Talk:Invention in Canada

Redirect
I've unredirected this now I understand what the aim of the article is. Here are some things that need to be done:
 * The article needs an introductory paragraph explaining what it is about.
 * Some of the things in it are not innovative. The construction of large ships, while noteworthy, was being done in many other places besides Canada. It should be described in the 'diffusion' article, not here.
 * The article includes things that are borderline 'innovation'. Coming out with a new model commuter jet is not really 'innovation', otherwise every new model of plane or car should be listed.
 * The article contains generalisations without specifics, e.g. "In the field of agriculture, machines were developed to farm the vast prairie grasslands."
 * The article lacks references. It should be easy to provde references to back up all that is said here, and I would strongly recommend doing that rather than expanding the article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for making the article visible again.

I will get to work to try to make the modifications that you suggest.

Jeff Atkins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.164.247 (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Jeff Again

A note about the relationship between invention and innovation. Both are very important. To mention invention without mentioning innovation is to miss a large part of the story. There are few important inventions and the ones that have been made jump out at us. Innovations are not as noticable but are just as important. Take the airplane for example. The Wright Flyer was the first airplane. The B-747 is also an airplane. However they are very different from each other. The road between the two is the result of thousands incremental "innovations", most of which were quite unremarkable on their own...hundreds of engines each slightly more powerful than what came before, different materials...doped canvas, plywood, aluminum, titanium... different shapes, two wings, one wing, high wing low wing, swept wing...control systems, wire line, hydraulic, electric, computer, fly by wire...avonics, radio, inhertial navigation, GPS, etc. To properly tell the story of technology it is essential to mention the innovations that are related to an invention. The CRJ is an example of a type of aircraft that innovated in a particular class of aircraft...faster more economical etc. Therefore it is useful to include the word innovation in the title of the article, because many Canadian technological contributions related to incremental improvements or "innovations" to a basic invention. It is also important to mention the innovations themselves as well. Alex Bell invented the hydrofoil. But to end the story there is to miss another important Canadian contribution...the Bras D'or fast naval ship. The Whittle jet was the first jet fighter. Do we end the story there or do we mention the CF-100 and CF-105. Sputnik was the first satellite. Do we stop there or as Canadians do we mention, Alouette, Anik, Radarsat etc. You get the idea. Therefore the majority of items mentioned in the article are innovations rather than inventions. This is whhy it is important to mention innovation in the title of the article and to tell the story of the many Canadian innovations as well as inventions in the article.

Jeff Atkins

I still have major problems with this article. 1) it's very short on references. 2) Some of the statements are very vague: "helped design RADAR and the proximity fuse" gives no real idea of what the contribution of Canadian organisations did. 3) Including a particular Bombardier commuter jet as an example of 'invention' is stretching the limit; to some extent every aircraft design is an example of invention, and it is not explained why this jet is more innovative than the hundreds of others. 4) Sometimes impressive sounding statements are used without comparison. "hundreds of millions in drug research" sounds impressive, but how does it compare with other countries? It sounds like the sort of statement that governments or tourist boards use when they want people to be impressive without giving out any useful information.

All in all this article needs a severe rewrite to include concrete information. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

My reading of "Canadian Vickers developed a successful series of flying boats" is that the aircraft were developed in the UK and manufactured in Canada. There is no indication from the Canadian Vickers article that any development was done in Canada. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I just removed a statement that ATMs were invented in Winnipeg in 1977. In fact ATMs were common in the UK in the mid seventies - I used one personally in 1978, in a small town, and they had already been around for a long while then. This just makes me more suspicious of all the other unreferenced stuff here. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add the point that the AVRO built the Arrow which was to be a supersonic interceptor and Avrocar which was a saucer shaped personal vehicle concept. There was never a saucershaped supersonic interceptor.

- Bill Scaife July 28, 2009. (note: I have not modified the article as the Arrow was important, but I do not have enough of the specific details to add a proper article for this forum) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.71.189 (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Invention in Canada. 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/20081108044139/http://innovation.gc.ca/ to http://www.innovation.gc.ca/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)