Talk:Vacuum truck

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vacuum truck article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Sanitation High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sanitation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sanitation 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.SanitationWikipedia:WikiProject SanitationTemplate:WikiProject Sanitationsanitation articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trucks Mid‑importance

	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.TrucksWikipedia:WikiProject TrucksTemplate:WikiProject TrucksTrucks articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Technology

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.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Merging several pages that talk about the same thing: honeysucker, cesspool emptier, vacuum truck, vacuum tanker

I am proposing to merge all these into one: honeysucker, cesspool emptier, vacuum truck, vacuum tanker

I think the best overarching term would be vacuum tanker and then all the other ones would have a re-direct to there. The different terms used would be mentioned in the new article of course. Also, all relevant content would be merged into the new page. OK? EvM-Susana (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have now merged content from the other pages (honeysucker and cesspool emptier) to here. Have decided that vacuum truck is the better term than vacuum tanker. Will now do re-directs from the other pages. But this page still needs more work, e.g. information on costs and perhaps further examples from around the world. EvM-Susana (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the term "honey wagon" as a manure spreader on farms has not been addressed in these articles. As such a wagon is used to transport solid manure from a barn and then distribute it onto farm land either by pitch fork, or some mechanical mechanism, to which a vacuum truck does not apply. Also the discussion of the term honey wagon is missing the history and use in the agrarian society, as an ox, or horse, drawn wagon. This wagon would have had a specific use and not for other uses such as carrying produce to market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.212.138.181 (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll notify WP:AG for comments. In the mean time; see Manure spreader and my further comments below, but interesting points all the same. Little pob (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honeywagon merge proposal (Oct 2015)

Looks like honeywagon was missed on last year's merges (above). Although honeywagon is the older article, per WP:RECOGNIZABLE and the lack of sources at honeywagon beyond the dictionary definition; I propose that the lead of honeywagon is merged into vacuum truck, where appropriate. A separate proposal to move the section on use in TV and film industry is at portable toilet. Little pob (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominee Little pob (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the same reasons as you described above.EvMsmile (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge. First: the term honey wagon predates the invention of a vacuum truck. The term honey wagon has been re-defined as a slang term to include a vacuum truck dedicated to sewage collection and transport. Second: Vacuum trucks are used to suck up and transport many, many, other liquids, slurries, dry powders, etc. other than sewage. For example they are used to transport flower. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.212.138.181 (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the honeywagon article stands, the content it currently delivers is best served by merging it with vacuum truck and portable toilet. Also, because "honey wagon" has several meanings, across multiple industries, there is no apparent primary topic. Although a broad topic approach could be attempted, they'd likely duplicate content from other articles - hence this merge proposal. As such, if the merge occurs, honeywagon would then be pointed to the honey wagon disambiguation page. Little pob (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merging with vacuum truck sounds good to me but not merging with portable toilet. Instead the article on portable toilet needs more work, as it currently only deals with chemical toilets but there are other types of portable toilets, too (like composting toilets and container-based or cartridge-based mobile toilets (mobile toilet same as portable toilet? Pretty much).EvMsmile (talk) 07:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some time has passed... I would like to go ahead with the merger, in which case I would make honey wagon redirect to vacuum truck - right? EvMsmile (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As it's a synonym, I'd probably point a the redirect to the honey wagon disambig page. Little pob (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean? Could you please go ahead? Any salvagable content from honeywagon (vehicle) needs to be merged first, before creating the redirect. EvMsmile (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

propose reinstatement of deleted citations

@EastIrving: The citations deleted in the edit of 16:37, 22 April 2024 do not refer to a blog. They refer to pages on the website of a manufacturer and/or supplier of equipment of the type described, and the citations directly support the immediately preceding statements made in the article.

As it stands, there are now unsupported claims which previously had been supported by those citations, so I don't think this article can really be left in its current state. Fabrickator (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I would recommend we link to a more credible, neutral resource such as https://hydroexcavation.com/information/. The previously cited manufacturer website seemed like more of an SEO/self-serving article. EastIrving (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the citations without removing the corresponding claims, so you evidently don't believe that the claims are either doubtful or harmful. Perhaps this is not the perfect source, though I think it's quite credible, especially given the general nature of the claims involved, Thus, I will be reinstating the citations. (If you want to use the source you suggested, we can tussle over that, but you need to establish that your proposed source actually supports the claims made.) If you still believe that the source is lacking, then you are free to add {{better source needed}} following the applicable citations. Fabrickator (talk) 01:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok EastIrving (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]