WikiProject Trucks	(Rated Project-Class, Top-importance)	TrucksWikipedia:WikiProject TrucksTemplate:WikiProject TrucksTrucks articles
v • d • e This page is within the scope of WikiProject Trucks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Trucks 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.  Project  This page does not require a rating on the quality scale.  Top  This page has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Trucks page.
Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming

Contents 1 Light trucks 2 Superheavy trucks 3 Layout and structure 3.1 Infobox 3.2 Truck manufacturer 3.3 Truck model 4 Trailers and construction for different transport types 5 Article test / test article 6 Steam vehicles? 7 Truck as moving art 8 Australian equipment etc. 9 WikiProject Trucks: Articles of unclear notability 10 Traction engine assessment 11 New Featured Article 12 Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme 13 Articles flagged for cleanup 14 Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Trucks 15 Leyland 16 English name for a Truck-Bus hybrid 17 Fatigue 18 Coordinators' working group 19 Hydraulic hooklift hoist 20 Article alerts 21 FAC candidate 22 Ford 23 FL nom

[edit] Light trucks

Should the project include light trucks? To me, it looks like pickup trucks are already covered by Project Automobiles, but on the other hand there are a lot of other types of light trucks that won't fit under automobiles. Rotten Stone 15:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In Denmark (and most of Europe, I assume) anything legally exceeding 3500 kg total weight is a truck, but maybe it should be a job only getting attention when those over ?? 6 tonnes ?? 7,5 tonnes ?? are looking like a real systematic setup? Some degree of crosslinking might be OK to begin with, like "for XX models, please see XXautomobile article" or something? G®iffen 17:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to be too rigid. The project is going to be a support resource to editors. Sometimes people ask questions at Project Autos and are told "sorry we can't help". This doesn't do any harm. If similar questions are asked here, we'll either be able to help, or not. I suspect the 3500kg point will in practice be pretty useful, but there are some anomalies out there (very light weight box vans or very heavy 4x4 off-roaders) and we'll have some vehicles whose ranges overlap. Perhaps "is it based on a car?" is a more useful test. – Kieran T ^(talk) 17:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: The Iveco Turbo Daily comes in a 3,5 and a 4,6? Tonne version. The difference, I was told, is one extra layer of suspension springs.

Yeah, a lot of trucks have a basic chassis which supports lots of weights. 2.5 to 4.5 tonnes is not unusual, and I'd certainly want to support the lighter ones if they were true commercial vehicles. The debatable one for me are those which are just people-carriers or Land Rovers with the back windows blanked out. (Though I'd still tend to want to support those, on balance.) – Kieran T ^(talk) 18:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. Generally speaking light trucks are in, but we focus on commercial vehicles? Rotten Stone 21:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say so; I think it's how most people understand the term. – Kieran T ^(talk) 21:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

In some languages (particularly Slavic), a "truck" (or, in some countries the French "camion" is used), generally refers to a commercial vehicle that has a chassis. An Iveco Daily 45C11 (I've been driving it for about a year) is rated for 4.5 tonnes which technically requires CDL according to European classification. However, it is in no way a truck, it's a van. Also, there's the Mercedes-Benz 811, which has a GVW of 8 tonnes, but is still a van. They're both self-carrying, so they are not accepted as trucks. BTW, there is a C1 category in the EU which is for vehicles between 3500 and 8000 kgs (light trucks or heavy vans). However, some countries only accept C category - that is, either you're a professional, or you're not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasombra bg (talk • contribs) 20:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Superheavy trucks

How much attention should supersized, superheavy off-the-roads trucks have to begin with? G®iffen 17:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Layout and structure

I think it would be a good thing if we could write down some guidelines about what a decent article about a truck model or a truck manufacturer should look like. I'm just talking about some simple suggestions about what kind of information an article should include and how that information should be presented. Rotten Stone 19:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

In my opinion template:Infobox Company should be used at company articles. Template:Infobox Automobile is not good enough for trucks, since fuel capacity, and measures vary from one vehicle to another. The box should also have a line for submodels, like Volvo FH has FH12 and FH16. G®iffen 14:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me. Infobox Company is good. But as you say, Infobox Automobile have to be modified. I think we also should add things like; type of cab, drivetrain, axles, brakes and so on. Rotten Stone 21:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Should suspension be at its own line? Or does it go with axles? G®iffen 16:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Does there have to be such things as drivetrain, suspension etc. on the in truck infobox? I'd say that they are in more appropriate place in the article covering that model as there is such vast amount of different chassis configurations for example that infobox would grow quite huge. It would also be very difficult to make it complete. In article Scania 4-series for example there would be at least 9 different cab options alone which sound way too much for an infobox. Tepoo 18:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with idea of giving some clue about different submodels like FH12 and FH16 on infoboxes, what about different revisions all sharing same name? I mean that as there in practice is three different series all carrying name Volvo FH should they be all be covered in same infobox or in three separate box in same article. Personally I'd prefer the latter. Tepoo 18:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Truck manufacturer

Here are my thoughts:

• Short presentation
  (Name, Country, Owner, Size, Types of products, Fate)
• History
  (Founded where and when by whom)
  (General development with merges and splits)
  (Milestone innovations and products)
• Present models
  (List of models or families of models)
• Historical models
  (List of models or families of models, decade by decade)
• Subsidiaries
  (List of major subsidiaries including type of products)
• Main production facilities
  (Location, Size, Type of products)

Comments? Rotten Stone 19:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to be sure: "present models" I assume to be models still on sale from the factory?

"Subsidiaries" might be "Subsidiaries and joint ventures"? Like the former MAN AG / Volkswagen joint venture in Europe and the existing Scania / Hino in Asia. I think it fits beter here than under "Production facilities" G®iffen 10:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree! Rotten Stone 21:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Truck model

How about this?

• Short presentation
  (Type, Segment, Year of introduction)
• History
  (Development, Designed to meet what demand, Introduction)
• Engine and powertrain
• Usage
  (Who used it, How was it used)
• Production
  (When, Where, How many)

Rotten Stone 19:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

Much of the presentation could/would probably be included in an infobox in the side. My thoughts are that an intro should not be much more than XX47 was built by XX-Thai from 1967-1971 to meet the demands for medium weight trucks in Thailand. I hope this measurement is similar to yours?
I'm not good at creating infoboxes, but would anyone like to give a suggestion?
As Rotten and I discussed at my talk page#Trucks, I like the setup of Morris Motor Company and Morris Minor and would like to set those as what I call "basic minimum" for the design of the articles for producers and models. I agree that some headlines must be changed and extra added, but personally I'd say "it's not finished before it meets at least this standard". So far I haven't searched the truck models to see if any are described in a similar way to serve as better examples. G®iffen 10:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trailers and construction for different transport types

At different takls of trailers, semi's, dollys etc. there are ongoing discussions about where to write what and how to redirect and so on. Would this also be included in this project? I assume most trailers are pulled by trucks or buses anyway... Also, trailers are built mostly the same way as trucks, so for a project branch about "how to build a truck", trucks and trailers would probably be similar. G®iffen 10:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, we should be able to squeeze trailers, semi-trailers and such into the project. Rotten Stone 21:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article test / test article

I've created Scania 4-series to see how right or wrong I am compared to your ideas. Since there is not yet an infobox for models, I didn't put any in the article. It's still a stub due to my lack of knowledge, but I thought maybe we should set this up as the "example to follow"? Let me hera your opinions... --G®iffen 17:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I made few additions to that article and as comments were asked I'll put some points here which I think should be covered in lorry articles.

• There should be year of introduction and for consistency also year when production stopped unless still in production.
• I'd think predecessor and successor should be mentioned somewhere in article definition until we see what will be on infoboxes.
• Some kind of "What's new" section could be nice although not under that name. In this particular article some valid points would be totally renewed exterior cab design and bringing high cab (Topline) into production when comparing to 3-series.
• Some basic info about different choices available. In engines and cabs for example there could be mentions about engine development, like increasing displacement volume of V8-engine by two litres, and three different basic cab types (P, R and T cabs).

I think that it's also important to prevent article from becoming just an list where every different engine choice is only mentioned without any smooth connection to other text in article. Example of this kind of article could be Volvo where are long listings of achievements and models but there's very little text keeping it all together. Tepoo 19:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steam vehicles?

Greetings from 'nearly-project: Steam technology' (well, it's just me, really, at the moment. Most self-respecting steam-buffs are far too busy with the real stuff to spend time editing here!)

I notice that the content of Category:Steam road vehicles has been added to your project. Whilst I welcome any assistance with these articles, I cannot see how the bulk of them relate to your project. I leave it to you to decide whether any should be removed again!

On a related matter, any information regarding the history of steam wagons (steam lorries) in the US, and elsewhere outside the UK, would be useful, as my references are essentially British in scope. Currently such information is gathering in a section under traction engine, although I am hoping to expand it into an article in its own right later this year.

Cheers! EdJogg (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Truck as moving art

Hi to every one out here.Today I stopped when i looked this [1]on Community portal.I got an idea.In Pakistan and India ,I had seen the outer lay out of trucks which were aesthethically designed by some artists.Those trucks are considered as moving art there. I wanna write on that issue.But what the use of it on this project.cheers,-- Mike robert,

Before doing anything else, make sure there's not already an article on WP about such trucks. After that, try to find some sources that relate to the phenomenon - searching for something like "art trucks" or similar on Google or your favorite search engine is step one. Making sure those sources are of good quality is step two. Writing the article - even if it's just a rough draft or a stub (as we call it) - is step three. If you have photos, be sure to upload them to Wikimedia Commons for use in the article if they're good quality. Other than that, good luck and let us know if there's anything else we can help out with. Duncan1800 (talk) 12:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Here is the article Trucks in Pakistan. It was a little effort rather a pinch of enjoyment , editing it. If I've done something really wrong , please do tell me. Any suggestions or comments will be welcomed.--Mike robert (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Australian equipment etc.

I feel that perhaps some page devoted to the nuances of trucking in australia should be created. I work in the Australian trucking industry currently, and the only place even close to here that I know of is South Africa. I work at a Western Star delaership and we sell a lot more models than those listed currently etc. Whitfan (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Trucks: Articles of unclear notability

Hello,

there are currently 55 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2008 and may be slightly outdated.)

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Traction engine assessment

While I think that the link between Traction engines and the Trucks wikiproject is a little tenuous, I have no problem with this project tagging the article. However, someone has attempted to add some assessment comments to the Trucks project box on the article's talk page, and has got something wrong: the link displayed is inaccessible. The comment is as follows:

"This is a great article, but there are lots of spelling mistakes! This should go under trucks like proposed, because the traction engine probably were the first ancestors of big rigs!"

I was not aware of any spelling mistakes, although there may be some UK/US spelling differences (not the same thing!), and I do not understand what "This should go under trucks like proposed" is supposed to mean!

Could someone who understands such things please check the project banner and work out what's gone wrong please?

[Update] - I think it's a problem with the banner encoding. Other pages in Category:Trucks articles with comments have similar problems.

[Update 2] - Definitely an issue with the banner template - it cannot handle titles with spaces, and hence it is obviously not parsing article names into URLs correctly. This is evident from the fact that the comments section on Talk:Isuzu (mostly) works. With the assistance of that page and 'what links here' for Traction Engine, I have been able to apply a temporary link to the comments box until your banner issues are resolved. Incidentally, it might be good to include a 'hide' facility, because if users add lots of comments, the talk page will grow excessively long. Over to you! Cheers.

EdJogg (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem resolved, the link to the comments page works now... spaces and all. I will see what I can do about adding a "hide" function. I dunno what you did to the Traction Engine talk page but you can undo it now because it should work. Thanks! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

'what I did' was simply to modify Talk:Traction engine/Comments to include an 'edit' link at the top. I've left it there for the moment...

The banner is certainly improved, it now shows the links 'edit - history - watch - refresh' correctly. However, the links themselves are still not working. I am seeing an error icon in the bottom left of my browser screen (IE7). Closer inspection of the generated URL shown in the 'tooltip' suggests that the URL is omitting '/wiki/' from the middle, and hence cannot be parsed correctly. The same problem exists on the Isuzu page. (Can't remember whether it actually worked before you did this most recent change, sorry.) I had a quick look at the template, but I do not use the template parser functions often enough to see what's wrong. Good luck!

EdJogg (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Whew, ok... NOW it works. I got a little ahead of myself last time I "fixed" it and didn't really check everything. This time, I checked the links and they should all work. Now if I can just figure out how to hide the comments. I'm actually learning this stuff as I go along, but it really isn't that complicated. Let me know if you find any more problems! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 23:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: Now the comments will be hidden inside a collapsible table whenever comments are added to articles so they wont take up half the page. Everything should be in working order, and as always.... if I screwed something up, let me know. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

All working now, and the 'hide' functionality is v. useful. Only comment: 'refresh' is not recognised by WP in the URL (ie that link does not work properly, however, the others do now.) - EdJogg (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah "refresh" should have been "purge", it seems whoever created this template wasn't very thorough... or, things have changed since it was created. Either way, its fixed now, and thanks to these errors I know a lot more about parser functions. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Featured Article

If I may take a moment to brag, Project Trucks has its second featured article, Hours of service. Also Trucking industry in the United States and Federal Bridge Gross Weight Formula recently passed GA review and I will be submitting them for FA review at a later time. So please, stop by and let me know what you think and point out any mistakes that might've slipped past all other editors. I am running out of subjects, so if anyone wants help with truck-related articles (preferably US-based but I'm willing to do what I can for world-wide topics) just let me know. Happy editing! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: I have updated the project template to accept the new assessment class "C" parameter. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 632 articles are assigned to this project, of which 202, or 32.0%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Trucks

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leyland

I came across a Leyland truck at the Museum of the Riverina but I'm unsure what model it is and if it was indeed built in 1928 as I feel it's earlier then that (Around 1912 - 1920). A small information plaque said that this truck was constructed in 1928 but I feel that it's incorrect. Bidgee (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully an expert will come along to give you a more definite answer, but I'd just point out two things: on the one hand, the sign does say "C 1928", presumably meaning "circa", and thus that they don't know for sure! On the other hand, trucks do sometimes lag a considerable way behind car design. If your doubts are because of the wheels and suspension, it may simply be that the hard work this truck was originally intended for didn't justify "modern" conveniences? – Kieran T ^(talk) 02:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem is C. can mean two things (circa and constructed). Why I think it's earlier is that the older models didn't have the air vents like the 1912 version ([2]) which seems to look almost like the one I photographed. Bidgee (talk) 03:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] English name for a Truck-Bus hybrid

How do you call in English a truck that carries a "passanger container"? The truck pictured is a Polish military "Osinobus" ( called after the Osiny company that made them) on a Star 29 truck chassis. Such vehicles used to be common in communist block countries and in developing countries now they are very rare. Mieciu K (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Were they used for fare-paying passengers? I'm not aware of such things being built/used in the UK, although British Rail used something similar for transporting track maintenance crews to work sites (in which case they might be called 'personnel carriers'.

If you look at steam bus, you will see a picture of a similar beast based on a steam wagon chassis. I'm not sure how common these were. Purpose-built buses were the norm in the UK pretty much from the beginning.

EdJogg (talk) 02:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they have been used by fare-paying passangers (during the commnist times Poland produced Jelcz and Autosan buses), I have heard only of "Osinobuses" being used by the military, the Communist Police (or to be precise the anti-riot ZOMO), as school buses and by state owned companies on short routes for employees. A communist economy is said to be an ecconomy of permanent shortages, this was a means of countering the shortage of buses. Mieciu K (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fatigue

There's discussion on here that may be of interest, in connection with trucking & driving. Comment is welcomed. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 21:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hydraulic hooklift hoist

Hey all, I thought I might bring the article on hydraulic hooklift hoist to your attention. Just looking at it gives me a headache, and I'm so unfamiliar with the field that I really don't know how to help the article. Sorry if WP Trucks isn't the right place; I only came here because there's a trucks project banner on the talk page. Otherwise I'm not sure where to ask for help on this. Thanks! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:47, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FAC candidate

I'm going to check out this article alerts thing and make sure we are signed up for it. Meanwhile, one of WP Trucks article's is up for Featured Article Candidate (nominated by me). Any comments would be welcome as there are very few reviewers so far. Just check out Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Federal Bridge Gross Weight Formula and as always, happy editing. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ford

FYI, Ford Motor Company → Ford - a WP:RM rename request has been filed. The discussion is occuring at Talk:Ford Motor Company. As Ford is a company that is related to your wikiproject, this is an informative notice. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FL nom

Glossary of trucking industry terms in the United States has been nominated for Featured list (discussion here). --ErgoSum•talk•trib 23:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)