Talk:Tannerite

This article is descriptive in terms of firearms, and covers the firearms topic well. However, there seems to be no information about non-firearm uses of Tannerite, for example, in mining. No history or chemical composition is discussed. The article portrays a feeling that Tannerite is used only in shooting.

Emike09 (talk) 05:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's because tannerite IS only used in the area of firearms. Who would buy expensive, low-yield explosives which needed to be shot for detonation when plain black powder will do the job and can be remotely detonated without needing a line-of-sight and a rifle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.172.41.123 (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As demonstrated on MythBusters, Tannerite can be detonated using a blasting cap. On the show, they said that this was used to produce explosions for movies and TV special effects. Mind you, they did shoot it with a bullet to get it to explode. Having a trunk full of mixed Tannerite hit by another car did not cause an explosion, even when hit by a rocket-powered car. Nutster (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While commercial target Tannerite and commercial explosive Ammonal are both a mix of the chemical compound ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3) and the element alumnium (Al) in powder form, the proportions are sufficiently different that Tannerite is not a good substitute for Ammonal. Movie effects teams can afford specialized high velocity detonators for boom'n'smoke gags with Tannerite which can be transported as a non-explosive when unmixed. The price of Tannerite and special detonators would be a real sticking point for any commercial mining or quarrying operation. Miners want cheap safe explosives like Tovex, Ammonal or ANFO that use more conventional detonators. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 12:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note that an individual styled pideononthe wing has deleted a series of images I placed showing the effect of a standard dose of tannerite on a car hood. At present, I have reversed the deletion. These images show the distrucive power of this explosive target compound and add materially to the article. --Mcumpston (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though disgusted enough to cease contributions to wikipedia, It rankled me that an individual had deleted the series of images showing the effects of the standard target dose of tannerite on an an automobile. The pictures relate directly to the discussion in the article. Further the individual who reverted the images seems to have no knowledge of the subject matter or any interests remotely connect to it. I believe he attacked the article because of something in one of my other contributions that offended him (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing&diff=30734753&oldid=30734730)

--Mcumpston (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your beliefs are unfounded; your personal attacks (as you've been advised previously) and description of my edits as "vandalism" are unacceptable and your pictures add nothing to the article. They tell us nothing about Tannerite and could just as easily illustrate an article about some other explosive. Does anyone else want to keep them? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've cropped the Image:Tannerite2.JPG to illustrate the effects and the usage of Tannerite in recreational shooting. That's your acceptable image usage. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tannerite in a plastic jar exploded by a bullet produces a loud boom, smoke and plastic shrapnel that is light and does not travel far.

I and my son have used Tannerite in plastic jars as recommended by the manufacturer, including using it to launch plastic water drums into the air (we had 112 acres private land to play in). That's fun.

Tannerite in metal objects (junk car, stove, mower, metal drum) have resulted in serious injury or death. That aint no fun.

I am not comfortable with showing use of Tannerite with metal targets and feel it is irresponsible. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Naaman Brown; we shouldn't be illustrating a use explicitly forbidden by the manufacturer ("Never place these targets inside, on top of, or under any surface that could produce shrapnel or within another object"^[1]). I have removed the photo.

ʍw 02:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Just because the manufacturer advises against it, misuse of Tannerite occurs and has lead to property damage and injury. The image serves a useful purpose of illustrating this and I disagree with removing it since we do not have consensus. I am reversing it until we doMartinezMD (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the only photo be of "misuse"? Also, the image is not of "property damage and injury" - I'm sure nobody was hurt in the making of that photo, and nothing was damaged unintentionally - so I don't really understand the relevance of your point to this photo.

ʍw 03:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I have no problem with displaying the "correct" use of the explosive. Please feel free to add that. The relevance of the photograph currently in the article demonstrates the effect of just a half pound of the mixture.MartinezMD (talk) 04:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The

In fact, I'd go as far as to say the inclusion of this image may violate this Wikimedia Foundation Resolution (linked from Wikipedia:Offensive material), which states:

"We support the principle of least astonishment: content on Wikimedia projects should be presented to readers in such a way as to respect their expectations of what any page or feature might contain."

A reader might expect to see images of the actual substances, and maybe its "correct" usage, but not an exploding car!

I'm not looking for sensationalism. I think it does, however, give the reader a sense of proportionalism, especially now that Tannerrite-like explosives have been used as a terrorist tool. In fact, I would love to see photos in the article comparing "standard" amounts of the powder with some increasing amounts as well. We could get arguably get rid of the entire "notable incidents" section using the shock-value logic because none of those used the recommended amounts. Understand what I'm saying? If the value of the visual demonstration of these effects is not agreeable to most of the editors, I'll defer since I'm not trying to be obstinate. I simply see it that someone trying to understand more about this will see that it doesn't take much of the mixture to have a significant reaction as described in text in the notable incidents section.MartinezMD (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

give the reader a sense of proportionalism

Tannerite explodes, we know that, we don't need the photo to tell us that. As many reliable sources will attest, natural gas has caused homes to explode and otherwise caused many injuries and deaths; should we try to find a still-frame of a house mid-explosion for that article?

Additionally, this 'exploding car' photo wasn't prepared by a reliable source, and so the conditions may not have been as described.

especially now that Tannerrite-like explosives have been used as a terrorist tool

Again, any explosive widely-known enough to have a Wikipedia article has been abused; I don't understand what makes Tannerite special. Unmodified Tannerite was not used in the bombs, but rather some unnamed ammonal derivative (widely described as "Tannerite-like") with potentially differing properties.

could get arguably get rid of the entire "notable incidents" section using the shock-value logic because none of those used more than the recommended amounts

I think most readers expect to read about incidents - it's probably what brought them to the article. But they wouldn't expect to see an exploding car here any more than a bullet-riddled corpse at machine gun. Also, all the incident examples do violate the manufacturer's recommendations.

doesn't take much

A half-pound is a lot, as explosives go; Tannerite is just particularly weak.

most of the editors

Discarding the discussion before last week (it's been a long time since 2008), it seems we're 1 for and 2 against (the latter being Naaman Brown and I). Note that at the time of the 2008 discussion, the resolution I linked didn't exist (and I'm sure the guidelines were different, though I'd still have agreed with

ʍw 15:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Re: "As many reliable sources will attest, natural gas has caused homes to explode and otherwise caused many injuries and deaths; should we try to find a still-frame of a house mid-explosion for that article?" if such an image can be found it would be a good addition to the existing image at Gas explosion (the reason that natural gas has a separate explosion page is because there are so many non-explosive uses. The whole point of Tannerite is that it is an explosive.)

Re: " But they wouldn't expect to see an exploding car here any more than a bullet-riddled corpse at machine gun", our article on Machine gun has images of them being used in combat. and it is likely that as a result there are bullet-riddled corpses nearby. We don't show the corses for the same reason we would not show photos of someone who was killed or injured by Tannerite. Showing Tannerite blowing up an inanimate object is perfectly acceptable.

I see no issue with images showing Tannerite blowing up a car or anthing else. That being said, of the three images available:

• 
  File:Tannerite explosion 2.jpg
• 
  File:Tannerite explosion.JPG
• 
  File:Tannerite explosion full 2.jpg

I prefer File:Tannerite explosion 2.jpg, but none are really what I would consider good. None of them clearly show Tannerite blowing up anything. We just see smoke from an explosion that just happened.

Regarding the other available Tannerite images:

• 
  File:Tannerite placed under car hood.jpg
• 
  File:Tannerite car hood wreckage orig.jpg
• 
  File:Tannerite car hood wreckage.jpg

I just don't see how they add to the article. The hood was already damaged, now it is more damaged.

So, in conclusion, in my opinion it is OK to include an image of a Tannerite explosion or the results of a Tannerite explosion on an inanimate object, but in my opinion none of the available images on commons are suitable. If someone finds something better on a web page somewhere, we can contact the owner of the image and ask them to release it under a CC BY-SA 3.0 License. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would not oppose an image with something like frames from a high-speed video of a bottle of name-brand Tannerite being hit with a bullet and exploding, but I can't find anything informative like that, regardless of license, and I don't subscribe to the belief that any image is better than no image. Am I correct in concluding that you, Guy Macon, support removal of the current image?

ʍw 16:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes. I support removal of the current image. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per the now stronger consensus and lack of objections to my statement above ("If there's no additional objections in, say, 24 hours or so, I may remove the photo (again)"), I have removed the photo. I've also emailed Tannerite asking that they release some better photos under Wikipedia-compatible license.

ʍw 18:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

This article seems to be 100% US-based, in particular when discussing legalities - for example, "they can legally be purchased" is stated without qualification, as though it applied to the entire world. Some info about tannerite's usage elsewhere would be very useful, but at least those parts based specifically on US law should be explicitly mentioned as such in the main text. (This is in no way my subject, which is why I haven't done that myself.) Loganberry (Talk) 19:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the product sold outside the U.S.? Currently, the U.S. law is specifically identified as such in the article. However, I believe there is still no mention of any use of the product outside the U.S. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is too much (a very subjective measurement) text copied verbatim from the Tannerite website [2]. I'm re-wording the offending sections. Pfagerburg (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I noted that an account named User:Tannerite, which I assume was created and used by the inventor of Tannerite, had edited the article, but the text in question was not added by that account. Safer to re-write it. Pfagerburg (talk) 04:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sufficient heat will detonate any given combustion-explosive mix. Should read: "by burning (at less than xxx degree)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.164.123 (talk) 03:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nitrates (such as those in Tannerite) are used as fire starters: they definitely do burn but are seldomn explosive in fire unless confined or in massive quantities.

Maj. Joseph Stoffel, "Explosives and Homemade Bombs", Thomas, 2nd ed 1972. A manual for bomb disposal personnel has this to say about ammonium nitrate based explosives: "Disposal: Burning is recommended."

Ammonium nitrate explosives including commercial Tannerite formulations can be disposed by speading loosely, unconfined and burning. Burning is recommended for disposal of dynamite, trinitrotoluene TNT, C4 and some other commercial and military explosives. Best done by someone with some Explosive Ordnance Disposal EOD experience with controlled burns.

Ammonium nitrate in huge heaps may explode, but common disposal of small quantities (typical Tannerite target volumes 1 to 10 pounds) is by burning unconfined and spread out. I prefer to spread it on the lawn just before or during a rain. (Ammonium nitrate is a cheap commercial fertilizer after all.)

Home chemistry explosives on the other hand are notoriously unstable, so if it is "home brew" lower case tannerite all bets are off. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091008040315/http://www.atf.gov/explarson/fedexplolaw/2007edition/index.htm to http://www.atf.gov/explarson/fedexplolaw/2007edition/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—

Hey removed a few removed broken links, hope that's cool.Jamesakameisme (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'll eventually need to summarize them further as additional incidents occur. Also, one of the reports has a minor conflict on the distance (25 vs 30 yards) from the explosive. Here is one of the cases with a slightly different distance than we have listed. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/27/man-loses-leg-shooting-automatic-weapon-at-lawn-mower-packed-with-explosives/?tid=pm_national_pop_b MartinezMD (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is emerging that the explosive used in the 2016 Chelsea Bombing was a homebrewed Ammonal mixture of ammonium nitrate and alumonum powder in Ammonal proportions and not commercial uppercase-T Tannerite or even lowercase-t tannerite homebrewed from NH4NO3 + Al in Tannerite proportions. These Tannerite accident reports could be useful in cautioning people not to blow up metal targets or use homebrewed explosives as "tannerite" but I question linking Tannerite to the 2016 Chelsea Bombing. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe mentioning the

Tannerite wasn't used in the attack. I'm sure he had a tire iron in his car. Do we add a paragraph to the tire iron article mentioning he had one? Not every mention of Tannerite in the news is notable. We will have a larger article we could call "Tannerite in the news" than the article itself if we were to do that. If anything, we should look to trimming down/streamlining the section from what is already there. I've removed the entry because I agree with the editors who have commented and removed it.MartinezMD (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think he had a tire iron in his car? Only because it's commonplace. Maybe you have a tire iron in your car too? Do you have any Tannerite? I doubt it, because driving around with Tannerite is exceptional. That is why his possession of Tannerite (if adequately sourced) is relevant here.

This is also (AIUI) not a small quantity of Tannerite that he had. It was a quantity comparable to the amount that requires repeated purchases to stockpile and which has already killed several people (accidentally or suicidally). This was not a credible quantity merely as target shooting supplies. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no report he had set the Tannerite up as an explosive in his actions. IMHO it may be relevant in the Paddock article, but not this one. Currently, all of the listed notable incidents involve the Tannerite detonating. I don't think simple possession is notable enough - it was in his car, no reports it was set up to be detonated or planted anywhere. The tire iron is an analogy. Now, do I have Tannerite? That's my personal business and not appropriate to bring up on the article talk page. But lets say I do, should I have an article about it? MartinezMD (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that he had a quantity of Tannerite that would be hazardous, and in excess of what is credible for use as targets. For a man who we know to be a mass shooter.

Your own trunkload of Tannerite would be a hypothetical question of

WP:UNDUE. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I understand your points. I think it's simply not enough to include. I furthermore think we need to pare down that entire section of this article. We can wait to see what other editors think. Agreed? MartinezMD (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with with MartinezMD. Any mention of the shooting in this article would be

WP:RSCONTEXT

); content derived from the available sources wouldn't be appropriate for an encyclopedia.

I further agree that the "Notable incidents" section could benefit from some trimming; this should be discussed in the section below.

ʍw 00:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I fail to see the educational or historical value in the contents of a loser's trunk (or in the value of this product itself to tell you the truth). Tannerite played no role in this tragedy and this information should be kept to that page. 50.64.119.38 (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As

I agree with your choices of notable examples and the removal the ones that appear more incidental.MartinezMD (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion differs substantially. One result of the removal of these incidents from the article is that the article now does not contain any examples that illustrate the danger of using Tannerite with target objects that can accidentally cause flying debris. The manufacturer strongly cautions against doing that, of course, but I wonder whether the average user would appreciate the danger illustrated by, for example, the incident involving a severed leg at a distance of 30 feet yards, the other severe leg injury at a distance of 150 feet, and the two accidental deaths involving shrapnel. Two of the four examples that are currently discussed in the article caused no significant harm at all (and one of those was a highly improper use of a very large quantity of Tannerite to explode a truck, which is exactly the sort of dangerous behavior that could cause major shrapnel injury or property damage). —BarrelProof (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's revisit the topic. I'd like the examples to give clear demonstrations of what can occur physically (damage, injury) and socially (eg legally), i.e notable incidents for the "notable" section. I wouldn't want it just to be a list of any mention of the word Tannerite that is mentioned in internet articles, because then I feel it would just be distracting from the body of the article. I think your point is well taken. MartinezMD (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This page is "Tannerite" but only speaks briefly about tannerite which is a business trademark. It then goes on to speak of binary exploding targets as if they are tannerite. I feel that this is misleading as well as does nothing to help educate people on binary exploding targets or the business tannerite but instead ads to the confusion. By combining the company tannerite and binary exploding targets as one we cannot fully educate on either as well as we rob the many other binary exploding target companies by calling these all binary exploding targets tannerite and not by their true name.

I think that the binary explosives page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_explosive needs to be edited to include most of what this tannerite page has on it but correcting the wordage to say binary exploding target instead of tannerite as well as correcting the tannerite page to be about the business itself much like the page for kleenex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KleenexJamesakameisme (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a representative of Tannerite, I doubt that the interest of "other binary exploding target companies" is your true motivation, however, as I mentioned in your talk page before, it would be appropriate to separate the article on your corporate entity from the product it produces. You could copy over the appropriate content from this article to the binary explosive article and allow other editors to help you as a suggestion. MartinezMD (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would support moving most of the "United States law" section to

ʍw 07:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Tannerite as a company does care about the other guys, we have a very good relationship with most but I understand your hesitance to believe that. Thank you all for your help and guidance on these issues. Jamesakameisme (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MartinezMD "The fuel/catalyst mixture is 90% 600-mesh dark flake aluminum powder, combined with the catalyst that is a mixture of 5% 325-mesh titanium sponge and 5% 200-mesh zirconium hydride. The oxidizer is a mixture of 85% 200-mesh ammonium nitrate and 15% ammonium perchlorate." Is not an accurate statement. I would like to remove this from the page because it does not represent that company that this page is supposed to be about nor the targets this page keeps talking about. Jamesakameisme (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the sourced composition. The reference includes this statement: "An especially preferred catalyst composition contains about 90% by weight explosive grade aluminum power having a particle size of about 600 mesh, about 5% by weight titanium sponge having a particle size of about 325 mesh, and about 5% by weight zirconium hydride having a particle size of about 200 mesh." If there is a way to make it more accurate to reflect the patent it is welcome, but simply deleting contents is not correct. MartinezMD (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MartinezMD I am not sure what you mean. This composition does not reflect that of the targets sold by tannerite and the patent does not include any composition as far as I am aware. This seems like it may be a better fit for the Binary explosive wiki page.James 19:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I am going by Tannerite's patents. They are referenced in the section. Did Tannerite change the composition of their targets? If so, we can list that as an update along with the appropriate source. Here are the two references that are already used in the article:

• https://patents.google.com/patent/USRE45440E1/en
• https://patents.google.com/patent/US20030033952

MartinezMD (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The ammonium perchlorate seemed a bit odd to me, so I poked around. I was able to find an older appearing SDS for tannerite binary rifle targets which indicates only ammonium nitrate content, but <20% "inert / non-hazardous" material with the aluminum. Zirconium would qualify here as a non-hazardous / non-flammable, but titanium sponge is a flammable solid by itself and has toxicity issues and would be listed. In addition to that, there's a purported ATF report with a sample target from 2010 and another from 2012 which lists only ammonium nitrate and a removal of zirconium between the two years. Patents cover wide ranges of anything I don't know about the web-host and a quick search of .govs didn't find anything, which is why I said purported. If nothing else, the SDS is a better source and at least indicates a difference in shipped targets and patent.

Patents claim a wide variety of things. The dependent claims in the patents you cited do list that mixture. The ones they're actually referencing claim "said oxidizer composition including ammonium nitrate in an amount between about 50% and 100% by weight, and ammonium perchlorate in an amount between 0% and about 50% by weight;" which covers quite a bit as well as "said catalyst composition including aluminum powder and minor amounts of titanium sponge and zirconium hydride;"; "minor amounts" is very vague. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Shortfall Of Gravitas (talk • contribs) 23:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are not any regulations that govern the storage of unmixed Tannerite as Tannerite is not a "thing" it is a company name. There are also no shipping regulations on unmixed Tannerite brand binary rifle targets in the United States. Jamesakameisme (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{request edit}

This article is about: Tannerite a brand of binary explosive targets used for firearms practice and sold in kit form. This article is titled "Tannerite" which is a sporting goods and sport shooting accessory company; however, it talks very little about it. It mostly talks about binary exploding rifle targets. I believe that the majority of this article should be moved to the binary explosives page so that this article can focus on providing information about the business as the article indicates.

I am willing To move the appropriate parts of the article and rebuild this article to be about the company that it is supposed to be about. As a representative of Tannerite, I would like to have several people look at the "New" article to ensure that it is fair and not bias. James 21:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

An article about a company definitely needs more detail - company's history, location, etc. The target mixture is the company's primary product and main source of notability, so details about that should remain, although I agree much can be moved to the binary explosive article. I think some of that has happened recently. MartinezMD (talk) 04:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, this article is not about the company. This article is about a product line, Tannerite Reactive Rifle Targets. Tannerite has a unique and

reduce ambiguity

.

The article has already been cut down to just over half what it was a few months ago, and what's left is well-sourced and on topic. Nearly all of the sources here discuss "Tannerite" brand targets specifically, not some generic binary explosives (and not the company). If the sources are wrong, you should contact them and get them to correct their publications (as I advised before). All we can do here is reflect what the sources say.

ʍw 06:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I think moving it is an excellent idea, and it'll keep their company reps from altering the article saying it isn't on target (pardon the unintentional pun lol). I went ahead and moved it. MartinezMD (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help, I think this is a good move. I will start working on the Tannerite (Company) article and I invite you all to help keep the page fair and unbias. MartinexMD I don't know why you feel you need to "Keep the reps" from anything as I feel I have done a good job of communicating my changes and being fair and understanding of your and others reasoning for most of your changes. I want to keep the sanctity of this and the new article and would appreciate a level of mutual respect. James 14:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

for the following reasons - 1. you have a

whitewashing. That is why I think your involvement needs to be minimized. MartinezMD (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not saying you're a bad person. You asked, so I answered. Simply there are potential problems with your presence which is why there are guidelines and policy statements on WP. Regardless I can work with you if needed. As for the makeup of the targets, we have two patents by Tannerite that we use as the source. If those are not accurate, can you provide a link to the contents? If not, these will be the presumed ingredients unless you have a verifiable source to their current makeup. We would welcome any accurate inclusions. MartinezMD (talk) 03:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OKay, I can understand that and want to do all that I can to ensure that this page and any other page related and unrelated to Tannerite are as true and fair as possible. What would you (The community) feel would be the best route for building the Tannerite sports page? As I said before I can write it and then have everyone interested comb through and make any corrections needed or I can just start the page with the title and then enter all the information I have on the talk page as a resource for someone to write is as needed.James 15:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesakameisme (talk • contribs)

You should use the

ʍw 16:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Great idea, thank you.James 17:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesakameisme (talk • contribs)