Talk:Crate

Crates and video games

Shouldn't there be something in here about the use of crates in videogames? 17:59, 28 August 2006 User:71.37.2.209
absolutely. http://www.oldmanmurray.com/features/39.html look there. -- Sigmundur 21:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, i came to the talk page thinking on suggesting just that :) --TiagoTiago (talk) 04:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree, considering they appear in roughly every video game ever, ever made, in the history of ever. Maybe a separate article that this jeffreyduck won't come into talking about standards and measurements and government regulation. And the fact that he's probably a little biased to be a good source on.... crate information. Punkonjunk (talk) 11:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Going to the link shown above doesn't take me to a page associated with a crate or crating. I've identified about 250 structurally sound variations of crates globally. These are all, in some way based on standards by various governments, militaries, or national or international standards organizations. I wouldn't consider a video game developer to have an understanding of transportation containers. Typically crates that are shown on TV, video games and in general advertising are either not structurally sound or include components that provide no benefit but do add unnecessary weight or size. Such construction methods increase cost, fuel usage and take up valuable space in all forms of intermodal transportation. Further, I haven't responded to comments here because I haven't monitored this page.Jeffreyduck (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

on the quality of the article

This is the single worst entry on the entire Wiki. Who wrote it, a government guy?04:50, 14 June 2007 User:4.90.206.138
Actually the only developer of commercially available crate design and costing software in the world as well as the admin of the only community for wood crate makers and consumers. If you have a better definition or would like to present your identity to the crating community, you are of course invited to post it. 12:49, 2 December 2007 User:Jeffreyduck

Pictures

I added a picture of a crate that I built myself a few years ago. I removed the photo request tag. Comments? Phasmatisnox 08:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect at the attmept Phasmatisnox, this wouldn't pass as a wood box or wood crate for transportation. Air, ground and sea transportation are all regulated (at least in the US) and the image of the slatted container that you posted would not meet any of the requirements. The strength of the container is not measureable thus cannot be considered to protect its contents. To call this a crate would literally be like comparing a tree house to a home. There are many standards that must be followed in the construction of a home. In many cases regulations must be made and the results must be inspected. A tree house is a 'house' but would you live in it? 12:49, 2 December 2007 User:Jeffreyduck
Someone should replace the line drawings by photographs. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The present drawings are low resolution and are of no value. Please replace. I will add a couple that I have. Rlsheehan (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's very difficult to show specific details of properly constructed crates with photos. Personally I publish up to 6 different drawings just to show basic variations of each style of crate and there are about 250 styles globally that have been centrally categorized. That said, within the next two years, I intend to update this page to include many comprehensive drawings including crate styles, construction methods, various details.Jeffreyduck (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citations needed in opening definition

I put some CN tags in the opening definition. These definitions are much more specific than the dictionary definition. They sound like they may be an industry definition but the source needs to be cited. Rsduhamel (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)][reply]

The terminology is consistent with the general industry usage and with the ASTM standards which are referenced. I have thus removed tha tags. Pkgx (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger?

Someone suggested that crate and wooden box be merged. No. They are two different types of containers built to different specifications and for different purposes. Rlsheehan (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger tag removed. Rlsheehan (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you insane? They do the same thing! They contain solid objects! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.60.246 (talk) 22:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rlsheehan, if you read the page you can see mention of the overlap between [wooden shipping] crates and wooden boxes. There is much more detail to present here but I personally know of well over 100 professional crate manufacturers who either don't know the difference themselves or decide not to build a container that is specifically one or the other. The industry is plagued by the general terms 'crate' and 'box'. Generally, they are collectively termed 'Wooden Transport Containers' however that term hasn't caught on therefore the term 'crate' is generally applied. For more than 20 years, I've considered various other terms but they haven't caught on so 'crate' is still it.Jeffreyduck (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when you consider the various regions Wikipedia serves, there is often some overlap in terminology. This is certainly true to the lay public but also among some professionals in this area. Wooden crates and wooden boxes are related but clearly different to the international standards body, ASTM International; there are different specifications for each. At this point, the two articles cross reference each other. The crate article covers several constructions (and materials) for crates, so a simple merger would be difficult. What exactly are you proposing? Rlsheehan (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would disagree that ASTM is an authority on crates/boxes, and although they changed their name to 'ASTM International' they are barely, if ever, recognized outside North America. When I was on the D10 committee, I was the only person on the committee that had actually made a crate or box, and calling in on the annual meeting last month, there were questions about crating which nobody could answer. I also couldn't but that's because I'm currently not a member and have been advised to be disassociated temporary for IP reasons. I left until I can complete the a draft standard that brings the entirety of crates and boxes together. ASTM has only copied and made minor edits to the previous Mil-specs, which were developed from earlier standards written by the USDA. At the core of the problem is that most containers can't be engineered and tested to determine if they are actually a crate or a box. For the past 30 years, I have had the only software in the crate and box industry that aids in design and manufacturing process'. It's used on every continent including, at times, by teams in Antarctica. I need to know as much about standards from other countries and organizations as possible (such as GOST, AUST, BS, HPE, UNI, US Mil-spec, and ASTM) most all of which are written differently. ASTM members and the US military generally have terms they use to identify a crate vs. a box but they aren't accurate unless applied within the strict guidance of their standards which contain many holes. Proposing... I've been working for 10 years on my latest software release which will come out soon. Shortly after that I plan to do a major edit on this page. Unfortunately, there is very little to cite since so many people only work within a very narrow scope of the industry. When I do that edit, I plan to present a comprehensive and logical argument for why the ASTM standards aren't functional for the global industry. All that said, it sounds like you're very familiar with a relatively broad scope of the industry and would like to coordinate with you on the edit. Jeffreyduck (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you have a good background in this subject. I'll look forward to any specific proposals for the article. One of the problems has been that there is not a lot of current published material which would meet Wikipedia requirements for Reliable Sources: see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Published International Standards are sometimes good sources, even if we might disagree with some things they say. Rlsheehan (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree about the challenges of referencing standards but there is no 'real' international standard. Further, many 'facts' stated that are based on a standard could be rebutted based on a different standard. My first thought is to add justification to why the specific reference is used in contrast to others but this would probably make it difficult to read, so I don't think it's the best option. Hopefully we can come up with a better way.

HEMRAJ MEENA DOBWAL

MY NAME IS HEMRAJ MEENA I BEIONG TO DAUSA MY FATHER NAME BABU LAL MEENA AND MY MOTHER NAME PERMA DEVI

AND MY CONTACT NO\9024637730 I HAVE TO BELONG MIDDLE CLASS FAMILY

MY EADUCATION QUWALIFICATION BA2 YEAR IS PROCCES

MY FAVRATE GAME CRICKET — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.111.130.22 (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]