Talk:Long reach excavator

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering 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.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Civil engineering

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering 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.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCE articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

First long reach machine

I'm having trouble finding much on the history of the development of long reach excavators. Kocurek mentions building demolition machines from 1992, and developing an earlier long reach excavator for use in dredging by the UK water board in the 1970s, but I don't get the impression that these were the first. -- Solipsist 08:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This link (http://www.geo-solutions.com/equipment/excavator-attachments.asp) was just added to excavator. Although a commercial page, it shows the use of long-arm excavators for the construction of slurry walls. Don't think it'll help with the history, but it might be useful background for this page.

--EdJogg 15:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poor form

Article at present starts off with who first coined the term, and where the first machine was made... on and on. But 99.99% of wikipedia articles begin with a basic definition, like "A Long reach excavator is a machine that does X,Y,Z". Who first coined the term usually appears about halfway down the page in a section called "Entymology". This is very unusual. But it's not better. It's worse. After reading a while I still don't know what the thing is and that's why I came here. I'm all for innovation but this just looks like unthink. Friendly Person (talk) 02:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]