Talk:Ladder

Tournament ladder

The intro mentions Ladder programming language and Ladder (computer game), but shouldn't it mention tournament ladders? Maybe those are computer and video games specific; I'm not a native English speaker. Retodon8 19:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Little Giant Ladder System

The link to Little Giant Ladder Systems is merely another link to a type of multi-purpose ladder entry. Although the ladder is primarily sold on the internet and via infomercials, the information about the site is relevant to the history and evolution of the ladder. And the link to LittlegiantSales.com.is not a commercial site. It is merely an informational site consumers can use to gather more information about the Little Giant Ladder System. hook1080 14:19, 25 August, 2006

SKYLAX Telescoping Ladder System

The site [1] is relevant to the history and evolution of the telescoping ladder system - a german invention. It is merely a technical informational site from the early beginning of engineering aluminium telescoping ladders.

Request for Article Expansion

I get the feeling that the page could be expanded, especially by adding a History section. It definitely could use some cleanup. Everchanging02 00:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Having spent 15 years as Sales Manager (and 10 years as a sales rep in the Aluminium Access industry), I'll state categorically that the main article is very poor. Laughable almost in parts. It's so incomplete, one would be better off just saving time and looking up a dictionary definition of 'ladder'. As for an 'Extension' ladder being labelled a 'Telescopic' ladder, well... Let's be nice and say the author hasn't a clue!

Escape Ladders, not mentioned. Cat and roof ladders having separate entries?? No mention of JCDD specs, I could go on but the poor uninformed chap at least took the time to write (his very poorly researched) article. Save time and possibly your life (15degrees from the vertical lol) ignore this article. 188.220.183.84 (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)The LadderMan17:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.183.84 (talk)

I heartily encourage you to fix it using reliable sources. (Hohum ^@) 18:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

---

17 March 2011 Proposal: Allow me to propose, with all due respect that you could add the benefit of your purposed expertise and help with the rewriting of the article to improve it instead of just criticising the author.

Is there a technical name for the "stay" that provides the "A" style back support to a medium-sized ladder standing away from any other support? Thanks.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.120.55 (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Three-point ladder

Apple mentions a "three-point ladder" used for harvesting, but we don't seem to have an article on that and it's not mentioned here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwanders (talk • contribs) 07:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Heres a link for you http://www.lyteladders.co.uk/c/52/i/69/ The LadderMan

Ladder Standards

Technical standards and standard certifications for portable ladders are obsolete and without legal obligation since agreements between member countries of World Trade Organisation (WTO) have been activated, especially the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT). Since then neither private organisations nor public institutions in WTO countries are allowed anymore to prescribe how to design, to produce or to distribute portable ladders if it is not demonstrated with scientific evidence, that non-application of a technical description, advise, instruction or ladder standard will damage personal health or national security; technical standards for portable ladders have become obsolete because of insufficiency of scientific evidence which makes it impossible to conduct risk assessment of single products. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.60.251.220 (talk) 09:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ladder types and Safety

I see no mention here ( or, for that matter, elsewhere on the www !)about choosing the right *type* of ladder for a particular job. My experience is that some are much better than others for any given application, yet I find other experienced ladder users who have no interest in using the " right one for the job" even if they have a choice. For example, I would not want to use a step ladder to get onto a roof, but would feel fine with an extension ladder of the right height. Step ladders ( it seems to me) are fine for painting & especially internal tasks (eg working on light fittings)but not in an application where the operator wants to *leave* the ladder at a high point. However, I find even retailers here in A/a seem to have very little awareness of this issue ! Any pointers on this would be most welcome Feroshki (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Telescopic ladders

Can telecscopic ladders (as used by surveyers etc) be added to the types please? Thank you. 79.79.250.40 (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Scaling ladder?

Hi there, I'm trying to find the english word for the German Steigleiter, a ladder with only one leg. Example: File:Reichenau - Haidsteig, Steigbaum.JPG. Couldn't find it in the article ... TIA --Schwäbin (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes certainly, Scaling ladder, could be used, although this is really the German Sturmleiter. I see that Google Translate of that wiki.ge page rather charmingly produces the literal translation of "climbing tree" (which is a lot friendlier and less militaristic I think). I see that Hook ladder is described as a "single beam ladder", so maybe that's the best English can currently offer.

Martinevans123 (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ladder. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.hse.gov.uk/falls/downloads/6.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Extraneous "related" images / info in media viewer

See https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension_talk:Media_Viewer/About#Extraneous_%22related%22_images_/_info Fholson 11:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fholson (talk • contribs)

The info about safety is inconsistent

The figure "Safe setup of a leaning ladder" indicates as safe a ratio of 3:1 between sides of the triangle shown (the actual angle shown as 15 degrees is then actually 18+ degrees if i am not mistaken), while the text indicates 4:1 (actual angle ~14 degrees, i.e. much closer to what the text says, that the other non-right angle must be 75.5 degrees ).

I'd think it should be indicated why the two are inconsistent, whether there's a recommended range, or instead disagreement, with different rules/standards recommending different angles as "safe". Suppressing one of teh two would not be good, if indeed both represent authoritative recommendations. Attentive21 (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)