Straight out of How to Loosen Lug Nuts
(and I don’t believe the article has been vandalized by anyone other than WRM):
- Changing a tire can be difficult, especially if lug nuts are rusted to the tire. Loosening the lug nuts allows you to remove the hubcap and change the tire. Even if you don’t have a flat tire, overtightened lug nuts can cause brake and wheel problems.
Lug nuts rusted to rubber? Lug nuts holding the hub cap on? (Take a clue from hub cap, i.e., covers the hub and the lug nuts.) Over-tightened lug nuts causing brake
problems? Never heard of such a thing and it is highly counter-intuitive. Causing wheel problems? (I highly doubt it.) Where is this going? This article is wrong on so many levels that it is a disgrace to the site. In my opinion the article is a pile of trash and would be a hinderance to any car owner hoping to remove a tire.
- A lug wrench and a tire iron are different names for the same tool. Why separate methods??
- The images are terrible.
- There is not any safety information. (Block the tires, anyone?)
The merge that was removed is valid. Why would you want to loosen lug nuts if not to remove the lug nuts and the tire? Maybe the prospect of driving down the road and watching your wheel go bounding across/through traffic as your hub digs a groove in the pavement and showers the trailing cars with sparks is amusing?? I would almost bet that the existing article is actually helpful. Why this article was created and what demonic sensibility allowed publishing are both incomprehensible. This article should certainly be nominated for inclusion on the WRM wall of shame.
It is a prime example of the worst of the worst. (I am sorry, but articles such as this are pathetic and damaging to the reputation of wikiHow. It is disgraceful that someone would accept money for creating such drivel and sullying the site. I am also disappointed that the staff protect this article by judging that it is a distinct title. My sensibility is aching.—It really has taken quite a beating on this one.)
Lojjik
2
Before we jump ship and lynch the WRM author for writing BS - what do the sources at the bottom have to say? the tools depicted look very different; but not being a car mechanic I can’t say if those are the correct names or not for the tools. Is the entire articleinaccurate, or can the somewhat borderline sentences be reworded? Seems kind of extreme for the article to be deleted at this point.
In my opinion, the WRM article is not worth fixing ‘‘plus’’ the community had already created article with better information. You do not, typically, use a torque wrench to loosen anything. Its whole purpose is to tighten to a specified torque—that is, to tighten sufficiently and not over-tighten. My question would be why should the community work to clean up such a mess when there is already an article on the topic?
system
4
“Stand on the tire iron and use force to loosen overtightened lug nuts.” No, I’m sorry, I’m not going to jeopardize spraining/breaking my ankle because I needed to use such force. Also for the images, it would be nice if they would distinguish the tools in each step, rather than seeing the identical ones…
I just looked at How to Remove Lug Nuts and Tires
and it, too, is a WRM article from 2010. It is much better because it includes the safety precautions, proper steps, accurate photos, identifies tire iron and lug wrench as synonyms, and does not employ a torque wrench which is a specialty tool not likely to be owned by your average car owner who would be reading an article about loosening a lug nut.
Anna
6
This is a good opportunity to mention something more widely that we’ve so far just put on the WRM user page: If you have specific feedback on an article, the best way to get it seen to is to report it in this form.
This is the best place to ensure that Emma, Chris, and co can receive the feedback, review the articles, and track any changes and follow-up with writers and experts, without any information being misplaced on talk pages or lost in translation as we pass it on. And we have the Wikivisual talk page and “Helpful?” button for the images, too, and the team would be happy to tackle any improvements from the feedback there. Merge-wise, I’d say loosen and remove do not mean the same thing, per the merge policy? It seems to me like some people may search for one and some the other, so providing both gives them the help they’re looking for, regardless of what term they look for, since they’re not synonymous. I don’t know my tire tools well (shocking, I know!), but I wonder if this is part of the issue: according to Wikipedia, the tire iron and the lug wrench are two different things: “Lug wrenches are occasionally mistaken for tire irons, due to the relative rarity of the tire iron, another metal tool of similar size which is not often needed by those who do not work with cars.”
and “The term is occasionally mistakenly used to refer to a lug wrench (esp. US), which is included along with a spare tire and jack on most new cars.”
Maybe we need some clarifications in the article on that front in terms of different contexts/uses/terms; again not a tire tool pro myself, but it sounds at first glance like there might be a US-vs-the-rest-of-the-world kind of clarification to make, too. If you want to add in any differentiations there, you’re of course welcome to, and if not you’re welcome to pass on the feedback in the form and we can have it reviewed. Hah, Mal, funny that you should pick that part out: I’ve literally stood on a tire iron to get the force I needed, being a big ol’ weakling (little ol’ weakling?!). Not saying it’s the best advice in the world, so it may well need review and adjusting, but it made me giggle to realize I’d done exactly that
system
7
So have I Anna, and I’m not so small as you are. Here in the US, Tire Iron is the more common term for that thing in the trunk next to the jack.
Right you are, Anna. In common usage, the term tire iron is seldom used, but when it is, a lug wrench is what is meant (around here). If you look up tire iron in Wikipedia, you will find that it is a tool to take the tire off of the rim, not to loosen a lug nut. So we have two methods using tools that do not actually loosen lug nuts—the torque wrench and the tire iron. That makes the article even more useless and inaccurate. By the way, I did leave feedback on the images, but I got tired after about seven or so. The Helpful? screen is such a clunky way to leave feedback when the same errors are repeated throughout the article. Also, in my experience, the feedback just gets gone and the images do not seem to be fixed even months later. Should I then leave more of the same feedback? And at what point should I stop leaving feedback? I am also wondering if this article is about loosening a lug nut
, why jack the car, take off the tire, and tighten the lug nuts are included. Does that mean that the article needs to be retitled to match the content (as remove lug nuts and tires)? Or does the existence of these steps make the article even less accurate? Arrggh. Do none of you see how terrible this article is? Maybe I should go slower. Sentence one: Changing a tire can be difficult, especially if lug nuts are rusted to the tire.
Why is changing a tire brought up when you are only loosening lug nuts? How do lug nuts get rusted to a tire (which is only the rubber part)? And how does a rusted lug nut affixed to a rubber tire alter, in any way, the loosening process for the lug nuts that are actually on the studs? Sentence two: Loosening the lug nuts allows you to remove the hubcap and change the tire.
So loosening the lug nuts allows you to remove the hub cap? How? Do the lug nuts hold the hub cap on and you have to loosen them to remove the hub cap? Not in my experience. Does merely loosening the lug nuts allow you to change the tire? Not in my experience! Every one of those lug nuts needs to come all the way off to remove the wheel (which is a rim with a tire seated on it). But, unfortunately, we are only loosening them in this article. Or do we need to change the title? Sentence three: Even if you don’t have a flat tire, overtightened lug nuts can cause brake and wheel problems.
I do not think that a reputable mechanic would agree that this is much of a possibility. Sentence four: The secret to loosening them
(tight lug nuts) effectively is to use a tool with a long handle.
Correct! You get more leverage with a long handle and that is key. Step 1 start: Look to see if you can view four or five lug nuts. If you can’t, your hubcap may be covering them.
But you must loosen the lug nuts to remove the hub cap (as mentioned in the introduction) to get to the lug nuts. Hunh?Step 1 finish: Look for a place where you can insert the prying tip at the end of your wrench and pop it
(the hub cap) off.
Step 2 start: _Begin loosening the lug nuts while the car is still on the ground. Place the lug wrench on a lug nut. Then, turn your lug wrench counter clockwise.
- Lug nut wrenches can be either a straight bar or two crossed bars, called a “spider wrench.” The crossed bars give you extra strength,_ Excuse me? Using crossed bars makes you stronger? Step 2 finish: because you can grab onto either side with your hands and twist with all your arm strength. If the wrench still doesn’t work, try pounding on the handle with a mallet or hammer. You may also be able to step down with force onto the left hand side of the wrench.
Oh I understand now. They meant leverage. The cross gives you more leverage, not more strength. I am not too sure, though, that recommending hammering on the lug wrench is the best advice. Shouldn’t you put a pipe on the lug wrench to increase the lever arm length and, thereby, get more leverage? (Like was mentioned in sentence four of the introduction.) Step 3: Don’t remove the lug nuts entirely. You only want to loosen them part of the way on the tire hub. If you are having trouble loosening the lug nuts, you can use your foot or a rock against the long handle to add leverage.
Foot and rock do not increase leverage. They increase instantaneous force and, thereby, instantaneous torque. Foot and rock are not a good idea, though, and that is a bad thing to recommend in a guide like this. Step 4: Move in a star pattern around the tire until all of the lug nuts are loosened. This means you should tighten and loosen by skipping a lug nut along the way, so that the sides of the tire remain even.
Not needed. It should say loosen all of the lug nuts one at a time. The star pattern only pertains to tightening (so that you get even torque). Steps 5-7: Unneeded. We are only loosening lug nuts, not removing them or the tire (or else this would have to be retitled and would be a dead on duplicate of “How to Remove Lug Nuts and Tires”). Method Two: Invalid- Tire irons are not used to loosen lug nuts. Method Three: Invalid- Torque wrenches are not typically used to remove lug nuts (though they could be if any normal homeowner had one of these costly specialty tools
). On the other hand, someone who had a torque wrench and happened to have it in the car when they needed to loosen a lug nut (but not remove the lug nut or the tire) would not need to read this article. ______________ The sad part is - I have spent more time (and much more care) saying what is wrong with the article than what WRM spent when they dumped their turd. And, while I agree with Sudo King that, in all cases, an article ought to be fixed if there is redeeming value, I had judged that there was precious little. I stand by that judgement and can, in all sincerity, call this debacle a Worthless Rotten Mess (WRM). I do not agree with Anna’s statement that the title is distinct. The title choice was a scam and the content a disgrace. In my opinion, the article is not justified, needed, nor worth fixing. The whole charade is a thinly veiled manipulation of words and content to connive to fit a shoddy, ill-executed, and worthless piece of junk into the database. Come on now. Is this what we really want as a community? I mean, if each and every one of you cannot see that this article is a shambles and a sorry time-sucker, I might as well pack up my bag and leave you good folk to your own devices. I try to help put decent content on the site, I really do. If it needs fixing, I am not above fixing it, but there are multiples of these shoddy articles that are supplanting genuinely helpful articles and we need to all rise up and man the flood gates against the onslaught. Everyone needs to open their eyes to the insidious nature of this type of content and treat it as it rightly deserves. If it is useful, unique content, polish it to a shine and welcome it into the database. If it is a manipulation of the system and/or does a disservice to the readers, jettison it quickly as you would spam because it is done as a bad faith manipulation
which exploits the credo of “assume good faith.” ______________ I propose that we enforce accountability on all the WRM articles. I would suggest that each article could be commented on and voted upon, perhaps on a 1-10 scale on various aspects like usefulness to readers, veracity, and others that the community might decide upon. The voters might be screened for user name and a minimum number of edits; the votes and comments would be blind, no name attached and would accumulate for anyone in the community to see. The votes could trigger a NFD|WRM - worthless, you know the rest. I am just roughing it out here, but the way it is going, the bad content dump is overriding our ability to fix the content and make it useful to readers. We are poisoning our own database through inattention and misplaced trust.
We will never enforced accountability on WRM content, and we will continue to argue it isn’t the same thing (as in the merge policy) when anyone can plainly see it is (if they are willing to bend against wikiHaus preferences, which obviously, paid staff can’t). WRM gets preferential treatment as in ignoring merge deletion accuracy sources policies because they produce niche content where wikiHow is sparse on community created pages, but still, about 40% of their content is duplicate, usually of their own garbage.
A few things to say here: 1) Just because an article is written by WRM, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be open to criticism and reviewal. Every article, whether about pet rocks or life-saving medical advice, should be reviewed the same way. I get that some articles are better than others, but we should treat all articles submitted to be potentially
helpful unless they violate the Deletion Policy. 2) I know next to nothing about cars, but this article does clearly have some issues. I’ve been told by professionals that lug nuts should always be as tight as possible, although I’m willing to accept evidence showing otherwise. With that in mind, I’m not entirely sure why you’d need to loosen the lug nuts unless you’re taking off the wheel. Also (again, from my limited knowledge of cars), the hubcap is attached to the wheel by the lug nuts, which are visible through the holes in the hubcap. To take off the hubcap, you would loosen the nuts so that the cap can come off. 3) Standing on the loosening tool of questionable name to apply force works, but is probably not a very good idea. It’s possible to hurt yourself doing this. I could see providing this method with a warning attached to it about the potential dangers of doing it, though. 4) This whole discussion is a good thing.It’s good to have discussions talking about articles with questionable content so that we get multiple editors’ opinions on what should be done to the article (and editors to edit the article!) At the very least, I think the article should be edited for accuracy and completeness with some sources to back it up. I have no comments about merging/deleting the article.
Chris_H
11
I’ve posted an update to the article that I believe addresses both the duplication and accuracy concerns raised by Ron. http://www.wikihow.com/Loosen-Lug-Nuts
Marina
12
Wow, incredible edit, Chris.
system
13
YAY Chris! My HERO! Thank you. And as an aside… I think it’s a pity that the time spent grumbling here in the forums wasn’t better spent by fixing the article (and several others into the bargain) instead.
I agree with Lois. Instead of posting a complaint in the forums, I would suggest fixing the article or tagging it for work.
@Loiswade42
Actually, the pity is that the community be forced to rewrite, from the ground, up a bevy of WRM “creations” that have nary a shred of usefulness. It is patently unfair that WRM is paid cash money to dump the burden of article cleanup and re-creation on volunteers. That is the pity.
And it is highly unethical. The reality is that wikiHow is paying good money for the privilege of having its reputation soiled by farcically, abysmal WRM articles.
system
16
The last I checked? There was NO rule or instruction stating that anyone has to do anything on this site that they don’t want to or don’t enjoy. #quityourbellyaching
@Loiswade42
In my opinion, this is not the sort of thing to be ignored and empowered. If I did not think it important, I would not have asked for community help in properly framing WRM article creations. Also I do not appreciate you belittling the importance of this. I am truly sorry that you do not see the criticality of taking action to limit the paid creation of detrimental articles, but you do not have to arbitrarily downplay the importance of something which deactivated one of the Hall of Fame wikiHowians. And, yes, I do
feel obligated to rid the site of vandalism as a part of my ‘‘duty’’ while patrolling. Articles such as this vandalize the quality of wikiHow and I will not sit idly by and watch it happen more frequently.
I couldn’t agree more with @Loiswade42
. Yes, everyone is a volunteer here. However, I respectfully disagree with you in one case; while I see your point, I do not think that Ron was bellyaching. He raised a legitimate, important concern about an article, in order to keep wikiHow quality high, which I appreciate. In the future, though, I would suggest creating a forum thread asking people to fix the article, rather than complaining it (complaining about a particular problem doesn’t solve it, while fixing something does). Thank you so much for your meticulous efforts Ron!
@Adelaide
I respectfully point out that I was asking for help fixing a larger problem than a single article and that I got no help on that issue. Focussing the discussion on a single article completely corrupts the aim of my original post, which only pointed to this article as symptom
of a larger evil. I am really curious as to why community members continue to ignore the elephant in the room.
system
20
FWIW, if I wasn’t in the process of moving last weekend, I would have slapped an {{inuse}} tag on WRM’s ALS challenge article and worked it on myself because for one, it’s pretty much of a “slap in the face” to use MTV as a source (period) and two, it’s yet another example such as this and other recent inaccurate/poorly written article by them. Volunteer editors (especially teens) isn’t required to have a grasp at writing and researching. What Ron, Bob, and others are trying to state, is that these are supposed to be paid writers - people whom should have the ability to do their research and back everything up accurately in addition to using their expert knowledge, not just write for the sake of filling in blank slots and submitting it. Thus, now, the volunteer editors would then need to clean up after these “experts”. What would you rather have on the site? Articles that deem low-quality information from paid writers or the endless continuation of youth dating, Club Penguin relationships, or wearing makeup in elementary school articles? #lolbellyaching
