Talk:Forklift

{{WikiProject Technology|class=C |B-Class-1=

Forklift training in the UK

I have added a paragraph explaining that the plethora of training schemes offered in the UK and believed by many people in the industry to be a legal requirement are not so, despite what the training organisations (ie the people SELLING the training) may say. The entire section wants reworking significantly, or at least most of the assertions need referencing. I may do this another day. Midlandstoday (talk) 23:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article becoming too brand specific

While it's great that editors want to add information to the article, I would urge caution about adding excessive information regarding one brand of forklift. If the article begins pushing Toyota, Clark or other brands the information may have to be removed. Specific information should probably be added to the pages for the brand in question.Shinerunner (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention WP:Undue weight. I totally agree. -- œ ^™ 20:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Top-pick lift truck for heavy shipping containers

Anyone have information on those really large forklifts that can lift fully loaded shipping containers? I've heard them referred to as "top-picks" because it lifts the container from the top by latching on to the corners of the container using a twistlock, so in a sense they're not really forklifts because they don't use forks but they should still be mentioned in this article. -- œ ^™ 05:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not mentioned in the Container crane article either.. and it's similar to a Straddle carrier but not quite.. -- œ ^™ 05:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that the one brand my company sells, Linde, makes that type of lift. I'll see if I can get some information on their version. In my area the straddle carrier seems to be the type used for moving containers at the railyards.Shinerunner (talk) 10:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two types of forklift based container handlers, being laden container handlers and empty container handlers. Laden are generally top-pick and empty side-pick. That's the terminology I'm used to here in Australia anyway.

The container handling attachments can either be dedicated (ie permanent) or fork-mounted. In this way, container handlers are still pretty much "big forklifts" but with a specialised attachment. Thepm (talk) 06:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blanked two requests for information on Forklift Training Certification. Do we have an article on this? If not, we should look at adding one. Note that there are at least three Editors who are using this area (forklifts, industrial electric vehicles, and things like this) to try and spam for their company, so if you do find an article check it carefully to make sure it isn't designed as an advertising page. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 04:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Names in the first sentence

The first sentence is wrong. The following are not generic names for forklifts.

high/low - usually used to describe a powered walk behind low level (6") pallet lifter
stacker-truck - usually used to describe a powered walk behind pallet lifter
trailer loader - usually used to describe a powered walk behind pallet lifter with large wheels for use over dock plates
sideloader - powered side loading fork lift for handling long loads like pipes
fork hoist - this is a new one - I've never, ever heard it used anywhere in North America
towmotor - was the name of a company that was purchased by Caterpillar in 1965

Towmotor should probably be added back in under the history section. We need to add a section on types, Sideloader should be included there. A section on nonclementure would probably be an excellent addition as well. Note that I'm in the middle of getting some books together, and may not be around a lot for the next month or so. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial Trucks

Someone started an "Industrial trucks" page. I've setup a redirect to this page. Looking at what they had, there is nothing that isn't already here, but just in case I'm missing something, here is the total text of the page.

I'll leave the text here until October 1, 2011, after which I'll delete it. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been no comment, and it's now October 4, 2011, I'm deleting the information. Remember that you can still access it by looking at the page history. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

The editor who was responsible for the Industrial Trucks page was rather upset that I had merged it, and proceeded to split it. I discussed the reason for the split with him or her, and pointed out the ways that the page did not meet Wikipedia standards. Effectively it was an advertisement page with links to a couple of companies. I then re-wrote the page, removing the links to the companies, and wikified it. I discussed the reasons why I re-wrote the page, and why Wikipedia isn't a place for advertisements.

This apparently upset the editor. He or she then blanked the page. Another editor restored it. He or she blanked it a second time with a template requesting immediate deletion stating that only one editor had worked on the page (not true, I had also worked on it) and had no intention of working on it further.

I Reverted the page back to where it redirected to the forklift page. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturer's worldwide ranking

The current information that we have here is from 2008, which makes it nearly four years old. I've got the information for 2010 which is marginally newer, and I'm adding it in. If anyone can find the 2011 information, please update the page. If the page isn't kept up to date it will look like a joke. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, everything is added. I used a sortable table, so that you can sort by City, Country, 2008 ranking, 2009 ranking, etc. I also decided to be nasty, and put wiki links in for EVERY manufacturer and their brands. Thought I'd give you guys a little something to do, since it looks like we are missing entries on a lot of this stuff (or possible in some cases I may have typed in the names wrong, in which case could you please correct the wording). I have some paid writing to do, so I'm out of here for the day. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing a large amount of material from this section which is non-neutral and makes heavy use of second person. I also added ref tags for the Modern Materials report and changed the link descriptions to conform to WP:CLICKHERE. Nick Number (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that nice. Why didn't you bother to leave a note stating what you were removing? UrbanTerrorist (talk) 22:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UL 583

Added a section to cover the UL 583 standard. Also added a request for citation because I only dropped in for a minute (this is New Years Eve....) I may or may not be back for a couple of weeks, but the information on UL 583 is in the same place as the information on UL 558. I probably shouldn't write the entry because I used to sit on the steering committee for both standards. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 22:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links section pruning

I'm inclined to remove almost all except http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2001-109/ I don't know the subject well, so if you're so inclined, please zap them. Thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only one removed? Hmmmm, I see plenty more that just direct to the homepage of a commercial site. Others have info that would better be in the article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC) I[reply]