Talk:Treehouse attachment bolt

creation issues

this treehouse attachment bolt page is for quite some time going to have the problem of appearing as an ad because of the nature of it's subject i'm afraid... even in it's most purely dispassionate encyclopedic form it is going to seem to be advertising of sorts, as it is bringing new information to light, it is advertising the basis of a whole new industry that has never been seen before, but even though as such it is not promoting any particular private business or company i believe, even when it points to some. that's why i think it should definitely stay up and not be considered an ad, because the effect of this comparitively new invention has wide ranging applications in many industries not even aware of it yet, allowing for designs in suspension and construction techniques never considered before. so feel free to edit away and help! this subject is going to need all it can get.

;)

Jefryclair (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• The key is to provide information in an objective manner. This type of article is very much subject to AFD (deletion) if it appears like an ad. I personally think the topic is worth an article, but others won't if it isn't cleaned up a bit, and put into a more formal style. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Do the most recent edits move this article in a more encyclopedic and less advertising direction? Thanks. sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• I think I've managed to remove most of the minor advertisement-speak, and repurposed it into an encyclopedic narrative. I removed the advert tag, but I'd appreciate someone taking a look and reviewing if there's any unnecessarily promotional phrasing left over. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 21:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

File:98testbolt01.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:98testbolt01.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:98testbolt01.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Careful with praise

Please stay away from PR-sounding language. This is a relatively new stuff, and there is simply close to none objective, independent comparison of qualty/advantage/"pioneering"/other_glory besides inventors themselves and a handful of user testimonies. Anything beyond simple statement of fact must be attributed who says what.

Also please (re)read WP:PEACOCK and WP:RS.

Example: I removed the language "pioneered in modern treehouse construction" - cited from a newspaper. Clearly, we cannot take the word of a journalist for that. We can believe a journalist when he reports facts, but not his expressions of judgment: the latter ones must be attributed to authorities in the industry. - Altenmann >t 04:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Fact checking

Guys, it is sad you write things without double-checking facts. In this case I am talking about pics. I found it hard to believe that the bolt in the first image holds 12,000 lbs. So I double-checked, and indeed, it is old stuff, GL, and some of the refs show it bent like a straw compared with "new and improved TAB".

Now a couple questions for you:

1. is the first sentence really true? I.e. all these nuts and bolts listed are called TAB now? - Altenmann >t 05:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
2. is TAB a trademarked term? If not, then any carpenter screw can be called TAB, right? If yes, what is the official definition/designation?
3. is there a patent?
4. I clearly see that GL is not hex cap screw. So, is the first sentence false?
5. So, who of these numerous hardware really up to 12,000?

More to follow. - Altenmann >t 05:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

P.S. And what is hex cap screw, by the way? And please don't just redirect it to Screw: HCS is not defined there, I've just checked. It basically says that it is a hex bolt only better. (See the red link again?) - Altenmann >t 05:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to work on some of these issues. Here are some answers to your questions:

1. From what I can tell, there are called TABs by retailers, and both TABs and Garnier Limbs in sources.
2. I'm don't think TAB is a trademarked term, but Garnier Limb is. No, a carpenter screw could not be called a treehouse attachment bolt because it's a muc smaller diameter wood screw with relatively widely spaced threads and they are not promoted as TABs. The state of the art is to use TABs and high-tensile-strength carriage bolts for attaching structures to trees.
3. I searched for patent but did not find one. One source said that Garnier was pursuing a patent in 2011, but apparently it has not been awarded.
4. Yes. Some have a hex cap and some have a thread for a hex nut.
5. I added the Seattle PI as a source for 8000-12,000 lbs. The bolts come in different shapes, sizes, and load bearing capacities. I believe that the load rating is based on bending not breaking, but is also very dependent on the host tree species.

A hex cap screw is a hex bolt. There is also a definition at the target article and it refers to an ASME standard. Construction products (at least in the US) are frequently known by multiple names.- MrX 13:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)