Talk:Aero-X
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||
| ||||||||
references edit
YouTube is a creditable source when the claim is that the company has an official YouTube account that has uploaded 8 videos of his product. And if you think anything needs referencing for it, then tag it with citation needed. Dream Focus 00:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Youtube is not a credible source see here. The article needs expanding and more sources adding to it. --JetBlast (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Read all of that. "In some cases, video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be traced to a reliable publisher," You can confirm it. Major newspapers link to it, as does the official website of the company. So mentioning they have uploaded videos on YouTube, is not something anyone would dispute. Dream Focus 00:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- It is not confirmed, anyone could have put that on Youtube, it could be a hoax. Just because the news sites link to it doesn't make it confirmed. --JetBlast (talk) 00:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- I did mention their official website linked to it also. See? [1] Dream Focus 00:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- It is not confirmed, anyone could have put that on Youtube, it could be a hoax. Just because the news sites link to it doesn't make it confirmed. --JetBlast (talk) 00:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Read all of that. "In some cases, video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be traced to a reliable publisher," You can confirm it. Major newspapers link to it, as does the official website of the company. So mentioning they have uploaded videos on YouTube, is not something anyone would dispute. Dream Focus 00:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I am not going to continue with this, you are not interested in listening to anyone else and insist in breaking a wikipeida rule. Happy editing. --JetBlast (talk) 00:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- If you believe a rule is being broken, then report it to the proper area. Let them explain things to you. Dream Focus 00:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
pointless citation needed banner edit
Notice that every single sentence in the article has a reference now? So there is no possible reason to have the citation needed banner. There wasn't to begin with. Kindly don't accuse others of violating rules and edit warring when they remove a pointless tag. [2] Dream Focus 00:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Does this really need its own article? edit
This looks like a generic skirtless hovercraft, of the type that's around since the 1950s, and isn't even in production. Does it really warrant a separate article, rather than a one-line mention on Hovercraft? 78.149.155.81 (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. Obviously. Look at all the media coverage, as well as the potential for this. Do you know of any other skirtless hovercraft that is actually functional? Dream Focus 15:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- I linked to one above, that was revolutionary when it went into production. In 1959. Of current models, those made by Walter Mobility are the best known - skirtless hovercraft have very few practical uses (the skirt makes them both more efficient and more stable, so the circumstances in which one would use a skirtless hovercraft are very limited). I can't see anything novel about this design (certainly nothing patentable), and I'd be shocked if it ever went into production - there's nothing this does that a skirted hovercraft or a GEV wouldn't do better. Aerofex has no track record in vehicle manufacture, and even their own PR blurb describes this only as a proof-of-concept; the press coverage has a distinct whiff of press-releases by a firm angling for a DoD grant, rather than of anything they have any intention of producing. 78.149.155.81 (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Most of the press coverage out there shows pictures of it next to pictures of the land speeder from Star Wars, and compares it to that. It got covered because it is something of interest to people. Is there any other skirtless hovercraft that does what theirs does? It is quite stable, they already proving that in their videos. I wrote in the article information about how they managed to make it stable, something I don't believe anyone else had ever done with their attempts. Dream Focus 16:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- I linked to one above, that was revolutionary when it went into production. In 1959. Of current models, those made by Walter Mobility are the best known - skirtless hovercraft have very few practical uses (the skirt makes them both more efficient and more stable, so the circumstances in which one would use a skirtless hovercraft are very limited). I can't see anything novel about this design (certainly nothing patentable), and I'd be shocked if it ever went into production - there's nothing this does that a skirted hovercraft or a GEV wouldn't do better. Aerofex has no track record in vehicle manufacture, and even their own PR blurb describes this only as a proof-of-concept; the press coverage has a distinct whiff of press-releases by a firm angling for a DoD grant, rather than of anything they have any intention of producing. 78.149.155.81 (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)