Talk:List of British innovations and discoveries

Comments

This is Nat bs, most of the inventions in the individual webpages were done post-1707, i.e. they were all British. It seems a bit of nationalist-racist-ignorant agenda to not have a collective page of all British inventions, all those invented after 1707. I don't mind having a separate Scottish, English and Welsh page, but it just stinks of the kinda small-minded cave-troll mind of some Scot nats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.124.4 (talk) 11:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

This is massively disorganised. Utter chaos. We really ought to have some kind of standard for what counts as an invention, rather than just listing things which are vaguely on the topic of British innovation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.26.44 (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Invention of the metric system

I removed from the article the claim that a Brit, John Wilkins, was the inventor of the earliest concept of a Metric system as such an exceptional claim naturally requires robust evidence (see WP:EXCEPTIONAL) - here it had no evidence at all. MeasureIT (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I see that the claim has been reinstated, this time "supported" by a citation in which the only relevent reference is a direct quote from the website of UKMA, a self-proclaimed single-issue pressure group fighting for metrication in the UK. The reference does not even claim that Wilkins was the inventor of the earliest concept of a Metric system, so the claim in the article actually remains unsupported. MeasureIT (talk) 12:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I have now added an "irrelevant citation" tag to the reference as the cite (even with a quotation) does not address the issue of lack of support for the claim to be the inventor of the earliest concept of a metric system. If I am wrong, please explain why. Anyway, please engage in this discussion rather than reverting. MeasureIT (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Reading the reference again, I see that the cited quote ("The key principles … were proposed by Dr. John Wilkins") is a direct quotation from this page on the website of the UK Metric Association (and attributed in the referenced publication to them). In turn, UKMA (a single-issue metrication pressure group), credit the late Pat Naughtin with drawing attention to the work of John Wilkins. The credibility of Pat Naughtin's work is currently the subject of another talk page discussion at Talk:History of the metric system in the "Reference to the work of Pat Naughtin" section. MeasureIT (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I have now removed it from the article again as I believe the current consensus at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#That Englishman John Wilkins invented the metric system is that we cannot reliably support a claim that Wilkins invented this. MeasureIT (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Some more on the source being used: not only is it just quoting from the UKMA, but it misattributes the quote, citing it as though it came directly from Wilkins. A bit of looking into the International Journal of Applied Science and Technology shows that it's published by the Centre for Promoting Ideas - who are themselves accused of being a "predatory" or fraudulent publisher, and of lying about the editors of their journals: see the Times Higher Education, The Australian, or this letter to Viewpoint. I agree that a claim this significant requires solid sourcing - and a dodgy-looking paper put out by a dubious publisher doesn't fit that. Ergative rlt (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

MeasuteIT wrote I see that the claim has been reinstated, this time "supported" by a citation in which the only relevent reference is a direct quote from the website of UKMA, a self-proclaimed single-issue pressure group fighting for metrication in the UK. Has he read every other citation in this article. If then, then he cannot substantiate his statement. For example, did he click onto the reference "Naughton (2009)"? He obviously didn't, because if he did he would have seen that Naughton's article contained much more than did the [article]. Did MeasureIT actually look at the UKMA artcile? I ask this question because its URL has changed. In short, would MeasureIT please stop telling "porkies". Martinvl (talk) 07:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The reference you used to support the Wilkins claim cited "(Wilkins, 1668)" and "(UK Metric Association, 2011)". It gave no url. I used Google to find "was first adopted in revolutionary France, the underlying ideas also came from England" and found this UKMA page. Now retract your allegation that I lied. Also did you see Ergative's message above casting doubt on that source too? MeasureIT (talk) 07:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I have checked the article. At about 07:30 on 31 December I added a citation tio the artcile. MeasureIT posted his comment about the UKMA at 12:15 that day. Later in the day I substituted the earlier citation for a better one which effectively nullifed MeasureIT's comments about the UKMA. I therefore retract any allegation that he might have lied, but I must place on recrod that after I changed the citation, his comment ceased to have any meaning. Martinvl (talk) 10:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Covering British Inventions in the most productive way

For reference, this discussion was flagged on the UK Wikipedians' notice board on 28 September 2014 to help give it wider awareness. Whizz40 (talk) 07:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The content of this article was copied and pasted from List of English inventions and discoveries and List of Scottish inventions and discoveries in September 2011. While this may have been in good faith, it has not produced the desired result. Editors' efforts are now divided across two articles (British/English or British/Scottish etc) on any one topic. This reduces the interaction between editors and reduces the quality of the articles available to readers. The English/Scottish articles are the primary pages because they have more page views, more pages link to them (122/334 respectively compared with 30 for this page) and were established earlier. This article was originally set up to describe how the lists of British inventions are organised across a number of articles.

To bring editors and readers together in one article, I propose we remove the content from this article and focus on the English/Scottish articles with links to those articles here. The rationale for this is to generate the most collaboration and produce the best quality articles. There have been a number of edits this week by User:BanterChanelle, but prior to this, editing has been slow with only a proportion being improvements. The edits that are improvements would be available in the history and would need to be transferred to the English/Scottish/etc articles which would generate the collaboration and improvement proposed. I am happy to help with this. This page would go back to its original purpose of describing how the lists of British inventions are organised (and the recently added list of Top 10 British inventions could stay here as well). Whizz40 (talk) 05:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Wales? Northern Ireland? Rob984 (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The same rationale applies, editors/readers on Welsh inventors are better covered at List of Welsh inventors. If needed, List of Welsh inventions and discoveries and List of Northern Irish inventions and discoveries could be created and linked from this article. Almost all of this article is a copy and paste from the England and Scotland articles which will inevitably lead to growing conflicts between articles over time. The proposal is to revert this article to its original purpose as a description of the way the lists of British inventions are organised, bringing editors and readers together on a single relevant article. While this may not be a perfect solution, the reason for proposing/supporting the change is believing it will lead to better quality articles in the future. Whizz40 (talk) 11:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@BanterChanelle what are your thoughts and would you be able to make the same edits you made on this article to one of the existing English, Scottish or Welsh articles linked above? Whizz40 (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 22 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 10:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

---

Lists of British inventions → List of British inventions and discoveries – More complete and accurate article title, consistent with the content of the article and consistent with similar articles such as List of English inventions and discoveries and Scottish inventions and discoveries. Whizz40 (talk) 07:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Comment how about "List of Inventions British people like to commonly believe they invented" ? This list needs serious work to be accurate. Perhaps an asterisk next to every "british" invention that was invented somewhere else? On the whole though, linguistically I support the move, but the whole topic is disgustingly nationalistic tripe. ~ip user

It's good to improve the article but a quick google search immediately found a cite for one of the items you removed. Please add a citation needed tag before removing items from this article. Whizz40 (talk) 09:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I shall do that, though, honestly about all of these need a citation. How long do you leave a citation needed up for before deleting it as uncited research? ~ip user — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.191.33 (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I support the need for accuracy and verification. I think an important principle is multiple editors should be able to contribute to reach a consensus. The challenge is asymmetrical, it's easy for an editor to remove items, but requires a lot more work to research and cite all of the items, it will take time for editors to come to this page and do this, articles take years to write and keep on improving; once the text is gone, editors may have lost the opportunity to do this. It's a huge body of knowledge, and no one editor would have all the knowledge. If you find a source that disproves something presented them absolutely go ahead and remove it. Otherwise an approach could be to research, cite and improve the article; rather than finding things that could be wrong and removing them, finding evidence to support the work already done to make the article better by adding things. Whizz40 (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• There's a very, very, very long thread at Talk:List of German inventions and discoveries#More missing German inventions and discoveries in list where many of the inherent problems with these lists was hashed out. I think there is the greatest potential for consensus if the criteria are loosened so that we don't make strong assertions as to what is an "invention" or partial invention or shared invention, and what is "truly" British or German or whatever. This can be done by following the example of List of American inventions which redirects to Timeline of United States inventions. New technology that is important and relevant to country X can go on the timeline, without having to worry about whether that technology is the sole invention of Country X, or an immigrant from X to Y, or whether it's a "true" invention or merely a refinement of an existing invention/discovery/design/etc. A timeline lets you tell a country's history of science and technology without having to play referee in nationalist flag-waving contests. A worthwhile project would be to build broad consensus to revise all these lists the same way into timelines. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis. I agree it is possible and reasonable for these lists/timelines to overlap and indeed the areas of connection/cooperation or simultaneous development may be interesting and significant and so worth discussing in the article rather than glossing over or becoming a point of contention. In terms of the timeline format and the US articles in particular, I see there has been very similar debate on those articles (see eg Talk:Timeline of United States inventions and discoveries/Archive 2) to the discussions here and on the German article. I am more agnostic about the format, lists by topic could be easier for the reader to review and find things so both may have pros and cons. Please indicate whether you support the page move requested. Whizz40 (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Support because it's a small step on the right direction. But I expect these lists to be an ongoing source of conflict until they're redefined. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and agree with your idea that it is a worthwhile project to bring together editors to build consensus, define and improve these types of articles. Whizz40 (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dennis, List of Irish inventions and discoveries and List of Australian inventions, and List of Swedish inventions are already formatted as timelines - we could start a discussion on those pages about moving the article to Timeline of... ? Portuguese discoveries is an article by time period, currently there is a link in the List section of the Inventions template (at the bottom of all these pages); in the template, we could move it and Portuguese inventions to the Timeline section of the template? Russia is already a timeline but appears in the template in both the List and Timeline sections, we could trim the duplication in the List section? I only checked the articles on the tempalte, there may be others out there. Whizz40 (talk) 06:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• provisionally Oppose any move not supported by regular/substantial contributors to the article. There are clearly a number of ways in which an article like this can go. Consider the parallel contents:

• Timeline of United States discoveries
• Timeline of United States inventions
• Timeline of United States inventions (1890–1945)
• Timeline of United States inventions (1946–91)
• Timeline of United States inventions (after 1991)
• Timeline of United States inventions (before 1890)

There are a variety of possibilities presented in Category:Lists of inventions or discoveries. I would suggest scrapping this RM and simply starting a thread by which editors might explore the possibilities. GregKaye 11:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Greg, I requested the move and have been contributing to the article prior to this. I think the article move is a small step in the right direction (as echoed by Dennis Bratland above). Once the move is done, there are a variety of ways this article can be improved as you say. Would you consider supporting the move request with this additional context? Whizz40 (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Whizz40 Thank you and, on this basis, I am quite happy to give the Rec (provisional) support. As I say, as an uninvolved editor, it seems that a number of solutions can work and remain of the view that this kind of thing should be left in the hands of editors like yourself who will make it work. The title you suggest has good consistency with other titles in the same category. GregKaye 15:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support - The suggested name is more precise, seen as there are a number of discoveries listed on the article page. The new name is also consistent with existing UK related articles on the matter. Alternatively we could split the article and name them discoveries and inventions respectively. Mbcap (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Request for deletion

While there is historical background to this article, I believe it should be deleted and started from whole cloth. Save it for a bit to use as a template, but many of the links are uncited, much of it is flat out wrong, and the whole thing is overly nationalistic. Further, it's in violation of wiki policy, to quote wikipedia itself...

"Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content. However, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed. Please see Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for alternatives. Wikipedia articles are not: Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are permitted. (See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists for clarification.)"

(http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information)

I know there is a move discussion going on now, but this should just be changed straight away. ~ip user

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.191.33 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi IP, I see there has been improvement to this article in the last few days already. What is really needed is more editors to work on it; I am working on improving sourcing as are other editors and your knowledge and assistance with this is welcome too. There are 252 references already, but much work to be done, agreed. Besides, there are many other list-class articles like this for several countries, some of which has been through the deletion discussions and resulted in Keep. The very fact that there is interest in these articles, and controversy, shows they serve a purpose; if there are common misconceptions about inventions being British, when there is more to it than simply that, then this article serves a purpose as a reference to address this in an informative and factual way. Therefore, my view is in favour of Removing the tag from this article instead of starting a deletion discussion. It would be more constructive for editors to spend their time sourcing, citing and improving this article to make it a useful reference for readers. After all, that is what Wikipedia is about. Whizz40 (talk) 06:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose, There is plenty that can be fairly presented within topics such as Anti-British sentiment and a "Criticisms of .." article can be presented as needed. However, I even asked a question recently: Has ISIL done any good? We live in a negative world. Any genuine good that is done can be rightly lauded. GregKaye 11:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Non-committed The question to be asked I guess is still, is it easier to try to start from whole cloth on this, and try to make a timeline, or try to take this article and shape it into a timeline (in that case, we'd still need to change the article title). I've been trying to weed out the ones that are a.) not inventions at all, and b.) not british inventions. It seems a lot of things were just put in half-baked through the years, without citations or checking up. I see what Whizz is going similar. Maybe once it's pared down to things that are actually inventions, and British, it can become a technological timeline. If we made it innovations as well, it could re-include things that I removed (such as bedside manner from Florence Nightengale, useful, certainly, but not an invention). ~ip user — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.191.33 (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

With regards the first question, I think it will be easier to start from the exisiting content and improve it, this also gives due consideration to past editors' contributions (where they are valid) in keeping with Wikipedia's approach. I think there are a number of notable British innovations and these being in the list already suggests other readers/editors think this way too; so I would include innovations in the definition. If other editors would like to work on coverting this into a timeline then I am coming around to the idea and would be happy to support and help with this. Dennis Bratland's comments above express the case for a timeline well and Greg Kaye seems to be thinking this way too. Whizz40 (talk) 10:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess a question is how should we proceed from here. If other editors agree, we could take an incremental approach. First, supporting the article move, requested above, to go ahead because it is a small step in the right direction and a no-regrets action. Then we can work on improving the article in the normal way. If we want to reorganise it into a timeline then we can add section headings eg by century and move the content, improving it as we go. Once progress is made, another move request can be made to Timeline of British inventions and discoveries (a redirect from List of British inventions and discoveries would be helpful anyway). IP 90, if you're ok with this, we could remove the AFD tag. Whizz40 (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

It was really disruptive to have not waited for the move discussion above to have closed before starting a pseudo-deletion discussion. It's essentially forum shopping which in this case can lead to two contradictory consensus decisions. What's also disruptive is to have a started a meaningless, non-binding deletion thread. The place to discuss deletion is at WP:AfD. But then the briefest of glances at the valid reasons for deletions of articles will tell you that bad content is not a valid reason. We don't "start over". We simply fix the content. So yes, "work on the article in the normal way." That's what we all do here, to all the articles. Make them better. The user at 90.201.191.33 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seems bent on turning everything into a battlefield and proposing bizarre solutions to every problem, maximizing conflict and ignoring Wikipedia's institutional knowledge of what works.

I recommend not feeding the troll, who is destined to be blocked from editing, and sticking to ordinary research, citation, and editing of verifiable facts. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi [User:[Dennis Bratland]],I don't know if it was disruptive, I feel that this article shouldn't continue as it is, it should be turned into a timeline. As it stands, it violates the policy that "Wikipedia is not a collection of lists" as well as being poorly sourced. I am attempting to check some of the links for accuracy. I nominated the article for deletion for those reasons, alas, as I'm not an autoconfirmed user I used the appropriate method of listing it as such, and then putting it on the talk page of the article with my rationale, when then, a helpful autoconfirmed user was to put it up on the AfD board for there to be a discussion, (incidentally, what you chastised me both on my talk page and here for not doing...I was following procedure). I'm not sure what of this is destined to get me blocked, having an opinion on an article, soundly based on policy, or trying to check sources of an article?

Anyways, I still think this should be turned into a timeline and this article as it stands should be deleted, but I really don't want to work with people like this. Cheers ~~ip user 90.201.191.33 (talk) 08:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The appropraite method is to create an account if you want to nominate articles for deletion. It says that right there in the instructions you ignored. This is no such policy "Wikipedia is not a collection of lists" and it's not a valid reason for deletion. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The other appropriate method, as it says right there in the policy, is to put your rationale on the talk page, and ask for an autoconfirmed user to mark it for the AfD board, as I did. Also, the policy I was referencing is : http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information ~~ ip user 90.201.191.33 (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Converting to a timeline

For reference, this discussion was flagged on the UK Wikipedians' notice board on 1 April 2015 to help give it wider awareness. Whizz40 (talk) 07:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Continuing the discussions above about converting this article to a timeline. As Dennis Bratland said, "A timeline lets you tell a country's history of science and technology", other editors commented on this becoming a timeline as well. Adding innovations back into the timeline was suggested and, since they are already in the list, past editors would likely agree; Dennis' experience with other articles like this is that there is "greatest potential for consensus if the criteria are loosened so that we don't make strong assertions as to what is an invention or partial invention or shared invention, and what is truly British or German or whatever. ... New technology that is important and relevant to country X can go on the timeline, without having to worry about whether that technology is the sole invention of Country X, or an immigrant from X to Y, or whether it's a true invention or merely a refinement of an existing invention/discovery/design/etc." So we could covert this list into a Timeline of British innovation and discovery, similar to Timeline of Russian innovation. If other editors have views on this or would like to work together on improving the article please jump in. Whizz40 (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, why not. Propose a move and redefinition of the list. If it flies then go ahead and move the list for Germany and then France and then all the rest. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so how do we get started? This is what I was getting at before I left (Sorry, was on holiday!), do we just add onto this as time goes, or try to start anew whole cloth? ipuser 94.2.198.12 (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Best approach i think is to get a consensus on the article title and definition through the move request below, so suggest first step would be to add your comments to the section below. Once the page is moved we can get started on the reorganisation. In terms of editing approach, we should build on the contributions of previous editors, improving the wording, accuracy and referencing as we move things from the list to the timeline. Whizz40 (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 2 April 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved - currently the article does not meet the guidelines for timelines at WP:Timelines or WP:Timeline standards. While the timeline format may indeed be the better way to approach this content, the article should be converted to a timeline consistent with the guidelines first before renaming. As it stands today, the article is a list. Mike Cline (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

---

List of British inventions and discoveries → Timeline of British innovation and discovery – As discussed on the Talk page, propose converting this list to a timeline inclusive of innovations. Whizz40 (talk) 05:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support: a timeline seems a much better way of presenting this article. I do however think that an alteration of the proposed title to: Timeline of British innovations and discoveries would sound more natural. Ebonelm (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• Agree, this is better. I'm going to alter the original move request given this is the only comment so far. Hopefully this works okay. Whizz40 (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• Whizz40 I think that the title should be Timeline of British innovation and discovery in a similar fashion to Timeline of mathematical innovation in South and West Asia. GregKaye 20:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support — I also prefer Timeline of British innovation and discovery but otherwise Timeline of British innovations and discoveries is fine. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• There is also a Timeline of Russian innovation but I don't see any articles with the title Timeline of X innovations.... Google search results for Timeline "innovation and discovery" are 13.1 million while the results for Timeline "innovations and discoveries" are less than 1 million. Overall, I think there is greatest chance for consensus with Timeline of British innovation and discovery. I'll change the request back to the original. Whizz40 (talk) 04:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Whizz40, sorry to have to re-raise the case for innovations and discoveries but actually nearly all the current pages use the plural including: Austria, Azerbaijan, Brazil, England, Scotland, Germany, Indonesia, basically every page currently listed on Template:Inventions. I would recommend that you once again change back to the plural. The bigger issue is probably going to be the choice to use 'innovation/s' rather than 'invention/s'. Ebonelm (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

This definition has been discussed in a previous move request and subsequent discussions on the talk page. There are no binding constraints from other articles on this article and neither would this article create binding constraints on others. The precedent which this title gives most weight to is the previous editing that created the article, which is inclusive of innovations, and the purpose of this move request is to see if there is consensus for converting the list to a timeline including the innovations, which I am happy to work on. Whizz40 (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Timeline format and move should proceed

Given that the only reason this wasn't moved to a timeline was that the format needs to be changed first, we don't need to go through them motions of another move discussion. Once it has been reformatted as a timeline, boldly go ahead and move to the new title without further discussion. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Conversion to a timeline is underway. All contributions to moving items to the timeline are welcome. I flagged this on the UK Wikipedians' notice board too. Whizz40 (talk) 07:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland and Whizz40: Please use {{Timeline-event}} for the new format. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Andy, I based the format on Wikipedia:Timeline and Timeline of chemistry which was given as an example of a featured list. Whizz40 (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Conversion to a timeline in ongoing, in the interim, I will move the article to List of British innovations and discoveries consistent with all the discussion in the sections above. Whizz40 (talk) 08:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Many inventions listed here in british list are disputed or not correct

As i read this list, i have to say, many innovations, which are listed here, are disputed or not British innovations and discoveries. Hutzre (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Telephone (also American and German innovation)
• Television (also American and German innovation)
• Jet engine (also German innovation)
• Electric motor (also German and Hungarian innovation)
• Bicycle (also German innovation)

Hutzre (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

As discussed in the lead, many modern inventions can not be claimed simply by one inventor. Steam-powered pumps were first used by a Spanish man, Jerónimo de Ayanz y Beaumont, although English inventor Thomas Newcomen created the first practical steam engine for pumping water in 1712. Perhaps the first electric motors were simple electrostatic devices created by the Scottish monk Andrew Gordon in the 1740s. However, Hungarian Ányos Jedlik later made the first electric motor with commutator brushes, that is, a modern direct current motor which allowed the motor to turn more than once without the entire motor being submerged in liquid.

The incandescent light bulb was worked on by scores of people, French, British and American including Thomas Edison who is regarded by many (somewhat incorrectly) as being the inventor of the lightbulb. However, some of the earliest advancements toward a working light bulb were made by English inventor Humphry Davy, and Scottish inventor James Bowman Lindsay is credited in Challoner et al. with being the inventor of the "incandescent light bulb" in 1835. The list of bicycle inventors is long disputed, with German Baron Karl von Drais usually being credited for the first forerunner of a bicycle, the dandy horse, similar to a modern-day balance bike. The first mechanically propelled, two-wheeled vehicle may have been built by Kirkpatrick MacMillan, a Scottish blacksmith, in 1839, although the claim is often disputed. Irishman Francis Rynd was the first to use a hollow needle for injections, nine years before the English and French physicians Alexander Wood and Charles Pravaz independently developed a medical hypodermic syringe with a needle fine enough to pierce the skin in 1853. Scottish-born Alexander Graham Bell was working in America when he was granted a U.S. patent for the telephone in 1876 and he later renounced his British citizenship, thus Americans equally claim the invention. Italians claim that Antonio Meucci created the word's first telephone concept two decades earlier.

Similarly, the television has a complicated history, the first "widely-regarded" demonstration of modern electronic television was by an American, Philo Farnsworth in 1928. Earlier contributions were made by German Paul Gottlieb Nipkow who invented components that Scotsman John Logie Baird used to give the first demonstration of mechanical television in 1924 followed by the first public demonstration in January 1926. UNESCO's Memory of the World Programme records Hungarian engineer Kálmán Tihanyi to have patented the first working fully electronic TV concept in 1926. A gas turbine was first demonstrated by Norwegian Ægidius Elling, but Englishman Frank Whittle was the first to patent a jet engine in 1930, followed by German Hans von Ohain six years later. Cat's eyes, used for road marking, originated in the UK in 1933 and went on to be adopted around the world. The ATM was developed independently in several countries including Britain, where it was first put into commercial use in 1967. Whizz40 (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Could the lead be any more weasely?

"List of British innovations and discoveries" gives us topical relevance (these are exclusively British innovations and discoveries) and this unambiguously clear article title should be followed by a lead that makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected (MOS:SAL). Instead the lead goes off this guideline, immediately trying to claim 10 "British innovations" then state right after that "Many of the ten inventions listed above can not be claimed simply by British inventors".

This needs to be de-weaseled and the list its self should conform to WP:CSC, every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia, and that article should state up front this is a British innovation or discovery. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fountains of Bryn Mawr, the lead was not intended to be weasely. I revised the wording, consistent with your comments. The sources are cited and the linked articles are consistent. Whizz40 (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but it wasn't much of an improvement. Removing the weasel words does not reduce the conflict between the list and the lead definition/title. The lead should not contain 4 paragraphs of text that have nothing to do with MOS:SAL and the 10 invention bullet pointed list runs against WP:YESPOV: its stating seriously contested assertions as facts (WP:YESPOV point #2) and its cited to a not very independent single source that seems to be stating an opinion reworded as "fact" in Wikipedia's voice (WP:YESPOV point #1). Of the 10 inventions bullet pointed, 7 are not strictly British innovations per their own Wikipedia articles: they all show phrasing like "several inventors pioneered experimental work" or show a continual progression of invention. Steam engine, Cat's eyes, and Hypodermic syringe are the only three that are marginally "British" inventions. But again, they do not belong in the lead and they are redundant (stated in the timeline already). I propose deleting the whole lead except for the first list-def sentence. I can see there is general consensus above to convert this list to a timeline so that looks like the next logical move. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree the 10 bullet list needs to be removed and the lead needs to be rewritten, which I have done, consistent with the timeline format being developed and the discussion above about describing the history of innovation of a country. Whizz40 (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Did further cleanup per MOS:SAL and WP:MOSBEGIN. Hatnote was a good def that belonged in the lead sentence. Removed description redundant to the list (and other articles). Added lead image. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Lead

Added a paragraph consistent with MOS:SAL ("Stand-alone lists should begin with a lead section that summarizes its content, provides any necessary background information, gives encyclopedic context, links to other relevant articles, and makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected") and WP:Lead, also comparable with Timeline of United States inventions (1890–1945) and Timeline of chemistry. Whizz40 (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of British innovations and discoveries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070709072617/http://www.oughtred.org:80/history-new.shtml to http://www.oughtred.org/history-new.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Who wrote the Scientific Innovation List - It's Just All Scots

For a start the Nobel Prize for the MRI machine went to Peter Mansfield who was born in Lambeth and was a Professor at the University of Nottingham and not John Mallard and James Huchinson. The CT Scan was also developed by an Englishman Sir Godfrey Hounsfield, who also won a Noble Prize, and his name is immortalised in the Hounsfield scale, a quantitative measure of radiodensity used in evaluating CT scans.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Peter_Mansfield

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Godfrey_Hounsfield

These are just two names missed off the list, and they were a lot of English Scientific Innovators and not just Scotsmen.

All these and more can be added. Whizz40 (talk) 06:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of British innovations and discoveries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/3934/anchor.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of British innovations and discoveries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150622180532/http://www.atquid.com/viewArticle.php?article_id=59&title=The_Harwood_Automatic_Wristwatch to http://www.atquid.com/viewArticle.php?article_id=59&title=The_Harwood_Automatic_Wristwatch
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090320165717/http://www.jamesonwhiskey.com:80/Home.aspx to http://www.jamesonwhiskey.com/Home.aspx
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.kentnews.co.uk/kent-news/Kent-stick-with-tradition-for-Canterbury-festival-newsinkent38292.aspx?news=sport
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070621211721/http://www.norwich.gov.uk/internet_docs/docs/Unitary_Council/AnnexB.pdf to http://www.norwich.gov.uk/internet_docs/docs/Unitary_Council/AnnexB.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of British innovations and discoveries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402110146/http://www.connected-earth.com/Journeys/Firstgenerationtechnologies/Awirelessworld/Theoriginsofradio/index.htm to http://www.connected-earth.com/Journeys/Firstgenerationtechnologies/Awirelessworld/Theoriginsofradio/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120315090452/http://www.biggleswadehistory.org.uk/Dan%20Albone.htm to http://www.biggleswadehistory.org.uk/Dan%20Albone.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080920084143/http://www.wolverhampton.gov.uk/transport_streets/motor/management/control.htm to http://www.wolverhampton.gov.uk/transport_streets/motor/management/control.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929004417/http://www.theiet.org/about/libarc/archives/biographies/faraday.cfm to http://www.theiet.org/about/libarc/archives/biographies/faraday.cfm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket/ladstolords/1300.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723143635/http://www.historyoftennis.net/history_of_tennis.html to http://www.historyoftennis.net/history_of_tennis.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110306141537/http://www.netball.org/Netball.aspx?id=18 to http://www.netball.org/Netball.aspx?id=18
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070621211721/http://www.norwich.gov.uk/internet_docs/docs/Unitary_Council/AnnexB.pdf to http://www.norwich.gov.uk/internet_docs/docs/Unitary_Council/AnnexB.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

World Wide Web --Swiss Invention?

So I am a scientist at a British Institution. In the contracts, anything that we do is of course the Intellectual Property of the Institution, thus, British. If a Swiss scientist working at a British Institution did something remarkable, it would surely be classed as a British Invention. For the sake of argument, thus, don't the Swiss have just as much right to call the World Wide Web their invention, as they were the ones funding Tim Berners-Lee when he did the work. It wasn't supported in any way by the British Government, Taxpayers, etc. If it were a Swiss guy doing it at Cambridge, we'd class it as a British Invention, even though he was Swiss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA32:CC00:392E:2169:B08C:B7AC (talk) 08:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on List of British innovations and discoveries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141123061120/http://www.ans.iastate.edu/history/faculty/bakewell/bakewell.html to http://www.ans.iastate.edu/history/faculty/bakewell/bakewell.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100920230519/http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/objects/computing_and_data_processing/1878-3.aspx to http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/objects/computing_and_data_processing/1878-3.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060616002258/http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Babbage.html to http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Babbage.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5zbRVYsAo?url=http://digital.nls.uk/scientists/biographies/alexander-graham-bell/index.html to http://www.nls.uk/scientists/biographies/alexander-graham-bell/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110924092817/http://windupradio.com/trevor.htm to http://windupradio.com/trevor.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705163247/http://www.theiet.org/about/libarc/archives/featured/cavity-magnetron.cfm to http://www.theiet.org/about/libarc/archives/featured/cavity-magnetron.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100622051658/http://www.rigb.org/contentControl?action=displayContent&id=00000004195 to http://www.rigb.org/contentControl?action=displayContent&id=00000004195
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100313170420/http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2006/4/2006_4_4.shtml to http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2006/4/2006_4_4.shtml
• Added archive https://archive.is/20071012053215/http://history.enotes.com/peoples-chronology/year-1866/medicine to http://history.enotes.com/peoples-chronology/year-1866/medicine
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120329115711/http://www1.imperial.ac.uk/medicine/news/p71909/ to http://www1.imperial.ac.uk/medicine/news/p71909/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bpc.edu/mathscience/chemistry/history_of_the_periodic_table.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101223060736/http://www.rigb.org/contentControl?action=displayContent&id=00000001043 to http://www.rigb.org/contentControl?action=displayContent&id=00000001043
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://cache.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/76466/John-Boyd-Orr-Baron-Boyd-Orr-of-Brechin-Mearns
• Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160516003958/http://news.stv.tv/internet-technology/206620-scientists-reveal-material-for-invisibility-cloak/ to http://news.stv.tv/internet-technology/206620-scientists-reveal-material-for-invisibility-cloak/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.royalgazette.com/siftology.royalgazette/Article/article.jsp?articleId=7d8af2f30030024&sectionId=60

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Errors

Other than some name spelling errors (Mc and Mac are always followed by a capital letter not small case, it is a compound word) it should be noted that there are also nationality errors on this page. A Scotsman is not an "English" anything. England and Scotland are two separate sovereign nations that are only joined by a Union Act. The United Kingdom of the British Isles is made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The UK is not called England. It is clear that this page was created by a foreign source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:41BF:9301:1022:8633:2C78:DC7A (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Correction the name is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" it is not "The United Kingdom of the British Isles" and never has been either. Galdrack (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Refactored lead

The second paragraph of the lead did not seem to WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, this is not an article about patents or their influence nor is it a place to (make points about British superiority?). It refered to the Industrial Revolution redundantly. It contained the unsourced statement/off topic statement "Experimentation was considered central to innovation by groups such as the Royal Society, which was founded in 1660." "encouraged invention and spurred on the Industrial Revolution from the late 18th century which began in Britain" was contradicted by its own source "one cannot infer too much from patent statistics particularly in this formative era of the patent system". The sources in general seem to be opinion and should not be put in Wikipedia's voice. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)