Talk:Dodge WC series

telephone trucks

there apear to have been two versions of the tool bed. a slanted "streamlined"(Streamline Moderne) version, and a square box version. both seem to be a standard civillian designe from Bell telephone. these boxes were mounted on both Dodge and chevy's and both 1/2ton and 3/4ton chasis. so that whatever the chasis the "slant box" was a K-50, and the square box was the later K-50B.Brian in denver (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dodge WC series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140211151427/http://www.dog-walker.us/4x4/4x4-204.htm to http://www.dog-walker.us/4x4/4x4-204.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Excessive use of Italics

Use of italics is an important editorial technique to emphasise or distinguish items. But it is possible that italics may be overused in this article when compared to the average article in Wikipedia. ++Lar: t/c 22:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Best lead (infobox) picture preference ?

I shall be the first to admit, that user @ModelFun: and I have been disagreeing / edit-warring, about our preference for the lead (infobox) picture for the WC series article, since his edit from 2 July 2020. After having gone back and forth on this three times now, we must really discuss this on the talk-page. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 07:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The three main candidates so far are included in this gallery:

• 
  ModelFun's favorite picture for the lead (infobox), from 2 July 2020 until 8 November 2020 — a three-quarter driver's side view, conspicuously obstructed by a white ribbon running in the foreground all across the truck
• 
  User ModelFun's new favorite, that he now calls "The best front-side view in Wikipedia Commons" in his edit summary.
  I (GeeTeeBee) find the contrast between the subject (the truck) and the background rather lacking in this picture ..
• 
  This 50% front / 50% driver's side picture, favored by myself (GeeTeeBee), because I generally favor front / left-side facing car pics on the right side of the text, and this specific picture shows off the front face of this greatly varied truck series especially well — the one thing that is shared across most variants, that ties them together more than any other visual aspect.

Obviously, the second picture is the best, as it shows clearly the side and the front (to distinguish WC-51 from WC-52, for instance) of the vehicle (also additional equipment) much better than the “favorite” (but showing the front mainly, details on the side view are unclear because of its low angle) picture of GeeTeeBee. Also the minibus spoils the photo. As for the contrast - can GeeTeeBee distinguish red brick wall and green vehicle on your computer monitor? If not, change it for the new one, the only advice...First photo is even better, absolutely without any contrast questions, clearly shows front and side view of the vehicle and it shows a spare will in addition from the driver’s side, only white ribbon spoils the photo a bit. Every journal editor (me, too) knows that the best view of the vehicle in general if you would like to show it on just one photo is 60-70% of the side view and 30-40% of the front view, whereas on the favorite GeeTeeBee’s photo the major part is the front view. And even the the front view of GeeTeeBee’s photo, obviously, doesn’t shows the front face of WC-51 “especially well” as he tried to claim, due to the cable on the front bumper, at low resolution on the page it can be sometimes confused with WC-52 with a front winch ModelFun (talk) 11:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@ModelFun: Thank you for your prompt rebuttal, and also for your patience ! -- I wanted to reply much quicker, and I also agree with some of your points, but I'm a somewhat severe chronic pain sufferer, and I hope to be able to provide a competent reply in content this weekend. To be continued ! --GeeTeeBee (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@ModelFun: OK, first I apologize to keep you waiting. Not stalling or anything — just a load of other stuff holding me back...

I believe we are in agreement on many aspects of what would be the ideal lead / first (infobox) picture for this article, like:

The generation — the very sprawling Dodge WC series is best represented by a pic of the 2nd generation (WC-51 through WC-64), because more than twice as many of those were built, than of the G-505 half-tonners.

The version — Within the WC-51 and up models, the WC-51 and -52 cargo-/troop carriers were built much more than all the others, and ..

Of the WC-51, about twice as many were built, as WC-52 units – so that model is the most representative.

Furthermore – in general – I agree with ModelFun, that a photo showing about 1/4 to 1/3 front, and 2/3 to 3/4 side view, would be ideal as a lead / introductory picture for an article about a model of automobile or light wheeled truck or vehicle.

However, even though the article opens with an infobox that lists the specifications of the WC-51 & -52 models as an example — the article as a whole is not specifically about those two versions. This article is about the entire WC-series. — At least as many other WC series models and versions were made, as of all the WC-51 and -52 units combined. And they had all kinds of different body-styles, from bare cab-and-chassis, to relatively large ambulances.

So that's why I argue in favor of making an exception in this case, for the lead (infobox) picture — to emphasize the common front-side look of the WC-series models a bit more than usual – for this particular article — and place less emphasis on the best possible side view of a WC-51 / -52.

Also, I don't think it's bad, that the third photo is less clear in showing whether it's a short-bumpered -51, or a long WC-model with a winch — On the contrary, I think it's an advantage, because the photo captures the front look of both the long- and the short-bumpered WC-series models rather well.

For showing details of the WC-51 and -52, and the other models, there is plenty of opportunity in the remaining article sections.

And as far as the quality of my display is concerned — Wikipedia aims to make info available to as many people as possible — including people who only have access to a crappy quality display..

Also I believe you contradict yourself ? — You start by calling the second picture obviously the best, and after giving me advice about my display, you call the first picture "even better" ? — I think both pictures are good pictures, but more specifically suitable for the section about the WC-51 and -52, or to point out specific details, further down in the article — but not the ideal introductory picture. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I like the second one the best. Wikideas1 (talk) 05:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Countries

At the end there is a list of countries that used the WC. Austria does not host the Australian Army. They are separate countries with different flags. One or the other is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.129.145.108 (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

True. But it lists Austria as hosting the Austrian army, not the Australian army - check for the letter 'l'.  Stepho  talk  07:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)