I am currently undecided over what the nut that fastens screws in post #520008 should be tagged as. I was thinking of using metal nut, but that would exclude nuts of other materials, such as plastic, stone, and magical nuts. It would also be a less descriptive tag.

We could alternatively copy Wikipedia's idea and call the article nut (hardware).

+1 to nut_(hardware). Add links to the nuts and bolts wikis and empty them, because they both can mean one of two things. As well:

• Create alias nuts_(hardware) -> nut_(hardware)
• Create alias bolts_(hardware) -> bolt_(hardware)
• Create alias nuts -> nut
• Create alias bolts -> bolt
• Create alias nuts_(food) -> nut_(food)
• Create alias lightning_bolts -> lightning_bolt

If that's agreed on, I'll run through nut, bolts, bolt, wrench and metal_nut and tag all the uploads appropriately.

Also, what's an evil_nut? post #944399

Also, once we're done with that, let's remember to add the chosen names to tag group:technology

Serlo said:

• Create alias bolts_(hardware) -> bolt_(hardware)
  

I disagree with that one because bolt is sufficiently descriptive already.

Serlo said:

• Create alias nuts -> nut
  

This will be unnecessary after we turn nut into disambiguation wiki pages. Additionally, Nuts is a character, so that can't be aliased.

These are probably the only aliases we need here:

• Create alias bolts -> bolt
• Create alias nuts_(food) -> nut_(food)
• Create alias nuts_(hardware) -> nut_(hardware)
• Create alias lightning_bolts -> lightning_bolt
  

The character Nuts should probably be edited over to Nuts_(Precure_5) (same as the other mascot character from that show, Coco_(Precure_5)).

I thought nuts -> nut would be easy enough to add, so anyone who uses it gets pointed to the correct tag via the wiki quicker. The alternative (in my eyes) would be two wiki pages. But if you think such a simple detail that might help someone is unnecessary, then leave it out.

However, on second thought, I've realised that even nut_(hardware) and bolt_(hardware) won't do, because there are many different kinds of nuts and bolts: The bolt on a lock or latch, rivets, screws; there are many different kinds of nut and this is clearly about the kind you screw).

• Create alias nuts_(screw) -> nut_(screw)
• Create alias nuts -> nut_(screw)
• Create alias nut -> nut_(screw)
• Create alias bolts_(screw) -> bolt_(screw)
• Create alias bolts -> bolt_(hardware)
• Create alias bolt -> bolt_(hardware)
• Create alias screws -> bolt_(hardware)
• Create alias screw -> bolt_(hardware)
• Create alias nuts_(food) -> nut_(food)
• Create alias lightning_bolts -> lightning_bolt

I think I'd rather see them all aliased one way so the mistake becomes even easier to spot when reviewing your tags. Although this means that when the tagger doesn't think or check and uses nut to tag food not hardware, then rather than all those mistakes being gathered in one place for easy fixing, they'll be mixed in with correctly tagged uploads.

And yes, obscure characters with simple names should have qualifiers in their tags.

Bolts and screws are not the same thing though, particularly you would not (and generally can not) use a nut with a screw, you would use a nut with a bolt. The difference is apparently rather specific and likely a non-taggable concept, but in general they're also typically visually different as all bolts do not have a point (more accurately they're not tapered), while the majority of screws do have a point (are tapered).

I've used "screw" to mean both the pointed and blunt kinds, but I suppose it is more common to call one a screw and one a bolt.

A bolt is technically a screw, (typically a large machine screw with a hex head, that interfaces with a pre-threaded hole or nut), but is not usually what a person would think of as a typical screw (which are more prototypically pointed self-threading wood or sheet-metal screws with philips or slotted heads). Bolts and typical screws are different enough that I'd probably argue against an alias or implication.

For a more ambiguous example, consider small machine screws, like you'd see in a computer or other piece of electronics. They are blunt, thread into pre-cut threads or nuts like larger bolts, but are small, and often have a screwdriver head (sometimes in addition to a hex head). These I would easily consider "screws" rather than "bolts", but share properties of both.

Shinjidude said:
A bolt is technically a screw, (typically a large machine screw with a hex head, that interfaces with a pre-threaded hole or nut), but is not usually what a person would think of as a typical screw (which are more prototypically pointed self-threading wood or sheet-metal screws with philips or slotted heads). Bolts and typical screws are different enough that I'd probably argue against an alias or implication.

For a more ambiguous example, consider small machine screws, like you'd see in a computer or other piece of electronics. They are blunt, thread into pre-cut threads or nuts like larger bolts, but are small, and often have a screwdriver head (sometimes in addition to a hex head). These I would easily consider "screws" rather than "bolts", but share properties of both.

Yes. It may require a judgement call. Perhaps we can use some criteria like these:

It's a screw if:

• It holds together a computer.
• It has a tapered tip.
• It is drawn with screwdrivers.

It's a bolt if:

• It is drawn with wrenches or nuts.
• It is drawn in a mechanics context.

If these criteria don't apply, then use your best judgement. Being used to hold together a computer, the above example would be called a screw.

Some sources would say being able to use a screwdriver on it has no bearing on whether it is or isn't a screw as both bolts and screws can support them (additionally things like size, head shape, etc aren't important as what they consider defines them is how they're used). Your proposed division is overly complex. It would be best to use a simple dividing line between them, which would be tapering versus non-tapering. Everything that is tapered should be labeled a screw, while everything without is labeled a bolt.

Going by those sources, the important thing in determining a bolt or screw is simply the method of the connection that is formed, which unfortunately would not be a taggable concept. A "screw" by their definition is one that connects two pieces together by going through one piece and then embedding and fastening itself to the other piece. A "bolt" then would be one that connects two pieces by going through both pieces and then fastening and being tightened to a nut. Going by that, a computer's "screw" is simply a screw because of the connection. For example, the side panel being fastened down, the "screw" goes through the side panel's hole and fastens to the back panel. So it is a screw because it goes through one piece and fastens itself to the second. If it went through both of the panels and was then fastened to a nut, it was then be a "bolt."

We're getting overly picky now, but the same 6-32 screws used in a computer are used with 6-32 nuts in other situations, and I doubt that I'd change the word I'd call the thing based only on that.

Since we are all about visual appearance here, I'm sort of inclined to go with a definition much like anon153's.

• If it's relatively large, untapered, has a relatively fine thread, and driven only by a wrench, it's a bolt.

• If it's relatively small, can be driven by a screwdriver (very few proper bolts can), and especially if its tapered and has a relatively coarse thread, it's a screw.

Ambiguous cases should go towards the definition that fits better.

We have a very clear cut divider, size should not matter at all. It should only be based on whether it is tapered or not, you're the ones making this more complex than it needs to be. Throwing in all the other stuff that you're trying to do only makes it that much more subjective in labeling.

NWF_Renim said:
We have a very clear cut divider, size should not matter at all. It should only be based on whether it is tapered or not, you're the ones making this more complex than it needs to be.

If that was the case, then computer thumb screws would be called computer bolts, contrary to the encyclopedia definitions.

The terms are used frequently interchangeably, over time it is easy to end up calling one over the other and accept errors as being "correct," so your argument isn't that great as it could have simply been an error in naming over time that was accepted. Screw also refers to the motion used to tighten it, it would not be unreasonable to call them after the motion.

Sure it connects things using a "screw" type connection between objects, but that doesn't mean though that we should label it as such, when visibly it is no different from a bolt. The only thing you're trying to accomplish with your division is making a jumbled mess by mixing both tapered and non-tapered "screws" under the same tag. If you're going to go your route we'd need 3 tags then, cause we'd then need a "wood_screw" tag simply to be able to divide between tapered "screws" and your computer "screws." I see no reason to force a 3rd tag, when we could simply use 2 tags perfectly fine.

My problem is that a round-headed, slotted, course threaded, but untapered machine screw , would never be called a bolt to my mind, despite the fact that it doesn't have a pointed tip.

The fact a bolt is usually large and has a hex head is much more important in my mind.

Consider the lag bolt , which is probably technically a screw (and is by your definition). I still feel much more comfortable naming it a bolt than I do the small machine screws above.

I guess in short, I feel that while being tapered does play into it, it's by far one of the less important indicators and in no way sufficient by itself to discriminate between things that would be commonly called bolts vs screws.

As for using 3 tags, or wood_screw, or things along those lines, I feel they would be entirely unnecessary. Just tag what you see with whichever prototypical definition matches best of the two tags we are discussing.

I have no qualms with seeing wood screws and machine screws under the same tag, they are very similar things in appearance and function. They are referred to by the same noun, so why not use the same tag?

You're still relying on a horribly subjective things such as size in the definition. If you enlarge the thing you're having a problem with, it becomes pretty much visually identical to a bolt. Bolts can have round heads, can have slots. The style of the head does not classify it as a bolt or screw. It should also be pointed out that "machine screws" are also called "stove bolts." A computer screw is nothing more than a shortened "machine screw"/"stove bolt." Lag bolts are also called "Lag Screws," so that's hardly a good example.

The only thing that isn't subjective is tapering, so while you can undervalue it, it is the only thing of real value. Everything you're trying to hold as having value has no real value as both bolts and screws share them. Bolts can have all the same head types as screws, so it does zero to actually classify them using such things.

If this is how it's going to go, I would rather the classification be only on the only true visual dividing aspect, which is tapering. If the naming of "bolt" is the problem, then just lump everything under "screw" with a sub-tag for tapered screws, as once you enlarge it, it's the tapering that is the only thing that really matters.

Oh just call them all bolts or screws and have done with it. You can use tappered_screw if such an image ever appears, but there are hardly any images with nuts and bolts in them as it is.

Serlo said:
You can use tappered_screw if such an image ever appears, but there are hardly any images with nuts and bolts in them as it is.

post #1135114 and a good number of the images with Kumagawa Misogi are good examples of tapered screws and this image is also a good example of why using things like head shape and stuff serves as a poor standard to classify them. As without the tapered end, it would be visually identical to a "bolt."

It could just be my personal experience, but I still would never and have never heard of a small machine screw being refereed to as a bolt, stove bolt or otherwise. It sounds wrong to me.

Given the fact that "machine screws" are untapered, and "lag bolts" are tapered, (even though they have alternative names), I don't see how you can argue for tapered/untapered being any less subjective than any other metric. Both are extremely common and well accepted names for their referents. It might be regional, but "stove bolt" seems to me to be a very uncommon way to refer to that type of fastener.

I also don't see any compelling argument against using a constellation of features to best classify the name. Yes it will be somewhat subjective, but given the (lack of) definition formally given to bolts vs screws, you are going to get that no matter how you go (as I point to above even with the tapered definition you prefer). By using multiple factors at least you will minimize the risk of something atypical in only one feature overly influencing the use of one label vs another that every other feature would prefer.

Another thing to consider is situations where the fastener is in use and as such only the head visible. By your approach such a situation would be untaggable, as it is literally impossible to determine if the embedded tip is tapered or not. That in itself would suggest that the head shape and drive method at least factor into the tagging process.