Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Alef Aeronautics

Help

Hi, I'm adding a factual sourced info, just about the vehicle that was founded by the company and on the Flying car page as well where the model is already discussed in the design section. Everything is properly sourced and all images are reviewed and authentic, two people are removing that again and again and used the word Bullshit. What is this? Is this the professional language and quality of people we are having on Wikipedia? At one point you place a tag on the page that it needs sources and info and when someone adds you target them?? Beeuu (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like having your bullshit described as bullshit, I suggest you stop posting bullshit. The Flickr photo hasn't been 'reviewed' by any reliable source, and could be just about anything. Unless and until this supposed vehicle is discussed in depth as an actual working propositi0on by credible aviation sources, it remains nothing but advertising hype as far as Wikipedia is concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See your bullshit first as its bigger than everything, and stop chasing if you are right, and stop bragging about flicker, the sources are from Forbes and other reliable sources but your bullshit kept you to flicker nonsense, its now confirmed that you have a personal agenda that you don't want to see that car there. All sources are authentic and are already on both pages but you kept removing them and didn't assumed WP:Goodfaith. Beeuu (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all new air and ground vehicles begin their full-scale design life as mockups. For example Luigi Colani is remembered for many such. For a notable project, illustrating it with a free image of the mock-up is exactly what we try to do here. What we should not do is follow the marketing puff and pretend that this one is anything more than a way-out design concept bordering on fantasy, and better at raising venture capital than its own weight. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 05:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[update] I agree that the small drone flying around is neither verified nor informative, but the photo of the fundraising concept mockup is well enough attested and depicts the focus of the media hype (I recall seeing a similar photo on the BBC News). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 05:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Beeuu is a sock of Wikipedia Genie and I've indeffed them. I did try to get them banned at ANI a few weeks ago, but nobody opined either way. SmartSE (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Might be worth contacting WMF legal about their copyright-breaching use of the Wikipedia logo. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Upwork's ToS forbid breaking other site's ToS so I have reported them... whether they enforce or not, we shall see. WMF legal are unfortunately pretty toothless in my experience. SmartSE (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any video of the prototype actually flying?

All I can find is a bunch of CGI videos of the prototype flying. Is there any actual video that shows the prototype flying? SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen precisely zero evidence that they actually have a 'prototype' in the sense the term is used in the aviation industry. They may possibly have a lightweight and/or undersized RC model. Or a commercially-available hobbyist drone with a 'flying car' body built around it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I'm always skeptical when someone makes a claim like this without presenting any evidence. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alef state that no video is available. They claim the full-size beast has been flying for several years, but they were never able to take a video of it -- which I take to mean they were flying it in a sim and not in real life. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flight certification

The main use for the "special" flight certification recently announced is to allow test-flying of a new prototype. This applies to almost every US type ever built, and is not of encyclopedic value. Alef marketing puff that would have us believe otherwise, but that is their, and perhaps their investors', problem and not ours. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceX funding?

This 3 July 2023 Yahoo! Business article claims that Alef's also receiving funding from Elon Musk's SpaceX. I haven't presumed to add that here, as I'm afraid I haven't time to check its veracity. – AndyFielding (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I can tell this viral meme is based on a misreading of a Reuters piece: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/flying-car-by-california-startup-alef-attracts-early-tesla-investor-2022-10-20/ Tim Draper has interests in both, and his backing of Alef is already covered here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Hi, I am writing as a co-founder of Alef Aeronautics and would like to propose the addition of one or two images to the article to provide visual context and enhance its content. I would like to contribute these images to the article under a free license after releasing the copyright. As a Wikipedia specialist advised, due to my conflict of interest (COI), I was instructed to make an edit request on the talk page to suggest any modifications and additions to the article but I am unsure about the proper procedure for submitting an edit request for images. The images will serve an illustrative purpose and I would like to make sure there are no promotional connotations. I would appreciate guidance on how to proceed adequately. Thanks. Ckisly (talk) 05:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to release images for use here, the best thing to do is to upload them to the Wikimedia Commons under one of their permissive licenses, such as a Creative Commons license (as I do for my drawings). They will then be available to use in all language wikipedias, and anywhere else for that matter. Images can be uploaded direct to Wikipedia, but that really only applies in certain special circumstances.
Editorial consensus here can then decide which of these images, if any, are suitable for this article. However I would caution that this article is about the company, and its proposed products are of secondary consideration to it. This is likely to limit the product images to one, or two at most. Once you get a manned prototype flying free, that will merit its own article, but it is too soon for that right now. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can't wait to see an image (or two) of that manned prototype flying free. -- Jmc (talk) 09:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revert addition of images

I uploaded the images as "This is not my own work" and I provided the source and the author. The source marks the images licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0) which is what I marked when uploading to Wikimedia Commons. What did I do wrong? --Formulaodin (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I'd missed the (very small) 'creative commons' notifications under the images, and assumed that they were covered by the copyright notice at the bottom of the page.
Regarding the images themselves, I'm not sure the photo of the founders adds anything of merit to the article, and the other one was mislabelled, since it is a non-flying mock-up, not a prototype. A verifiable photo of an actual manned, flying, aircraft would be much more relevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The images are 'directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article' and are 'relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative' as described in Wikipedia Image use policy. Including an image of a company's founders provides a visual representation of the historical figures behind the organization's establishment and is serves an illustrative purpose. The image of the display model also has merit. As a reader I would wonder what a 'proposed novel design for a flying car' looks like the same way I would wonder what a building or complex would look like and would appreciate mockups, blueprints, renderings, and images of of said building under construction. They are useful visual references. I do not see why they would be harmful to the article. You are correct that I could have labelled the image more adequately, in the automobile and aviation industry 'display model' would be the more adequate term for a non-functioning model. Please let me know your thoughts. --Formulaodin (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From a quick random sampling, relatively few articles in Category:Aerospace companies of the United States seem to have pictures of such individuals in them, and those that do tend to be longer articles on well-established businesses, with more actual 'history' behind the 'historical figures'. Anyway, there isn't any urgency over this, and we should probably wait to see if anyone else has anything to say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The photo of the staff certainly has no place in a company article, unless some particular person already has a WP:BLP article in their own right. I think the photo of the full-scale mockup (sic) should be acceptable, as long as the caption is honest. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. From quick random sampling, most articles in Category:Aerospace companies of the United States seem to have zero pictures of anything in them, because images with the proper licensing are hard to come by. From quick random sampling, most articles in Category:Aerospace companies of the United States have issues and are not examplary articles. From what I gathered, images are encouraged by Wikipedia as long as they have proper licensing, relevance to the article and the text they accompany, and are illustrative in purpose. In what way would such an image harm the article?
Should the pictures in these articles be removed in your opinion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Lab "Peter Beck and Dava Newman posing in front of Rocket Lab's sounding rockets"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAR_Corp "AAR CORP female group of trainees at the Miami airport"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_Space "Michael Suffredini in 2012" or "Crystals grown in microgravity" --~~~~ Formulaodin (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions regarding the possible removal of content from other articles belong on the talk page of the relevant article, not here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Formulaodin Can't see why you should suggest that the image of Peter Beck and Dava Newman posing in front of Rocket Lab's rockets should be removed from the Rocket Lab article. Each of these persons already has a WP:BLP article in their own right. -- Jmc (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These 5 good and featured articles all have images of key people that do not have their own Wikipedia articles. These articles are considered Wikipedia's best and go through a strict review which includes making sure images and other media pass criteria. It seems as if most articles do not have such photos because of a lack of photos with proper licensing, rather than because the photos are harmful or against Wikipedia image policy, and most this is the reason most WIkipedia articles do not have photos in general. Please let me know your thoughts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Typewriter_Company
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consett_Iron_Company
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Bank
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Options_Associates
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Finance_Corporation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartford_City_Glass_Company
--~~~~
Reply to Jmc Formulaodin (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also I am not advocating for the deletion of the photos from those articles, I think they serve a useful illustrative purpose that in no way harms the articles. But AndyTheGrump mentionned the articles in that category so I thought it would be relevant. The discussion is about the usefulness or harm of such photos in these articles. Do you have any Wikipedia image policy we can rely on? ---~~~~ @Jmc Formulaodin (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, the choice of whether a particular image should be used in a particular article may often come down to editorial discretion. And regarding this article, I can see little benefit in including a poorly-lit, poorly-composed group photograph of 'founders'. Their appearance is of no consequence, and tells us nothing about the actual subject matter. In a longer, more detailed article on an established company that was selling an actual product, a better-composed illustration of leading individuals might be appropriate, but here, it looks like filler, compensating for a lack of real substance to the remaining content. There has been a long-standing issue with this article being padded with inconsequential fluff of one sort or another, and I really don't see the merit in adding to it. A short, clear article summarising the topic according to what limited directly-relevant material we have is all that is needed for now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Formulaodin In response to your question "Do you have any Wikipedia image policy we can rely on?", I go along with AndyTheGrump in saying "Ultimately, the choice of whether a particular image should be used in a particular article may often come down to editorial discretion" - and I'd add editorial consensus. It seems to me that there's no consensus here for adding the "poorly-lit, poorly-composed group photograph of 'founders'". -- Jmc (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmc @AndyTheGrump Are there any Wikipedia policy pages or essays detailing this process of editorial discretion? or any examples on other pages? Jmc has still not given their argument for including or not including the image or is that not required? AndyTheGrump's rationale makes sense but I haven't heard your opinion. I addressed Steelpillow's argument of "The photo of the staff certainly has no place in a company article, unless some particular person already has a WP:BLP article in their own right." but providing multiple good and featured articles about companies that do have images of key people in the article despite these people not having an article in their own right. And how do we get more people to discuss this and an someone uninvolved to conclude what the rational consensus is? Formulaodin (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. In my opinion, the photo is not poorly lit or poorly composed. It also does not serve as filler as it does not artificially increase the length of the article without serving any purpose as it has direct relevance to the main topic (the company) and is illustrative, the same way the photos in the good and featured articles I linked are. How does the image of any person on Wikipedia pages of organisations and companies 'tell us something about the actual subject matter'? Wikipedia requires that images be relevant to the topic and properly licensed, so I don't see the issue here. Can you explain how the image harms the article or is of limited direct relevance? ----~~ Formulaodin (talk) 01:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Formulaodin: As Andy says, this is not the place to discuss individual images in other articles. For our policies and guidelines, WP:POLICY is the starting point (for new editors, a browser bookmark/favourites to the page may prove handy). Among others, it links to our Image use policy. Sometimes, what is acceptable is a matter of interpreting the policy in the context of the particular proposed addition, and this is what the various talk pages are for. Usage in one or two of those other articles you mention probably is questionable, but that is for each case to be taken up on its own talk page. The essay section on WP:OTHER, and more linked from it, might also be helpful to you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your comments @Steelpillow, thank you. I brought up images in other articles because @AndyTheGrump did and because since there are no explicit guidelines I thought I would base myself on Wikipedia's highest-calibre articles. The guideline in Image use policy states "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central." so I thought the images I suggested would be okay.
I still do not understand how this editorial consensus was reached and on what grounds images are evaluated but I respect the decision. Thank you again. --~~~~ Formulaodin (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Formulaodin "I still do not understand how this editorial consensus was reached". There've been four editors participating in discussion of this issue. Only one has been in favour of including the image in question. -- Jmc (talk) 03:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The image use policy links through to the Manual of Style for further information. MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE makes it evident that "clear and central" ,means focused on the main topic, and that "people" in this context implies an article about the people or some aspect of those people. However the staff are more the other way round - an aspect of the company - and, individually, get barely a mention. So they are not really "central" to the article in the way that the full-scale demonstrator is. At least, that appears to be the reasoning behind the consensus in the present discussion. We may be wrong, but that would require more editors to change that consensus, either here or on one of the more specialist discussion fora. And I am not confident that the present consensus would be overturned anyway. I'd suggest you familiarise yourself more with our community resources before reconsidering the issue, although that is likely to take a while. Hope this helps. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Time Magazine list of Best Inventions of 2023

I'm not entirely happy with including this. As I noted in an edit summary, Time "receives a commission when purchases are made through affiliate links", which to my mind arguably makes them a non-impartial source. It should also be noted that Time named 200 'Best Inventions' that year, 17 in the 'Experimental' category, and that their coverage of the aircraft consisted of a single brief paragraph . [1] If third-party sources have commented on this particular award it might be worth including, but as of now, this looks unduly promotional. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Dukhovny. 00:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC) AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alef_Aeronautics