5
$\begingroup$

I answered a question earlier on location dowels and wondered if there was a 'fasteners' tag to add to it.

I discovered that there was a tag and a tag. While the two tags describe dis-similar but related topics. Would it make more sense to have a 'fasteners' tag, to attach to discussions of loading in bolts, threads, materials, designations and types of fastener rather than fragmentation into seperate tags.

The scope of could also include latches, circlips, interference fit dowels etc.

Bolting in particular I have an issue with, as a without a nut, it's not called a bolt.

There's also , and . All three with significant overlap.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ I have added the fasteners tag. Your meta question here could be a good place to start the basis of the tag wikis for each of those tags. For instance, bolting has a specific meaning for civil engineers. $\endgroup$ – user16 Feb 26 '15 at 18:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I had the same initial reaction to [bolting], for what it's worth; the claim was made in chat that it's a common term for a certain area of design, and worth keeping. The question here in my mind is whether people are more likely to be experts in fasteners generally or specifically in designing bolted connections and/or the fasteners themselves (including their threads), separately. $\endgroup$ – Air Feb 26 '15 at 18:34
  • $\begingroup$ Not answering because my mechanical/structural background is very, very weak, but other observations: [welding] is less a pursuit of engineers than of welders, we might prefer [welds] for most strictly engineering questions. $\endgroup$ – Air Feb 26 '15 at 18:37
  • $\begingroup$ How much thought are we supposed to put into tags at this point? It seems like at this point the more tags available the merrier. $\endgroup$ – hazzey Feb 26 '15 at 19:16
  • $\begingroup$ Looking up at my bookshelf I see a bunch of welding codes by the American Welding Society. I also have a list of AHJ requirements for "High Strength Bolting." I think more general tags may well be useful for finding things, but the tense of these words is not a problem. $\endgroup$ – Ethan48 Feb 27 '15 at 19:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Ethan48 My point was that there's a big difference between designing a welded connection and actually creating the weld, such that we might find both tags useful for distinct categories of question. $\endgroup$ – Air Mar 1 '15 at 21:59
2
$\begingroup$

I could see any of these tags developing a healthy following while the others are used only a few times.

Right now I don't have a good feeling for which tags might take off. With as diverse as our engineering community is, there is bound to be overlap and conflict with terminology. This will be a mess to straighten out but is the nature of words.

We had a conversation in chat about what the meaning of the tag is. To civil engineers this is a synonym for "rebar", while for everyone else this is "strengthening". The consensus of the chat was that more people will try to use it as "strengthening", so by default that is the path of least resistance.

My vote is to not worry about removing or combining tags until much later. Add tags as they make sense.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Agreed. I do think it's a good idea to add fastening now and prefer it, but we don't have to destroy the other tags just yet. I think there are questions that are about threads as distinct from fastening, but I would call that 'threadforms.' $\endgroup$ – Ethan48 Feb 26 '15 at 19:51

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .