Talk:Split pin

What is the history
Anyone know the history of the Cotter pin. Presumably Mr Cotter invented it? I can find no reference on the Web. I always thought the Cotter pin was the one used on bike pedals, and in England we tend to call the others split pins. I've used pins like tubes with a slit down the side which were referred to as Grover pins, but I can find no reference to these either. --Memestream 13:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite right. The parts described in the article are split pins (an obvious name if you look at the picture!). A cotter pins is a short steel rod with a tapered flat machined along it and a thread cut at the end where the taper is widest. Heptamus 10:40, 1 February 2008 (GMT)


 * Various manufacturers disagree with you. For example, see.


 * Atlant (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have always heard of the piece of hardware described by this article as a "Cotter Pin." Possible US/UK thing? I don't know. Anyway, I'm not certain I've ever heard of a "split pin" in the sense that nothing comes to mind from the term "split pin."  Also, I would think of a "spring pin" before a "cotter pin" if you asked for a "split pin." (Run a google image search for SPRING PIN, COTTER PIN, and SPLIT PIN, see what pops up.)  Based on that google search, I would say that a "split pin" and a "cotter pin" are supposed to be identical.  My two cents. or pence.  or whatever.  Dachande (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is a UK/US thing, although I agree that UK manufacturers and sellers such as the one cited above do seem to have recently shifted to calling split-pins 'cotters'. I suspect this is the result of US influence and globalisation of information. Interesting that you have never heard the term 'split pin'. Over many decades of involvement in engineering in England I have never, until this year, heard the term cotter used to describe anything but the round threaded device with a tapered flat on it, and friends confirm the ubiquity of the term 'split pin'. What are we to call the device that holds (or used to hold) bike pedals on now then? It seemed much better to have two terms for two distinct devices. --Memestream (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a reference: --Memestream (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm a 62 year old Brit and all my life I've used 'cotter pin' as a synonym for split pin. I had no idea that this was supposed to be restricted to American English until I came here. I'm not a professional engineer or mechanic though, and I suspect refusing to use 'cotter pin' is a bit like insisting on referring to a ruler as a 'rule', something that experts bother about but the general public doesn't, or maybe bicycle mechanics don't like using it. The term may have started off in the US but it's been over here for a long time, since at least WW2. --Ef80 (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I find the statement saying a split pin is “incorrectly known in the US a cotter pin” very unhelpful. I am a 60 year old airframe and powerplant mechanic in the US. The pin referenced in this article is known as a cotter pin, as a previous contributor mentions a quick Google search will show. Aircraft manufacturers and Military Specification part providers name the part a cotter pin. While calling it a split pin is accurate and a very good description of the part it doesn’t change the current usage of the term cotter pin. There may have been a time where the term was incorrect but that is not the case now.DangerousDanO (talk) 13:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge from R-clip
An R-clip is just another name for a cotter pin. As such, the article should be combined. Wizard191 (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The R-clip article is intended to describe the specific "R"-shaped device. Although the R-clip can indeed function as a type of "cotter pin" it is not synonymous with this role. It seems the term "cotter pin" is used more generically (for "R-clips" as well as "split pins") and ambiguously (in the case of uk bycycles). In view of this I suggest that rather than merging the specifics of "R-clip" into "cotter pin", that the "cotter pin" article should be split into a more generic/overview/disambiguation "cotter pin" article and specific "split pin" and "R-pin" articles. Chris Cross (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you are right. Maybe there should be a short cotter pin article that explains the different means and provides links to split pin and R-clip. As a side point, I've never heard of an R-clip before, I've always called them a "hairpin cotter pin". Wizard191 (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * a) What is the wiki protocol for closing this merge proposal (one way or another)? b) I will create redirects for known R-clip synonyms such as "hairpin cotter pin". (Aside: It seems very unfortunate that the wiki does not have explicit support for synonyms.) Chris Cross (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Splitting
Per the discussion in the merge section above this article is to be split out. I proposed that it this article remain as little more than a disambiguation page (but not a true disambiguation page) and then the content split out between split pin and R-clip. Is this reasonable? Wizard191 (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The image to the right is called a Hitch pin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altafqadir (talk • contribs) 14:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your revision of 5th June 2009. The picture of Hitch clip should be placed to the right of the 4th paragraph instead of the 1st, under section "Uses". I thought I should place it there but then I let it be to avoid making a bigger change and edit "Hitch" in place of "new Cottor" which of course needed revision...! Thanks again for simultaneously looking after and for ignoring as you must have had to do a lot of work.


 * Later, I went through the discussion, and in the archive section I came to know that in the UK "bicycles" are known as "bycycles". If you want me to be polite as per the policy, then I should finish this here now. On the other hand, if I am advised to be bold then I should write the following:


 * Below the archived discussion, you suggested that the contents be split out between split pin and R-clip and ask if it is reasonable?


 * Well, for the author it may be reasonable. For the many others reading it now or in the future, it is and will be ambiguous, and I am concerned. It must be split out between Cotter pin and R-clip. It seems that the greater emphasis is on splitting or split pin instead of Cotter pin. Pliers and hands of Scissor split too. If this is the case and if wiki can afford it, then the name of the article should be changed to Split pin, i.e. closer to the basic idea of the author. If a redirect of split pin takes a student to the Cotter pin article all the time, then should he write in his paper that split pin and Cotter pin is the same thing as per his vision and what would we suggest if the choice is simply between a Yes or a No?


 * If our answer is yes than someday, someone is going to write the following article and it is my friendly reminder that one should read the following article on "Cow" at one's own risk. One may forget his/ her English by the time he/she finishes reading:


 * "He is a cow. He has four legs together.They are splitted apart. Two forward and two afterward. It gives milk which comes from four taps attached to the basement. It gives healthy fats. Its motion is in quantity and very useful, green colour. It has tail situated in the backyard and has hair on it to afraid flies. It has beautiful eyes because they are big and splitted apart. Many use cow as vehicle also!! Therefore cow rockz..!"


 * The above article is one of the vision and, of course, vision plays an important role in our life. Splitting is one of the characteristic of Cotter pins. They have two tines, one is longer than the other, and the real characteristic is hidden there, which, a simple split pin does not have and that is how we should look at it. Altafqadir (talk)


 * First, I just copyedited your previous post for readability, however I (nor anyone else) never acted on anything, because you didn't request anything; you just made a statement. Second, I'm really confused by most of whatever you are trying to say. Please reiterate it, and this time simply state your points, and what you would like to see done. Wizard191 (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Recast
May I please propose a recast of this article; it appears that one common term is being used for several different engineering fastenings (none of which is "right" and all of which are correct!). Three objects are being squeezed into one definition and each needs to be explained and defined without any particular national bias – as befits an international effort.

I would like to balance the article to accommodate all usages of the term cotter pin, be it American or British. Churchill recognised a universal trans-Atlantic heritage&mdash;divided by a common language&mdash;and I would suggest that British and American usage of the word Fanny refers.

Regards Oxonhutch (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Whilst the descriptions of the UK and US usage of the term is fine; pictures of the various items would be more helpful. Perhaps Split Pin and Cotter Pin should be merged under a more general title? 7severn7 (talk) 07:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you saw the discussion above (in the "splitting" section), but we just went through and split these articles because it was tough to structure a good article when trying to describe two different types of pins. Moreover, the naming differences between the US and UK only complicated things more. There is not one universal broad term that covers both types of pins. Wizard191 (talk) 10:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the point you make. Perhaps it may be possible to create a collection of items under "nut securing devices" or some such. Any ideas? 7severn7 (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)