Talk:Freight

message: This is a common American Shipping issue and the article is outstanding and informative in its current form. I suggest those who are critical of it have no need for the information provided 12.2.142.13 (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too American 

message: A total rewrite is required, as others have pointed out, it's far to USA centric, prices quoted could now be out of date and thus miss-leading (never mind only referring to USD), whilst weights and measures are given in US measurements when they should be in international ISO units and cross referenced to a conversion chart/article.(SouthernElectric 09:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total Rewrite? 

message: it may be hard to edit this topic to focus on a more global standard. this is because it is typically harder to find information on this subject in other countries. the U.S. has clearly defined regulations pertaining to freight transport.
i would leave the subject matter as is.--70.51.184.192 (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total Rewrite - Not necessary 

message: I removed the beginning of this article, as it was advertisement/promotion for the "freight watch group".  To reflect Wikipedia's purpose of presenting facts, not teaching them, I removed the summary from this article.  It was pedagogical, not fitting for an encyclopedia article. The rest of the article still has issues..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.251.22 (talk) 04:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed text 

message: I think the Truckload carrier, Less than truckload, Cargo, and Bulk cargo articles should be incorporated/redirected into this one. They all cover the same topics. Also, "cargo" and "freight" are the same thing... the rest of these articles cover different types of freight. I think it would be more efficient to incorporate all of them into one article. Anyone disagree? ErgoSum88 (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no strong views on Truckload carrier or Less than trucklload, though Less than truckload seems a pretty substantial article in its own right. I strongly oppose merging Bulk Cargo, which has a specific meaning as one of the five major types of shppping cargo. A merge with a generalised term like freight would be extremely unhelpful in ports-related articles where the term is used to explain particular port operations.  Euryalus (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bulk cargo needs an expansion to properly outline what bulk cargo is, rather than a merge. Merging it into a more general article will make it impossible to use as a wikilink when describing what a bulk cargo port is, requiring an explanation of bulk cargo on every ports page instead of referring to a centralised article. How about I rewrite bulk cargo in the next few days and then we have another look at it.  Euryalus (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: Not a good idea.  My 15 years experience in LTL, TL and parcel has shown me LTL is a closer cousin to Parcel... still not the same animal though.  Putting LTL and TL together though might be similar to merging shark with whale... the look the same from the outside looking in but are totally different on the inside including operations, margins, difficulty of entry into the market, etc.  If I knew more about TL I'm sure I could go on.  Most of my experience is LTL and what I read in that section was accurate... I found no inaccuracies in my first reading of it. Cabello (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion was not to merge TL and LTL, but to merge them here here into "Freight." Considering they are both relatively short articles that cover some of the same topics. It would make more sense to have them as subsections of this article rather than having their own articles, considering they are both types of "freight." On top of that, all of these articles are poorly written, and are not encyclopedic in content. These article could do with a complete rewrite and re-organization. It would not be like merging "shark" with "whale" but it would be like merging "shark" and "whale" together with "marine life." My issue was not that the information was "inaccurate" but that the information was redundant. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging LTL and TL