Talk:Bolt (fastener)

See also and link to Tensioner

Twice now, [1] [2], a link has been added as a See also section to Tensioner, a vague article that's mostly about bike chains. There is no explanation as to why this link is relevant here, or why it passes WP:UNDUE.

This article is about the centuries-old simple mechanical device of the nut & bolt. These do not, in general, use tensioners. The only passing relevance is to bolt tensioners, a device that is obscure and rare, used only in specialised cases and that WP doesn't have an article on. Although these things are real enough, they're way into WP:UNDUE for what should be a simple and straightforward article on an important core topic. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

First, wp:undue is about view points. I can't imagine what viewpoint you think is being promoted in this case.

Second, bolts have been around for a while, but the are not simple. Creating the correct tension is important and complicated in many applications, hence the development of specialized tools, including tensioners.

Third, referring to my adding the link initially in December and the reverting your removal this week as "twice now" is a little more pointed than necessary, don't you think? Are you suggesting some kind of nefarious activity? I had thought that the reason for adding the link to an article that describes a notable technology specific to bolts was self-evident.

I have not yet seen a reason to exclude a simple link in a see also section to this related technology. If you have issues with the linked article, you can work to improve it. For the time being, it covers a variety of devices that are called tensioners, and one of them is a bolt tensioner.

Let's see if anyone else has an opinion on this. -AndrewDressel (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a fairly good article (not a Good Article). Unlike screw, which I think is a crap article. Three dozen section headings, the first images are of bolts and a toothbrush before we even see a screw. A bolt/screw distinction which the whole article still fails to make clear. It's a typical wiki article, everyone's favourite topic gets its little two or three lines in the sun, but there is no editorial structure. As a result, it fails the reader.

This article is better. It doesn't cover much, but it explains what a bolt is and it clarifies the distinction from a screw. if it loses that clarity, for whatever reason, it has suffered.

Bolt tensioners are massively obscure. They are simply not a part of "bolts" as WP readers of a first-level article know them. If we extended this article (which I feel no urge to do) it would grow to cover the torquing of bolts and the theoretical link between torque and tension. It would also cover washers and shakeproof washers as locking devices. It would cover locknuts and the importance of accurate torque in applications like car engines and cylinder heads. If all of those precursor topics were covered, then it might just be getting near the context for explaining what a bolt tensioner even does.

As it is, the "tensioner" is present as a bad link, to an article that barely mentions them, from an article with no context as to what and why they are. They're presented in the only entry in a See also list, as if they're the whole second-most important topic to bolts ever (they're not).

The only thing worse than having bolt tensioner as a stand-alone unexplained link would be to expand this article to cover them with the necessary context and thus double its size, presenting these as if they really are the next most important thing about bolts. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

While we continue to wait for anyone else to chime in, let me try to address some of your points:

• The screw article fails to make the distinction between bolt and screw clear because the distinction is not clear. As this article, which you seem to think is "good" states "there are several practical differences, but most have some degree of overlap between bolts and screws."
• I don't think "not covering much" is as great a trait of articles as you seem to.
• I don't know as much about "WP readers" as you seem to. I only know what I am looking for in an article, and if I were to read an article on "bolts", I would want to see a list of related articles.
• Yes, I think this article should definitely cover torquing of bolts, since that is such an important aspect of the technology.
• The convention is that links in a see also section are stand-alone unless a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or the term is ambiguous. I do not believe that any of those apply to this case.

By all means, add some other useful links to the see also section. I'll start. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The lack of a clear distinction between "bolt" and "screw" (or rather the multiple definitions and actual usages in English worldwide) make it more difficult to write clear Wikipedia articles on these related topics. I think there is ample material to be covered such that separate articles for Bolt (fastener) and Screw are useful to have. The Screw article should remain more of a survey or overview, amd the more-specialized technical topics relating to bolts should be covered here. Notably, the topics of torquing and tensioning of bolts can and should be covered in detail under the Bolt article ("screw torquing" and "screw tensioning" aren't widely-used terms or topics). The function of washers and lockwashers in the mechanical system that is a properly-installed bolt should be covered, as well as examples of critical applications in items such as engine blocks, bridges, and buildings. The specialized topic of a "bolt tensioner" could be merged in here, leaving just a link from the Tensioner article, which is more of a survey article.

Some in-depth technical coverage (perhaps the coverage of screw thread standards) in the Screw article might be moved from that survey article to the more-technically-focused Bolt article. Theoretical analysis of stress and strain in precision fasteners is too detailed for a survey article, but would be very instructive in the Bolt article. The two articles should cross-reference each other extensively when appropriate.

I think some editorial tension may be caused by the inherent tradeoffs between a widespread survey article and an in-depth technical article. I think that Wikipedia needs both types of coverage, but not necessarily in the same article, sloppily bolted together like the stereotypical movie Frankenstein. 8^) Reify-tech (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I see there is extensive coverage of technical aspects in the article Bolted joint. Perhaps it could be consolidated with the coverage here; I don't have a strong opinion on this at present. In the meantime, it might be helpful to cross-reference the in-depth technical content more prominently in the article here. The detailed information on screw thread standards is still a candidate to be moved from the Screw article to here. It also could be edited down to a briefer summary, with references to the comprehensive article Screw thread. Reify-tech (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Bolt-DIN 933-M10-20.stl

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

forelock bolt

A type of bolt missing both from this article and from the list of bolts is the forelock bolt, which I just looked for because it is mentioned in the article on the history of construction. Perhaps someone could add this and other obsolete types of bolt of historical interest.Bill (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

History -- first appearance?

Sorely missing from the History section is when threaded fasteners first appeared. Can anyone provide this? BMJ-pdx (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)