Talk:Screwdriver/Archives/2015

Drive types

The right-hand box refers to the "shape chart below", which used to be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Screw_drives but was removed from the article. Using the template is beyond my mediawiki skills, but it should either be added back to the page, or the reference to the shape chart removed. Pnorman (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Screw driver damage

I have worn out quite a lot of cross head style screw drivers (manual and electric powered) on modern hardened screws. I think it could be mentioned thats repeated use with modern hard screws can quickly wear a cross head driver and that this is more of a problem than the wear of the screws. --ManInStone 09:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree this should be merged with Screwdriver in some way or another.

ActingStar 04:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I recall seeing a magazine or the BBC or someone spending a long time and a lot of effort at the end of the century deciding on the tool of the millenium and ... yes ... you guessed ... the humble screwdriver was chosen #1 most useful tool of the last 1000 years. Maybe it was Popular Mechanics. Anyway, I thought I'd mention this in case someone gets bored and wants to chase it up one day. Tannin

http://www.nucleus.com/~keith/Reviews2003.html - Patrick 10:41 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)

I heard that the best screwdriver had a squareshaped end and had screws with a square-shaped hole in the middle. The screwdriver didn't jump out of position, and the screws didn't get weak when used...

You're probably thinking of the Robertson screwdriver -SCEhardT 05:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Is a cruciform screwdriver the same thing as a Phillips screwdriver? —Tokek 08:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

handle and bits

Inconvenience: in few instances, the thick shaft produced by this design won't allow it to get inside narrow paths as opposed to conventional screwdrivers that usually have a shaft no thicker than the head/tip. However, this inconvenience can be resolved by using bits with much longer shaft than the widespread 25mm standard. --PeaceAnywhere 20:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain - but you do get such a thing as a left handed screwdriver. It depends on the ergonomic shape of the handle, but it is most definately a real product! It is used as a joke like tartan pain etc but you cant just say it doesnt exist! Kirsty Mason 30th September. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.44.31.27 (talk) 13:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Inventor

I've removed "invented by Leonardo da Vinci" until a citation can be provided. -SCEhardT 17:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Best to cross-link and to be as complete as possible. There is at least one more type of phillips head: the Reed and Prince style was once common, and needs its own driver to prevent damage. cnc

History

Someone/thing has suggested expanding the history section. Well, I said all I wanted to say about turnscrews, I don't see why that flag has had to appear. If anyone knows anything else about screwdrivers, then good luck to them —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunnian (talk • contribs) 19:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow thats some cool stuff thanks man id like to make a shout out to my mum "hi mum" :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.117.89 (talk) 07:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This page cites an author whose research of primary sources points to the screwdriver being invented during the 15th century http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1026/is_5_158/ai_67161980 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.178.63.225 (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is in regard to the history section of the Wikipedia page on the screwdriver. The section covers many events and inventions that helped the screwdriver become a very useful and popular tool but it is written very poorly. The section doesn’t follow a timeline. Instead it jumps back and forth over a large period of time making it hard for the reader to understand the development of the screwdriver. For example, in one paragraph the popularity of the screwdriver is discussed and in the very next paragraph the topic changes to different names for the screwdriver. This transition happens without any discretion to the reader. It just jumps from one topic to another, which makes it hard to realize the significance of any one topic. Also, the article cites many legitimate sources but doesn’t fully utilize them for the history section. The section focuses mainly on the 15th century and 20th century development of the screwdriver and briefly goes over its 18th and 19th century history. This limited historical information takes away from the articles value. The lack of chronological order and historical information undermine the history of one of the most common tools in our society. Without a chronological order, the article seems to be all over the place. Also, without historical information it seems to be an incomplete article. The addition of a timeline and more history of the screwdriver would greatly benefit the article and the readers understanding of the topic.HIST406-13ahad (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Coach Bolts

The picture of screw heads shows a 'square' which is associated with coach bolts, but I have no idea where this diagram lives so I can't update it. Brunnian (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

In the last paragraph under "Types and Variations: Screw Heads" somebody put some obscene language in the article. Could somebody please find how the article was previously supposed to appear and correct this? Entrepreneur68 (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the vandalism. In the future, you can do this yourself; no need to post to the talk page. Just go to the history tab, find the offending edit, and click the undo link. Despite the never ending nature, I find it very satisfying to wipe out juvenile crap like this. Kinda like painting over graffiti; it's like it never happened. Pjbflynn (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Medieval Housebook

The title referenced in this sentence is problematic: "The first documentation of the tool is in The Medieval Housebook of Wolfegg Castle, a manuscript written sometime between 1475 and 1490." I get that Rybczynski wrote his book about the screwdriver, and referenced an old manuscript (I don't have his book), but this sentence, as rendered, mistakenly claims that there exists a manuscript, written in the fifteenth century, whose title somehow employs a word invented in the 19th century ('medieval'). This is confounding on several levels. If the actual manuscript being cited is on record, or even published using that title in the 19th century or after, then cite that instead of Rybczynski. Or if it had no title, then perhaps some language like "According to Witold Rybczynski (2000), the first documentation of the tool comes from a 15th-century manuscript about Wolfegg Castle," or something similar. o0drogue0o 11:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by O0drogue0o (talk • contribs)

Although your point is well taken, it is not wrong as written, because "Medieval Housebook of Wolfegg Castle", short form "Medieval Housebook" (German "Mittelalterliche Hausbuch von Schloss Wolfegg", short form "Mittelalterliche Hausbuch") is a long-established title by which the work is called in academia. This has been true for at least 50 years (from what my own limited reading indicates) and possibly for several centuries. (Note: I intentionally used quote marks rather than italics above because they will show up in plain text of search results.) The English Wikipedia seems not yet to have an article on the book, as of this writing, but the German Wikipedia does (de:Hausbuch (Schloss Wolfegg)). The closest analogy I can come up with at the moment to compare it to is the Rosetta stone. The people who wrote it didn't call it that, but that's a usual name for it today. The analogy is not exact because the stone is not a book, so the convention of italicizing the title doesn't enter in. In fairness to your point, though, an alternate option in this article would be to write "the medieval Housebook of Wolfegg Castle" (note italic placement), because "Housebook" is what people called it when it was written. — ¾-10 01:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I had suspected something like that. However, if this manuscript is so widely referred to as such in academia, then one would think there ought to be at least one citable source, as external searches of the text string bring few results, hence the confusion. Your "Rosetta Stone" analogy makes sense, apart from the issues that a. That petroglyph was named after the location of its discovery (so, no anachronism in its name), and b. There actually is a Wikipedia article in English covering it. This issue might well, then, fall under jargon guidelines. I just know I had to spend some time trying to work that out, as might many others. At any rate, I think modifying the italics would be an improvement, or perhaps even just a direct quote from Rybczynski's book instead? o0drogue0o 11:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by O0drogue0o (talk • contribs)

Rybczynski 2000 pp. 90–94 used the same styling as had been used in this article. (I just changed this article's styling per our discussion). In a caption, he caps and italicizes "The Medieval Housebook of Wolfegg Castle" and in the nearby text he uses the shorter forms "Medieval Housebook" and "Housebook". That's acceptable (as discussed above), but in this article I just changed it to avoid the problem you pointed out, so it now says "the medieval Housebook of Wolfegg Castle" (sic, cap scheme, italic choice, and link target). [I used the interwiki link target because (as of this writing) the English Wikipedia lacks an article on the book. I am aware that using an interwiki link target, even when for a good reason like this one, always risks attracting a certain kind of pedant who insists that *no* link is better than an interwiki link. But I linked it anyway because the rest of humanity prefers utility to anality. :-) If they are using Google Chrome browser it will even offer a good, free machine translation when they land, at the press of a button.] Thank you for raising your point, as I feel it has yielded an improvement. — ¾-10 00:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Great. Best solution available, I'd imagine. o0drogue0o 10:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Uncited Editorial

I've added citation needed tags to the blades section. Specifically, it makes the claim that the term "flat-head" is an "incorrect" term but does not provide any source to back it up. Ironically, the source article cited at the end of that sentence uses the term "flat-head" repeatedly without any mention of it being somehow an "incorrect" term.

If nobody can provide a source for that claim, it should be removed. Sir kris (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Demon core incident

My addition of the notable and well-sourced incident was reverted. I think the event was definitely appropriate for the Misuse section and spent much time summarising the key points. Can anyone please share your thoughts on its appropriateness? Thanks, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 00:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It's notable and it's sourced – but so is the Battle of Waterloo. What relevance does it (or Waterloo) have to screwdrivers? Would Slotin's accident have been any different it he had used a pencil or a pickaxe? Were screwdrivers changed in any way by this accident? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)