Talk:Wrecking ball

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCE articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Modern Wrecking balls[edit]

The article does not give the modern equivalent to the wrecking ball. It only states companies may use implosion. Well many building contain asbestos and cannot be imploded. SO what modern wrecking devices do people use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.173.31 (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-NPOV paragraph[edit]

Though I agree with the point of view being expressed in this paragraph, tell me how this is neutral:

It should be noted that use of the wrecking ball is illegal in New York City because of an incident involving a marauding band of mentally deficient delinquents known as the "Triple-Js". During the demolition of a building in Queens in 2008, the leader of the Triple-Js decided it would be a good idea to ride the wrecking ball while it was in use. Needless to say, triple-J master (aka "turd-rocket") was severely injured and amazing suffered even more brain damage. The wrecking ball has since been officially decommissioned in order to protect the mentally ill of NYC.

--Orfdorf (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree " marauding band of mentally deficient delinquents " and "leader of the Triple-Js decided it would be a good idea to ride ". The paragraph should be deleted or replaced. It reeks of bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.173.31 (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typical mass[edit]

1,000 lb to around 12,000 lb. The most common are in the 3,000–5,000 lb range.

How much is 1000 lb ? why isnt it stated in kilograms? —129.240.72.92 (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the wrecking ball is more commonly used in America? I honestly don't know about demolition using this device anywhere else though. I'll run the math, but 1,000 and 12,000 is just such a simple number set, it would look strange in kilos.'''Aryeonos''' (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the kilogram equivalents, using two significant figures, the same as the pound figures. How does that look strange? —Quicksilver^{T @} 18:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad image[edit]

The image in the article, Image:2004-05-07 Wrecking ball.jpg, is not a wrecking ball. It's a hook and overhaul ball assembly for a crane, and the ball's purpose is to provide the downfall weight that keeps the lifting rope from kinking when there's no load on the hook and the rope is being payed out from the drum. Overhaul balls come in a range of weights from 35 lb to 1,500 lb, not the 1,000-12,000 lb cited for a wrecking ball in the article. —Quicksilver^{T @} 18:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

most efficient or not?[edit]

The lead says " the wrecking ball is still the most efficient way to raze a concrete frame structure" and "the wrecking ball has become less common at demolition sites as its working efficiency is less than that of high reach excavators". Either this self-contradictory, or we need to further explain . Meters (talk) 07:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I came to bring up the same point. I'm also confused about the vagueness of the term "efficiency" itself. It is not the cheapest, not even for the speed. It isn't the fastest, even for the cost.Thomas Bartanen (talk) 05:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 November 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrecking ball → Wrecking ball (demolition) – While I think it would make more sense for the disambiguation page to be renamed "Wrecking ball (disambiguation)", apparently it was actually moved from that to just "Wrecking Ball". It doesn't make sense for a page title to be a capitalization variant of its own disambiguation, so if you all have already decided on that page's name maybe change this one to make it more specific. 2406:5A00:EC51:2300:1C70:17D2:5528:41A (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, I don't see any problem here. A wrecking ball is used for building demolition, and Wrecking Ball is a disambiguation page for things titled "Wrecking Ball". 162 etc. (talk) 06:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There's only one article about a wrecking ball (lower case), but 6 articles about things bearing the title Wrecking Ball as a proper noun. The current setup is correct. Station1 (talk) 07:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Miley Cyrus song gets 7,854 views and the Bruce Springsteen album gets 2,314 compared with only 1,646[[1]] for the generic meaning. Many readers probably won't capitalize but it seems likely that this is primary for the lower case by long-term significance. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.