Talk:Impact driver

Maybe we should rename this article 'Impact Wrench' and have the 'Impact Driver' article disambiguate between the uses of the term since it seems to be used for both the manual and powered variants.

We could have some pictures of the manual one to show what is meant:

(Though best to source our own rather than steal either bandwidth or images from these sources).

updated with our own piccies to keep the owners happy ;-) --John Rumm 03:28, 21 May 2007 (BST)

And could show what is meant by the powered ones e.g.

and some more from Screwfix and some from Toolstation

--John Stumbles 14:51, 19 May 2007 (BST)

Sounds a good idea to me. Are the powered ones more often called wrench or driver? If the latter, the final articles could be imapct driver (hand) and impact driver (powered) ... or something NT 15:42, 19 May 2007 (BST)

Powered ones seem to be mostly called wrenches, but some are called drivers. I thought it worth sticking to the name wrench since that's clear, and saying so and why on the drivers page. --John Stumbles 17:37, 19 May 2007 (BST)

Its finally big enough for our first disambig page NT 22:19, 19 May 2007 (BST)

I can do some photos

The "impact drive" phrase seems most commonly used for the wallop it with a hammer metal lump and the hex drive cordless tool. Impact wrench seems more common for the cordless tools with square drive). It is also uses for all the pneumatic square drive tools ISTM.

OK prolly best to keep it all in one article then. (I was going to photo my own manual one but couldn't find it :-() --John Stumbles 11:28, 20 May 2007 (BST)

I can prolly find a manual one somewhere to photo, and the cordless is easy.

Do we have a policy on linking to suppliers (screwwfix TS etc)? I have done it a few times and it is a handy way of getting access to piccies we need, but it does pose a maintenance problem in that the links will age and may break.

--John Rumm 23:55, 19 May 2007 (BST)

Photos, great. I've got the tools but not the macro lens.

Re links to suppliers, its not ideal but I'm sure it can work as a temporary measure until we get our own pics done. NT 10:15, 20 May 2007 (BST)

---

Depends what you mean by link to ...

Taking Wikipedia policy as a guide I think a link like some things from Screwfix is OK, but they frown upon (and in fact prevent you doing) what I've done above to link an image from someone else's site into a page of our own. In both cases there is - as you say - the problem that it will break when/if they change their site.

In the case of taking copies of other site's images that's pretty much verboten in wikipedia (unless under 'fair use' provisos e.g. it's in the public interest, it's a small portion of the site's contents and there's no other source). I did it with the SDS gouge picture because I CBA to photograph my own and reckoned Toolstation (and their lawyers) would have better things to do than complain about it (especially as I included a link to them in the article I used it in). Strictly we should source our own image (which I'll do when I next dig out my SDS kit (honest!!)).

--John Stumbles 11:26, 20 May 2007 (BST)

I didnt realise you were thinking more in terms of importing. Why dont we talk about it in the ng first? NT 12:17, 20 May 2007 (BST)

I was not talking about importing, more about the "you can get them from screwstation here" type of links.

--John Rumm 13:12, 20 May 2007 (BST)

Oh, I see. 'You can get them at screwfix' is a tag one could add to most articles, so I'm unclear of its usefulness. I'm not sure I quite get this one. NT 17:48, 20 May 2007 (BST)

Sorry, I am obviously not making this very clear... ok try again - I don't mean generic pointer to a online shop, but specific product links e.g.

"An impact driver is a noisy posh screwdriver, Screwfix will flog you one like this"

or "To make NT really happy he likes to have lots of lovely halogen downlighters to stare at"

i.e. we are using the link by way of showing a picture and description of what we mean. Much the same as we do in the usenet group from time to time. Its not stealing bandwidth because we are just linking to their page, and also they can't really argue against it use like this since they may get a sale, and that is why they put the page there in the first place.

A different proposition from just borrowing their images for inclusion in our site.

--John Rumm 20:50, 20 May 2007 (BST)

I don't see any problem with that (apart from the links-going-stale issue) --John Stumbles 00:42, 21 May 2007 (BST)

Of course, there is one way to make links and know they will be happy ;-)

Might even accumulate some beer vouchers for the uk.d-i-y recreation fund!

--John Rumm 20:54, 20 May 2007 (BST)

My one reservation about that is that there is no information where the link goes, so if I, a reader, click on links looking for more info, which is how wikis work, I'm going to get pretty fed up & disillusioned finding nothing useful there time after time.

There is an option that might solve that: instead of linkifying the phrase 'halogen downlighters' above, maybe instead linkify: (pic)

That way anyone seeing the link knows its nothing but a picture. NT 12:08, 21 May 2007 (BST)

If you link to a screwfix product page, then it is pretty much like any other page somone might visit. Hover over it and you can see the destination in the fly by hint, and on the browser status line. That ought to be enough. Half the attraction of linking to a suppliers site is being able to illustrate something without needing a picture of it. i.e. if you want to see what I am talking about, then look here.

Anyway, I have added pictures to the Impact driver page now, so we can stop worrying about it for this particular article.

--John Rumm 20:10, 21 May 2007 (BST)