Talk:Scania AB

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Trucks (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trucks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Trucks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Buses (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bus transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Technology (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
WikiProject Companies (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sweden (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Germany  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Brands (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

U.S. market[edit]

What's striking about such a global corporation is that Scania is entirely missing in the states. If I'm not misinformed Scania sold trucks here in the states in the 80's and 90's. The effort failed due to poor sales networks and overly heavy trucks. A section on this should definitely be included in the article, I could do it if I find the time. Also, the article is very poorly referenced. --Relrel (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It was mostly due to them trying to sell whole trucks when US market is more geared towards buying parts of trucks. The other problem was that they kept their European program and thus didn't adapt to the very different laws governing trucks lengths. The fact that the front of the truck can be much longer in the US should create a different layout.
They do have plans to get back into the US market, buy teaming up with companies that are already in the market and selling major parts like engines. 81.27.8.181 (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC) Soss

Scania is sold to Volkswagen Group[edit]

Today (3-3-2008) Volkswagen Group purchased some stocks from Scania i believe from MAN, and is now the biggest shareholder of Scania, i dont know if this is worth mentioning.

I dont have any online resources but i overheard it in the Scania factory in The Netherlands (Zwolle) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.106.14.201 (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Rename article?[edit]

I suggest the article to be renamed since it does not follow wikipedia principles according to the following two principles:

  1. The Wikipedia principles state that the articles should be named after the most used name. That 'Scania' and not 'Scania AB' is the most common name can easily be backed up by a google search for 'Scania AB' vs 'Scania', where 'Scania' by far gets more hits.
  2. As the wikipedia naming convention states, the 'AB' should not be part of the article name if it concerns a company (quote: 'The legal status of the company (in English: Corp., plc, Inc. or LLC; similar statuses in other languages that can come either after or before the company name), is not normally included, i.e. Microsoft or Wal-Mart. When disambiguation is needed, legal status, main company interest or "(company)" can be used to disambiguate') Birtitia (talk) 11:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. The article is housed at Scania AB because an article named Scania already exists. As that article also covers a significant subject, the very guideline you invoke above (When disambiguation is needed, legal status, main company interest or "(company)" can be used to disambiguate) comes in to play. Gr1st (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Defence: There are many articles whith the same name ('MAN', for instance)- that is why there are disambiguation pages. The article should have the name most commonly used by people. I found it utterly confusing that I couldn't reach scania before I realized that it was called 'scania ab´. Birtitia (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've boldy moved it. AB is meaningless to all but a few editors. MickMacNee (talk) 12:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Keltruck[edit]

the biggest retailer in britain is keltruck —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.109.115 (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Improving Scania article[edit]

It's a shame to see this article looking a bit unloved - so I'm doing what I can to improve it. The Crunchy Nutter Talk 10:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Since when St Petersburg is in Asia?![edit]

Since when St Petersburg is in Asia?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.21.146 (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Revenue Etc...[edit]

Some European countries invert the use of commas and periods in their monetary conventions. in this article it lists:

Revenue SEK 62,074 million (2009)[5]

Operating income SEK 2,473 million (2009)[5]

Profit SEK 3,365 million (2009)[5]

Total assets SEK 98,451 million (2009)[5]

Total equity SEK 23,303 million (2009)[5]


It should really read 62.074 million, alternatively the original number given would more properly mean 62.074 billion. or is a way to express the difference between the American Billion and the English Millard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.190.67 (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your complaint. The numbers expressed are correct and use the "Anglophone" thousand separator (a comma). Gr1st (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the English WP convention is to use comma separators every 3 digits in non-scientific articles (WP:MOSNUM), and 62,074 million = 62.074 billion, (using this convention, and 1 billion = 109) so the numbers are still correct. Letdorf (talk) 12:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC).