Talk:Gillig

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Broken link[edit]

The GilligCoaches.net link appears to be broken. It should either be corrected or removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.131.226.136 (talk • contribs) .

Why don't you be bold and make the changes? SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The GilligCoaches.NET link issue was the result of a drawn-out billing error with my webhosting service. The site is now back online, and more improvements are on the way. User:Srosenow_98

Clients[edit]

Could anyone add a list of clients? Andros 1337 14:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly see the purpose that would serve at this location. I fear it would clutter up this wonderful article. I think if you're going to mention who's got rolling stock from who, the best place to do so is in the article for the transit agency rather than the rolling stock manufacturer. In other words, I find it better to say, "Metrobus has six Flxibles and three Orions" rather than "Flxible sold six buses to Metrobus". See what I mean? SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The New Flyer Industries article has a list of clients, and I don't think there are as many clients of Gillig buses than there are of New Flyer buses. Andros 1337 16:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you are right, however a clients list could pose a problem considering that Gillig's bread and butter has been selling to small and medium sized transit authorities. A list of key Gillig buyers (either 200+ buses or a relationship going back many years) would work, but even listing some of the few-bus agencies that bought a Gillig or two over the years would be unwieldy. New Flyer, on the other hand, has sold to most major authorities in both the U.S. and Canada and such a list is more workable and relevant in their case. Scrabbleship 20:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures[edit]

Does anybody have a picture of a Hybrid Low-Floor or a BRT? If you do, it would be a nice addition to this page (unfortunately the promo shots from Gillig's homepage don't meet Wiki's fair-use policy).

Also, does anybody have any thoughts of maybe putting the bus pictures in a small photo gallery section? I thought about putting one next to each respective model, but that really stretches the page out a bit too much. Spicoli 22:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Galleries, you are talking to Wikipedia's #1 in-article gallery hater right here. Galleries directly in articles are tacky-looking, compared to a simple yet elegant {{Commons}} or {{Commonscat}} link to a gallery on Commons. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just wound reducing the pictures to the standard thumbnail size and putting them next to each model. Seems to work well enough. Spicoli 07:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That has been done. However, poster SchuminWeb (Talk) has rightfully tabled the products section. I have since redone the current section, but the {{Prose}} template was moved to the unfixed discontinued section. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm glad you think highly of my Wiki-skills, I didn't put the products section in table format. In truth, I still don't understand how to make tables in Wiki-code, even after almost three years of being here... SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. It was BWCNY who did it...but you did put it on one of the other bus articles...right? --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No... but I have been active on bus articles in other ways. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am replacing a picture of a bus owned by The Ohio State University with a unit owned by GBTA, because it is a lot clearer that it is of a current model. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's a good idea to have a later model Phantom pictured, but do you happen to have a picture of a bus that isn't wrapped? There are very few newer Phantoms in use by my local transit agencies, so I'm not sure if I'd be able to get one myself. I'm also going to insert your picture of this bus as a second photo because it shows a modern 30-foot model with the more common pop-in side windows (plus it's a nice picture and the table seems better with two photos of each model). Spicoli (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ONLY reason why I am going to remove it, is because that bus is a 96" wide bus (and the 96" model is discontinued). I will search the Commons for a 102" wide shorter bus, and then that would be its replacement. (BTW, for a 102" model, I have 35' models around where I live, and I will use a pic of one as its replacement. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I actually noticed that after I put it up, but I agree with you that only the 102" wide models should be shown in the current section. Spicoli (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As of this point, a 35' model has been placed in. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 05:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discontinued products[edit]

I hate to interject, but I think the only way to properly list the products Gillig has discontinued would be to keep the current "list" setup. I've tried several ways using sandbox methods and utilizing a total rewrite and "Preview" but the results just don't look all that great.

And if we're going to redo the "Current" option (the current version doesn't look as great as it did three days ago IMHO), we should include brief details about each version, such as when it was introduced, etc.Srosenow 98 (talk) 07:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on both points. Spicoli (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, it can always be presented in a TABLLE format, as is done in the Motor Coach Industries, New Flyer Industries, and Orion Bus Industries articles. I didn't, because I don't know introduction and end dates. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Introduction and end dates? What do you want to know? lol. I have a repository of Gillig information at my fingertips that goes back to the company's foundings in 1896. If you can get a good table going in a trial run, let me know and I'll insert the introduction and end dates, plus some minor details about each one. (Provided we're talking about the Transit Coach school bus, other models I don't quite have enough information on, but I do have some reference materials on those as well). Srosenow 98 (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


For what it's worth, I've been working on a tabled version of this, but the "Transit Coach School Bus" is where it gets sticky. Mainly due to the fact that there were just so many versions of it (model-wise) that it's hard to code and make it look right. I ended at the Gillig Neoplan model, with the code in for the header on the "Transit Coach School Bus" part.


Model Length (ft) Picture Introduced Ended Notes
Phantom Hybrid Bus 40, 35, 30 2001 2006 Diesel-electric hybrid version of the Phantom.
Phantom 96" wide Bus 40, 35, 29 1980 2005 The original version of the Gillig Phantom; production ceased due to being outmoded and due to increasing ADA requirements.
Phantom School Bus 37, 40 1986 1993 School Bus version of the Phantom
Spirit 28 198? 198? A 28-foot medium-duty bus offered as lower-cost alternative to the 30-foot long Phantom; produced late 1980s.
Gillig-Neoplan 35, 30 1977 1979 A rear-engined transit bus built as a joint venture with Neoplan, a German bus manufacturer. Available with either diesel or propane engines.
Transit Coach. The Transit Coach school bus was a long-running lineup of school buses offered by Gillig prior to the production of the Phantom.


Feel free to work with it. I spent the better part of three hours tinkering with it trying to get it to look right. I have a feeling, though, that ultimately the list setup *might* work out better, since the way the Transit Coach model designation is split up, it'll be difficult to table it and get it to look right. But, I could very well be wrong. Srosenow 98 (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I took it and ran with it. I also created a new page on the Gillig Transit Coach School Bus, but there's a lot of stuff that needs to be added to that page still. Spicoli (talk) 06:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks damn good to me! I've taken the liberty of uploading what images I could of each model designation (the rest I'm working on) and included the "End" dates to each entry.Srosenow 98 (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gillig's former logos.[edit]

Should we also include Gillig's older, no-longer-used corporate logos to this article? I've got 'em at the ready. I think they'd add a little bit of historical retrospective to the article. Srosenow 98 (talk) 10:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think historical buses, for which it is FAR more likely to have something free (whereas corporate logos are almost always unfree), would add a better historical perspective to the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I somehow disagree. I know that corporate logos fall under the WP:NONFREE guidelines, but I think a Fair Use template would work, since there's only three previous logos the company has used. I know that it's working on the KOMO-TV article, and I think it could work here. In my opinion, if we're going to include some historical data into any article, it should also include at least one or two examples of a company's former logos. Srosenow 98 (talk) 06:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the inclusion of Gillig's former corporate logos would be appropriate and would meet the criteria for fair use. The wikipages on many other vehicle manufacturers such as Dodge, Buick, Oldsmobile, Chrysler, and Volvo include information and images on current and in some cases historic corporate logos, so it seems appropriate here as well. Companies generally consider their logo to be an important part of their image, and for some people it can be one of the first things that they think of then they hear a company mentioned (such as the Flxible logo in my case). Spicoli (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preservation section[edit]

Is it just me, or is it a section that needs to go? it just seems like something like this:

(although for some reason, it won't tag for individual sections)

On top of that, said website that is described at length is no longer functional. While I'm not saying this isn't something that doesn't happen, is this really content that is contributing to the article? --SteveCof00 : Talk 10:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gillig Corporation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gillig&oldid=1207427915"