Talk:Rebar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
rebar is one of those fundamental but not discussed things, like sewage plants Zeizmic 12:24 30 May 2003 (UTC)
I removed the following sentences:
- As can be seen in the image of a standard beam cage, it is extremely important to get the minor details right.
- All those ties are extremely important, and require skilled workers to complete.
The first is a little misleading, since some seemingly trivial details are crucial and others aren't. The second suggests that the work of lathers is more important than the work of other skilled trades.
I'm not trying to be controversial or to demean the important work of lathers!
--Spindustrious 01:39, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I removed reference to half-life:
- The computer video game Half-Life 2 features a crossbow that fires a red-hot piece of rebar. It is an accurate and deadly weapon. However, the game glosses over the intricasies of obtaining packaged rebar ammo, as well as powering the crossbow's heating mechanism.
its interesting, but its not appropriate to imply that one can in reality obtain 'packaged rebar ammo'
Jennifer Grubb 23:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I know I'm going way off topic here, but I always figured Freeman picked up rebar off the ground and that they were cut to size by people who used it as a weapon. I never thought they were packaged. 76.197.27.14 (talk) 09:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Delete "Rebars in Fiction"?
References to rebar in films and videogames crop up periodically in this article. While in its current form, it is more academic/encyclopedic than ever before, references to popular culture directly adjacent to a purely technical article just strike me as out of place. What do you think? --Spindustrious 01:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with "Rebar in Fiction." It strikes me that the point of a Wikipedia article is to provide as much information as possible on a particular subject.
I agree Spindustrious. The Swingin' Utters have a song called Nothing to Rely On (http://www.lyricstime.com/swingin-utters-nothing-to-rely-on-lyrics.html) which mentions rebar. Should a section be created for "Rebar in Songs"? Should a section be created about rebar's use in art (http://www.showshown.com/mykind/stool/)? Of course not. I suppose I disagree with the point that the point Wikipedia is provide as MUCH information as possible, because I think it's purpose to to provide as much RELEVANT information as possible. It's trivial to include fiction for this topic just as it would be to add sections like "Duct Tape in Fiction" or "Duct Tape in Movies" or, god forbid, "Duct Tape in the TV Show MacGyver" to the duct tape article. --Anonymous 10 Nov 2005
--Maybe not, but we can make a list for it. Ha!
- There are two questions to consider when adding this kind of 'trivia' to a page:
- Does such data as a song by The Swingin' Utters belong to the page on the band or is it more relevent to the article on rebar? Would someone seeking information about the song look in the page about rebar? Would anyone seeking to find information about rebar give a damn about the song? I really don't think so. So - yes, this information is relevent - but no, it's not relevent in the context of this article. Someone who wished to find songs about rebar could type the word 'rebar' into the 'search' box and find the Swingin' Utters article with no problem if that's what they really wanted.
- Furthermore, what would be the consequence of making this a policy of Wikipedia? If every noun uttered in every song, poem, novel, tv show, video game or movie were mentioned in the page about that noun - would this truly be a good thing? Hell no! It would swamp us quite utterly beneath literally billions of junk links and some one page articles would contain hundreds of pages of 'trivia' entries. Imagine if the page on 'beer' listed every song, movie, TV show, etc in which beer had been mentioned, brewed, offered, drunk, refused, spilled or whatever! Just because cultural references to rebar are relatively rare, that doesn't make them any more relevent.
- So there is everything wrong with the "Rebar in Fiction" section - and it's good that it's gone. If you feel passionately that you wish to become a 'collector' of every possible rebar reference in modern culture - then I suggest you make a new page "List of references to rebar in modern culture" and provide a link to it in the 'See also' section of this article. (I'm not joking - that's what I did with my 'collection': "List of films featuring Mini cars" in order to avoid cluttering up the Mini article.) SteveBaker 22:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
You see, spindustruious? The people of wikipedia want this to be as average an encyclopedia as humanly possible. That means they have to make it completely uninteresting. It's almost as if they don't want donations at all, since, before long, their overuse of regulations will ultimately destroy the site. Logically, they must be doing this on purpose. Oh, and don't expect a reaction from any retort you might make. I strictly use google now. Oh, and you lost a few donors. You people just broke the camel's back, and from a year old post, that's sad.... 76.197.27.14 (talk) 09:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Picture available
A Creative Commons Attribution ({{cc-by-2.0}}) picture is available here; is it useful for this article - [1]? — Catherine\talk 16:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Revisit
Every couple of years I go back to articles I started. I like how this one turned out, and shows the value of the wiki. --Zeizmic 13:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ridges in the Rebars
Why are the ridges on the rebars inclined or slanting? Can this be explained.
Mhora
mshora@indiatimes.com
- It increases the contact area between the rebar and the concrete. SteveBaker 22:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Metric Sizes
In the Rebar Sizes and Grades section it is stated that metric sizes are rounded to the nearest 5mm, as far as I am aware(based on British Standards) they are designated by rounding to the nearest 1mm and the common sizes used for scheduling of rebar are 6,8,10,12,16,20,25,32,40 and 50. Also there is no mention of steel grades in this section. If anyone else agrees maybe this section should be updated. Sorry i'm new to wikipedia and thought i'd raise this here before editing anything. HughMillard 11:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The metric bar sizes shown are Canadian. I wouldn't mind a section on steel grades, but I'm far to lazy to do anything about it.King aardvark 17:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
It's on my to-do list to add European/UK sizes and grades (along with correcting several errors in the article), but if anyone else gets there first, great! Hugh, you may wish to consider WP:BOLD. -- Kvetner 20:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reo steel
After using the terms reo steel, reinforcing steel, for 49 years in the building industry I now discover that it is called rebar. Aint Wikipedia great. How come we still got Steel fixer though? Surely our American friends should call them rebar fixers. :-) Added a few photos. billbeee 08:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've only ever seen it referred to as rebar, reinforcing steel or reinforcement, in the UK at least. I couldn't find any reference online to anyone calling it reo, so changed it. But if you can show where reo is in common use, that could be mentioned in the article. -- Kvetner 10:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Personally I think the title of this article should be "reinforcement bar," not rebar. Rebar and reo should both redirect to the formal name. Although WP:Commonname indicates that rebar is acceptable, it is not internationally accepted. Mr. Welsh (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] What year was rebar introduced in the United States?
What year was rebar introduced in the United States for construstion use?
144.99.8.10 16:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)dh
1914. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.27.14 (talk) 10:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
