Talk:Computer case screws

References using "Dan's Data"

I'm not sure that this website could be considered, in Wikipedia terms, to be a reliable source. It just appears to be a questions and answers page and not much more than a blog of sorts. Googleing Daniel Rutter just says he is a journalist, it doesn't demonstrate that he or his site is a reliable source. There is nothing I can find on his website that attests to his technical qualifications or anything that demonstrates the site's validity under WP:RS. ---- WebHamster 11:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This page is a very valuable reference. Yes, Wikipedia is supposed to source everything, and have no original research... but I think everything said here is correct, and I needed to know what the small screws were called (the M3 ones) and this page gave me the answer. What citations would be appropriate? If Wikipedia had a page that said "the sky is blue", would it require a citation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.141.142 (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That guy also happens to have a blog - the reference is not to the blog. Incidentally, when the claim is merely what gauge of screw is holding your computer together, the bar isn't quite as high as you make it out to be. The guy holds himself to be an "independent reviewer of PC hardware and gadgets" and given the circumstances, that's plenty. Reswobslc 14:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I said itnot much more than a blog, I didn't say it was the blog on the website. And just because you think it's a reliable source doesn't mean that it meets WP:RS, he just states his opinions they aren't backed up by anything, it's certainly not peer reviewed. In the circumstances when it's borderline it's customary to supply secondary sources. As regards its importance vis-s-vis "just a screw". Statements of fact such as you've made require citations. You've impressed on me enough times how important they are, it's not one rule for me and one rule for you. ---- WebHamster 19:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a rule about making statements about living people that's much stricter, that's what WP:BLP is about. When an article speaks to no more than monkeying a PC case together, then even a trained monkey nearly suffices as a reliable source for an otherwise non-controversial easily independently verified fact. This is just common sense, not favoritism. When I write about living people the burden is just as high (see my past edits to Dell Schanze for example). Reswobslc 02:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I agree that BLP sources should be more rigid, but that doesn't detract from the fact that WP:RS still applies to any claims in any article. I'm suggesting that good ol' Dan does not meet the requirements of WP:RS, regardless of the fact that it's just a screw. If I was sticking to the letter of the law I would have deleted it, I didn't. The citation tagging was valid as is my concern over the reliability of the source. For example Dan makes no reference to the country he is referring to, neither do you. How do you or he know what is standard in other countries? There is a world beyond the US and you (and he) don't seem to be addressing that. At the very least I would suggest a better/reliable source but if one can't be found then a secondary source should also be used. Failing that I'd suggest leaving the citation tags in place until someone else can come up with a reliable source. Alternatively you can reword it appropriately. Your choice. ---- WebHamster 02:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not a US centric thing. Incidentally I didn't grow up in the US either, so I am not the "typical American" and I got the "vis-à-vis" pun (vis being French for screw in case it was a genuine coincidence). The vast majority of this stuff is made in China and Taiwan and exported all over the world. They make these non-metric screws for PCs despite preferring metric for anything they invent themselves. The inclusion of the UTS measurements probably became part of the de facto standard as people cloned the original IBM PCs, a US made product that used them. Reswobslc 05:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Motherboard grounding

Sift through every available industry specification and design guide for standardized motherboards, chassis, and power supplies going back to the original ATX in 1995. The only reference you will find to any kind of "ground" between the chassis and motherboard is limited exclusively to EMC and ESD purposes.

'Grounding' for EMC and ESD is not the same as the electrical ground used for universal reference and explicit return path for current (e.g. PCB ground plane). Power and signal current flows back to its source through the PCB ground plane -> cable assembly -> PSU.

However, the mounting points do provide system designers with several 'ready-made' chassis ground points to use at their discretion - IF the system designer has determined that something should be grounded to the chassis at these points.

For example, the system designer may decide to 'ground' the CPU heatsink to the chassis using a strap to reduce EMI from the cooling fan and/or processor. I've seen this on a few OEM machines. Tagan provides a ground cable on some of their power supplies, which can be attached at the motherboard mounting screw for EMI 'noise' reduction.

But in all such instances, any connection to these points will be for EMC and ESD purposes, never an electrical ground.--Brewster1971 (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

In my CompTIA A+ Certification All-in-One Desktop Reference (ISBN978-0-471-74811-3, it says HP and Compaq have a standard for that they use 2 type of screw only a hex for optical and the other for HDD, all other products they use the same as HDD, does anyone where the document is. --70.79.65.227 (talk) 01:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Screw thread

I believe that the article has the near-compatibility of screw threads backwards. 4-40 and M3 screws are nearly indistinguishable by eye are are sometimes misused. 6-32 screws are far too large to fit into an M3 (or 4-40) hole.

I have never seen an 8-32 screw used on a computer case.

Loebotomy (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Loeb

I have, but they're very old - Pentium II era at the latest. Jeh (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I have too, both on old computers, as well as on rackmount servers. The old computers would use one 8-32 right in the middle. On servers I've seen them as part of holding the rackmount rail assembly together. Reswobslc (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Laptop hard drive screws

I've been trying to find out the size of laptop hard drive screws... not really case screws but computer screws nonetheless. I believe they are 5-40 or 5-44, 1.8" in length, but I'm not sure. ~MDD4696 17:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Dunno the exact length (and I have some of various lengths) but they're M3 like all the other "small" PC screws. Try an M3 screw in your laptop hard drive, you'll find it fits perfectly, except that it's too long for the hole. Jeh (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

DELL OPTICAL: DRIVE SCREWS

The thing that no one discusses or writes about is that Dell optical drives require a special screw that looks like the 6-32, but is not the same whereas; it has a smooth shaft above the threads that allows the drive to snap into place. The entire length under the head is 0.9 (metric) and the shaft is 0.4, with the remaining thread at 0.5. If you use a standard M3 it will not hold in the desktop tower adn will be damaged upon moving or shipping. If anyone want pics with metric measurements please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephamiga (talk • contribs) 17:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

They are 8mm M3 shoulder screws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.231.208 (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Most common/second most common?

Aside from a single link to a now 6 year old article, does anyone have any real statistics on which screws are most common in PCs now? Any case that uses M3 for the motherboard will have far more M3 than 6-32. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supertin (talk • contribs) 03:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

#2 size Phillips for M3?

Although it would surely work, I always thought that the recommended size for M3 is #1. See e.g. http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Everything-You-Need-To-Know-About-The-Screws-Used-on-The-PC/405/3 . 1111mol (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Definitely not. You need to use the largest Philips that fits the screw. While some manufacturers use M3 screws with PH1 head, most are PH2. Zac67 (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Case Fan Screws

I noticed while there is an image depicting case fan screws, they are mentioned nowhere in the actual article. I propose that either a new article section be added to cover this missing item, or a different image be used which does not depict case fan screws. I would prefer the former, as case fans are still an essential part of modern computers. Jchap1590 (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Computer case screws

Cyberbot II has detected links on Computer case screws which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.ehow.co.uk/info_7845419_m3-metric-fine-thread-specs.html

  Triggered by \behow\.co\.uk\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done, got the troublesome reference replaced. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 17:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 28 July 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus – Consider the feedback and maybe try again later if appropriate. (non-admin closure) Dicklyon (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

---

Computer case screws → Personal-computer case screws – The current article title is misleading. The text of this article is really about the de facto standard for the screws of a personal computer (PC): mainly UNC #6-32 screws and M3 screws. Other computer types, for example, a ZX Spectrum, do not comply with this standard. In fact, it wound not have much sense to write an article about computer screws in general, because a computer can potentially include any screw type. See the corresponding French and Spanish articles, their title specifies a personal computer Ddrazir (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Ddrazir and BarrelProof: The proposer says some interesting things, but not enough to justify a move without a discussion. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't recommend an article rename, instead maybe a slight overhaul to make the article more generic and expand to include more types of computers. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 16:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

We must bear in mind that expanding the subject of the article to all computers would convert the article into an endless database of computer screws, which, in practice, would probably comprise only a small portion of computers in the end. In my opinion, this generic article would not make much sense, in the same way that a "microwave-oven screws" article does not make much sense, beause different microwave ovens have different and largely unrelated screws. In fact, if, for example, you search for "bag of pc case screws" on Amazon, you will get screws that will suit your PC (the screws described in this article). However, if you search for "microwave oven screws", you will not get any interesting result, and in case that you get some results and buy some screws, they will not fit your particular microwave oven almost certainly.

What I mean is that the reason for the existence of this article is, the curious and interesting de facto standard on PC screws, which is relatively unusual considering other home appliances. Ddrazir (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:CONCISE. Also, since when is "personal computer" spelled with a dash? I heavily recommend merging this article into computer case as it has no standalone notability and is largely WP:OR._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Normally "personal computer" is not spelled with a hyphen, but there are some cases in which a hyphen is used to group qualifiers of a noun to reduce ambiguity. For example, we write "this article is well known", but "this is a well-known article". The hyphen is used in the last sentence to group "well" and "known", since they act as a single qualifier of the noun "article".

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/es/diccionario/ingles/well-known

In the case of this article title, if you write, for example, "personal computer-case screws", you mean "the screws of a computer case which is personal", you mean that it is the case what is personal, not the computer. However, if you write "personal-computer case screws", you mean that what is personal is the computer. It is true that there are many people who do not use hyphens to group qualifiers (it is a writing style). They leave the reader the responsibility to resolve the ambiguity, but since the language offers us the possibility of reducing ambiguity by using hyphens, I think that it is a good practice. In the same way that parentheses are used in mathematics to group operations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_modifier

Regarding the article merge, I think that it would be a good idea to include a small section about the standard on PC screws in the computer case article. This small section could reference or cite this article (for example, with the "See also" template), so that the reader could continue reading on this topic if they want. This approach is used in a lot of articles, for example, throughout the Artificial neural network article.

However, I think that just merging the two articles would not be the best option, since this article is large, somewhat detailed in its topic, and has the potential to grow more, for example, explaining how the standard came about, in which computer where these screws were first used, etc. This standard on PC screws has interest by itself, but the article scope should be specified in the title (as "personal-computer case screws") to match its content.

I would say that the article content is not original research as these PC screws are well known and are described in articles of other sources:

https://www.hardwaresecrets.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-screws-used-on-the-pc/ Ddrazir (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

How do you expect it to have much expansion on the article? It literally says that screws are on the way out in modern cases due to having a tool-less design. The article is largely WP:OR and doesn't explain why the screw minutia is important enough for a separate article. That to me suggests it was an unnecessary expansion, especially since computer case is not a massive article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.