Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trucks

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Trucks and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3

Archives

International Harvester L series name is International L series

Would it now be uncontroversial to correct the name of this article and its subject and all the articles about its siblings? Eddaido (talk) 10:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No- this topic has been discussed and beat to death.Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't dead... Patience... Sammy D III (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I join this Project and would like to help it. Im doing Iveco trucks and try to make the artikels more uniform. In the artikels i myself make, i will only use the international unit system ,because i dont want the artikel to become cluttered and its massive work to convert every Unit again. Is this ok for everyone? I think i only work on European Trucks so its no problem there.

Best wisches. --WDHOSS (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Importance

Shouldn't the articles on the world's major truck manufacturers past and present be of "Top importance" for a WikiProject about trucks?

Top importance = "Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia" AND "If importance values are applied within a specific project, these only reflect the perceived importance to that project."

Surely the likes of Scania, Renault Trucks, Peterbilt and Scammell (to pick just a few) - ought to be perceived by WikiProject Trucks as "a must-have for a print encyclopedia"? --kingboyk (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Importance is also considered by some to be influenced by how critical the subject is to the understanding of the overall topic and how likely a reader would be to look up information in the article.

Realistically, current major manufacturers are probably Top-importance; I'm not sure about defunct ones.

Importance assessment seems to not be as simple for the more-important articles - editors are often unsure about where the line between "Top" and "High" is. --Sable232 (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on terror attacks and other news

I've noticed a rash of articles being tagged for WikiProject Trucks that are about terror attacks, human trafficking, and other incidents that make headlines. I question whether these articles fall under the scope of the project - just because a truck happened to be involved and not some other vehicle or anything else doesn't mean that the truck itself is notable. It's unlikely that this project would have any interest or input in articles like that, so I'd be inclined to not include this project's tag on those articles. Thoughts? --Sable232 (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It seems unlikely to me that anybody here will ever care. If you are doing them individually you would recognize anything good. Is it one account doing them all? Sammy D III (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's just one account. There was a discussion in a related project here but nothing came of it. While it seems there is little activity here, I didn't want to unilaterally remove the banner. --Sable232 (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You want to do work here. You don't want to be pushy but the place looks deserted. If anybody cares please talk to you.

I think you have introduced yourself and should feel comfortable editing. That is only me but anyone else has somewhere to post now. Sammy D III (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that's fair - thanks for the input. --Sable232 (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I just looked. Whatever I can do. If they notice you you will want a smarter friend, though. Sammy D III (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article for review at AfC: Plus (autonomous trucking)

As this WikiProject focuses on trucks, I am here to ask if an editor member could help review an article I've submitted at Articles for Creation for Plus, an autonomous trucking technology company based in Silicon Valley. The submission can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Plus_(company)

I am an employee of Plus and have a conflict of interest, so I understand that the page needs to be carefully reviewed by editors. If editors here have any questions, I am more than happy to help. With gratitude, PlusJoc (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sable232, User:Sammy D III and User:Eddaido: I saw your names in discussions above and it looks like you're all still editing Wikipedia: would any of you want to help review my draft at AfC? With gratitude, PlusJoc (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PlusJoc, I admire what you're doing and the draft article too. I have never taken any interest in the various rules and regulations within Wikipedia — I'm more of a "try it on and see what happens" man myself. So I am no use to you. Thanks for the invitation, Eddaido (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M939 series 5-ton 6×6 truck

Hi,

i just noticed that under the "chassis" section it says that the truck is equipped with dual tyres per side per axle - only a single drawing among dozens of pictures show a dual tyre setup. All others show single tyre configurations. I am not knowledgeable enough on this topic to actually change the article, i just noticed the discrepancy. Can someone fix that? MikeTango (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the M939 uses the dual setup, while the M939A1 and M939A2 use singles. I'll try to adjust the wording so that's clearer. --Sable232 (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FAR notice

I have nominated Hours of service for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GAR Notice

Trucking industry in the United States has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

Requested move at Talk:Cummins#Requested move 25 December 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Cummins#Requested move 25 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 17:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Ram Rebel TRX#Requested move 12 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ram Rebel TRX#Requested move 12 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 07:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User script to detect unreliable sources

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unreviewed Featured articles year-end summary

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:
year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

**Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles**
Solar System 2007 FA J. K. Rowling 2007 FA June 26, 2022 TFA Antarctica 2006 FA Joan of Arc 2006 FA Speed of light 2010 FA
All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

Biology
Physics and astronomy
Warfare
Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

Literature and theatre
Engineering and technology
Religion, mysticism and mythology
Media
Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O)
Topic area	Delisted	Kept	Total Reviewed	Ratio Kept to Delisted (overall 0.62)	Remaining to review for 2004–7 promotions
Art, architecture and archaeology	10	6	16	0.60	19
Biology	13	41	54	3.15	67
Business, economics and finance	6	1	7	0.17	2
Chemistry and mineralogy	2	1	3	0.50	7
Computing	4	1	5	0.25	0
Culture and society	9	1	10	0.11	8
Education	22	1	23	0.05	3
Engineering and technology	3	3	6	1.00	5
Food and drink	2	0	2	0.00	3
Geography and places	40	6	46	0.15	22
Geology and geophysics	3	2	5	0.67	1
Health and medicine	8	3	11	0.38	5
Heraldry, honors, and vexillology	11	1	12	0.09	6
History	27	14	41	0.52	38
Language and linguistics	3	0	3	0.00	3
Law	11	1	12	0.09	3
Literature and theatre	13	14	27	1.08	24
Mathematics	1	2	3	2.00	3
Media	14	10	24	0.71	40
Meteorology	15	6	21	0.40	31
Music	27	8	35	0.30	55
Philosophy and psychology	0	1	1	–	2
Physics and astronomy	3	7	10	2.33	24
Politics and government	19	4	23	0.21	9
Religion, mysticism and mythology	14	14	28	1.00	8
Royalty and nobility	10	6	16	0.60	44
Sport and recreation	32	12	44	0.38	39
Transport	8	2	10	0.25	11
Video gaming	3	5	8	1.67	23
Warfare	26	49	75	1.88	31
Total	359 ^{Note A}	222 ^{Note B}	581	0.62	536

Noting some minor differences in tallies:

A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for.
B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Winter service vehicle

Engine infoboxes

Combustion engines are used in many applications - Aerospace, automotive, marine and industrial. Some articles on them have infobox templates; {{infobox aircraft engine}} (aviation), {{Infobox engine}} (automotive) and {{Infobox rocket engine}} (spaceflight). Wikipedia's wider community has a consensus to merge infobox templates where possible. Various aircraft infobox templates are being merged, and the question has arisen, should the aero engine infobox be merged in with them, or would it be better to merge and extend the existing engine infoboxes? There is an ongoing discussion here , which you are invited to join. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 05:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC review: Gatik

Hello, I'm here at this WikiProject seeking feedback on an article I've submitted to Articles for Creation. The article is for Gatik, an autonomous trucking company, which I am an employee of. I understand that means I have a conflict of interest, so I'm here seeking editor feedback.

My initial draft was declined, but since then, I have revised it and trimmed parts of the draft to hopefully address editor concerns. If anybody is willing to review the draft, I would deeply appreciate it, and if you have any questions, I am more than ready to answer.

Here is a link to the draft: Draft:Gatik|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gatik

Thank you so much! Miranda at Gatik (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - back here to ping User:Sable232 to see if they would be interested in providing feedback on the Gatik article from above since they've been active on this Talk page in the past. If you could take the time to review the submission, that would be awesome. Thank you so much for your time. If you have any questions about the draft, please don't hesitate to ask. Thanks again! Miranda at Gatik (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Art truck"

Art truck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems like it should be an overview article, much like art bike and art car, instead of being a redirect to Japanese art trucks. Airbrushed trucks in North America, or trucks with paint schemes, lights and bells in Southeast Asia, and other such, would seem to lack coverage. -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. (edit add: You might want to try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. Nobody seems to come here and they have a solid base.) Sammy D III (talk) 11:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've cross-posted this to WT:CARS per the suggestion from Sammy D III -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 00:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla Cybertruck has an RfC

Tesla Cybertruck, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RfC for can Munro & Associates media content ever be used as a source in the Cybertruck article. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. N2e (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2 vehicles needing identification

Hoping to identify the make and model of the two vehicles that prominently feature in this photo from the early 1970s (the ambulance and the mail van). I figure this group is as likely as anywhere for me to get some help. - Jmabel | Talk 05:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: I think the step-van is a Dodge, here's a a commercial blog. Check the windshield wipers, round turn signals under the headlights, and the grille. The mail one looks wider to me, maybe a larger series?

The Mobile Intensive/Cardiac Care van is on this Facebook page (you don't need to log in). Sammy D III (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was able to use some of that (and quote the Facebook page). - Jmabel | Talk 20:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]