Talk:Aerial work platform

|B-Class-1= |B-Class-2= |B-Class-3= |B-Class-4= |B-Class-5= |B-Class-6= }}

Tweaking

...that we call the cherry pickers in the US, too, so I deleted the part about "in the UK, at least". =) --Jemiller226 19:49, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Article overhaul

I have made some significant changes to this article. Predominantly they are around increasing it's readability (e.g. reducing the amount of subheadings, which do make it hard to read) and removing 'how-to' information, in line with wikipedia policy.

This has lead to the removal of a fair amount of text, which as an inclusionist, i don't tend to do, but the majority of the article read like an instruction manual for a particular model of scissor lift.

What I hope I have left behind is a good article structure which can be further expanded upon, sufficiently splitting generic information from type specific information.

I hope I haven't hacked out anything too important (I think I was careful...), but no doubt someone will tell me if not (please feel free to comment on my talk page, i love feedback...)

Regards Owain.davies 16:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite happy yet with what you did, and will in the next couple days do some clean-up in layout and formatting (with explanations of where I disagree and why some things should preferably follow general Wikipedia styling). I generally don't disagree with your removal of the how-to info, though. Cheers. MadMaxDog 06:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hope you agree with most of the tweaks I did. Cheers. MadMaxDog 09:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

looks great, we'll make an FA out of it yet! Only one thing - i can't quite reconcile mechanism etc. in the titles being singular. I agree with keeping the AWP name out, and that the article name should be singular, but everything in my brain is telling me that there is more than one mechanism, so it should be 'mechanisms'. Thoughts?Owain.davies 09:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Mmmmh, I think of it in the sense of 'by' that you struck out (i.e. "defined BY lifting mechanism", "defined BY drive mechanism"). That said, I don't feel strongly about it (hey, rare! ;-) so if it irks you, put those 's' back in. MadMaxDog 12:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Cherry picker merge proposal

I propose the merge of Cherry picker in to Aerial work platform, as they cover the exact same subject - with a cherry picker being only one type of AWP. I feel that merging them will result in one cohesive article with all the information in. At the very least, i feel that cherry picker should be redirected, and if it is felt that articulated platforms need a page of their own, then it should be called "Articulated aerial work platform" or something similar, as cherry picker is too generic a term.

I think that having it all in the one article will avoid having the stub article which cherry picker currently is, and will provide a definitive point of reference

Please input as to whether you support or oppose a merge.

Regards Owain.davies 07:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Then lets change the article name of Cherry picker. Even though I do not feel that cherry picker is generally applied to scissor lifts at all. As noted below, I feel that a distinction can be made between the various types of lifts (as already sorted in the article) which will allow a summary to be given in the main article, with greater detail being provided in the sub-articles. Stub status in itself is not necessarily a reason for a merge. Finally, it will allow a greater number of images to be provided, showing the specialised types, without overloading one article with many images. MadMaxDog 07:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

In support of my view, I also suggest a Gooogle image search. 'Cherry picker', in the first three pages of thumbnails gives just one scissor lift, but dozens of articulated lifts. (Okay, I'll stop now, and let some other people voice their opinion. I just don't seem to get that its just a bloody article after all ;-) MadMaxDog 07:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sit! Stay! (sorry just kidding) Quite right, being a stub doesn't necessarily dictate that it should be merged (although it is a strong indicator). My general rule of thumb on merges is "could that article ever become featured?" - i think that a single AWP article could become featured (with work obviously), but i can't ever see a situation where we'd be able to write enough about just articulated units to be elible for featured status (quite apart from all the repetiion which would be required if you did this for scissor lift etc. as well). On the cherry picker for scissor lifts, you've just proved that some (if not all!) people do call tehm cherry pickers. Any ambiguity should be cut back as far as practical! Owain.davies 08:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Continued down below my 'Oppose' part. This is getting severely out of chronology otherwise. MadMaxDog 08:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Original start of this discussion, copied from my user page to continue discussion here. MadMaxDog 07:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

<Quote>

Hi there,

thanks for you comments on my revisions to the AWP article, and i can see you've built on the structure i put in, which all seems good. As regards cherry picker, i can see no strong rationale for keeping it as it was basically a stub and you'll end up with a lot of repetition between the two articles. Certainly in my experience, the term cherry picker is used to apply equally to scissor lifts as articulated (whether correctly or not!)

If you don't like it, i suggest we return it, place a merge template on it, and people can have their say - wiki democracy in action!

Owain.davies 07:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm still working on the AWP article. Maybe an hour - or a day - as I'd like to check what you added and removed (no offense, I'm just obsessive-compulsive, and will likely end up rewriting quite a bit ;-).

As for the cherry picker, I do feel quite strongly that it should stay separate - in fact, in the long run, I think the AWP article should be the one that has only generic stuff like business model while cherry picker, scissor lift and articulated lift should all have their own articles. Some duplication is not a problem - just as deciduous trees will have some duplication with trees... I'd rather suggest that you point out what is duplicated, and reduce it to the required minimum to give context.

As for 'voting on it' (excuse me if I come across as lecturing here, I know I do) - decisions on Wikipedia are not votes, but should be as close to possible consensus while following Wikipedia aims and guidelines. We would also likely have the problem that rather few people would end up caring, I guess. Probably just us two have strong feelings about this at the moment, because we both invested time into it. MadMaxDog 07:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

<Unquote>

Oppose merge, as per above. Cheers. MadMaxDog 07:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As for the ambiguity (one scissor lift out of thirty+plus others) - I do not call that reducable ambiguity. I call that irrelevant. The lowest common denominator would make us call leaves having no specific color, just because a small number of them are not green. MadMaxDog 08:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree with you on the 'Featured article' criteria. That is way too narrow a view. At the end of the day, the split-off / not split-off decision is just another way of differentiating information. We can split material into subsections, or we can split it into smaller articles. As long as enough material for several paragraphs of coherent info is present, a sub-article is a valid choice, and the split-not split decision becomes more a matter of style (which is what we are really discussing here - nothing makes for a better and more hopeless argument than matters of taste). MadMaxDog 08:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right, i'm not sure anyone else cares! Just one quick point i've noticed - the AWP at the top of the article is definitely a cherry picker (IMHO) - but... it's not articulated!, it's a a single piece telescopic arm. Maybe cherry picker is better as the title that articulated, although with a lack of opinion in either direction, i still think one article is better, at least for the time being until cherry picker is long enough. However, with no support, i suppose the status quo is the way forward. Regards Owain.davies 07:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Owain. Not quite sure what you want to say about the image. You feel that the main image on AWP should be an articulated AWP? In this case, I'd propose switching this image with the second image from the Cherry picker subarticle. That a good idea? MadMaxDog 09:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

As for merge proposal - I was going to let it stand for a full month and then remove it, unless someone else had weighed in of course. Yes, in general, in case of no consensus, status quo is the order of the day. I don't know if that is a positive development for you or not, but now that Cherry picker is likely to stay, I will try to expand it to a better article. No, its unlikely to make featured, but it can be more than just a section split off. I'll see what I can do. MadMaxDog 09:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Carry on! the development is neither positive or negative, i still stand by my belief, but in the absence of a mandate to chagne, i will do my best to help you bring both articles up to the best possible standard! Owain.davies 09:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Cherry picker

The first sentence of this article claims it is the same as a elevated work platform Zackmann08 (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Could you add Polish interwiki?

The Polish article is https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podnośnik_koszowy. 85.193.240.212 (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Google Image Search

Type "aerial lift" into the Google Image Search. You will be surprised. 85.193.233.31 (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Contention on inventor and timing

Upon casually researching the subject, I'm seeing more sites (unaccredited, mind) give the invention credit to one Walter E. “Ted” Thornton-Trump and his device known as the "giraffe", along with a patent related to such.

Sample source: https://dozr.com/blog/boom-lift

Thanks to those willing to investigate this discrepancy. 40.134.136.158 (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

India Education Program course assignment

This article was the subject of an educational assignment supported by Wikipedia Ambassadors through the India Education Program.

The above message was substituted from {{IEP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 19:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)