Talk:Jubilee Clip

Engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merger of this article into Hose Clamp article

This article should be merged with the Hose clamp article because 1) this is not the first type of worm gear hose clamp, 2) this is not the most commonly used term for a hose clamp, and 3) this article is misleading in that it implies leads the reader to believe that the first worm gear hose clamp was the "Jubilee Clip." which is merely a brand name of a worm gear hose clamp variation. This would be excellent and noteworthy content for the worm gear hose clamp section of the Hose Clamp article. Unlike the previous merger proposal, this proposal would redirect this to Hose clamp Nicholas SL Smith^chatter 04:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So which was the worm-drive hose clamp before the Jubilee? If you're claiming it was Bergstrom, then his first patent (AFAIK) was in 1942, well after the Jubilee. If there is a supposed patent by him, fifty years before most of his work, twenty years before the first patent filing I can find in his name, then it's going to need a good citation (and not just a blog post by the makers themselves). Maybe it's a Swedish patent, as my ability to search for Swedish patents is minimal, but I can't find it.

Or are you referring to the Sauerbier clamp? Which Robinson was certainly familiar with - it was the shortcomings of that design (with the rigid bolt and separate nut) which Robinson was trying to overcome.

Also, worm-drive clamps are a significant, but not the only form of hose clamp. So oppose. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of Hose Clamp into this article

Hose Clamp should be merged with this page as the Jubilee clip as Jubilee clip is the original name for a hose clamp (Fdsdh1 (talk) 11:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Oppose Jubilee clips are one brand of hose clip, albeit a particularly notable one. They're not the first, they're not even the only brand of worm-drive hose clip. We should no more merge all of these articles to hose clip than we should merge brands of cola to a single article. If we did that, the next response would be that "Covering one brand of one form of clip is WP:UNDUE within an article on hose clips" (which might even be a good point) and then the history of Jubilee would be deleted altogether. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Photo needed

Could we get a picture of the genuine article (showing the trade name), not jsut a generic stand-in? --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notable

If "It remains the term used in everyday speech in the UK and Ireland" is true, then the term, not the trademark, is notable.66.19.94.144 (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing

Why is it called a jubilee clip? And in the "Company" section, it talks about the government officials wanting to take over the company, but it sounds like there was no incorporated company until later, and it was just a sole trader business at that point. Should the article be using the more general term "business", rather than "company"? Finally, what was the purpose of Robinson's wife's deed poll? How would that have affected her claim to the business? A deed poll does not in itself "change your name," and besides, she was already Robinson's widow so what did she have to prove? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.150.26.234 (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I love the personal details

I just love the information about the inventor, which has clearly been added by someone who wants to keep his memory alive. This is what Wikipedia is really good at, capturing first-hand information that you couldn't find anywhere else. Sadly, it's what Wikipedia policy tries to kill off - you're not supposed to put anything in that hasn't already been published elsewhere. Long live those who know when to ignore such policies. Mhkay (talk) 06:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]