Talk:List of screw drives

Images needed
The following images are needed to complete the list: @Inductiveload might I convince you to add these, so all of the images match your wonderfully accurate style?
 * Lox drive, for the section I just added
 * The five-lobe Torx Plus security drive (the only Torx drive with five instead of six lobes)

Also, these images in the article are not yours, and would benefit from your updating them: PetesGuide (talk) (K6WEB) 22:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * French Recess intern (fcm).jpg
 * Wkretaki-07 torx plus.svg
 * Screw Head - Pentalobular.svg

Hex-ball, hexagonal ball or ball end screw drives
It is necessary to add the hexagonal ball screw drives.Folio (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Disagree. "Ball drivers"- as they are popularly known- are a specific tool used with standard hex-drive heads, in much the same way that some screwdrivers have an attachment to hold the screw as it's being inserted. MarkMLl (talk) 12:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Spoof "Fruit Company" screw
This was apparently intended as a joke, but to get it into the record MarkMLl (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Why so many SINGLE SLOTTED screw drive images?
This article has four https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Screw_Head_-_Slotted.svg images next to Dzeus. WHY?? All those agglutinated images and text are confusing.

George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Reduced shank Phillips - P0R, P1R, P2R, ...
I have a couple of Phillips-style screwdriver bits labelled P0R, P1R, P2R, et cetera, and so I tried to find out what they are. I can't find a really usable reference, so I can't put this into the main article, but it seems that they are "reduced shank" bits - appears to be the same tip geometry as Phillips, but with a slimmer shank.

And now somebody trying to do the same research I was trying to do might be able to find this comment... :-)

(Not clear whether these are a distinct drive system, or just a different tool geometry. Is there a better repository for the codes for screwdriver bits?)

Jordan Brown (talk) 04:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Mortorq screw thumb missing
... and I can't find it to fix this myself.

2001:16B8:48E5:9C00:DDC3:174A:C98B:19DB (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

How the heck do you pronounce Pozidriv ??
Everywhere I looked people pronounce it like "pozi drive" but is it the intended pronunciation? And if so, isn't it written incorrectly? --87.71.54.120 (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

What is this type?
There is a type of screw, common in electrical boxes, which can be turned with either a flat, a Phillips or Robertson screwdriver. It has a slot straight across, a square in the center, and cross radiating out from the corners of the square. Why is this type not mentioned in this article, and what is it called? More missing types are seen here: http://resources.tannerbolt.com/articles/what-type-of-screw-is-this/ Landroo (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * See List_of_screw_drives. Wizard191 (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Never seen the one with a square, but the crosshead/flat ones are common in Europe. Wera (search for 05003471001) make screwdrivers for them which they call PZ/S, PH/S and also "Contactor screwdrivers).  They also call them "plus/minus" (http://www.dm-tools.co.uk/product.php/section/7813/sn/WER073600 ).  Siemens use these screws a lot in rack mount equipment and call them "universal". I've also heard them called "switchgear" screws.  --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Also called ECX bits here in the US. I just bought some at the store. This should be added since it is common on most electrical outlets, electrical panels, and European cabinet hinge hardware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.127.21 (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"Screws with a plus-minus profile have become the clear standard in recent years. Background to this trend: they can be used universally for both high and low torques. While low torques are required for relay bases, for example, high torques have to be transferred in the case of surge-protection components. “With this in mind we also use plusminus screws almost exclusively for our new electronics products; for instance, with relay modules from the RIDERSERIES, or with our power solid-state relays,” says Electronics Product Manager, Frank Polley." From: http://cmswebdav.weidmueller.de/cms/com_int/WIN/WIN_SPS_IPC_Drives/Screwdriver_plus_minus.pdf --DazB (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe the OP is speaking about "Combo" bits. These are made and sold by Ideal and Klein. However, there is some difference between the two brands. The issue is surrounding the current crop of screws found in switches and receptacles from major building supply stores. You can try slotted, Phillips, or square recess bits on them as they appear to be a combination of those, but they will tend to slip, or cam-out, badly. The combo bit appears to be a compromise. We need to have some electricians put in their two cents on this issue. -KitchM (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Pozidriv / Motorq image in the wrong place
The Pozidriz section has the image that (apparently) belongs ing the Motorq section, and the Pozidriz image seems to be missing. Would someone who knows how please fix this ? Many thanks ! Darkman101 (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I updated images so they match the right section. There are probably still too many images (small inline icons vs larger thumbs). 67.188.165.141 (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Images in Section Headings
I noticed that user Marchjuly removed all screw profile images from this entire article since they were located inside of section headings which technically doesn't adhere to the Manual of Style. In this case I think an exception is merited since the images provided very substantial value to this list article. I reverted the removal, but happy to discuss other options for image layout that provides as clear user benefit and works well across both mobile and computer. Simply removing all the images doesn't improve the quality of this article. DVZ2 (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree. Also, I moved this discussion to the bottom of the talk page for chronographic order. MartinezMD (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s a MOS:ACCESS/MOS:ACCIM that has to do with visually-impaired editors and the devices they use to read Wikipedia articles. There are also issues with the link syntax in section headings if they are Wikilinked to from other articles. The images in the section headings can be easily incorporated into the bodies of the individual sections if necessary. There’s no need for them to be in the headings. — Marchjuly (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Then you should make a correction rather than remove them. MartinezMD (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The option of re-adding to them the body of each section was given in the edit summary that I left when I removed them. The images appear to have been boldly moved to the section headings a few weeks prior by an IP editor who most likely was unaware of the MOS issues. Removing the images is fairly common and standard clean up in cases like this, but re-adding such images isn’t always warranted. Returning things to as they were was an option, but the article has been expanded upon since that IP’s edits and things might not work like they did before. They were just re-added to the section headings by a new account who also might not be aware of the ACCESS issues. Anyway, now that someone has questioned their removal, it should be fairly easy to re-add them below the section headings using the standard image syntax. The best place for them is probably right below the headings (before it looks like they were above the headings) and aligning them to the left should work OK. If nobody else wants to do so, then I can myself. The image size can probably be increased from what it currently is at 24px, but how much is unclear. — Marchjuly (talk) 05:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't found an issue with link syntax to these heading; the anchor tags are generated correctly. Either it's an historic issue or maybe because the images are 'decorative' (without alt text or captions). For similar reasons I'm also not sure screen readers in general will have a problem. Ones I tried weren't affected at least. Looking at old versions, this page used to be a mess with the images floating all over the place before this change, but if there are better ways to layout the images while preserving readability feel free to change it. DVZ2 (talk) 05:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The images may have been formatted poorly before but adding them to the section headings is not the accepted way to resolve that. MOS:ACCIM is community-wide and applies to all articles equally; moreover, it can’t really be ignored or superseded by a local consensus. The simplest way to add the images seems to be as I suggested above, but there might be other ways such as a table or a gallery that could work too. — Marchjuly (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I wonder the accessibility concern can be addressed by providing an empty alt= tag as per . If so, maybe MOS:ACCIM could be updated. DVZ2 (talk) 06:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You may be on to something with this, but such a proposed update really should be discussed at WT:ACCESS because would have a community-wide impact. Using this article as an example of how such an update might work would be fine, but a consensus forbsuch a change can’t be established here on this talk page. — Marchjuly (talk) 07:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A few of the images might even be redundant as well; for example, the Frearson image seems unnecessary given that there’s an another image of in the relevant section. There are some others as well where a photo of the driver’s head can be seen. — Marchjuly (talk) 06:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that this is a list article, and the most defining feature of screw drives is the shape of the screw recess, I think there is a good consistency argument for having an image of a uniform style in a consistent place associated with each section. I.e. I don't think it would improve the article if individual schematic images were removed just because its specific shape could be deciphered from a photo. DVZ2 (talk) 06:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSISTENCY links to sort of a disambiguation page for pages related to consistency, but none of them seem to directly apply here. If we assume that the intent of MOS:MOS and its various subpages is too try and ensure a degree of consistency across all articles, then following the MOS in this case (i.e. no images in the section headings) would not only comply with MOS:ACCIM but also ensure in-article consistency for all the section headings (some are imageless as things currently stand). The suggestion made below by seems like an alternative way of presenting the images that might be worth discussing. — Marchjuly (talk) 09:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Just randomly stumbling on this discussion from a link elsewhere, and with no deeper interest in the article's topic than having had to consult it on occasion.I think the individual iconographic images would work much better in a table format accompanied by a brief description of their mechanical and practical properties, as well has possibly typical applications. The prose sections (without the images in the titles) could then expand on history, development, ownership, etc. etc. and be illustrated by photographic images of actual fasteners and real-world applications.I see the reasoning behind having the images in the section titles, and if any article should use that approach it'd be this one, but, no, I don't think even this article merits such a deviation from the norm. Doubly so because the guidance stems from concern for accessibility. --Xover (talk) 07:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, haveing images in headings is a fairly major accessibility issue for screen reader users. With my screen reader JAWS, the headings read like: ""Link graphic screw head slotted.jpg slot" "Link graphic Screw Head - Coin Slot.svg coihn slot", etc. Empty alt text is possible when the can work when images don't require attribution; that's true for the ones I checked but that's a very clunky solution. The link syntax for linking to sections is still the same per the HTML source but that's counter-intuitive. Graham 87 16:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Some thoughts: MOS:SECTIONS has a list which includes that section headings should Not contain images or icons and that These restrictions are necessary to avoid technical complications, and are not subject to override by local consensus.  So this is policy level (technical accessibility) rather than guideline level (MOS), and it's justifiable (if not ideal) for an editor to remove them on the spot without discussion.  They're still there in the edit history, so no need to panic, any other editor can put the images into the section bodies.
 * For MOS:ACCIM, I feel that we could forgo captions for the small icon pictures of screw heads as being obvious when each accompanies the text describing it – MOS:CAPLENGTH the picture serves as the typical example of the subject of the article and offers no further information – no caption needed though here we're talking about a section – and the small image is unlikely to stray away from the text regardless of browser width or reader platform. Without a caption, we could also forgo the frame around the image so it takes up less space.  The images should have alt text.
 * I agree with the style-consistency argument of including all the screw-head diagrams (where available) in this article. I feel that they are useful if, say, a reader is looking for something roughly &times;-shaped but doesn't know what it is called. Consistent left-aligned images that appear below the section names seem useful to me and a benefit to the article.  Additional supplementary images such as 'Frearson vs Phillips' (caption should be reversed to match image) can also be included where encyclopedically illustrative (ie: where they convey information relevant to the text).
 * For the alternative suggestion of an image table, I'm not positive about that – I'm not one of those people who like scrolling back and forth between text and a table in a fairly long list article. But it could work, possibly like a graphical table of contents linking to sections below, or grouping similar screw heads together in each H2 section. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * An initial table of images with links to the article sections sounds good. Having them all in a condensed location instead of individually spaced throughout many screens-ful of article seems like an easier way to compare if I am trying to identify something visually. DMacks (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I largely agree with Reidgreg that having the icons far from the section texts is not ideal. The section texts often contain references to the shape of the recess and having a nearby consistently located image will greatly help with comprehension. There are dozens of examples, e.g. "the Supadriv screwhead is similar to Pozidriv but has only two identification ticks", "The double-square drive is two squares superimposed at 45° rotation, forming an 8-pointed star". "Torx Plus Security, is a five-lobed variant, with a center post." "The polydrive screw drive [...] is spline-shaped with rounded ends in the fastener head.". All of these statements leads the reader to imagine a graphic representation. I could see the potential value in having both a compact summary table at the start with icons (maybe replacing the table of contents) and having icons at each section, but I don't support removing the section icons. DVZ2 (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Does I don't support removing the section icons mean you still think the images should still remain in the section headings even if a table is added or that you're OK to having them added within their relevant sections below the section headings as was suggested above? I'm assuming it's a case of the former because you left the images as they were when you made your last change, but please clarify if that's not the case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was unclear. It's the latter not the former. Experimenting with a complete relayout of all images and properly test it across mobile, high and low DPI monitors and different browser window widths would take several orders of magnitude more time and effort than the 30 second fix to add empty alt tags.
 * Laying them out within the section headings is probably not ideal. It’s just the least bad option I’ve seen so far. If another layout option exists that doesn’t significantly reduce the usability of the page across different viewing platforms, I’m very supportive of such a change.
 * I do think the current solution actually adheres to the spirit of both MOS:SECTIONS and MOS:ACCIM, but clearly not the letter of those. If we fail to find an acceptable solution within the letter of MOS, I’d be happy to take a discussion to WT:MOS to see if a policy change is possible, but I feel that's premature as we have not exhausted the layout option space yet.
 * One option could be to place the icons inline at the start of the first paragraph of each section. This will ensure that they can’t get rearranged and pushed to the wrong section. I don't have any experience here. They may need to be reduced from current 24 to ≤22 px as recommended by MOS, which I think is ok given the relatively simple shapes, but it needs to be tested on low-DPI platforms. This solution may not look as visually pleasing as even what we have today, but that may be a secondary concern.
 * Making the images float to the left within each section might work in practice if no other images in the article are left aligned, but it will make the article harder to read on mobile where text never flows around floated images (and where the current layout works much better), and I’d not be surprised if it breaks left alignment in some cases (e.g. short sections / wide browser windows) or has other weird effects. This was part of the problem with this page in the past where the images sometimes/often ended up in the wrong section and confused rather than helped the reader. DVZ2 (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I added empty alt texts to the section icons to improve the screen reader accessibility concern for now. If the images get moved somewhere else one should probably consider adding descriptive alt texts. DVZ2 (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue with an edit like this is that while it might by chance improve accessibility as stated, it's still not a certainty in accordance with MOS:ACCIM. I'm not trying to be a pedant, but there might be issues with some screen readers (other than perhaps the one's which have been checked so far) or other issues as well which aren't quite resolved by this "fix". I'm not visually-impaired, but is according to his user page; so, if he states this is matter that is a fairly major accessibility for screen readers and this fix is a very clunky solution, then perhaps we should be working with the MOS (not against it) in trying to find an alternative way to present these images. As I posted above, we can't really change or make exceptions to MOS:ACCIM here in this discussion; that's something that would need to be done at WT:MOS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate this comment and agree that it doesn't make the article compliant with MOS:ACCIM. It does however improve an immediate issue the current page has and the edit took all of 30 seconds to make, so it felt like a worthwhile investment. You can look at it as a temporary fix until this topic resolved. It at least attempts to address one underlying concern MOS:ACCIM was written to address.
 * I'd be interested to understand if "clunky" in a very clunky solution relates to the reader or editor. I'm much less concerned about the latter than the former. DVZ2 (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The immediate issue is that having images in the section headings clearly doesn't comply with MOS:ACCIM. Nobody at this point, including you yourself apparently, seems to disagree with that. I removed them for that reason to address that problem. If by doing so that created a "problem" that relates to your readability as reader as opposed to the MOS or some other relevant policy or guideline, than Wikipedia is much less concerned about that. Your re-adding the images to the headings was inappropriate per what posted above, but it was done in good faith; so, I didn't immediate remove them again to give you the chance to do so yourself. You re-adding of them wasn't a "temporary fix" to work from, it was the reintroduction of a problem. You really don't reinstate something clearly not-compliant with the MOS just to try and carve out some kind of exception for it in the MOS. If an edit is made to an article that is contrary to some policy or guideline and that edit is subsequently reverted by another citing said policy or guideline, then that is the point where the discussion should begin. The change is proposed on the article talk page first per to see if there's a consensus for it and whether there really is an policy or guideline issue. If it turns out to be a policy and guideline issue (as things seem to have have turned out here) and someone still wants to make the change, then they go to the relevant policy and guideline talk page and make their proposal. If a consensus is established that supports the proposal, then someone will go back and implement the change. As I posted above, the section headings seem to have been first boldly added by some IP address who might've not been aware of MOS:ACCIM. That edit was almost certainly made in good-faith, but it was still not in accordance with MOS:ACCIM. Once they were removed for a clear policy or guideline reason, any discussion about re-adding them should've take place before re-adding them. That is the point to start from and move forward and try and find an alternative way to re-add the images; they aren't re-added and then discussed to somehow try and figure out a way to adjust the policy or guideline to fit the change. Just going to add that  is also a Wikipedia administrator. While that doesn't mean he has any special say when it comes  to discussions such as this, it does (or at least should} mean that he has a better than average overall understanding or Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I'm assuming that would be particulary be the case for policy and guidelines that so directly affect him as a reader, editor and administrator; so, even if I fell on your side of the fence with respect to this issue, I personally wouldn't be so quick to discount his concerns because of the way he chose to phrase them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Table mockup
New section for a table mockup; please keep the main discussion above. I think there's a way to get mouse-over text for the images without captions, but it's eluding me at the moment. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this table looks OK. It might even be possible to increase the sizes of the image above 24px. The names of the drivers could also be linked to the individual sections of the article where corresponding prose can be found and the same images could be added in even a larger size below the relevant headings. I'm not sure about the mouse-over text issue, but someone at WP:VPT could probably help with that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Would is be okay to move the multiple-square icons up the Square-other cell? – Reidgreg (talk) 01:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel the table above relies too much on mouse-over functionality that doesn't work on mobile. What about something like this instead. This could also replace the table of contents. Could also make it more tabular (e.g. an n&times;4 matrix) to have it appear a bit less chaotic. DVZ2 (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


 * These are looking nice! I think the name of each is only a slightly useful addition (second mock-up rather than first) as long as the images themselves are linked to the sections (and maybe with popups of the names). But I think it's easier visually to scan images that are organized (and "visually scan the images" is a main reason I would want this at all), so the second one's ragged organization is a drawback of the second. Here is at least a squared-up arrangement with visible labels. And as a bonus, it uses semantic lists (accessibility improvement) to demarcate each entry. DMacks (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The mockup by DMacks seems, in my opinion, to be the cleanest and easiest to read of the three. As I mentioned above, the size of 24px could probably be inceased if doing so wouldn't create any different problems. For example, Screw Head - Slotted.svg is 24px, while Screw Head - Slotted.svg is 48px. I'm not saying the size needs to be doubled, only that it might be possible to increase the image size. Is it possible to add the images as separate column in your version? This might make it a bit easier to tweak things for some of the longer names like "Line female anti-tamper" and "Torx Plus Tamper-Resistant" so there are no line breaks. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Avoiding the multi-column effect altogether definitely provides tons of horizontal space per entry, so there's less likelihood of line-wrapping:


 * But it seems too tall--nearly 1.5 screenfuls for me--to scan by eye. I can't even see all the category-names to know where to scroll to see the set of images within it. It's so narrow, that at least a multi-column with wider columns (== avoiding wrapping) might be easier to see it all? How about wider columns to prevent wrapping? DMacks (talk) 04:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Same results could be gotten with literal separate columns for image vs text. Currently, every column in the multicolumn is the same width; some clever re-organization to put the longest types at the end of the list in each category might allow narrowing the columns generally (placing the images closer to each other) and leaving only the last column wider. I might have to read the manual *grumble* to figure out that non-uniform-column magic. DMacks (talk) 04:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to create these two new mockups so qucikly. I actually tried nowrap in one of your earlier efforts to see if that would help with the longer names, but it didn't work too well. I agree with your assessment of the "too tall" table (it actually looks more like an manually created TOC to me), but the second one looks quite nice. Others might feel differently, but I think that one could work fairly well. Figuring out where to put such a table is, of course, also something to be resolved, but appearance-wise it looks good to me. Maybe a new section after the lead but before "Slotted Drives" would be need to be created, but it seems that the table should come before the more content based sections if the intent is for it to link those various sections. I'm not sure if there's a way to make it appear to the right of the TOC below the Screw drives template, but that might be worth considering if techinically possible and acceptable to do per WP:ORDER. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We need a table to summarize the article. Please move one of these beautiful tables into the article.  Thanks for all your work.    Comfr (talk) 06:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Image begins paragraph
For comparison, here's an example of what it would look like if the image was at the beginning of the first paragraph of a section.


 * Slot


 * Screw Head - Slotted.svg Slot screw drives have a single horizontal indentation (the slot) in the fastener head and is driven by a "common blade" or flat-bladed screwdriver. This form was the first type of screw drive to be developed, and for centuries, it was the simplest and cheapest to make. Additionally, it is unique compared to other common drives, due to it being straightforward to manufacture the slot head, and the ability to be driven by a simple handtool. The slotted screw is commonly found in existing products and installations, along with use in simple carpentry work and in applications where minimal torque is needed. Slot screws are also used in the restoration of antique furniture, vehicles, and equipment.

Bob K31416 (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for putting that together. I made a couple small changes:  I removed the italics from Slot (immediately right of image) and specified the image height at x22px per . – Reidgreg (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems like a acceptable approach as well for keeping the images in the sections outside of the headings though I think formatting them inline does kind of limit size options a bit. They're currently at 24px, but adding them inline seems to require that they be reduced to between 18px and 22px. Help:Visual file markup might offer some ideas as to how to get around that, though. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that DVZ2 previously wrote, "One option could be to place the icons inline at the start of the first paragraph of each section." It looks like there is a consensus for this. Bob K31416 (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: the changes have been implemented. Bob K31416 (talk) 10:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing all of that . Just for reference, I saw you were doing this in stages and didn't want to jump in somewhere in the middle and possibly muck things up. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome and thanks for the message. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, I just noticed that Marchjuly caught and fixed three that I missed. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making this change . I apologize the delay in responding, but this definitely seems like the best compromise all things considered.DVZ2 (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome and glad to hear it. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

TACL screw
Should TACL be included in this article? It was used to some degree in french cars of the 60s/70s? https://www.garagejournal.com/forum/threads/tacl-screwdrivers-by-facom.417016/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.72.54.198 (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Where to account for drivers that are compatible with more than one drive type?
It seems to me from some reading that there is a relatively new standard ISO 8764 that specifies "Screwdrivers for cross-recessed head screws", and apparently the latest revision of this standard specifies a driver that is designed to be able to successfully drive both traditional Phillips and traditional JIS fasteners. I assume it is distinct from both and essentially something in between the two. This article makes no mention of this whatsoever, and I think we should incorporate it. I don't know of there is an official common name for this type of driver, but it's very clear that manufacturers of drivers just call it "Phillips", EVEN IN JAPAN, where it is often abbreviated with a "P" or "Ph" prefix before the bit size number. Moreover, I have feeling that most modern "Phillips" bits/drivers are in fact made to this standard, rather than the traditional Phillips one. See here for some details that do not cite authoritative (standards body/driver manufacturing industry) sources: https://bike.bikegremlin.com/10583/phillips-vs-jis-vs-pozidriv/ or https://rtstools.com/jis-vs-phillips-screwdrivers-and-where-to-buy-a-jis-screwdriver/

Surlyhacker (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Mortorq Drive
There was not a lot of information about the Mortorq drive system so I researched more about it. There was no information about why this type of drive was made and what it is used for, just a small description of what it is. To this term I added why this drive bit is used, what its benefits are. How the head height reduction has its benefits. The design of the recess and how it works. The aesthetic design points were added to it. The different recess sizes that are available. Then I added a quality assurance section talking about the Phillips Screw Company quality control of this drive system Richyrich1776 (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Incomprehensible clause in section "Supadriv"
The clause "that close to a near-vertical surface to drive the screws into the drivers, […]" seems incomprehensible to me. If I knew the inteded meaning I’d edit it to make it clearer. Can anyone enlighten me? Spel-Punc-Gram (talk) 03:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * That sentence doesn't make sense to me, either.
 * Perhaps they are trying to say that, when trying to screw something in single-handed, the screw stays on the driver when both are near-horizontal, when traveling through the air approaching a near-vertical surface, like the Robertson -- and unlike practically all other drive shapes, where the screw will fall off. Is that really true for Supadriv?
 * I wish we had a better reference. --DavidCary (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Torx
The Torx Plus Tamper-Resistant head is problematic on this page. It's Torx, so it makes sense listing it with the other Torx heads - but it's also pentalobular, so listing it as a "Hexalobular (Torx)" head isn't completely correct. Is there a way around this? Grutness... wha?   14:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Standoff screw drives
Standoff drives do not seem to be covered. It would probably be a good idea to add them to make the article more complete:, ,. They have a little "nipple" in the center. Mercy11 (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There is Spacers and standoffs that covers standoff screws. The iPhone standoff screws just happen to also have a weird head, but that isn't what makes them standoffs.  I don't know what the drive type used on these standoffs is called, similar to Philips but not the same.  Lithopsian (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Overview table part II
The various table mockups from a couple of years ago were apparently abandoned because of their width and the possible effect on some screen layouts. Nevertheless I've put perhaps the best table in to see how it can be worked with. I put it in a first section (now with a lead!), perhaps some text would be good in that section too. And I moved the very long table of contents to the right, at the risk of sandwiching the table even more. Because of the extra demand on that area of the screen, I removed screw drives which is a sidebar with multiple links to this article, and just a couple to separate articles. Perhaps existing individual articles could be wikilinked in the summary table? Lithopsian (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Your contribution has greatly improved the article.
 * I tried and failed to improve the section on combination drives. Screws have been designed to fit more than one type of screwdriver, however these screws do not work well with any type of screwdriver.  Screwdriver manufacturers have claimed to have solve the problem of combination screws by offering special screwdrivers that will fit the combination screws.
 * For example Klein offers "Combo-Tip Driver 7314" without telling which type of combination screw it is intended to fit. A marketing video demonstrates a screw that does not work well with either a Philips or flat blade screwdriver.  The video claims the 7314 is designed to fit the "combination screws commonly found on electrical devices and conduit fittings."  My "original research" indicates that this tool does not quite fit the screws on Leviton CBR15-W receptacles.
 * The Milwaukee Electric Tool EXC also does not fit Leviton screws.
 * I would appreciate help or suggestions on further improving the article.  Comfr (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC) Comfr (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Pentalobular Fastener head...
Hi all, one cannot help but notice that in the main table, showing the most common fastener head designs, there are two rows entitled "Pentalobular" and "Hexalobular" - i.e with 5 or 6 internal lobes, respectively. Unfortunately, the "Torx Plus" security fastener (which includes a protruding central pin) is of a Pentalobular pattern, but has been grouped together with other Hexalobular designs. The devil, as always, is in the details. Have a safe and successful 2024, Nick Herbert, Licensed Aircraft Engineer (retired) 136.158.49.61 (talk) 11:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)