User talk:JaydenBarnes

Screws and bolts

I appreciate the work you're doing on various nuts and bolts articles. Bolt (fastener) in particular is inadequate for such an important topic. Have you taken a look at Screw, which covers both screws and bolts (the lead sentence kind of gives the game away that it isn't just an article about screws) with very little left over for a separate bolt article on bolts? Have you also seen bolted joint which seems like it should be covered in any article about bolts? How enthusiastic are you for tackling something big like restructuring them? Lithopsian (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sending me over a message. I have taken brief looks at all the relevant pages to bolted joints and I can't believe how random the information is scattered around. I also speak Japanese and have viewed the same pages on Japanese Wikipedia pages to find completely different information. Sometimes the Japanese pages have been translated from the English with the English word being taken completely into Japanese ignoring the popular terminology. I am very enthusiastic about tackling a restructure for these pages. I believe it will benefit a lot of people to have correct information when it comes to bolted joints. There is so much room for error when using bolts and nuts, this can cause major incidents and deaths such as Potters Bar when an engineer decided to damage the threads as a temporary measure instead of using a lock nut. Basic understandings of bolts is important, but there needs to be more emphasis on choosing the correct preload in order to prevent Fatigue failure and increase lifetime hence decreasing maintenance (Retorquing of nuts/bolts( . Also in my opinion there are way too much reliance on prevailing type nuts which use nylon inserts to increase friction in the thread. These solutions are not always viable because they are not fully metallic and they damage the threads sometimes being impossible to remove. I believe a major restructuring of the whole topic plus these important topics need to be introduced with valid sourcing.

What do you think?

Also are you willing to participate to help restructure? JaydenBarnes (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to decide what the best structure is, which is one of the main reasons I haven't changed anything. The problems are obvious, the solutions less so. Screw as it stands could be renamed to something more generic like Threaded fastener, but it isn't exactly the first thing people would look for. Or it could be trimmed down with a lot of the information moved out, but then the common features of all threaded fasteners gets fragmented. All the nut information is in separate short articles and nut (hardware) itself isn't up to much. That can work, but the parent article needs to summarise the topic and introduce the sub-articles properly. So I still don't know the best way to go. Of course, before renaming important articles or breaking them up, it would be best to start a discussion and then you'll get more opinions than you could ever imagine! You probably know the subject better than me, but I can advise on the intricacies of editing Wikipedia, the main one being resistance to change. Lithopsian (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other Users who will want to be involved in restructuring these pages? I am not sure what the restrictions are when making large restructures.

Perhaps we should spend some time talking a bit about the problems of particular pages and then talk about how to resolve those problems.

I do agree that the generic " Threaded Fasteners" is suitable. At the current moment, the Screw page looks like it was originally about Screws but they just added bolts, and then threads and all the other parts and just all mashed it all together. Perhaps instead of renaming the page, we delete the parts not relevant to screws, and then later on add the deleted parts to the relevant pages.

Actually, when you type "Threaded Fasteners" in wiki or google it will lead you to the "Fasteners" Page. I kind of agree with this except for the content is way too simple and doesn`t explore a lot of important concepts like design. Perhaps we should change the name of the page "Fasteners " to "Threaded Fasteners"? Then like you suggested, we can introduce Bolts, Nuts, Studs etc.. and then link them to their appropriate detailed articles.

I really do not like the name nut (hardware) ... Perhaps change this to nut (fastener) to be the same as the bolt (fastener) page?

I am also concerned about the resistance to change in wiki. It would be helpful if you explain to me the processes required to get our changes accepted. JaydenBarnes (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a resistance to change, per se, but making wholesale changes without discussion or following policy and conventions. I see that you have started discussion at Locknut, which is good but new discussions should be at the bottom. Here's some of the problems. Looking at what you wrote I get the impression that you are an expert in the subject. However, Wikipedia is a generalist encyclopedia and should be written to the layman.

You moved locknut to Loosening Prevention (Threaded Fasteners). Now that may make sense to you, and be technically correct, but to me it suggests Thread-locking fluid.

According to Wikipedia:Article titles we should be using commonly recognizable names. So Loosening Prevention (Threaded Fasteners), Loosening Prevention, and more correctly (without capitals), Loosening prevention (threaded fasteners) and Loosening prevention are all red links. Given those four are red indicates that up until now, nobody thought they were useful as redirects (take a look at Locking nut which is what Wikipedia calls a redirect, apologies if you already know this stuff, and leads to locknut) or titles.

You mentioned screw above as also including bolts and nuts. But did you see the following lines "There is no universally accepted distinction between a screw and a bolt." and "Part of the confusion over this is likely due to regional or dialectical differences." Wikipedia is written for a worldwide audience so having an article about a piece of metal that goes through something without a nut and another article about a piece of metal that goes through something and does take a nut may be confusing to readers from another part of the world.

Something you may be interested in is Wikipedia:WikiProject Engineering. Projects are editors with similar interests and can be helpful and supportive. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear CambridgeBayWeather,

Thankyou for starting a discussion here. Much appreciated.

Thank you for giving me advice on how to proceed on making wiki a better place.

Its actually interesting because many companies use the words loosening prevention when they are writing in-house standards. And use these words when searching for other solutions.

Of course wikipedia should be generalized, I completely agree with this. I will also work on making sure my edits fit this ideal from here on. However I also believe that wiki should have information that is actually useful for those who are searching for information. Correct terminology allows the page to show up on Google, allowing people to find the answer they need. A big problem with fastener technology right now, is there is no good answers to any topics because all the google results are mainly companies which are trying to sell the fasteners that they have. I would like to provide a larger resource where information is available. I don`t believe the current page is helpful at all.

I also speak Japanese and have viewed the Japanese Locknut page, and the page is much better designed. I would like to take elements from Japan as well which represents a lot of asia fasteners, to give a better overall view of fasteners.

If its okay with you, I would really appreciate if you would stop completely reverting all my edits. I would appreciate if you approached each of my edits one by one and gave me advice if the edit doesn`t fit Wikipedia's policy. I will also do my best to read up about Wikipedia's policies to ensure that I do not break any of them.

Kind Regards,

Jayden Barnes. JaydenBarnes (talk) 01:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, JaydenBarnes

Thank you for creating Self-lock nut.

User:Lithopsian, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Relatively harmless, but creating redirects that don't appear to be linked anywhere in WP isn't very productive.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Lithopsian}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Lithopsian (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lithopsian,

My intent was to allow the locknut page to be more visible from Google searches. Does creating pages to just redirect have this effect?

But yes, I guess just having a blank page which seems to have no use is kind of ... hmm.. funky in a way. I am thinking I might experiment using the terminology Self-lock nut more when linking to the locknut page. Is this recommended?

Kind Regards, JaydenBarnes (talk) 08:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]