Talk:Cross-docking

message: What is "correct" way to spell it: crossdock, cross-dock or cross dock? Nsaa 11:05, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
: Two articles in the current version crossdock and cross-docking. Merge these articles? Nsaa 11:17, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that these pages should be merged. Seems do be done already.
What about the cross-docking with respect to ocking algorithms? No information about that on this page?
What are "ocking" algorithms? I don't think this page has much to do with drug design. Perhaps a disambiguation page is needed?
The last section of this entry really needs work. It isn't explained well; the 'systems' reference is unclear (does it refer to IT systems?); and it includes jargon (what is a KPI?). 12:35 PDT, August 2, 2006
The last section contians Apple Singh as a factor... Apple Singh is no factor... Why is it mentioned here? In-fact Apple Singh has no meaning. It is someone's name
KPI-> is Key performance Index. Its a way of measuring performance of a system. KPI is not a jargon. It is a well known management abbreviation
This seems to read more like a press release for Wal-mart than an encyclopedic entry. Sndtech (talk) 02:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cross-docking

message: What are the differences or similarities between cross-docking and transloading and team track?  Is one or two of things a subset of the other?  Is there a way we could link these pages and clarify them?  Is it possible that we might need to merge some or all of these pages and have these things as subsets?  Give me your opinion on how we want to clean this up.  As an example, this page for Adrian and Blissfield Rail Road's Lansing and Jackson Railroad lists all three of these under "services" seemingly implying that there are three distinct and seperate services.  In that case, none of these pages need to be merged, but after reading all three, I'm having a very difficult time telling the difference between these rail services. --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone? --Criticalthinker (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cross-docking, transloading and team tracks 

message: is a new editor who has written books that might be useful in this article.  The fact that he is the author creates a conflict of interest, so I reverted his changes and asked him to use the talk page to collaborate.
I don't have the time to do justice to his willingness to help out.
Please read his note to me on his talk page at User talk:Johnjvogt#Please avoid using Wikipedia for self-promotion and the edit I undid in the article page history. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 20:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for collaborators to work with a new editor who is a domain expert 

message: The correct way to spell is cross-dock for the facility.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnjvogt (talk • contribs) 21:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cross-dock" vs "Cross-docking" (was: Message of 21:54 15 December 2020) 

message: I have read your comments. I responded to the spelling of cross-dock, and i liked the update on shape vs size, although that is somewhat beyond most readers. I present a far more detailed article for your comments. Please comment on this article and lets enhance what is currently published!! 
 
Contents
Concept and Understanding
Definition [1]
Types of Cross-Dock[1].
Success factors for cross-docks
Type of sortation in the cross-dock
Physical facility layout – size and shape
Management of and Improvements in a cross-dock
Johnjvogt (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be a few days or even the weekend but I'll look at this.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 22:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

text: I've converted John's suggested article to use Wikipedia's markup and put it up at Draft:Cross-docking. Because it is in draftspace, there is no problem with WP:COI for  to edit that text. The main neutrality issue that I see with this text, apart from the desirability of broadening reflist a bit, is that assertions about best practices need either to be supported by a consensus of experts or to be attributed as someone's opinion. There's a minor issue: the 6th source listed above is not cited; what claim does the source support? Generally, though, this looks like good material to work with and I think all the sources can be used. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enhanced article on Cross-Docks 

message: Improved article
I have done a number of updates to the "Improved Article" as below from the valuable comments. It is intriguing to see some of the issues I missed in the first draft, so these have improved the article. If there are no major issues outstanding, how do we move this into the article so we are improving Wikipedia, or finally improve it so it can be moved???
Johnjvogt (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment of 22 December 2020 

message: A domain expert with a conflict of interest has proposed a rewrite, see the sections above.
He has asked if this rewrite is ready.  "Two heads are better than one" and our "collective intelligence" is better than just two or three of us.  I'm asking the editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Business, Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems to give this a once-over.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 13:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks David, I fully agree with yoy restoring the article, here, last month. It would be best for  to take it one step at the time, start with one section and leave the intro as it is. -- Mdd (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

text: I think a section-at-a-time approach is a good suggestion. I'm concerned that  has referenced the new material with sources he's authored. ~Kvng (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

text: I, for one, am not worried about a temporarily discordant article. I don't think anyone is saying that your refs cannot be included. What we're saying is that there's a WP:COI in your doing so and so additional review is required and that's why we're asking you to introduce the changes incrementally instead of all at once. ~Kvng (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid I have reverted your replacement of the lead. You've changed the topic from a focus on the practice to facilities - I don't see justification for this and I don't see it as a clear improvement. I found the first paragraph of the old lead easy to understand. I found the first paragraph of the new lead difficult to get through. When I suggested a section-by-section approach I had hoped you were going to read the existing material and make improvements to it. Instead, you want to do a wholesale replacement. Rewrite is necessary in some cases but if the article is in a reasonable and balanced starting place, correcting and copyediting the existing text is the better way to go, especially when we're negotiating a WP:COI. ~Kvng (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Readers should not have to read the body to understand the lead. You acknowledge that your new lead was confusing in spots. Can you focus on those issues? ~Kvng (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

text: thank you for making improvements to your rewrite. On the whole, I still find it inferior to the existing article. We are looking for edits that make net improvements to articles. Although the rewrite does make improvements in some areas, it also makes things significantly worse in others. I have reverted the replacement again. I suggest we make incremental improvements to the existing article using content from your rewrite. I will attempt to get started on this. ~Kvng (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informal request for comment - replace article? 

message: The draft at Draft:Cross-docking has not been edited in 5 months and will be a CSD Wikipedia:G13 candidate in a month. Are there any objections to merging the draft as it stands? To preserve the history, this action must be performed by an admin. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a comment to the draft. This modification extends its life another 6 months. We can do this again and again if necessary: WP:NODEADLINES. The material from  has problems that have not been resolved. Some of it may be usefully incorporated into the article and it does not have to be done by an administrator; The material was originally contributed in this article and this talk page so attribution requirements are already satisfied. ~Kvng (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to choose