Jump to content

Talk:Timeline of historic inventions: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
Line 404: Line 404:


The whole page is woefully lacking in architecture, both military and civilian, as well as lacking in ship construction. Almost all of the medieval "Islamic" "inventions" were not inventions but just improvments on what already existed. The first real handguns were invented in Italy in 1326. The cannons used at the Siege of Constantinople were built by a Hungarian, not Turks, and were not inventions, they were just big cannons. This page is extememly biased and a shame. This is a page for scientific inventions, not menus and boardgames. I understand that somethings were reinvented/independently invented at various times, but claiming Medieval Muslims "invented' the restaurant is pretty absurd. This page looses all credibility because of religious bias. More importantly, it's just not true. Fireproof clothing was known for centuries before Muslims in the 1200s "invented" it, (Charlemagne had asbestos clothing in the 700s) and there's a lot of debate on the idea of Mamluk slave-warriors using any kind of firearm at Ain Jalut in 1260 (debate as in "this never really happened"). [[User:Gunslinger1812|Gunslinger1812]] ([[User talk:Gunslinger1812|talk]]) 07:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The whole page is woefully lacking in architecture, both military and civilian, as well as lacking in ship construction. Almost all of the medieval "Islamic" "inventions" were not inventions but just improvments on what already existed. The first real handguns were invented in Italy in 1326. The cannons used at the Siege of Constantinople were built by a Hungarian, not Turks, and were not inventions, they were just big cannons. This page is extememly biased and a shame. This is a page for scientific inventions, not menus and boardgames. I understand that somethings were reinvented/independently invented at various times, but claiming Medieval Muslims "invented' the restaurant is pretty absurd. This page looses all credibility because of religious bias. More importantly, it's just not true. Fireproof clothing was known for centuries before Muslims in the 1200s "invented" it, (Charlemagne had asbestos clothing in the 700s) and there's a lot of debate on the idea of Mamluk slave-warriors using any kind of firearm at Ain Jalut in 1260 (debate as in "this never really happened"). [[User:Gunslinger1812|Gunslinger1812]] ([[User talk:Gunslinger1812|talk]]) 07:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

== ==

Revision as of 07:28, 25 May 2009

WikiProject iconHistory List‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.
ListThis article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Inventions qualifying for this list

Wikipedia:Notability: "A list should contain only notable entries"

  • Fundamental breakthrough (No prior art, not just variation)
  • Universal/generic nature (archetype)
  • New brand/product alone does not qualify
  • Apparent contemporary popularity is irrelevant ("Notability is not popularity")
  • Citation in media alone does not mean automatic qualification - relevance comes first

I urge anyone making additions to this list, especially when the immediate past and present is concerned (1990s and 2000s), to better think twice before adding something easily. Have a look at the inventions mentioned here, and what makes them worthy to be included: they represent a fundamental breakthrough, and they are of an universal and generic nature, NOT a new product building upon well-known archetypes, NOT a new brand and NOT a minor variation of existing stuff. The first portable games console, the first digital audio player, the first internet search engine may be entries qualifying for this list (no matter if they are well-known brands/products today or not - popularity is NOT a criteria for this list, and no, the mentioning in a popular magazine is neither), I-Pod, Wii or YouTube are surely not, keeping that in mind. Please give it a thought and maybe put it up for discussion here first if you are unsure. Quantity is not quality. Thank you. Bluebird47 20:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This entire article is currently OR.WolfKeeper 17:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This clearly cannot be a list of all inventions (there's massive numbers of inventions- inventing things is easy- it's inventing something particularly clever or useful that is hard). This is a list of the most important inventions.WolfKeeper 17:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For an item to be on the list we need to reference that the particular invention is considered to be one of the greatest inventions of all time; otherwise the entry should be removed, as by adding it here we are saying that it is especially important, and that is OR and that is not allowed in the wikipedia.WolfKeeper 17:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the article is Timeline of invention, not List of most important inventions. There is nothing in the title to even suggest that the article should only include the most important inventions ever. If you want a list of the most important inventions ever, then you can always create a new article to deal with it, but there is no need to restrict the current article in such a way. If the size of the article is a problem, then it can always be divided into several smaller articles, as it has been suggested in #Splitting page below. Jagged 85 02:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is, because the article becomes unreadable if you include every invention. Basically, any article has to be restricted in scope to be something that can be sensibly covered here. Otherwise we will end up with every patented invention listed here, if it has been mentioned by any news source (and in practice many of them would be paid to mention it behind the scenes). That doesn't work; the wikipedia is not lists. This kind of article only works if you stick to things that are more important than normal, and webmail for example simply doesn't make the cut; it just isn't of the same quality as things that feed people or keep people alive or for which there are no reasonable alternatives; and that's why you won't be able to find a reference to it being a truly important invention.WolfKeeper 17:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest anything that does not and should not have its own a Wikipedia article should be discounted, but other than that, I would be inclined to include most things (excepting variations). -- Beland (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting page

This list has gotten far too long to be readable anymore, and it is difficult to manage (keeping focus on significant inventions). Therefore I propose splitting it into four parts:

  • 1st century BC and before
  • 1st century to 10th century
  • 11th century to 18th century
  • 19th century to present

I first thought of splitting according to some non-numerical scheme (e.g. Classical Period / Middle Ages / Modern Times), but this has the problem of disputed starting/ending times and it only applies to European history really.

A problem is the large number of pages linking to this page, usually referring to a specific part of it. Each link would have to be specified. A possible solution: keeping this general page with only the most important inventions for each period, with links to the more detailed sub-articles. This way none of the original links has to be changed while creating a good overview page for anyone interested in a rough but digestable overview on inventions throughout history.

Please give your input and/or alternative suggestions; I will wait a few days before going ahead. Bluebird47 21:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you split this article into multiple articles, then it will become even more difficult to maintain.
If the current list is too long, then prune the list. --Sean Brunnock 11:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is plagued by multiple vandalism every day, plus people who litter it with inventions which are no real inventions, so in fact it's hard to keep track of additions and deletions even with the help of the watchlist. There are only two solutions: radically shorten it, which however would be to the detriment of legitimate content, or splitting it, leading to the linking problem among other things. So I thought of keeping a reduced overview article of the whole period on this page, with more detailed account for each era on four sub-pages. That's the only reasonable solution I can think of, if you got other ideas, please post them here. Bluebird47 10:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took wiimote off because it does not qualify.

Questionable edits

In my opinion, there have been a rash of questionable additions and changes to this list recently. The edits appear to be nationalistic in nature. I've been trying to correct errors, but I'm getting overwhelmed. In the past, I simply had to cite my sources and that was that, but it appears that there are groups of people who seem to be pursuing an agenda of rewriting history (see Talk:Pottery). I'll continue to try to keep this list and source articles updated, but any help would be appreciated. Thanks. --Brunnock 14:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chess

I don't think chess qualifies as an invention. The first board game might be an invention, but I don't want to start listing every board game ever designed. --Brunnock 16:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irrigations, canals, drainage, ...

Are these individual inventions? Or just variations on water channels? --Brunnock 16:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to [1], drainage was developed by the Sumerians along with irrigation. --Brunnock 13:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The New Revolution in Media Distribution"

In 1994,Joseph Risolia recieved a United States patent for the first cd/dvd vending machine.His company,Intune, commercialized the sale of music through fully automated machines and the internet before Apple launched their suspiciously and closely named operation "Itunes".After succesfully operating cd/dvd vending machines around the world,the invention helped spur the development of a new invention, the very first Digital Content vending machine.This machine allowed an individual to purchase digital content such as mp3's and movies directly from a vending machine to their handheld computer,cell phone or ipod(even though the first machine and patent was issued and developed before the proliferation of Ipods).Joseph Risolia recieved the patent for the first Digital Content vending machine in december of 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joefunkhouse (talkcontribs) 19:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blu-ray, DVD drivers and Intel Pentium processors

I can't see how "Blu-ray discs" can be compared to telephones and automobiles. Not everything can be classified as an invention. Blu-ray discs are no more than a sort of compact discs and those were "invented" in 1970s, but hey, once we have started we could also list Memorex 52x CD-R:s to. Why stop? I "invented" a "stone-washer" when I was eight, that should also join the list. -Funper 22:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Many of the latest "inventions" are simply standards, variations on a theme, or even marketing gimmicks. Feel free to purge the list. --Sean Brunnock 23:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would not hesitate but there is to much. Suggesting rewrite of the article? --Funper 19:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's necessary to rewrite the article. If there's an entry you think should not be on the list, just remove it and make a note in the edit summary. --Sean Brunnock 19:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Telephone

Since there were versions before Bell, perhaps a note to make it clear? Perhaps a list in paranthesis by those preceding him?DanielDemaret 15:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are thorough articles at Invention of the telephone and Timeline of the telephone. I'd say pick an inventor and have the entry in this article point to Timeline of the telephone. No need to reproduce that timeline here. --Sean Brunnock 20:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paper clip

Removed:

This is apparently a persistent falsehood. Vaaler patented a type of paper clip but it was not the first, and his version was never widely used. The paperclip article suggests it was invented much earlier, but gives no fixed date.

Sketches are not inventions

A sketch is not an invention. That's why this list doesn't state that Leonardo invented the helicopter and Babbage invented the computer. --Sean Brunnock 12:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try telling that to the patent office.WolfKeeper 14:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a difference between something that self-evidently wouldn't work with the technology of the time (Leonardo's helicopter) and something that would (Babbage's computer). The evidence from the London Science Museum's construction of the difference engine with contemporary techniques is that Babbage's idea works.WolfKeeper 15:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was no patent office during the Middle Ages. The rule on this timeline is first working version. That's been the rule for years. Please respect the rules. If you want to make changes, please discuss it first. --Sean Brunnock 15:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to delete all the patent based inventions, or move them to a different date then. The patent offices don't consistently require a working version. Also, this is a very non standard definition of invention that you are attempting to use.WolfKeeper 15:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Patents have only been around for a few hundred years. This timeline goes back over a million years. Therefore, patents are irrelevant to this article. --Sean Brunnock 15:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear that that is so. Also, I'm trying to get my head what you mean here, or what the ramifications of it are. So if I think up a device, draw a picture of it, hand the diagram to a machinist, and he builds it and it works. Then according to the standards of this article the machinist is the one that invented it?WolfKeeper 16:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in hypothetical situations and I'm not interested in doing original research. --Sean Brunnock 16:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Great. In that case, please can you give a reference to the definition of 'invention' you are using in this article then? Since you aren't engaged in OR it should be easy to give this.WolfKeeper 17:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could read the invention article- An invention is an object, process, or technique which displays an element of novelty...A "castle in the air" or a "pie in the sky" (or "castles in Spain") may refer to a creative idea which does not reach fruition due to practical considerations. --Sean Brunnock 19:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atlatl changed to Spear Thrower

I boldly changed the name Atlatl to Spear Thrower, because the link stated that the device was invented in North Africa. Atlatl is presumably the North/South American name. I think 'Spear Thrower' is more widely recognised - I had never heard of Atlatl, and couldn't guess what it could possibly be. Better to go for an internationally recognised term. In my country, however, it is known as a Woomera and may predate the North African invention, but I don't have a reference to prove it. It is also known as a 'Throwing Stick', but that name is ambiguous as it could also apply to a stick which is itself thrown rather than a stick which does the throwing. An example of this is the boomerang.Iramoo Bearbrass 01:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Disputes_over_style_issues --Sean Brunnock 01:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Interesting. What about the Atlatl though - if it was invented in Nth Africa, should we use a native american indian name for it, or a descriptive English language name? Iramoo Bearbrass 10:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should discuss that on the Atlatl article. --Sean Brunnock 12:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First computer

By definition, a universal, general-purpose computer has to be Turing complete. By that definition, ENIAC was the first computer. I realize that Zuse's Z3 was proven to be Turing complete, but Zuse never intended for the Z3 to be Turing complete. It wasn't even proven possible until 1998. --Sean Brunnock 12:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, is this what the above paragraph is saying?
  • to qualify as a computer a machine must be Turing complete;
  • the Z3 was Turing complete;
  • the designer didn't intend the Z3 to be Turing complete;
  • therefore the Z3 was not a computer.
Or, as seems quite likely, have I misunderstand what was intended? Adrian Robson 16:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rojas discovered a hack which allows the Z3 to simulate conditional branching. Prior to 1998, it hadn't even been suggested.
You might as well argue that the Nazca Indians invented hot air balloons. --Sean Brunnock 18:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1900

Year 1900 is in 19th century, not 20th, how can we fix it? --Vlad Jaroslavleff 17:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, 1900 is part of the [[1900s], so it went under that heading. A case of pick the lesser of two evils. --Sean Brunnock 20:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ball bearing

Wolfkeeper,

Did da Vinci create a ball bearing or did he just draw one? --Sean Brunnock 14:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He definitely drew one. It's the earliest known diagram or mention of one. It seems reasonable to assume that he invented it. Generally, most inventions are dated from patent date. A patent is just a document with a diagram and description.WolfKeeper 14:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Drawings are not inventions. See above. --Sean Brunnock 15:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. They certainly can be. But the question might be whether they had successfully invented it. It seems to me that the real question would be with a drawing as to whether the diagram *as described* is actually a workable design with the technology of the day.WolfKeeper 15:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a working model of one on display in Melbourne Australia right now, alongside models of all his other inventions [2]. I had a play with it last week - it certainly looks like it works. Come over and have a look for yourselves! (closes 1 October). Perhaps the exhibition will move to a location near you???? Iramoo Bearbrass 03:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi Ring Fabry-Perot (SRFP) Resonator

Can someone explain what this invention is? Is it significant enough to have a place in this article? - TexMurphy 09:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Architecture is not mentioned

Or specific architectural inventions such as the arch, dome or column. Mr Miles 20:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Boredom

This word was "invented" by charles dickens in bleak house, surely it deserves a mention? ~ SleweD 16:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This type of "invention" is best listed in a dictionary, which Wikipedia is not. -- Beland (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Web mail is NOT notable for this list

Web mail is just a variation of standard Email. It is not a fundamental invention, it does not remove the need for a computer to read your mail, all it does is make it easier to read your mail. There are other pre-existing ways to achieve essentially the same effect. Removed, with extreme prejudice.WolfKeeper 18:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Web-based email removed the need for a seperate email application and made it possible to access e-mail through a web browser instead. There was never any pre-existing ways to achieve this, therefore it does constitute an invention. If this invention is notable enough to have its own article, then it is notable enough for this list. Jagged 85 02:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's merely a convenience. Accessing e-mail through a browser is not a fundamental invention. The fact that it has an article does not make it notable for this list; almost everything in the wikipedia is invented either conceptually or physically, but that does not make it in and of itself eligible to be here.WolfKeeper 01:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is vacuous anyway. Would you want to include web browser implementations of spreadsheets, word processors, arcade games, chat rooms, etc. etc. etc. etc.WolfKeeper 01:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Again. Do not reinsert it.WolfKeeper 01:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find your argument for removing it from the list unconvincing. The Wikipedia:Notability guideline is concerned with whether an article is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia.
That's the definition of notable for being an article. That's not at all the same as being notable for being referenced from an article.WolfKeeper 17:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Web-based email even has an article obviously means that it's already passed the notability test. As for what constitutes a fundamental invention, that's too subjective. An invention is an invention, regardless of whether or not it's ground-breaking, as long as it's innovative. Jagged 85 16:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a list of all inventions. This 'invention' is so far below the level of what might be reasonable to add, as to not even be funny.WolfKeeper 17:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Far below in what way? Webmail was innovative, influential, and significant, so what else could you mean? Either way, trying to personally decide which inventions are significant and which are not would be original research.
Wrong. That is precisely what it is. It is not verifiable that webmail is one of the most important inventions of all time. What notable opinion says this? There is none. You or I are not notable. You have not referenced anyone significant that says it is. You need to do to find this, before reinserting it in this list. It is not nearly enough to reference that it is an invention. That is not the question.WolfKeeper 01:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to just rely on other sources, rather than on our own personal opinions. Also, I've just added a few references for Webmail, and it might also be a good idea adding sources for other inventions as well. Jagged 85 21:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are completely insufficient. This is not a list of all inventions.WolfKeeper 01:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restored. Again. Do not re-delete it. ;) Jagged 85 16:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be an idiot.WolfKeeper 17:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to resort to personal attacks. Jagged 85 21:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just restored the inventions you removed in your last few edits. See #Inventions qualifying for this list above. Jagged 85 02:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the references do indeed totally configure to Wikipedia's rules. I think that the proper allocation for the article being to tagged would be in respect to a cleanup citation. What do you guys think? InternetHero 23:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Title

"Timeline of the most important inventions" In titles, the important words are all capitalized, so it'd be Timeline of the Most Important Inventions But I can't figure out how to change it (can't find the title text in the 'edit this page' tab) so someone else do it, please. 166.214.214.183 12:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the wikipedia house style is defaulting everything to lower case unless you have to for it to make sense or proper nouns, but have the first letter uppercase.WolfKeeper 15:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, oh well. Nevermind then ^_^' 166.214.67.223 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.214.67.223 (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

iPhone is not a notable invention

But multi-touch screens are.

An iPhone is really not a notable invention and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebas d (talkcontribs) 09:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


drill, dental drill, bow drill, surgery, dental surgery

7000 BC: Drill in Mehrgarh 7000 BC: Bow drill in Mehrgarh 7000 BC: Dental drill in Mehrgarh (Pakistan) 7000 BC: Surgery in Mehrgarh 7000 BC: Dental surgery in Mehrgarh

It seems wrong to list the same invention five times, but then again, it's not easy to decide which of these entries are redundant, and how many are worth keeping. I'm going to cut it down to just 'bow drill' and 'dental surgery', but fix it if you disagree. Tocky 02:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Selectivity/Propaganda

I know that the 12 and 13th centuries were pretty dismal, but that does not mean these sections should be bolstered by listing every single thing a few folkds in the Middle East purportedly made (esp. when most of the damn links don't even point at real objects, e.g; Programmable robot). It's not as if every single thing by Edison or DaVinci are listed... --Belg4mit 16:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW that one was in the news recently. The programmable robot is real enough. It was programmed by running cord around a cylinder with nails on it. You can program the movement by turning the cord back around the nail- this causes the cylinder to spin the other way as you unwind the cord; and the cylinders are attached to the wheels of the robot. It was very clever, and IMO deserves to be here.WolfKeeper 18:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated items

Some inventions here are listed more than once, in different centuries, like the fountain pen, parachute, adding machine, etc. Things can only be invented once, can't they? --Marshmello 18:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. An item can be invented in one culture, and later re-invented in another culture which never received knowledge of the invention from the first one. The inclusion statement at the top of this article implies that each item should only be listed once. I would recommend checking the articles on each invention to make sure that all of the multiple claims are described there, and then pick the appropriate one to list here. People who want to get the "full story" about multiple re-inventions (or when the device became practical or popular to use) can click through to the article. -- Beland (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki

I am not registrated for enough a long time on en:wikipedia. Please can you make a link to the french article fr:Chronologie de l'histoire des techniques. Thanks --Yelkrokoyade (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

scramjets

Although the australian scramjet flew first, it didn't create positive net thrust, so I'm going to argue that the American scramjet system 'invented' scramjets; and I propose to change this entry. Comments before I do this?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You argue that da Vinci's sketches count as inventions but Australia's scramjet wasn't? --Sean Brunnock (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given there are working models of da Vinci's sketches, yes. Have they successfully invented the scramjet though? What kind of propulsion system doesn't produce net thrust?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're talking in circles. First you argue that da Vinci's sketches count as inventions even though he never developed working versions. Now you're saying that the Australians didn't invent the scramjet even though they created a working version. You have your own set of rules and you keep applying them differently to win whatever debate you're involved in. --Sean Brunnock (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the contrary, you have arbitrarily created your own set of rules (which vary significantly from the wikipedia's policies) and are trying to force them to be used here. I'll accept a link to a notable source saying that the Australian researchers have successfully built a fully working scramjet within the next two weeks, otherwise it's gone.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, on July 30, 2002, the Hyshot scramjet experiment, 
developed by the University of Queensland, had a successful 
launch of the world's first flight test of supersonic combustion, 
the process used in an air-breathing supersonic 
ramjet engine, known as a scramjet. 
- Daphne Burleson. Space Programs Outside the United States: All Exploration and Research. McFarland & Company. ISBN 0786418524
I'm not saying it wasn't a worlds first, but that's a test flight, and it doesn't say that it was a fully working scramjet system; and other references say it wasn't capable of sustaining flight. Unless the invention is a propulsion system with negative net thrust? A propulsion system that slows the vehicle that carries it down? A great invention, clearly historic!- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you think that Aeolipiles are rockets, then it's not a stretch to say that the Australians developed a working scramjet. --Sean Brunnock (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Works in what sense? What does it do? The aeolipile at least opened temple doors. It doesn't seem that they have successfully invented a scramjet if it doesn't accelerate. This was only a successful test flight of a partial implementation of an invention.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aeolipile rockets were used to open temple doors? Where on earth do you learn this stuff? --Sean Brunnock (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you went ahead and deleted the scramjet entry. Like I said Vlad- you operate by your own rules. --Sean Brunnock (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To follow the core policies of the wikipedia isn't to 'operate by your own rules'. And who the heck is Vlad?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What policy are you talking about? There's a policy on "partial inventions"? --Sean Brunnock (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a policy about unverifiable content, and this was. Try reading the core policies and actually following them, OK?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a citation for the Australian scramjet right in this thread. --Sean Brunnock (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is not sufficient for something to have been invented, it has to be a historic invention, it has to actually have had a direct impact on the world. You have completely failed to show this. This engine didn't produce positive thrust, didn't maintain altitude, only worked in a screaming dive. Yeah, a real good invention for this article that is. As an R&D test it excelled, but it's not a complete invention. If you believe otherwise you simply have to give us a reference saying that it was.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you get out of this? Why do you do this crap? Why can't you just read books, take classes and educate yourself instead of pretending to be an expert? --Sean Brunnock (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you say. You're the one making a positive claim (WP:OR) without any decent references on this topic.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Claim? What claim? First you ask for comments, so I made a comment. Then you ask for a citation, so I give a citation. Now you're claiming that scramjets aren't historic enough. Did you forget to take your bipolar medication or something? --Sean Brunnock (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I took yours and threw it away, just to see what would happen. Now we know!- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 01:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Vandalism

Can someone please remove the invention of homosexuality at the bottom of the 1st millennium ce. I tried to remove it but I can't find it in the source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.229.64 (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took it out yesterday. You may have a caching problem. Try using the reload function of your browser on the article. If that fails clear the cache in your browser, and then reload, and if that fails it may be your ISP has cached and old version of the page- you should check with them.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What cleanup is needed?

What specific actions are needed for the cleanup tag to be removed? So far the only thing I see is the need to deal with items that are listed more than once. -- Beland (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They... ALL need referencing. I'm not really kidding.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk)

iRobot vacuum cleaner

I'm proposing taking this out, unless there's objections. It's unclear that it's really the best thing since sliced bread, unless anyone has a good reference...?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2000s Inventions

It seems like most of the 2000s inventions have been moved to the 2000s in science and technology page. Isn’t the purpose of this article to put a list of inventions all in the same place? Just a thought, because the 2000s seem very sparse on the page. I realize that a lot of the stuff on the 2000s in science and technology page is about technological developments instead of inventions, but there's still some stuff that could probably be included. Shapeshift1 (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's too early for people to say what the most important inventions are yet. A lot of inventions like the internet would be such a tiny blip on peoples radar the time, and if you told people about it they would laugh, but 20 years later... OMG the internet!!!!!!!- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So we’re gonna wait for another decade to add stuff to the list which has already been invented? I think the least we can do is thoroughly check out the List of emerging technologies page and think about adding some of those things, though I’m sure it’s already been done. I definitely think more should be added (as if you couldn’t tell). Shapeshift1 (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're not waiting. But history normally starts about 30 years ago. That's how long historians normally take to work out what it all meant. To be honest, the wikipedia is way ahead of the curve.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that’s ridiculous, not to say I don’t see where you’re coming from. I honestly don’t see the harm in including things that have been recently invented and seem important, because we certainly have a list of what those things are. How would that be a bad thing? I think it would add a lot to the article. Shapeshift1 (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to find a reliable source that consensus says that, without any hyperbole, means that x is one of the most important inventions of all time. A lot of 'inventions' are just neater versions of what went before. Some people keep adding the iphone here for example, but it's just a neat cell phone/organizer.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 14:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I predict that 2000s inventions like SpaceCraftOne, Braille Gloves, the Hybrid Car, Light Transmitting Concrete, Infrared Fever Screening System, the artificial liver, and the phone tooth qualify for the list. These are only suggestions. CaptainGood (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hybrid_electric_vehicle#History - 1901 ;-) - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Telescope POV-PUSHING

This edit[3], which subverts several thousand reliable sources for one questionable one as to who invented the telescope, really takes the cake. I have added a ((totally-disputed)) tag because of this. No telling how many other little gems there are like this one. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, I've removed it. How about you get a sense of proportion on an article with over 244 references, and come back to the article then?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I just checked the entry for Microscope[4] right below telescope and its wrong to. Scrolled a few up and machine gun is wrong as well. I think I got my "sense of proportion". I put the tag back. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, clearly not got a sense of proportion yet. Please tag individual sections. Removed again.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There have been a huge number of changes to this article just since May[5]
Picking randomly by section brings up dubious entries in every section such as:
50 ka: Bow in Tunisia [4] [5] - seems dubious with a dead link and a non-answer link.
350 BC: Water wheel in India - ambiguous, first known Greek 3rd century BC original.
852: Parachute: Abbas Ibn Firnas in al-Andalus - listed as one of many, not mentioned in his article, was actually a type of glider
1021: Curved mirror: Ibn al-Haytham[158]]][159] - The book Catoptrics attributed to Euclid (300 BC) covered the mathematical theory of mirrors, particularly the images formed by plane and spherical concave mirrors.
1556: Spring-powered clock: Peter Henlein and Taqi al-Din[210][212] - actualy existed by the early 1400s
These plus the few I have fixed shows the problem is global. Please do not remove tags unless the problem has be rectified. It is there to let other editors/readers know. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 07:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're quoting 5 out of ~800 and then applying a tag to all of them? I can only ask again: please get a sense of proportion and tag the individual sections that you have found problems with. Many thanks.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 07:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracies

The dates of invention and inventors for many of the inventions are disputed by the very Wikipedia pages they link to. (For example, scissors are listed as invented by da Vinci under 16th century). 66.169.137.49 (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Unreliable Source

I have removed information from this article drawn from or sourced from the paper "The First Attempts of Flight, Automatic Machines, Submarines and Rocket Technology in Turkish History" by Arslan Terzioglu. This source is unreliable, as discussed on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Rocket_Technology_in_Turkish_history. Dialectric (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Propaganda

This article is being used as semi-Arabic propaganda. Take a look at the Medieval section. It's completely absurd. "Robots" don't factor into it. These are wind-up toys (among the other nonsense on the list). Wikipedia is not a place for propaganda, it's a place for facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunslinger1812 (talkcontribs) 03:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steam car before steam engine

Hi,

There is a little non-sense in the 17th century timeline:

  • 1672: Steam car: Ferdinand Verbiest[222][223]
  • 1679: Pressure cooker: Denis Papin
  • 1690: Polhem wheel: Christopher Polhem
  • 1698: Steam engine: Thomas Savery

"A steam car is a car (automobile) powered by a steam engine" a quarter century before its engine invention? We got to fix that :\ Lacrymocéphale 17:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on what you mean by 'steam engine', it was invented in the 1st century (aeolipile).- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now we don't want to start that argument here as well! :o)
Actually, assuming that Verbiest's 'car' was ever built (there's no known proof that it was) it was driven by an impulse turbine, not a (reciprocating) "steam engine", so there isn't a problem here at all.
EdJogg (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Are You Serious?

The whole page is woefully lacking in architecture, both military and civilian, as well as lacking in ship construction. Almost all of the medieval "Islamic" "inventions" were not inventions but just improvments on what already existed. The first real handguns were invented in Italy in 1326. The cannons used at the Siege of Constantinople were built by a Hungarian, not Turks, and were not inventions, they were just big cannons. This page is extememly biased and a shame. This is a page for scientific inventions, not menus and boardgames. I understand that somethings were reinvented/independently invented at various times, but claiming Medieval Muslims "invented' the restaurant is pretty absurd. This page looses all credibility because of religious bias. More importantly, it's just not true. Fireproof clothing was known for centuries before Muslims in the 1200s "invented" it, (Charlemagne had asbestos clothing in the 700s) and there's a lot of debate on the idea of Mamluk slave-warriors using any kind of firearm at Ain Jalut in 1260 (debate as in "this never really happened"). Gunslinger1812 (talk) 07:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]