Talk:Scania AB

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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. (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 (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)


the biggest retailer in britain is keltruck —Preceding unsigned comment added by (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 (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 (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).

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Scania AB. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Scania-Vabis and Scania AB are the same (merge proposal)[edit]

The change from Scania-Vabis to Scania was nothing more than a rebranding of the exact same company, so I don't really see why there should be a separate article for it. There seems to have been some kind of misconception about it being a major change, like in 1911, but the only major change apart from the name was the launch of a new range of trucks, which was probably what made the company do something about it. There also seems to be some impression that the name change had anything to do with the Saab-Scania merger, but that is not possible. According to a book written about the norwegian Scania distributor in 1995, the new name and new range were presented for dealers and the press on 15−16 February 1968. (I'm not entirely sure if these dates were just the Norwegian dates, or if it was in Södertälje too, but if the dates were different, it can't have been too many days before that.) The rebranding campaign was known as "Program Scania" in Norway, but I don't know if that applies also to Sweden and the global market. The SAAB-Scania merger happened on 1 September 1969, which was more than one and a half year after the rebranding. The one thing that I don't know is if the company itself changed their name during that time, or if they actually had the name AB Scania-Vabis up until the merger. But when we don't know that, we should consider the time of the rebranding to be the date that is relevant. So my proposal is to merge the content of the Scania-Vabis article into the Scania AB article and keep it as a redirect.

What is NOT the same as Scania AB is Maskinfabriks-aktiebolaget Scania, the company that existed in Malmö between 1900 and 1911. Well, I could accept it being considered the same, but then Vabis would also need to be that. Even if the headquartes were in Malmö the first year or two and that truck manufacturing continued there for another 15 years, the current company is, the way I see it, much more a continuation of Vabis than of the old Scania. So I also suggest that we consider 1911 to be the inception year of the current company and that history prior to that is primarily kept in their own articles. I think that Scania would agree to 1911 being the start year, or otherwise they wouldn't have celebrated their 100th anniversary so boldly in 2011. It seems however that they did so too in 1991 (for Vabis), and I see that they are celebrating the 125th anniversary this year. If they celebrated a 100th anniversary in 2000 too is unknown to me, but I find it likely that they did. There is a nice (but relatively short) article about Maskinfabriks-aktiebolaget Scania in Swedish. I could translate it, but I'm a bit reluctant when I don't have access to its original sources. (I don't really know how to use "blind" references when tranlating an article from one language to another.) Bergenga (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Since there seems to be no objections on the merging, I will go ahead with it soon. (I didn't really expect it to be controversial anyway.) Then I'll probably do the other things mentioned, making an article for Maskinfabriks-aktiebolaget Scania and probably improving the Vabis article a bit. Then just keep a short summary of pre-1911 stuff in the main article. Bergenga (talk) 08:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)