Talk:Scroggs The Last Laugh

Article title

I created this article as Scroggs The Last Laugh. Onel5969 then moved it to The Last laugh (aircraft). Petebutt then moved it back again to Scroggs The Last Laugh. Please do not move it again without obtaining consensus through discussion on this talk page first. Also, if you do ever move it again, please also update the DISPLAYTITLE template to maintain the appropriate italics. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

That was my bad Steelpillow - in WP:AIR/NC I thought it only referred to the manufacturer, not the designer. Thanks for correcting my error, Petebutt. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

No need for concensus, already done as a naming convention, which as you say, you followed!--Petebutt (talk) 09:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm generally a stickler for strictly following WP:AIR/PC, but in this particular case, I think The Last Laugh (aircraft) just looks better. As a home-built aircraft, it doesn't have a manufacturer in the modern sense, but neither did most of the early aircraft designs. I'm not going to move it without a clear consensus, however. - BilCat (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

"The Last Laugh" is not only the name of the particular machine, but also appears on at least one registration document as the type. We do not have articles on say the Archaeopteryx (aircraft) or Snark (aircraft) but on the Granger Archaeopteryx and De Bruyne Snark. So it is with the Scroggs design. Personally, I also think it looks better this way - more encyclopaedic. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Editing content

A reminder to inexperienced editors and especially to Caula that:

• Additions need citing from reliable sources, per WP:RS. If in doubt about a given source, ask before citing it.
• The article lead section should summarise the main content and so should not need citations.
• The word "delta" is not capitalised, as it is not the name of any aeroplane.
• Edit warring, even if you move your warring behaviour from one article to another, is likely to lead to sanctions against you.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Additions without citations should not be removed off-hand, unless there is verifiable proof that the addition or edit is incorrect. The proper course would be to add a citation needed tag!--Petebutt (talk) 09:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

There are additions and then there are additions. There is a history in this from the delta wing article: 13 March diff, 30 June diff, 2 July diff, never a comment on the talk page there or here when challenged. Let us not get bogged down here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm awfully sorry, I'm afraid, I don't want to say this: all my additions were perfectly referenced, you just needed conducting a search in any search engine for checking. I'm fed up of having to indicate that the content in Wikipedia, or anywhere, doesn't need being specially verifiable, if there is not evidence that it is untrue, meaning it is in contradiction to well sustained, well evidenced assertions, it must be of application the law principle of: 'Reversal of the burden of proof', that comes necessarily from the previous principle of: 'Presumption of innocence', i.e., everybody is innocent until proven otherwise in final judgement, any statement is true unless evidence in the contrary is provided, 'all are 'fair', 'true', 'honest' unless proven otherwise.

The policy many seem applying among Wikipedia 'controllers', I ignore if in an unconscious or deliberate way, can be summarized as 'wow independent!', 'épatez l'indépendant', is something more serious than an unpolite, or unfair, or unscientific behavior, it's a crime. Things as -'delta' should not be written in capital 'Delta', but low shift-, may connect to an habitude in some English speaking places, but there are no rules, no 'Academy of English Language'; as long as it can be understood by most, I write the way I like, be it solely for esthetic purposes. Steelpillow went too far in exercising the power of his mouse and keyboard (How did he get it?), not to cite 'magic power'. Please refrain, move out from this line, consider reverting your mistakes. Danke. Agur. Gesund +

You are wrong many times over. The burden of proof lies on the editor who wishes to add material, see WP:VERIFY, which does actually require your sources to be reliable. Our rules on grammar are governed by our Manual of Style and not by editorial preference. I am not any kind of "controller", I am not even an admin, and denigrating me risks being seen as WP:BULLYING; you are required to assume good faith. You will be less fed up if you stop fighting our policies and guidelines and actually begin to read them. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Some 'bylaws' or company standards of operation are against general law principles, e.g, blaming someone of plagiarism is a criminal offense if no plagiarism existed. For your own reputation protection, and the welfare of contributors, pls watch your step! Bye, bye. Salut + — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.32.175.203 (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Dimensions of Last Laugh! Airplane?

Hi!: the two view image in the article looks a bit different to that in Patent US1848578; for sure the size of sheet in the almost one century old patent application differs to paper standards of today, also DIN A4, mostly used in Europe, has not same size as USA paper sheets; if anyone could indicate which one, the image in Wikipedia or in Espacenet, best reflects shape and size of the Roy Scroggs machine, it would be good. What about its actual Airfoil, or any Airfoil suitable for this type of airplane?. The fact that it has a romboidal section fuselage does not make a 'Lifting body'; clearly, it has wings, not much different to, for example: FMA I.Ae. 37 Gesund + — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.32.175.203 (talk) 16:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC)