Talk:Pallet racking

External links

The appropriate guidelines/policies are WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT#LINK. In this case the link is very clearly promotionaland provides no information not already in the article.

I'm not sure if it's an acceptable source. It's reliable, but not published outside the website. Minimally, a published source is highly desireable. Maybe we could check at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

RMI does publish all articles. They are infact the only authority in the USA that regulates how pallet rack is manufactured. I have no afilliation with them, no ulterior motives, there is a no follow on all links; nothing to gain. I used their information as a reference. How about if I just list them without the link? At least they will be sited as a source and we don't have to play this game anymore. Markj52 (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

"RMI does publish all articles." Are you saying that they have a published article that we could use instead?

"They are infact the only authority in the USA that regulates how pallet rack is manufactured." Can you provide a source that verifies this? It would probably make mention of RMI appropriate, though a link to their site would still not be appropriate. --Ronz (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Yes they do have published articles we could use instead. That is exactly what I am doing. I'm using published articles from RMI to fix this article that was poorly written by salespeople only in it for the opportunity to spam a link. I'm trying to fix that. I don't really care if Wikipedia links to RMI, but as I am using some of their work to improve the article, I thought it was appropriate to include them as a reference.

2. RMI Programs Include: RMI is accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) as developer for U.S. Industrial Steel Storage Racks and Welded Wire Rack Decking product and safety standards; RMI members have voluntarily agreed to be guided by the appropriate RMI/ANSI standards and to participate in th R-Mark Certification Program; Product testing and R&D programs funded by RMI over the past 35 years have resulted in virtually all of the technical advances made within the U.S. Codes/Standards Community. RMI members prepare and conduct extensive educational materials and programs to create additional value for you as a user of industrial storage racks and related products. All RMI members are seated on the RMI Engineering Committee. RMI representatives maintain seats on a number of code and fire safety bodies to further assist in advancing the state of the art in rack design/application. RMI collects and disseminates reliable industry statistics. Markj52 (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide links to the articles and information above, or citations for them? We need some way to verify the information. --Ronz (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, [RMI]. This was actually the link that was deleted to begin with. Markj52 (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you please provide links or citations for the articles you were thinking of when you wrote, "Yes they do have published articles we could use instead. "?

"RMI is accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)" Do you have a source for this information other than from RMI? --Ronz (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why the link to the rack style guide was removed. Can you please explain? I re-added it as it's very relevant information that's not included in the article. Sterner2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC).

The link was originally spammed to Wikipedia - added to multiple articles by the same editor that added nothing else. In this case, by editors that for over two years have been adding the link back when removed, moving it to the top of the external links section when it gets placed elsewhere, and adding it to more articles.

That said, we need to concentrate here on references. If it can't be used as a reference, let's keep it out. This article has had inappropriate links since it was created. Let's keep them out, and concentrate on making this into a better encyclopedia article. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay - I understand - I would like to submit this link for inclusion in the Pallet Rack article. I feel it is pertinent to the subject of Pallet Racking and it's information that can't be found in the article. Further, I believe that anybody doing real-world research could benefit from this style guide as many of these are currently out of production yet still remain in warehouses worldwide. The link is this: http://www.sjf.com/rack/racktypes.html. Please review and let me know if it is acceptable.Sterner2 (talk)

If it is pertinent to the subject perhaps you should add the information to the article instead of a link to your website. As SJF is a pallet rack reseller this certainly appears to be spam. Please note that all links have a no follow tag. They will not help your site. Markj52 (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Given that Sterner2 wrote the article, and it is not reviewed by anyone, I think the article should stay out. Certainly there are published references that give the same information. See WP:V and WP:RS for more info on appropriate sources and their use. For external links we can give more leeway, but we should avoid those that appear promotional in any way so we don't attract just more of the same. --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree especially since Sterner2 is the creator and webmaster of the sourced site. Please view WP:COI for conflict of interest policy. Markj52 (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Further reading

The "Further reading" section currently contains two entries, added at the same time, intended as references here. Should they be changed to references, or has the article changed too much since? --Ronz (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

August 2018 prose hatnote

The whole section should probably just be deleted, and I would if it didn't serve as a kind of safety placeholder for something better. Jgcascade (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)