User talk:Spicoli
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Unitrans bus pages
I was considering renaming your individual bus pages -- Unitrans RT4735 should probably just be RT 4735 or similar. The number, especially for the DDs, isn't specific to Unitrans, and someone could potentially add details of their lives pre- or post-Unitrans ownership. Thoughts? PxT 17:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmmmm.... good point. The RT's are probably a special case because they retained their original numbers and have such a widespread interest, but what about the Daimlers, the RLH's, or any of the other secondhand buses? I think that it's a good idea at least for the RT's, but if the change gets made some more London-specific information should probably be added to those pages. One possible interim step would be to include links to each of the RT pages on the AEC Regent III RT page, but on the AEC Regent III RT page make the Unitrans links read just to show the RT# (like you suggest above). Then, as the pages mature and more London-specific info is added, I suspect that somebody will change the names at that point. Spicoli 06:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] SPAM at Walnut Creek
Adding a link to a blog as a footnote in the Walnut Creek article is spamming. It's been removed once before, but giving the benefit of the doubt, I'll not press the issue this time. But after a warning, you can be blocked for continued spamming of articles. --Kevin Murray 23:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding you comemnts at my talk page. (WP does not allow self-published blog information about a subject as a viable source, this is a pretty well tested precedent. I appologize if you made an error in good faith and I jumped on you. If you don't try to return that info. to the page, we will have no problems. --Kevin Murray 02:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Compromise: I'll leave it alone at his article, but please keep it out of WC. If you have a newpaper article which references his residence put that there, but no one is questioning any of the "celebrities" in the list, but the blog note stands out like a wart on a sore thumb. I'll bet we are neighbors here in the Creek, so let's work together. Sorry to have offended you, just following procedures; the spam patrol is more brutal. Cheers! Kevin --Kevin Murray 02:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] == The [citation needed] tag in re: the Phantom's design ==
I'm actually working on finding where I read that. I know that when Gillig launched the Phantom in 1980 they were actually trying their hardest to keep their school bus product line alive by re-inventing the design of the Transit Coach (the rounded-body school bus that actually built the company's reputation as a strong bus builder today). Years ago - not too long after I launched my website, I received copies of one of the last brochures Gillig ever offered of the Transit Coach school bus product lineup, and it featured the Transit Coach design with heavy modifications done to both the front and rear of the bus body that looked almost like the Phantom (think slightly more rounded in the front end, but generally pretty close to a Phantom in design), and indicated that the new "design" was to be unveiled sometime in 1980 or 1981. It hinted at many features that Gillig ended up ultimately including in the Phantom, such as the cradle-mounted Detroit Diesel 6V92 and Allison automatic transmission, and larger tires among other things. If you actually look close at a Phantom, especially an early model, you can actually see that the roof curve at the front roofcap leading down to the destination sign follows the exact same curve as the older round-body Transit Coach buses did.
I also know that when the Phantom made its debut, it featured a lot of the Transit Coach's design cues, especially the dashboard/instrument panel, and the stepwells (back then, integrated wheelchair lifts weren't available on the Phantom)
Gillig was also still using the "Oval" emblem as its corporate logo (from the school bus era)when the Phantom made its debut, and I've actually seen at least six early-eighties Phantoms bearing the older "Oval" emblem - built before Gillig stopped the practice of putting emblems on their buses. One of them even actually had the smaller "black emblem" that Gillig installed on the interior front bulkhead - above the windshield - of their school buses.Srosenow 98 (talk) 11:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Gillig Transit Coach model numbers
It was sporadic, but I've seen "D" on some of them. Srosenow 98 (talk) 06:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- As for the VTF555-series, that was the official name of the lineup, according to brochure and service manual literature I have. Srosenow 98 (talk) 06:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- As for the "-D", as in "855DT-16" and the like, the D denoted what type of bus body. Back in the '60s and '70s, the school bus industry began using letter designations for body types, with A and B being cutaway chassis bodies, C being conventional, and D being full forward control transit-type bodies. Gillig adopted the practice early on, with some of their buses built in the late 1950s bearing the "D", especially the 534D and some sporadic occurrances on the 590s and the 501s. Having said that, the D was almost never present on serial number tags.
-
-
-
- As for the "-13", that denoted how many rows of seating. For example, a VTF555DT-13 denotes a Gillig Transit Coach equipped with a Cummins VTF555 diesel, with 13 rows of seats (for a passenger capacity of 79 elementary students, or 67 high school students respectively). An 855DT-16 denotes a Gillig Transit Coach equipped with a Cummins NHH250, 290, 335, 350 inline-six horizontally mounted diesel engine, with 16 rows of seating for a total of 97 elementary school students, or 75 high school students respectively (that 97 passenger capacity was reduced to 90 following the new safety standards that went into effect in April of 1977)
-
-
-
- I agree on how poorly-recognized Gillig's own history is to the company itself. They only mention a brief instance of school buses in their own "Gillig Story" despite the fact that their Transit Coach school bus is practically the cornerstone of the company's foundation, and they built their reputation as a solid bus builder off of the Transit Coach, not the Phantom, Low Floor, or any of their transit bus offerings. Now, it's as if they want nothing to do with their past, especially the fact that they were a solid, rather significant player in the school bus industry for over 75 years. Would you believe, that they actually DESTROYED all historical data dating prior to 1993! They actually destroyed all of their production lists (full production order lists of the Transit Coach school bus dating back to the 40s, nearly every single brochure, etc), and any historical document the company had to that time. That's why I run GilligCoaches.NET now. I'm trying to reverse that. I have enough material to write a lengthy book, but I doubt any publisher would pick it up. Srosenow 98 (talk) 09:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah. I'd say add the specifics, and see what happens from there. If need be, I'll provide anything I can to it. As for the "DT" designation, I'm not sure what the "T" stood for, but I was told it stood for "tandem-axle." ... Having seen "DT" on models that weren't tandems, I'm now wondering what the meaning of the "T" means, and I've yet to find anything with a legend of sorts. Srosenow 98 (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree on how poorly-recognized Gillig's own history is to the company itself. They only mention a brief instance of school buses in their own "Gillig Story" despite the fact that their Transit Coach school bus is practically the cornerstone of the company's foundation, and they built their reputation as a solid bus builder off of the Transit Coach, not the Phantom, Low Floor, or any of their transit bus offerings. Now, it's as if they want nothing to do with their past, especially the fact that they were a solid, rather significant player in the school bus industry for over 75 years. Would you believe, that they actually DESTROYED all historical data dating prior to 1993! They actually destroyed all of their production lists (full production order lists of the Transit Coach school bus dating back to the 40s, nearly every single brochure, etc), and any historical document the company had to that time. That's why I run GilligCoaches.NET now. I'm trying to reverse that. I have enough material to write a lengthy book, but I doubt any publisher would pick it up. Srosenow 98 (talk) 09:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:John Nejedly (1969).jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:John Nejedly (1969).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)