( talk) ( K6WEB) 22:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
It is necessary to add the hexagonal ball screw drives. Folio ( talk) 21:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
This was apparently intended as a joke, but to get it into the record [1] MarkMLl ( talk) 12:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
This article has four /info/en/?search=File:Screw_Head_-_Slotted.svg images next to Dzeus. WHY?? All those agglutinated images and text are confusing.
George Rodney Maruri Game ( talk) 20:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I have a couple of Phillips-style screwdriver bits labelled P0R, P1R, P2R, et cetera, and so I tried to find out what they are. I can't find a really usable reference, so I can't put this into the main article, but it seems that they are "reduced shank" bits - appears to be the same tip geometry as Phillips, but with a slimmer shank.
And now somebody trying to do the same research I was trying to do might be able to find this comment... :-)
(Not clear whether these are a distinct drive system, or just a different tool geometry. Is there a better repository for the codes for screwdriver bits?)
Jordan Brown ( talk) 04:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
... and I can't find it to fix this myself.
2001:16B8:48E5:9C00:DDC3:174A:C98B:19DB ( talk) 22:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Everywhere I looked people pronounce it like "pozi drive" but is it the intended pronunciation? And if so, isn't it written incorrectly? -- 87.71.54.120 ( talk) 04:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
There is a type of screw, common in electrical boxes, which can be turned with either a flat, a Phillips or Robertson screwdriver. It has a slot straight across, a square in the center, and cross radiating out from the corners of the square. Why is this type not mentioned in this article, and what is it called? More missing types are seen here: http://resources.tannerbolt.com/articles/what-type-of-screw-is-this/ Landroo ( talk) 15:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Also called ECX bits here in the US. I just bought some at the store. This should be added since it is common on most electrical outlets, electrical panels, and European cabinet hinge hardware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.127.21 ( talk) 03:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
"Screws with a plus-minus profile have become the clear standard in recent years. Background to this trend: they can be used universally for both high and low torques. While low torques are required for relay bases, for example, high torques have to be transferred in the case of surge-protection components. “With this in mind we also use plusminus screws almost exclusively for our new electronics products; for instance, with relay modules from the RIDERSERIES, or with our power solid-state relays,” says Electronics Product Manager, Frank Polley." From: http://cmswebdav.weidmueller.de/cms/com_int/WIN/WIN_SPS_IPC_Drives/Screwdriver_plus_minus.pdf -- DazB ( talk) 22:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I believe the OP is speaking about "Combo" bits. These are made and sold by Ideal and Klein. However, there is some difference between the two brands. The issue is surrounding the current crop of screws found in switches and receptacles from major building supply stores. You can try slotted, Phillips, or square recess bits on them as they appear to be a combination of those, but they will tend to slip, or cam-out, badly. The combo bit appears to be a compromise. We need to have some electricians put in their two cents on this issue. - KitchM ( talk) 20:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
The Pozidriz section has the image that (apparently) belongs ing the Motorq section, and the Pozidriz image seems to be missing. Would someone who knows how please fix this ? Many thanks ! Darkman101 ( talk) 20:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that user Marchjuly removed all screw profile images from this entire article since they were located inside of section headings which technically doesn't adhere to the Manual of Style. In this case I think an exception is merited since the images provided very substantial value to this list article. I reverted the removal, but happy to discuss other options for image layout that provides as clear user benefit and works well across both mobile and computer. Simply removing all the images doesn't improve the quality of this article. DVZ2 ( talk) 00:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Not contain images or iconsand that
These restrictions are necessary to avoid technical complications, and are not subject to override by local consensus.So this is policy level (technical accessibility) rather than guideline level (MOS), and it's justifiable (if not ideal) for an editor to remove them on the spot without discussion. They're still there in the edit history, so no need to panic, any other editor can put the images into the section bodies.
the picture serves as the typical example of the subject of the article and offers no further information – no caption neededthough here we're talking about a section – and the small image is unlikely to stray away from the text regardless of browser width or reader platform. Without a caption, we could also forgo the frame around the image so it takes up less space. The images should have alt text.
I don't support removing the section iconsmean you still think the images should still remain in the section headings even if a table is added or that you're OK to having them added within their relevant sections below the section headings as was suggested above? I'm assuming it's a case of the former because you left the images as they were when you made your last change, but please clarify if that's not the case. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
fairly major accessibility for screen readersand this fix is
a very clunky solution, then perhaps we should be working with the MOS (not against it) in trying to find an alternative way to present these images. As I posted above, we can't really change or make exceptions to MOS:ACCIM here in this discussion; that's something that would need to be done at WT:MOS. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
a very clunky solutionrelates to the reader or editor. I'm much less concerned about the latter than the former. DVZ2 ( talk) 16:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
New section for a table mockup; please keep the main discussion above. I think there's a way to get mouse-over text for the images without captions, but it's eluding me at the moment. – Reidgreg ( talk) 18:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Category | Types |
---|---|
Slotted |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Cruciform |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Square |
![]() |
Multiple-square |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Internal hex |
![]() ![]() |
Pentalobular |
![]() ![]() |
Hexalobular |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Combination |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
External |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Tamper-resistant |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Category | Types |
---|---|
Slotted | |
Cruciform | |
Square |
![]() |
Multiple-square | |
Internal hex | |
Pentalobular | |
Hexalobular | |
Combination | |
External | |
Tamper-resistant |
Category | Types |
---|---|
Slotted | |
Cruciform | |
Square | |
Multiple-square | |
Internal hex | |
Pentalobular | |
Hexalobular | |
Combination | |
External | |
Tamper-resistant |
Category | Types |
---|---|
Slotted | |
Cruciform | |
Square | |
Multiple-square | |
Internal hex | |
Pentalobular | |
Hexalobular | |
Combination | |
External | |
Tamper-resistant |
Same results could be gotten with literal separate columns for image vs text. Currently, every column in the multicolumn is the same width; some clever re-organization to put the longest types at the end of the list in each category might allow narrowing the columns generally (placing the images closer to each other) and leaving only the last column wider. I might have to read the manual *grumble* to figure out that non-uniform-column magic. DMacks ( talk) 04:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
For comparison, here's an example of what it would look like if the image was at the beginning of the first paragraph of a section.
Bob K31416 ( talk) 18:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Should TACL be included in this article? It was used to some degree in french cars of the 60s/70s? https://www.garagejournal.com/forum/threads/tacl-screwdrivers-by-facom.417016/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.72.54.198 ( talk) 11:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
It seems to me from some reading that there is a relatively new standard ISO 8764 that specifies "Screwdrivers for cross-recessed head screws", and apparently the latest revision of this standard specifies a driver that is designed to be able to successfully drive both traditional Phillips and traditional JIS fasteners. I assume it is distinct from both and essentially something in between the two. This article makes no mention of this whatsoever, and I think we should incorporate it. I don't know of there is an official common name for this type of driver, but it's very clear that manufacturers of drivers just call it "Phillips", EVEN IN JAPAN, where it is often abbreviated with a "P" or "Ph" prefix before the bit size number. Moreover, I have feeling that most modern "Phillips" bits/drivers are in fact made to this standard, rather than the traditional Phillips one. See here for some details that do not cite authoritative (standards body/driver manufacturing industry) sources: https://bike.bikegremlin.com/10583/phillips-vs-jis-vs-pozidriv/ or https://rtstools.com/jis-vs-phillips-screwdrivers-and-where-to-buy-a-jis-screwdriver/
Surlyhacker ( talk) 23:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
There was not a lot of information about the Mortorq drive system so I researched more about it. There was no information about why this type of drive was made and what it is used for, just a small description of what it is. To this term I added why this drive bit is used, what its benefits are. How the head height reduction has its benefits. The design of the recess and how it works. The aesthetic design points were added to it. The different recess sizes that are available. Then I added a quality assurance section talking about the Phillips Screw Company quality control of this drive system Richyrich1776 ( talk) 17:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
The clause "that close to a near-vertical surface to drive the screws into the drivers, […]" seems incomprehensible to me. If I knew the inteded meaning I’d edit it to make it clearer. Can anyone enlighten me? Spel-Punc-Gram ( talk) 03:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
The Torx Plus Tamper-Resistant head is problematic on this page. It's Torx, so it makes sense listing it with the other Torx heads - but it's also pentalobular, so listing it as a "Hexalobular (Torx)" head isn't completely correct. Is there a way around this? Grutness... wha? 14:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Standoff drives do not seem to be covered. It would probably be a good idea to add them to make the article more complete: [4], [5], [6]. They have a little "nipple" in the center. Mercy11 ( talk) 02:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
The various table mockups from a couple of years ago were apparently abandoned because of their width and the possible effect on some screen layouts. Nevertheless I've put perhaps the best table in to see how it can be worked with. I put it in a first section (now with a lead!), perhaps some text would be good in that section too. And I moved the very long table of contents to the right, at the risk of sandwiching the table even more. Because of the extra demand on that area of the screen, I removed {{ screw drives}} which is a sidebar with multiple links to this article, and just a couple to separate articles. Perhaps existing individual articles could be wikilinked in the summary table? Lithopsian ( talk) 14:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
References
Hi all, one cannot help but notice that in the main table, showing the most common fastener head designs, there are two rows entitled "Pentalobular" and "Hexalobular" - i.e with 5 or 6 internal lobes, respectively. Unfortunately, the "Torx Plus" security fastener (which includes a protruding central pin) is of a Pentalobular pattern, but has been grouped together with other Hexalobular designs.
The devil, as always, is in the details. Have a safe and successful 2024,
Nick Herbert, Licensed Aircraft Engineer (retired) 136.158.49.61 ( talk) 11:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)