This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
|B-Class-1= |B-Class-2= |B-Class-3= |B-Class-4= |B-Class-5= |B-Class-6= }}
...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)
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 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)
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)
<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)
The first sentence of this article claims it is the same as a elevated work platform Zackmann08 ( talk) 21:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
The Polish article is https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podnośnik_koszowy. 85.193.240.212 ( talk) 22:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Type "aerial lift" into the Google Image Search. You will be surprised. 85.193.233.31 ( talk) 15:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
|B-Class-1= |B-Class-2= |B-Class-3= |B-Class-4= |B-Class-5= |B-Class-6= }}
...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)
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 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)
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)
<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)
The first sentence of this article claims it is the same as a elevated work platform Zackmann08 ( talk) 21:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
The Polish article is https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podnośnik_koszowy. 85.193.240.212 ( talk) 22:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Type "aerial lift" into the Google Image Search. You will be surprised. 85.193.233.31 ( talk) 15:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)