This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles 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.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
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
The contents of the Bottle jack page were merged into Jack (device). For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
There's little potential for a separate article. Maybe another paragraph or two, so all of the info can fit comfortably inside this one. Besides, there's already info on other jack types here, especially hydraulic jacks. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 17:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a +stub article that has only been in existence for one day. There is plenty of potential for expansion and that is all that is required for an article to remain independent. Zabanio (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please elaborate on this potential. Exactly how large do you expect this stub to get? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 17:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I don't see bottle jack ever becoming a decent sized article. However, it will fit well into this article. Wizard191 (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think it will fit fine within this article - if and when the section gets too big, then consider splitting off. Warren (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge no foreseeable chance of this becoming anything more than a stub. current article can't stand on its own, not least because what little is already there is unsourced. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh...that is because you keep deleting the sources. Zabanio (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No evidence is provided regarding the potential for the topic(s). My impression is that they are all quite under-developed - notice that the merge target currently has zero citations. The various strands of the topic should be developed further rather than stifled so that we will be able to make a proper assessment by reference to the sources. My expectation is that we will have enough material to separate the numerous types of lifting devices by their type of action - wedge, screw, hydraulic, lever, inflatable &c. Warden (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, without a doubt I don't think bottle jack will ever expand to a major sized article. Since, jack (device) already features other kinds, it'll fit in nicely. SwisterTwistertalk 05:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The basic principle for Wikipedia should be that variants of an item are mentioned in the article about the basic item. Only if the text and pictures about the variant becomes so long that it's impractical to keep it in the main article, should a separate article be made. In this case it's just a stub, so merge it with the main article for the time being. Thomas Blomberg (talk) 10:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article should have a paragraph on bumper jacks, which used ratchet-and-pawl technology and were replaced by scissor jacks in the 1970s or thereabouts. —Anomalocaris (talk) 10:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding a link to Mr. Dudgeon's stub page, but feel that the rest of this should be moved over there, too. Unfortunately, none of it is cited. Would anybody object if I moved the biographical material to Dudgeon's page, and kept a sentence saying the floor jack was invented by him (I have no idea if it was, since there's no source. Perhaps that is the first step)
Joecycle (talk) 04:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
