Talk:Heavy equipment

Proposed Move 2009

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move to Heavy equipment (construction). Heavy equipment, as pointed out in the discussion, is ambiguous. It is not clear that this is the primary use. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Engineering vehicle → Heavy equipment — Below move discussion started in 2005 and I feel it is time to do the move now -- better late than never! -- to Heavy equipment as discussion below seems to end up recommending. I think an admin needs to do the move for us because of the preexisting redirect page at Heavy equipment. --Roger Chrisman (talk) 01:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Propose this article be moved to Construction equipment, more commonly called construction equipment than it is "Engineering vehicle".

Evidence

Searched for the following terms:

'Yahoo!

• "Construction equipment"
  • 6,430,000

• "Engineering vehicle"
  • 20,200
• "Engineering vehicle"
  • 41,800

Google

• "Construction equipment"
  • 3,050,000

• "Engineering vehicle"
  • 24,900
• "Engineering vehicle"
  • 39,300

Websites: (from the top 8 leading global manufactureres)

• CAT: "construction and mining equipment"
• Komatsu: "construction and mining equipment, industrial machinery & vehicles"
• CNH Global: "construction equipment"
• Volvo Construction Equipment (the name says it all) "construction equipment"
• Deere & Company: "construction and forestry equipment"
• Ingersoll-Rand: "industrial and construction equipment"
• Hitachi Construction Machinery: "construction machinery"
• JCB: "construction and agricultural equipment"

WikiDon 02:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

This article and the article "Heavy Equipment" are nearly identical. They must be merged in some way.

"Construction equipment" looks like a much wider category of thing than "engineering vehicle". Specific engineering vehicles (or whatever) have specific names (eg "backhoe loaders"), so "engineering vehicle" itself may be less used, but more useful than "construction equipment" (which covers all manner of things which aren't vehicles). Rd232 ^talk 17:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

But, it is Wikipedia policy to use the most common term for the title of an article. And if 90% of the people in the world, including all of the companies that make the stuff, call it a "chicken," we should not call it an "egg laying domesticated bird." Would you call the article "Latrodectus mactans," or would you title it "Black widow spider"? Should the name of the article be "German Democratic Republic," or "East Germany"? While Latrodectus mactans, German Democratic Republic, and "engineering vehicle" may be more technical, it does not mean they should be the title of the article.

Remember, articles should be made, and titled, from the point-of-view of a new searcher looking for information. A 10-year old boy in India, Argentina, Calgary, Cape Town, Hong Kong, Dresden, or where ever, is going to search for the most common term, and want to be educated as to what the most common term is. Now the article should include more "construction equipment," and if it gets to big, a new seperate article can be spun-off. But if it is "spit", don't title it "salivic discharge". Is it a Gallus gallus? Or a? WikiDon 18:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree "Engineering vehicle" means nothing to me. Merge with "construction equipment" Please,

I also agree that it should be changed. An engineering vehicle could be a vehicle used to carry extra heavy loads by road, such as rockets to launch pad, chemical reactors to construction site etc.

We have Construction equipment, Construction tools, Construction machinery, Mining equipment, Mining machinery, Power tools, Roadmaking equipment, Building equipment etc Gregorydavid 07:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree! I tried to link NKMZ to heavy equipment and all I got was "vehicles". What about forges, blast furnaces, hydroelectric generation equipment, industrial presses, etc etc? --McTrixie 13:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the redirect of heavy equipment to this page, as the two were almost identical (I merged the differences first). User:McTrixie is right in saying that "heavy equipment" deserves a page to itself, so all that it needs is for some knowledgeable soul to come along and create one appropriate to the products made by NKMZ etc. In the mean-time, I suggest the redirect should stay.

Construction equipment currently redirects back here. Another alternative would be Construction vehicle (which also redirects here - argh!)? Someone else can resolve this one though...

EdJogg 18:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, move it. Ideas? What is the common industry name for this category of equipment? Engineering vehicle sounds wrong. Construction vehicle or construction equipment sound right. Power tool covers the lighter equipment so "heavy" need not enter the title I gather. (If you wrote this move proposal, please go ahead and sign it.) I'll move the page in a week if we agree where to... suggestions? --Roger Chrisman (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I proposed this 21 October 2005, so it has been a couple of days. Discussion is now closed. Move to Construction equipment is the best choice. Lets move it. WikiDon (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no preference for the name. Industry name is just "equipment", everything else is small tools or a haul truck.Granite07 (talk) 06:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I decided not to move the page for now. Engineering vehicle seems wrong to me; however, Construction equipment or Construction vehicle don't seem right to me either because they leave out agriculture and mining. So I'd favor Heavy equipment, with subcategories in it for Earthmover (bulldozer, grader, scraper, dump truck, etc), Construction equipment (cranes, cement mixers etc. but not general power tools), Agriculture equipment (harvesters, forestry stuff, etc.), Mining equipment, and maybe Other (cherry picker, fork lift, etc.). Not sure if heavy science equipment like Large Hadron Collider or heavy manufacturing equipment needs a spot under "heavy equipment," think not... I'd want further consensus before undertaking this move. NB: Category:Engineering vehicles (which has sub-categories of its own, too) is on many pages now and should be considered part of this move. Maybe we should discuss that on Category talk:Engineering vehicles? I don't have the confidence to tackle all this myself right now without strong consensus from more Wikipedians. Personally I favor both moving Engineering vehicle to Heavy equipment and changing Category:Engineering vehicles to Category:Heavy equipment (by finding all pages that link to that category and changing all those page's category links to the new category instead -- tedious to do and disruptive). What do you guys think of Heavy equipment as both the name for this page and its corresponding category? Thanks! -- :-) Roger Chrisman (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Lets look at it this way, in a tree format:

• "Universe"
  • "Solar system"
    • "Earth"
      • "Asia"
        • "China"
      • "North America"
        • "United States"
          • "California"
            • "Los Angeles County"
              • "City of Los Angeles"

• "Vehicles"
  • "Aircraft vehicles"
  • "Automotive vehicles" (inc: cars, trucks, engineering, etc)
    • "Engineering vehicle"
      • "Construction equipment"
        • "Ride on"
          • "Backhoe loader"
            • "Backhoe loader bucket"
        • "Hand tool/walk behind"
      • "Mining equipment"
      • "Logging equipment"
  • "Waterborne vehicles"
  • "Spacecraft vehicles"

If the article for EV gets to a certain size, break out. ~ WikiDon (talk) 08:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Where does barge crane and dredger fit, waterborne or engineering vehicle? Both are used for construction. My opinion is 1) call Peterson CAT in Chico, they are the west coast authority 2) find the Professor at a first tier research university who researches this topic and ask them, try google scholar search. I am sure this conversation has already been had, no need to reinvent the wheel. Your class system looks good to me. If you believe Wikipedia will be around for a few years, then where does spacecraft heavy equipment go. That robotic arm on the spacestation looks like lifting equipment to me and the Phoenix Lander has a backhoe Attachment. Granite07 (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This article should be renamed 'heavy equipment'. That is, 'engineering vehicle' should redirect to 'heavy equipment' and not the other way around. Google 'heavy equipment': 9,700,000 - 'engineering vehicle': 49,700. Also look at the image results, 'heavy equipment' appears to be more relevant. Techtransfer at Berkeley uses 'heavy equipment', Nevada School of Construction uses 'heavy equipment'. As for User:McTrixie's comment, blast furnaces don't seem to be called 'heavy equipment', just the work vehicles. IMO 'engineering vehicle' would be a more reasonable name, but it's just not called like that. --Kuteni (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, a Google search for heavy equipment does not reference this article in the first page of results, a search of engineering vehicle does. Renaming to heavy equipment would make this article more easily assessable. Granite07 (talk)

I agree, rename as Heavy equipment. Also the emphasis on civil engineering in the lead is misleading. If you read the article on civil engineering you learn that construction engineering is only one part of civil engineering, and construction engineering is distinct from the activity of construction.Ccrrccrr (talk) 12:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I have requested moving Engineering vehicle to Heavy equipment per above discussion by adding the move template at top of this section. I think the move requires admin power because of the redirect already at Heavy equipment. --Roger Chrisman (talk) 01:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• To me and to many, "heavy equipment" is any equipment (work, diving, electrical, etc) which is heavy, not only engineering vehicles. Do not move to 'heavy equipment'. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• We've hashed it out pretty thoroughly above: heavy equipment is not ideal, but it's a big improvement and the best compromise. We should go ahead and do it. Ccrrccrr (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Heavy equipment is what people commonly call this category of thing—Google "heavy equipment", 6,210,000 results; common. Combat engineering vehicle (CEV) is a military term from the military discipline of combat engineering; the fragment "engineering vehicle" does not cross over into common language—Google "engineering vehicle", 41,900 mostly military results. Move to Heavy equipment. --Roger Chrisman (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• • To me "construction equipment" makes most sense. Heavy equipment is a wider cathegory that also includes locomotives, big harbour cranes, rocket crawler-transporters, etc. I think "agriculture equipment" should be left out. Some mining equipment is of cause equivalent to "construction equipment", but I do not really see a problem with that, as a catalogue of mining equipment could just include construction equipment as a sub-cathegory? When construction equipment is used for mining it can be viewed as one of manyequipment application of construction, alongside road and reailway construction, dam building, etc. --Sigmundg (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that either heavy equipment or construction equipment would be a big improvement. I mildly prefer heavy equipment because:

1. If I do a google image search, it seems to more consistently yield what we are looking for.
2. It seems to be the consensus here.

It might be helpful if, when people oppose heavy equipment in this discussion, they clarify which they think is better, if the two options are heavy equipment and engineering vehicle. It would be a shame if most of us agree that engineering vehicle is a poor option, but we don't fix it because we can't quite agree on which of the alternatives, all agreed to be better, to proceed with. Ccrrccrr (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Send an email to Professor Mike Vorster mikev@vt.edu at Virginia Tech. A link to some of his work www.constructionequipment.com/community/862/Mike+Vorster%27s+Equipment+Executive/23397.html, a Google scholar search of his name will present his academic work. A note that while mining and construction industries overlap, not all construction equipment is used in mining, so a simple subcategory will not work. Heavy Equipment (Construction) Granite07 (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Attachments and tools

Are wheels and tires attachments? I think they are, based on the accounting practice of listing equipment and tires separately. When a piece of equipment is purchased the purchase price does not include the tires, these are priced separately as a consumable component. In asset accounting, the tires are again not listed as an asset as the equipment is. The tires are part of the maintenance and service of the equipment similar to hoses and belts.

The tires should be listed under the category of attachments in the same way as buckets, augers and cold planes are. The tire is chosen for a specific purpose on the job depending on terrain, haul distance and ground conditions. The selection of the tire to suit a particular task is similar to the selection of a tool or attachment for a particular task.

A Wikipedia page dedicated to the selection of equipment tires and application to various project variables will prove to be valuable to project engineers and equipment managers in selecting to best tire for their application.

I am adding tire back into the tool attachment list. A similar page dedicated to equipment/excavator buckets will also prove to be beneficial. Separate pages dedicated to loader buckets, excavator buckets, bobcat buckets, shovel buckets, backhoe buckets and dragline buckets is not practical. One page addressing buckets for all types of equipment should be possible as buckets share commonalities for application. For instance the teeth selected for buckets is universally the same for differing applications. For now the double listing of both excavator bucket and equipment bucket will remain. Granite07 02:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A TIRE is an OPTION, not an attachment, nobody calls a tire an attachment. And, every maker puts out a guide, Deere, Case, etc, etc.,,, Going to list them all? IP4240207xx 05:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Tire is an option on a vehicle, such as your personal car. On equipment tires are sold separate. The tire type is selected based on the expected use. The CAT handbook is not the same as a Deere or Case dealers brochure. The CAT handbook has cycle time, rim pull and shrink/swell equations, all very useful. If you still disagree about the tires, I suggest we contact an equipment dealer and ask. Maybe there should be a separate section about heavy equipment tires if including them under the attachment header is too much of a stretch for you.Granite07 06:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The major difference between equipment and tires appears in accounting where the depreciation calculation for equipment ownership cost does not include the tires, they are accounted for separately as an operating cost. On a project the tires are a project cost while the equipment is paid for on an hourly rate. The attachments also become a project cost if they are particular to that project. At project completion the equipment is returned but the special attachments are sold and the tires are likely junk by then. The next project can buy new tires applicable to their project needs. Most of the items listed as an attachment or tool could also be classified as an option. The point is the tires are not a part of the equipment, they are a separate item with their own characteristics independent of what they are mounted on. Granite07 06:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Types list

Discussion of items in the Engineering vehicle#Types list

Front shovel

(Google search) looks like another name for excavator to me. So let's redirect front shovel to excavator. Done. --Roger Chrisman (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

looks like and is are two different thingsGranite07 (talk) 00:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If so, please put sourced (so it won't get speedy deleted by some WP hawk) info about the Front shovel in that page instead of the redirect. Thanks! --Roger Chrisman (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Is power shovel another name for front shovel? If yes, let's redirect front shovel to power shovel. Comments? --Roger Chrisman (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Power shovel, front shovel, steam shovel, are all names for Excavator, merge into one article. WikiDon (talk) 00:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking your are correct, but there is a huge difference between these specific types of excavator. Much like saying a NASCAR, dodge neon and corvette are all names for a racecar. It seems the front shovel is used more like a front loader while an excavator has multiple uses other than just loading out quarry material. Steam shovel is a historical item no longer in use, unless someone knows of a new model containing a reactor. The Dragline excavator has not been mentioned here or the yarder, both of which could also be called excavators. The typical excavator e.g. CAT 345 would fit in the bucket of the typical power shovel. I doubt anyone would use a 345 for mining overburden removal in any serious manner. Just my opinion but I think do not merge. Granite07 (talk) 06:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Air-track (machine)

Air-track (machine) returned to Engineering_vehicle#Types list per this Engineering vehicle comment on my talk page (retitled for clarity by me) by User:Granite07. --Roger Chrisman (talk) 00:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Compactor

Compactor has its own page. I propose compactor in the types list link to that instead of to Soil compaction. --Roger Chrisman (talk) 06:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Roger Chrisman (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Gee Roger, adding a note to change something and then just changing it is just like changing it and not leaving a note in the first place. WikiDon (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to undo that edit, do and say why here. --Roger Chrisman (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I just want to scold you over procedure. :) WikiDon (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Be aware there are many different compactors and half a dozen applications. Not all are specifically represented on one page. Classification is by done by two methods 1)work type with reference to equipment 2)equipment type with reference to work application. An example is a page on asphalt may have a discussion on compactors used, e.g. breakdown and finish. While a page on compactors may discuss soil compactors, e.g. sheepsfoot and smooth drum. Classifying all compactors under a generic "compactor" is an oversimplification of the topic. The engineering, quality control and production planning involved in smoothing an asphalt roadway is complex. Granite07 (talk) 06:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Just realized that I used the wrong terminology in the above comment. The reference to sheep's-foot roller should be pad-foot roller. Thought about it and realized the mistake is from reading this equipment page. This is a good example of why we must be accurate and precise with our terminology. The picture of the landfill compactor has pad-foot rollers not sheep’s foot rollers. This link describes the difference. http://www.vannattabros.com/iron7.html Granite07 (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Please no destructive revert

Granite07 has reverted my careful edits to Engineering vehicle#Types, first from an IP at Stanford University (171.66.40.26) and then logged in as Granite07, without explaining why my work needed reverting. I feel both were destructive inappropriate reverts. (This careful merge subsequently lost.)

I wrote most of the equipment operator page last year and can attest that it is outdated to the heavy equipment page and needs a through rewrite from someone who is an operator. I would not waste my time merging any content from that page.

I don't know how to proceed. We need help. Granite07, please undo your revert. If something is not right, please fix it instead of whole sale revert. No one owns Wikipedia. Please help us all improve it. --Roger Chrisman (talk) 01:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Roger for allowing this opportunity to discuss your recent edits. You are correct that explaining why work needs editing is important. Please give the same courtesy to others when you edit. I and many others have worked on this page for over a year and you arbitrarily deleted content with a noticeable lack of familiarity. I am sorry to be so blunt but I am certain if you proceed in this way on other Wikipedia articles you will be meet with blanket reverts as well. If you wish to edit syntax and add content then please do. But please refrain from deleting content without proper discussion. In the postings above there is no preliminary discussion prior to your major content edits. Once again if you have any questions about equipment or construction in general I am happy to discuss this with you. Familiarize yourself with the topic a bit, it is not rigorous. Thank you, sorry for the blanket revert but... and I look forward to your future edits. 128.12.170.114 (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Granite07 (talk) 03:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I'll add sections to this talk page to discuss specific editorial considerations and seek consensus. Any thoughts about Image suggestions, below? Thanks, --Roger Chrisman (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Images

Let's add images to Engineering vehicle as space permits so newcomers can visually learn vehicle types. The Engineering vehicle#Types section has room for 5 or 6 thumbnail images (they float right by default). A few common types whose correct name is often unknown to newcomers is what I'm thinking (loader, grader, scraper, compactor...) --Roger Chrisman (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Front loader

Grader (plowing snow here)

Military scraper

Landfill compactor (sheep's foot)

Please add image suggestions or comments, below (and sign --~~~~)...

Loader

Yes, add --Roger Chrisman (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC).

Grader

Yes, add --Roger Chrisman (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC).

Scraper

Yes, add --Roger Chrisman (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC).

Compactor

Yes, add --Roger Chrisman (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC).

Not sure what anyone else thinks, but if you are adding content, I would go ahead and add. If you want to delete anything than give a heads up and a few weeks notice first. All these pictures look good and in my view will add to the article.

classifications per CAT performance handbook, these classes are used for accounting purposes, e.x. equip. no. 12-345 is a wheel loader, likely 345th purchased

• wheel loader (classification 12)
• motor grader (classification 2)
• wheel tractor-scraper (classification 8)
• wheel dozer-soil compactor (classification 11)

--Granite07 (talk) 06:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, added the thumbnail images to Engineering vehicle#Types. I have not used their CAT performance handbook names because Wikipedia is not the CAT performance handbook and has different editorial goals and standards. I will open a separate Talk page section to discuss common names of things. --Roger Chrisman (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You might also want to do a gallery are the bottom of the page. WikiDon (talk) 00:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[Moved discussion of names from here to #Common names, below. --Roger Chrisman (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, the comment is not for you so disregard. Sorry to disappoint you with my irrelevant ranting and arbitrary attacks. I am disappointed to hear my Wikipedia contribution net value is now lower as a result. The comment is directed at Roger’s image descriptions. Sorry for causing your confusion, I will use one less ':' next time. Granite07 (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A gallery would be most useful for visually identifying equipment in the Types section, as a sub-section of it like this:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

==Types==

the types list here

===Gallery===

the gallery here

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I could move the images out of the right side of the types list into there to start the gallery. Does anyone object to my trying this? --Roger Chrisman (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Names

The article will benefit by following Wikipedia's naming conventions. The capitalization and use of common names guidelines are two areas where the article can be improved. I propose links, eg. in the Types list, wherever reasonable and practicable, follow the correct article title naming conventions so that they are simple predictable links and that pages be moved if necessary so that their titles conform to these guidelines, too. I will help when I can, starting with the easy capitalization changes. (See also discussion of moving this page, above.) --Roger Chrisman (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you put an example of what you are talking about here? WikiDon (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Links

Example

use Dump truck

not Dump Truck

(Lowercase second and subsequent words) --Roger Chrisman (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Common names

You do not seem to fully appreciate the importance this book [CAT performance handbook] has within the construction industry. This is the book used as a text book in nearly every heavy equipment class taught. Most all equipment managers have one on their desk. You must understand this book might be produced by CAT but it is general to any equipment regardless of manufacturer. This is the de facto standard within the industry. If you spend much more time researching heavy equipment, you will quickly realize there are as many terms for equipment and ideas about equipment management as there are equipment operators. The CAT handbook provides an easily accessible standard. Personally, I do not care what brand of equipment I use and do not use CAT equip specifically unless the company owns it. The most important criteria for me is who is at the other end of the phone and how responsive is she to my needs. I only use the book for reference. Best advice I have is you do too, especially since I doubt very much you will be maintaining "different editorial goals and standards" in Wikipedia without this book. Maybe you should scope out the great selection of sourcable material available for heavy equipment and then see how much of that is not derived directly from the CAT handbook. Granite07 (talk) 07:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless I can't read correctly anymore, which maybe true, the title of this section is "Images" [It was. So I have moved this here under "Common names" --Roger]. And all I said was maybe you might want to put in a gallery. So, what the heck? Been spending to much time in the shop with the doors closed and all the engines running? Try to keep discussions in there relevant sections and not jump on me about what I think of something else. Your credibility meter just went down, and this effects how I value your opinion on other topics. WikiDon (talk) 08:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, the comment is not for you so disregard. Sorry to disappoint you with my irrelevant ranting and arbitrary attacks. I am disappointed to hear my Wikipedia contribution net value is now lower as a result. The comment is directed at Roger’s image descriptions. Sorry for causing your confusion, I will use one less ':' next time. Granite07 (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe Granite07 was replying to my (Roger's) comment "Okay, added the thumbnail images..." above in #Images in which I explain why I did not use the CAT performance handbook names in the thumbnail image captions. This is indeed now about names of things. [So I've moved this part here from #Images.] --Roger Chrisman (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Resources & Content

Proposal for content change:

• Adjust content to reflect this source http://www.constructionequipment.com/ in addition to CAT handbook.
• Several civil engineering researchers publish journal articles about equipment technology, these can be found on google scholar, using this source create section on GPS and equipment technology

Granite07 (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Eventually the types section of this article should be removed and replaced with a reference to the Category:Engineering vehicles. Until all the equipment listed on the EV page has articles this section needs to stay so as to let the reader know there is more equipment than listed on the category page. Some of the equipment types that are redundant with the category page could be removed now. Types that link to subsections of a page should be retained as well as those types with no article to link to, for examples highway end dump and pipelayer. Granite07 (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

deeply, deeply broken

There are about a half dozen entries in the big list to various kinds of dump trucks. But, they are all redirectst to section headings in the dump truck article. Dump truck#Standard dump truck, Dump truck#Semi trailer bottom dump truck, Dump truck#Truck and pup, Dump truck#Double and triple trailer bottom dump truck, Dump truck#Semi trailer end dump truck, Dump truck#Side dump truck.

This is, in my opinion, deeply, deeply broken.

1. If a topic is worthy of a wiki-link it is worthy of a whole article.
2. This overly enthusiastic urge to merge is a serious disservice to reader for several reasons:
   1. It seriously erodes the utility of our watchlists. When topics that can stand alone in small focussed articles readers can place those small focussed articles on their watchlists, and when their watchlist shows a change to that article, they can be confident it is a change they are interested. But when mergists get their way, and their urge to merge is not restrained by cooler heads, this guarantees that they are going to get lots of bad hits on their watchlist due to edits related to topics they are totally uninterersted in. I am interested in the big off-road ultra class dump trucks. But I am not really interested in the road-capable dump trucks. Why should I be forced to be advised of edits that concern trucks I am not interested in?
   2. The misplaced urge to merge erodes the value of the "what links here" button.
3. The current version of the wikimedia software does not fully support wikilinks to subsection heading:
   1. The wikimedia software's bidirections wikilinks are very powerful. They are much more powerful than the plain ordinary uni-directional links of the plain old world-wide-web.
      • Web-authors of plain old world-wide-web pages have no reliable way of telling how many other web pages link to them
      • Plain ordinary world-wide-web authors have no good way of knowing when links their pages point to are erased, or have been renamed.
      • Plain ordinary world-wide-web pages break if the links they point to are renamed, even by trivial spelling corrections in the URL.

      With properly constructed wikilinks clicking on the "what links here" button instantly and reliably informs authors of how many other wiki articles link to the page. If a page is deleted, it instantly shows up as a red-link. If a properly constructed wikilink is renamed, the wikimedia's redirection mechanism makes sure the link continues to work. -- But none of this is true to wikilinks to subsection headings within articles. If the subsection heading is changed, even a minor change in spelling, punctuation, capitalization breaks the link -- silently, and without warning. Authors have no way of knowing that a change to a subsection heading will break links. They have no way of knowing that links point to that subsection heading.

There is a tradition of using links to subsection heading within the "Wikipedia:" name-space. But, please, do not let this practice creep into article space. Article space is more mutable than the "wikipedia:" name-space. More people watch the policy documents in the "wikipedia" name space. People will notice when the links to subsection headings break in wikipedia name space, but contributors are much less likely to notice when links to subsection heading break in article space.

I strongly urge the deprecation of this dangerous practice. And I am going to repeat that if a topic is worthy of a wikilink it is worthy of a stand-alone article. Geo Swan (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the above sounds like general WP policy discussion. I'm trying to tease out what specifically you are advocating for the Engineering vehicle article, which is the topic of this page. I don't see anything, so maybe you are arguing for a change to Dump truck--that it be split into multiple smaller articles? If so it would seem that that discussion belongs on the talk page of that article. Am I missing something?Ccrrccrr (talk) 10:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I do believe dump truck should be split. And, until dump truck is split, I believe this article should have just a single link to dump truck. Geo Swan (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all of you, yes the multiple links to a single page are retarded and there should be multiple pages, who would like to write haul truck specific articles for each type. Specifically we are talking about haul trucks, not dump trucks. The page should remain as it is with the multiple links for this reason, if a field engineer new to the haul truck world looks here in Wikipedia for the differing configurations, a generic "dump truck" category is unfortunately not going to be very useful, same goes for anyone else looking up the topic. If we were discussing a topic better documented such as pokemon then I would agree with you, but we are working with the construction industry, a poorly documented industry with often tacit and implicit practices only learned through experience. Please maintain the multiple links as they are, unless you are aware of a haul truck met-category configuration not listed. Granite07 (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. As Heavy equipment is already a redirect, disambiguation isn't needed. Cúchullain ^t/c 16:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

---

---

Heavy equipment (construction) → Heavy equipment – More natural and more common title; there is nothing to disambiguate from (Heavy equipment redirects here). bobrayner (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heavy_equipment&oldid=110028285 used to be a separate article. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Current hatnotes deal with any potential confusion. --BDD (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose the loss of useful and entirely harmless precision. The term "heavy equipment" can mean all sorts of things, in all sorts of contexts: on wharves or ships, in space exploration, at airports for loading and unloading, and so on. These have nothing to do with construction. Noetica^Tea? 00:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Could you create a disambiguation page? That'd be useful. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 06:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Lose the gratuitous parenthetical. —  AjaxSmack  03:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Needs disambiguation. "Heavy equipment" could refer to anything. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Disambiguation from what? "'Heavy equipment' could refer to anything." Yeah, but it doesn't, at least not here at Wikipedia and parenthetical disambiguators are used to disambiguate articles at Wikipedia. —  AjaxSmack  23:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, apparently this article title refers only to this particular topic. The Evil IP address (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article lead

The article lead, as currently written, does not reflect the full content and scope of the article. In the lead, all emphasis is on heavy construction vehicles, however a broad variety of types of other heavy equipment is addressed in the article, as well. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Change the "Heavy equipment" title and some of the "Types"?

Title:

I think the title of this article should be changed to reflect that it is primarily about heavy construction equipment (or machinery), and not just heavy equipment.

Although the term "heavy equipment" is often used in relation to construction work, there are other types of "heavy equipment" that are not related to construction and which are not discussed. This includes some agricultural equipment, military equipment and aerospace equipment (like the space shuttle transporter) as just a few examples.

Types:

Also under the "Types" heading there are references to equipment/machines that are not considered heavy equipment ... such as a "skid-steer loader" which is typically a small and relatively light weigh type of equipment.

These types of light construction equipment should be removed, or if it is desired to retain a list of "standard equipment categorization" to then create a separate page (say "construction equipment types" with a link indicating that most types of heavy construction equipment are discussed there.

EagleRJO (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

What about adding the specialized equipment used in highway construction?

Such as the moving bridge spanning multiple lanes of a road that supports a vibrator/planer used to smooth down the concrete during a large continuous pour and the moving structure used to contain sandblasting activities while working on the roadbed.

Mccainre (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Why does the introduction claim 5 equipment systems and then immediately list 6?

I feel as if I’m too retarded to try and actually edit a Wikipedia article but this was just too retarded for me to let slip by. Come on. I can count. Dude says 5 and then lists 6 things. Come on man. I’m too retarded to properly edit this retarded shit but maybe someone can help a tard out and fix this retarded shit. Retarded 2600:1014:B042:440F:6CF6:B502:7D4C:80C9 (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)