Jump to content

Talk:Windscreen wiper

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John Amos?

[edit]

United States Patent US3262042 was filed two years before Kearns filed, and was also granted before Kearns. It appears to be the earliest US patent for an intermittent windshield wiper - it was granted, and the only other patents it cites are nor for intermittent wipers. The patent owner was Lucas, a UK company, so there may be prior art in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Hirst (talk • contribs) 06:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Kearns

[edit]

I don't know what to say about this article. Some guy called Robert Kearns claim he invented wipers but never compensated. [1] The interesting part is it looks like Ford acknowledged it by paying him something See "Kearns had gained some vindication in the form of $30 million in settlements from Ford and Chrysler, but he never got what he had sought from the beginning."

The whole issue of the inventor looks highly open to debate. Solid citations for Anderson, Hofmann and Mills Munitions? The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography mentions even more possibilities: a Gladstone Adams of Newcastle upon Tyne (a 1911 patent he said had been stolen by someone else called Capstaff, who patented it in the USA); Prince Henry of Prussia (for his Benz car in 1911); and a reference to the existence of hand-operated wipers in France in 1907. RayGirvan 19:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Kearns invented the intermittent wiper mechanism, i.e., the device that lets you adjust the speed for different rains. He never claimed to have invented the wiper itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.93.67.247 (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

picture

[edit]

A better picture is reccomended 69.244.157.99 22:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC) What makes some windshield wipers better than others? I find it hard to believe that you have to buy a $50K car to get a decent set of windshield wipers. What can people with average cars do to ensure they have the best possible wipers? 69.244.157.99 22:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nozzle

[edit]

Is there a specified term for the nozzles that spray cleaning fluid? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.186.134.103 (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Rotary "wiper"?

[edit]

I have a picture of a rotary "wiper" on a ship's bridge[2]. Does that belong here or is there a name for those? 72.74.204.205 16:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rear wiper?

[edit]

The article mentions that rear wipers are found on square-backed vehicles; why are they not found on sedans? Is the airflow better? It seems like the rear window of a sedan, which faces up, would gather more water. 72.74.204.205 17:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the erroneous assertion that rear wipers were "invented" by a Ford engineer in 1972, since they were standard equipment on Volvo station wagons starting with the 1970 model year, and were available on high-end Italian cars (e.g. Lancia Flaminia) as early as the 1950s. Can anyone confirm when the first rear wiper was actually offered? (To answer the anonymous question above, yes, airflow over a sedan's rear window often precludes the need for a wiper, whereas a wagon's rear window is exposed to road spray in relatively stagnant air, and the steeply-raked rear window of some sports cars makes them prone to water accumulation when stopped or moving slowly.) Jelliott4 (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name of article

[edit]

This article's title uses the term "windscreen," while the article on the piece of glass in question uses "windshield." It seems to me that they ought to be consistent, and I thought about moving this to "windshield wiper" on that basis, but I took a look at "what links here" and I think that ensuring that all the links are correct would be a formidable challenge, one for which I don't have the time. 1995hoo (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no call for such a change, we only require interarticle consistency and in any case, you should go through the process at WP:RM before making changes without consensus Nil Einne (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reqphoto

[edit]

I just added a reqphoto because, despite all the photos, we don't have a picture of a regular automobile windshield wiper. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polish

[edit]

Would like to add info that windshields can't be cleaned with glass cleaner if there is roadgrime or wax on them. They need to be cleaned with a razor, window polish or bonami. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pivot and pantograph

[edit]

Somebody needs to find and include some information about pivot and pantograph wipers.

Pivot (or radial) wipers are attached to a single arm, which in turn is attached to the motor. These are commonly found on many cars, trucks, trains, boats, airplanes, etc.

Pantograph wipers, OTOH, are used on many commercial vehicles, especially buses with large windshields. Pantograph wipers feature two arms for each blade, with the blade assembly itself supported on a horizontal bar connecting the two arms. I believe one arm is attached to the motor, while the other is on an idle pivot. The pantograph mechanism, while being more complex, allows the blade to cover more of the windshield on each wipe. However, it also usually requires the wiper to be "parked" in the middle of the windshield, where it may partially obstruct the driver's view when not in use.

Some larger cars in the late '70s, early '80s, and perhaps beyond, had a pantograph wiper on the driver's side, with a conventional pivot on the passenger side. I've seen these only on LH driver American cars; I don't know if they ever appeared on RH drive cars (mechanically, they should have been of about equal complexity). The two arms of the pantograph were of different length, with the outside arm being longer, allowing the blade to change position slightly during each wipe, presumably to provide better coverage of the lower and upper corners on the driver's side without the other end of the blade having to leave the windshield. Usually these were in a tandem arrangement (both wipers pointing in the same direction—usually if not always toward the passenger side—when in the down position), though I suppose an opposed arrangement (with the wipers pointing in opposite directions when in the down position) would have been possible (in which case both wipers could have been of the uneven-arm pantograph configuration).

Any insight that could be provided regarding these devices by those with knowledge and access to resources would be appreciated. 64.85.240.2 (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Windscreen wiper → Windshield wiper — other articles use the American term "windshield" (see: Windshield, Windshield washer fluid). Just in the interest of consistency, rename to Windhsield Wiper. -TinGrin 08:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose: See WP:ENGVAR for a lengthy exposition of why move requests between national varieties is a waste of time for next-to-no gain, and thus why the community rejects them outright. Knepflerle (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose and speedy close this, WP:ENGVAR is very clear. Jeni (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose common noun not a proper name. I think a speedy close here is appropriate.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand this. Who said anything about whether the topic was a proper name or not? We're perfectly free to discuss titles of articles that are not proper names. Propaniac (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The original request was to Windscreen Wiper (capitalised), hence the talk of proper nouns. Knepflerle (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree with the nominator that it doesn't make a lot of sense for the respective articles to be named Windshield and windscreen wiper. I don't care whether the object is referred to as a windshield or a windscreen, but consistency between them seems a reasonable objective. I didn't see anything in the linked WP:ENGVAR guideline that expressly forbids this type of nomination -- the argument is about consistency, not about picking the term used in a particular country. Propaniac (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ENGVAR says we should avoid these moves for any reason. They're just not worth the hassle. It would only be a matter of time before the US titled articles are requested to be moved to UK spellings for consistency with them, or vice versa. Seeing as the redirects take you to the right place at the moment, what is there really to gain? Knepflerle (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Neatness, really. It's hardly a major matter either way, but even within that guideline, it calls for internal consistency (meaning if an article refers first to "color" and then to "colour", you should change one to the other) and I don't see why consistency between articles about such closely relate topics is any different. And I still really do not see any part of that guideline that applies to this discussion, if you actually read the guideline, because this isn't about one variety being "more correct", it's about already having chosen one variety for this topic. It doesn't say anything in line with "avoid these moves for any reason." Perhaps that was the intent of those who wrote it, but it certainly doesn't say that. Propaniac (talk) 00:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose and speedy close: Ref:WP:ENGVAR, and note that "America" didn't invent the automobile, so we need not show WP:BIAS by using American terms for international topics. Added suggestion: it would likely also be acceptable to propose swapping Windshield/Windscreen and Windshield washer fluid/Wiper fluid. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 19:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

New Section(s)?

[edit]

I was thinking, shouldn't there be a section devoted to the ongoing maintenance and potential problems with windshield wipers and certain unique types? Kyle1081 (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (February 2011)

[edit]

Windscreen wiper → Windshield wiper — Relisted. fuzzy510 (talk) 07:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Although the prior request for this name change/page move for consistency was denied on grounds of WP:ENGVAR, my rational is to go with the most commonly used name, per WP:COMMONNAME. A quick Google Search for "Windshield wiper" bring back About 14,600,000 results (0.13 seconds), as opposed to About 788,000 results (0.13 seconds) for "Windscreen wiper". Furthermore, a search for the plural forms of the two bring back About 4,730,000 results (0.16 seconds) for "Windshield wipers" and About 803,000 results (0.25 seconds) for "Windscreen wipers". It is obvious that "Windshield wiper" is the common name here by far. --Greekboy (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Oppose per WP:ENGVAR. I also suspect that Google may be doing something clever as, for me, in the UK using google UK, google reports 2.59 million hits for windscreeen and 2.83 for windshield which suggests that the common name case may not be that clear cut either. Dpmuk (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Again, this isn't a matter of naming of preference and variation (i.e. WP:ENGVAR) in my opinion, but rather the most common name used. Regarding searching, be sure to search the phrase/name using quotation marks, as that searches for the specific term. (see this guide for more information on searching for specific terms) I doubled checked using Google.co.uk (instead of .com), I got the same results I did as using .com. Furthermore Bing brings back 5,710,000 results for "Windshield wiper", 1,760,000 results for "Windscreen wiper", 2,650,000 results for "Windshield wipers", and 1,780,000 results for "Windscreen wipers". A Yahoo! search brings back 6,060,000 results for "Windshield wiper", 1,780,000 results for "Windscreen wiper", 2,480,000 results for "Windshield wipers", and 1,750,000 results for "Windscreen wipers". As far as I can see, "Windshield wiper" is in fact the most commonly used. Greekboy (talk)
OK, that's true, I may have forgot to put it in quotes (very unlike me) but I'm confused as to how "windshield wipers" gets 14.1 million and without quotes (i.e. less restrictive) gets much less, so I'm still not believing googles results. I don't think the Bing results are clear enough to warrant ignoring WP:ENGVAR. Dpmuk (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. While ENGVAR would usually rule here, it would be best to move the page so it will be consistent with windshield, which is essentially its parent article. Also there is the article Windshield washer fluid. Grk1011 (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like where that arguement could possibly lead. In this case there is a clear "parent" article so it's not so likely to cause problems but what about cases where the parent article isn't so clear or where there's more than one parent. In those cases we would end up having long discussions about which is "parent" and possible switching between English variations based on which one different people think is "parent" which is exactly what WP:ENGVAR is trying to avoid. Dpmuk (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But how is that relevant to this article? In this case it is rather clear, but you are saying it shouldn't be moved because someone might have a similar argument where the relation isn't as clear on another article? Grk1011 (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ENGVAR is there to try to stop arguements, reversions etc. If we allow this we'll just going to be shifting the arguement to is the COMMONNAME clear enough in this case. In this case it's rather clear but where do we draw the line - there's no easy definable place so it's better, in my opinion, just to apply ENGVAR. Allowing excpetions could be a slipepry slope to real harm to the project and as keeping it at this name causes no real problem this is not a risk I think is worth taking even if I was convinced that windshield was overwhelmingly the common name (which I'm not). Dpmuk (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per argument of User:Greekboy with Google tests & User:Grk1011 for related articles. Imperatore (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Pure ENGVAR issue. Outside North America, "windscreen" appears to be the common term, in far more countries than those that use "windshield". If we used Google searches to determine all our article titles then they would invariably be American, as far more webpages seem to come out of America than anywhere else. Thankfully, this is English Wikipedia not American Wikipedia and we don't. Of course, if we just used numbers of people who used one term or another then all our articles would probably be titled in Indian English, which is closer to British English than American English! It is unfortunate that it doesn't match the windscreen article, but that's how the ENGVAR rule works. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe it should. It's a rare enough case I'm not surprised it's not called out specifically as an exception, but that's what we're here for: to help define those edge cases. Powers T 13:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not very familiar with the various technicalities involving policies like ENGVAR & COMMONALITY, however there is a flaw in your logic about the number of countries that use the term and their potential misrepresentation on the internet. It might be fact that most webpages eminate from North America, at least webpages in the English language. If British English conventions be preferred on the basis that they're surely adopted in more countries over any other English convention, then every general article (with a subject matter not pertaining to national ties) should only be using British spelling conventions under this logic. I would think that this type of logic goes against the very spirit of ENGVAR or similar Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Imperatore (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't recall making such an argument. Did you mean to reply to Necrothesp? Powers T 01:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry about that, it's aligned correctly now. Imperatore (talk) 06:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • No flaw at all, since ENGVAR states that articles which deal with common objects not specific to one country should remain in the variant of English in which they were originally written. My point was that ENGVAR trumps COMMONNAME in such articles and claiming that more webpages use one form rather than another is irrelevant in this case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • In that case the page should be moved. The article windshield was created in June 2003 and windscreen wiper was created in December 2003. The American English was already the first name chosen and should be retained according to ENGVAR. It shouldn't matter if it is a separate page because it is a component related to the windshield. Grk1011 (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I was ready to oppose based on ENGVAR (which can be overcome by a persuasive enough COMMONNAME argument, but search engine results are often tailored to a user's location and other preferences, so it would require much clearer results than what's listed above). But two alternative arguments have swayed me: one, consistency with windshield; and two, WP:COMMONALITY, as it seems "windshield" is more common in the UK than "windscreen" is in the U.S. Powers T 13:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and speedy close per previous consensus and Opposes above. – ukexpat (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how common it may be in the UK, but it most certainly has been used in UK news articles. Some examples from the BBC: [3], [4], [5]. Some more examples from The Guardian: [6], [7], [8], [9]. Also checking out Ford's UK website, I see they use both terms as well: [10], [11]. Furthermore, this UK repair site seems to use both terms as well: [12]. Greekboy (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did not know about "&pws=0", but adding it to the end of my Google search still gives me the same results as before. I get the same amount of results per the tested searches, only thing that changes is the amount of seconds. I don't think I ever had "personal search" turned on to begin with, so no "bias" with the search as claimed. Also everyone opposing this move and hiding behind WP:ENGVAR is only seeing the situation in black-and-white. As User:Grk1011 pointed out, the windshield article was created back in June 2003, with the wiper article following in December 2003. As the wiper is a component of the windshield itself (a wiper can't work without the windscreen/windshield, or else it would be something else entirely), the first established term (Windshield) should be retained based on WP:ENGVAR it self. In this case it seems WP:ENGVAR actually supports such a move, based on consistency and WP:Retain. (Not to mention the possibility of it falling under WP:COMMONALITY as I have found usages of "Windshield" on UK sites posted above.) Greekboy (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Are the opposers, then, okay with having this article at "windscreen wiper" while another article is at "windshield"? This doesn't strike anyone as a silly discrepancy? Powers T 13:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, not particularly. On the contrary, it reminds readers of the richness and variety of the English language and that wikipedia editors come from many different cultures. And it's always funny to stumble upon silly parochialisms. walk victor falk talk 18:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's rather unprofessional, don't you think? I have a hard time imagining any other encyclopedia with such a discrepancy. Powers T 04:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really no and certainly not something important enough to risk the possible disruption that would be caused if we tried to implement something based on "parent" articles given that "parent" article is a pretty alien concept to wikipedia. Dpmuk (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or both if you could get the 'Windshield' article renamed to 'Windscreen'. -- de Facto (talk). 17:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are suggesting moving Windshield to "Windscreen" as an alternative to the move proposed here... that would certainly be acceptable from a consistency standpoint. If you are suggesting that both articles should move ("Windshield" to "Windscreen" and "Windscreen wiper" to "Windshield wiper") ... then no. That would simply reverse the inconsistency without resolving it. My point is that we need to move one article or the other, so they are consistent with each other. Blueboar (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:ENGVAR. The consistency argument seems a slippery slope: once you start to say that it applies between articles, rather than within, then we could end up with an entirely US-speak encyclopedia, with every usage of "theatre" becoming "theater" for consistency. Leave it alone, as the inconsistency is part of the rich international style of Wikipedia. PamD (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No new argument or evidence, so why even raise it again? As has been stated many times, the Google stats simply reflect the greater use of the Internet by users of American English, and therefore are not significant. Andrewa (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The new argument is consistency with related terms and the fact that it is more widespread with use even in the UK while windscreen is never used in the US and Canada. Grk1011 (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While the odd website may use the term, I can assure you that no Briton would ever use it in speech. Most may understand it due to the influence of the American media, but none would actually use it. Changing for consistency's sake would open a massive can of worms as far as ENGVAR is concerned. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

old geometry

[edit]

OK, we have the "Geometry" section. Notice that coming into 1960, most U.S. cars were still being made with Figure 2 but with less (no?) overlap of the 2 wipers, resulting in a wedge down the middle which could not be wiped. As noted, Figure 1 cleans most of the window space in front of the driver (with the driver being on the left side in the passenger compartment). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Anderson -- A Feminist Invention Myth?

[edit]

A year before Mary Anderson's patent, some guy named Henry Bayer patented a windshield wiper. US Patent 724534. Looks to me like Mary Anderson is the feminist equivalent to the many black invention myths floating around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.79.76 (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I came to this page just to laugh at how woke Wikipedia is becoming. 24.46.151.135 (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attachment standard

[edit]

There seems to be a small number of industry standards used to attach wipers (and replacement wipers) to a car. These might be worth mentioning. -- Beland (talk) 05:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to footnote?

[edit]

The list of cars using the "Fig. 2" wiper geometry has gotten way too long. I think the caption should be changed to "Numerous vehicles use this wiper geometry", with a footnote that can list all the relevant models. Could somebody with expertise in Wikipedia "Group notes" set this up? Reify-tech (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Windscreen wiper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Induction wiper

[edit]

Suggest include information about induction wiper (automatic wiper). BoldLuis (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Framed, Frameless Beam and Hybrid blades

[edit]

Came to this page looking for clear definitions on specific types of wipers blades, such as framed, frameless beam-types and hybrid blades, which are a combination of both frame and beam types.

Just wondering why no mention of this on this page? --2607:FEA8:E320:6F1:F0CE:E5AB:F3FC:E0E7 (talk) 11:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History of wiper geometry

[edit]

I do see "Modern windscreen wipers usually move in parallel".

Before 1960, most American cars had wipers pointing in opposite directions, but I'm seeing the parallel system on pictures of full size Mercury of 1959 and 1960, although I am seeing the "pork chop" windshield wraparound still in use (an unusual combination of windshield and geometry of the wipers).

The "parallel" system (wipers in rest position pointing to right when the driver is on left) cleans as much space as possible in front of the driver, and it would have to point in the opposite rest position for driving on the opposite side of the road. Carlm0404 (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 April 2023

[edit]
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: Not moved. (non-admin closure) 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Windscreen wiper → Wiper blade – Fairly common name that allows to avoid using names specific to a variety of English. Summer talk 14:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AquaBlade

[edit]

How does this differ from the system whereby washer fluid is dispensed from holes in a plastic tube that runs up the wiper arm? I had the latter on a 1989 Citroën CX and I believe similar systems were in use considerably earlier on commercial vehicles with large vertical windscreens. Mr Larrington (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Windscreen_wiper&oldid=1212971009"