Talk:Oshkosh Corporation

message: Sorely needs an image :( --Wulf 04:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The building pictures Royalbroil added help, and I found these military trucks elsewhere in Wikipedia.  If someone cound find some examples of their commercial trucks (there's room for at least two more pics), that would be great. --Maxrandom777 06:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs Image 

message: Oshkosh Truck is now Oshkosh Corporation. Does anyone know how to change the title of the article? Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.42.42 (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to be logged in to move, so I moved it. Thanks for the heads up! Royalbroil 02:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Change 

message: I'm a bit concerned about the removal of sourced information that is occurring with the rewrite that User:Khoxtell is doing to the article. (diff 1, diff 2, etc.) In a recent edit summary, the editor stated that the information will be included later. I'll wait a couple days in good faith to see if that happens, but otherwise I don't see the harm in leaving correct, sourced information stay there until a new section is created.--BaronLarf 15:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And you can add that after the Defense Dept reviewed their contract, that it decided to keep the bid awarded to Oshkosh . Royalbroil 04:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent rewrite of article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Oshkosh Corporation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090318140231/http://oshkoshcorporation.com:80/about/company_history~timeline.cfm to http://www.oshkoshcorporation.com/about/company_history~timeline.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Folks I shortened one of the lenghty lists here just to give a hint. WP is not a sales catalogue, and pure list information is not helpful. This is an encyclopedia, mention each product together with a description and we're fine. Just reverting it to the list will not do. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought if most of the items in the list linked to other related Wiki pages, that would be OK? It's interlinking valid content, isn't it? But no worries, over the coming weeks I will chip away and a few words for each product and see how that goes.--Wolpat (talk) 09:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Have you ever seen contractual details in a traditional encyclopedia? Britannica? Americana? World Book? Not every principle of editing Wikipedia is codified in a rule. 32.218.35.71 (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Never really looked is the honest answer. That said, they do appear across Wiki. And that's why I add them. So if there's no rule to say 'don't' then I'd speculate it's considered OK, and on the basis of that my proposal is to return the details and, if you wish, then throw the topic open to the wider Wiki community. If they don't like the idea, then they go. How's that sound?--Wolpat (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Somewhere here in Wikipedia (can't find it at the moment) is a guideline stating that "everyone else is doing it" is not a sufficient rationale for inclusion. How about if you open it up for comment before you re-add it to the article? (I'd also add that you seek the comments of general readers/editors, rather than specialists in military matters or equipment.) 32.218.35.71 (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

text: I've had another go at the amount and type of detail included as some think it's to much, while the original was not enough. Any thoughts? These OK? They're kind of a happy medium - hopefully...--Wolpat (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think that tweaking a few terms here and there solves the problem with this section, you really don't understand the issue brought up by Bernd.Brincken and expanded by me. As the tags suggest, the section "focuses too much on specific examples", rather than on an encyclopedic description of the topic. Look at General Motors, for example. That article could easily descend into long, detailed lists of makes, models, and features, but instead it uses descriptive paragraphs to discuss the brands and makes under its name. That's what needs to happen here; the entire section needs to be rewritten as descriptive text. 32.218.38.49 (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go with I don't understand then... How converting a list with a brief descriptor into paragraphs of rambling text would improve things, I've no clue. And I say that simply because most of the items in the list have pages of their own, and so can be linked to for a decent read if required. All of that said, life is far too short to lose too much sleep over what is best here. If I'm bored one day I may have a go at a re-write and see what I think, or if you are bored (and doing this would clearly get your vote...), maybe you could. Or even that other fella?? Random thoughts.--Wolpat (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No one suggested "paragraphs of rambling text". A single paragraph of concise text would do. I'm not sure why you feel that every single model of equipment needs to be specifically mentioned in the text. If you want to link to other individual pages, use the See also section. That's what it's for. 32.218.38.49 (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Wolpat, if there is no such a big story to be told about Oshkosh compared to GM, that's fine. But then the article will just be shorter. Compensating for the lack of a story by listing product details is not the way to go for an encyclopedia (read that article if you care). Otherwise someone might come up with the same idea for a company like Würth - they produce screws .. and trust me it's a universe on its own ;) --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  List like a catalogue