SgWiki:Citaro Classification (Poll/Discussion) - Revision history

Supernutorcrazy at 12:22, 14 April 2020

2020-04-14T12:22:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:22, 14 April 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
			__NOTOC__
	{\| class="warning_red" style="margin:0 auto 10px;width:60%" cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0		{\| class="warning_red" style="margin:0 auto 10px;width:60%" cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0
	!width=70 height=50 bgcolor=#FEE rowspan=2\|<div class="triangle">!</div>		!width=70 height=50 bgcolor=#FEE rowspan=2\|<div class="triangle">!</div>

2020-04-14T12:22:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:22, 14 April 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{\| class="warning_red" style="margin:0 auto 10px;width:60%" cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0
			!width=70 height=50 bgcolor=#FEE rowspan=2\|<div class="triangle">!</div>
			!style="font-size:150%;"\|<u>POLL ENDED</u>
			!width=70 height=50 bgcolor=#FEE rowspan=2\|<div class="triangle">!</div>
			\|-
			\|style="text-align:center"\|<big>The poll had been closed.</big>
			\|}

	To all existing active editor,		To all existing active editor,

2020-04-03T00:09:13Z

← Older revision	Revision as of 08:09, 3 April 2020
(No difference)

2020-04-02T23:58:34Z

Protected "SgWiki:SgWiki:Citaro Classification (Poll/Discussion)" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))

← Older revision	Revision as of 07:58, 3 April 2020
(No difference)

2020-04-02T23:58:27Z

← Older revision	Revision as of 07:58, 3 April 2020
(No difference)

2018-01-03T01:51:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:51, 3 January 2018
Line 211:		Line 211:

	I feel that the SMRT and SBST speced Citaros should be classified separately. The current classification is good enough, and since SMRT and SBST had "different choices" of purchasing them, I feel that it is best to leave it as they are. While for the SBST classification of the 24 citaros, shall leave it to the rest.		I feel that the SMRT and SBST speced Citaros should be classified separately. The current classification is good enough, and since SMRT and SBST had "different choices" of purchasing them, I feel that it is best to leave it as they are. While for the SBST classification of the 24 citaros, shall leave it to the rest.

			==Opinion #7 - LEMON1974==

			Hope i am not too late... as per stated in one of my reply in Sgforum, there is a almost 1000 unit gap between the 24 units (6819-6821, 6509-6529) VIN(chassis number) , as compare to batch 2 and batch 3, unlike someone who said that the Vin for these 24 units are close to the batch 3 units.

			Batch 2 Vin end at ***6634
			these 24 units start at *7655 and end at *7678
			Batch 3 Vin start at ****8566

			further the engine number of these 24 units are within the range of the batch 2... so this 24 units should be under Batch 2 (additional orders).

			as for the 2nd point, best is to split the batch between SMB/SBST citaros...

2017-12-29T11:57:55Z

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 Please share your honest opinion below so that all editors could conclude with a common definition of the batches.
 ==Opinion #1 - Thefoodie==
 Hi,<br />

2017-12-29T10:47:54Z

Applicant's Skeletal Arguments (Opinion 5 - ASA1234)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:47, 29 December 2017
Line 142:		Line 142:
	Batch 3 - SBS2000M – SBS2004C, SBS6509L – SBS6529D, SBS6550R – SBS6599B, SBS6819S – SBS6821J, SBS6866E – SBS6893B, SG1000G – SG1071B, SG1080A – SG1245S, SG1691L – SG1699R		Batch 3 - SBS2000M – SBS2004C, SBS6509L – SBS6529D, SBS6550R – SBS6599B, SBS6819S – SBS6821J, SBS6866E – SBS6893B, SG1000G – SG1071B, SG1080A – SG1245S, SG1691L – SG1699R

	==Applicant's Skeletal Arguments (~~Opinion 5 -~~ ASA1234)==		==Applicant's Skeletal Arguments (ASA1234)==

	As I am the applicant with regards to the matter of re-classifying 24 Citaros as under Batch 2 instead of under Batch 3, I will put forward my written submissions in support of my position on this issue. I should state at the outset that I agree with the respondent in "Opinion 2" that the 51 Citaros purchased by SMRT should be listed in a single page as "SMB Batch". The 51 Citaros are all under the same order as established since 2011.		As I am the applicant with regards to the matter of re-classifying 24 Citaros as under Batch 2 instead of under Batch 3, I will put forward my written submissions in support of my position on this issue. I should state at the outset that I agree with the respondent in "Opinion 2" that the 51 Citaros purchased by SMRT should be listed in a single page as "SMB Batch". The 51 Citaros are all under the same order as established since 2011.

2017-12-29T10:23:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:23, 29 December 2017
Line 187:		Line 187:

	Add on - looking at the replies above mine, the closest I can find is what 'SMB315C' suggested. His classification in the boxes is exactly what I'm suggesting		Add on - looking at the replies above mine, the closest I can find is what 'SMB315C' suggested. His classification in the boxes is exactly what I'm suggesting

			==Opinion #6 - TIB965Z==

			I feel that the SMRT and SBST speced Citaros should be classified separately. The current classification is good enough, and since SMRT and SBST had "different choices" of purchasing them, I feel that it is best to leave it as they are. While for the SBST classification of the 24 citaros, shall leave it to the rest.

2017-12-29T08:31:19Z

Opinion #5 - SBS9631X

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:31, 29 December 2017
Line 185:		Line 185:

	Just don't re-classify the current SBST Batch 1 Citaros as Batch 2s, because that would affect every single batch naming that comes after that.		Just don't re-classify the current SBST Batch 1 Citaros as Batch 2s, because that would affect every single batch naming that comes after that.

			Add on - looking at the replies above mine, the closest I can find is what 'SMB315C' suggested. His classification in the boxes is exactly what I'm suggesting