From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.

title spelling[edit]

I moved this article from "Tailsitter" to "Tail-sitter" because in all three books I could find a reference in, it was hyphenated. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Now I find one for "Tailsitter" (no hyphen): Graham Warwick, "Heroic faulres", Flight International, 17-30 December 2002, Pages 36-39.[1][2][3][4] — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


This article has been added to Category:Inventions by Nikola Tesla. Just because he is known to have patented an early expression of the idea, does that make it one of his "inventions"? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 05:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Filipz123. The person who added it is a long-term abusive sockpuppet with an agenda. Sro23 (talk) 11:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, that is not relevant to the material itself. Is the category appropriate, whomsoever it may have been created by? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm just saying, this person cannot be trusted, as they have been known to add unreliable sources and plain false information to promote their agenda. Even if it's true Tesla patented an early concept of a tail-sitter, I don't think that would make it one of his inventions. Sro23 (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
And I'm just saying I don't care if the editor eats babies, it's the content I care about. I took the trouble to verify that cite and clean it up a while ago and it is perfectly valid, so please stop deleting my cleanup because you can't be bothered to do the same or check the page history for this. And you can't just go deleting stuff because you disapprove of an editor's morals - content decisions should be objectively evidence-based.
The category concerned is a sub-category of Category:American inventions, which states that, "This category is about inventions that were patented though not necessarily invented in the United States." On that basis the inclusion of the Tesla category is justified because he did patent it in the US. However the definition strikes me as ludicrous, as almost everything has been patented in the US at one time or another, and if the criterion is patenting then they should be Category:United Stated patented inventions and Category:Inventions patented by Nikola Tesla. Shouldn't we at best count only the earliest description of the idea as its "invention"? If so, then I do not know whether Tesla qualifies or not, and therefore whether he should be given the benefit of the doubt here or not. Other judges are stricter and require a device to be made before it can have been said to have been invented, but are we that strict? Hence my query.
— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not that I disapprove with the editor's morals or dislike them, it's that this person has a reputation for being untrustworthy and introducing errors. Every edit they made has had to be carefully scrutinized or completely removed, because more often than not the information they add is factually incorrect or biased. But I think it's time for me to drop the stick and let the article be. It's clear that you are more knowledgeable and passionate about the subject than I am, so I won't be much help there. As for you question, again I'm not the most qualified to answer this, but in my opinion I think it would be better to delete categories that provoke hesitation. Sro23 (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
There are very few such categories for individual inventors, there isn't even one for Leonardo da Vinci. On that basis, I agree that the burden of proof is on those who would add the category here. I'll remove it until that happens, to save you the trouble. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)