Talk:WheelTug

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 October 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion not met

This article is the subject of a request emailed to the Volunteer Response Team (VRT).

Issues identified are: Confirming that material was copied from Wikipedia to http://www.wheeltug.com, not the other way around.
The VRTS ticket number is 2011032310009476.

Please discuss these issues here, being mindful of the policies on biographies of living persons.

Reasons for Reposting and for Previous Deletion

This page was temporarily deleted after WheelTug Plc copied it onto a section of their web page without attribution. The frame of the webpage had the copywrite symbol which lead to the conclusion that the wikipedia article was copied from the WheelTug.com when the opposite was true. WheelTug.com has since removed the entry, and has told me they will comply with the guidelines for using material from wikipedia. Therefore I'm reposting the this entry. Chovesh (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for Speedy Deletion Message

The speedy deletion message popped up after I tested the ability to create the page with about seven words total. I have since added the full entry I worked on. (I put up a brief placeholder entry as I went to write the text above this one. I did not know if writing this first before any text was put into the page itself would have any effect.) Chovesh (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several issues

I was in the process of researching this subject to then nominate it for deletion but I now believe that the subject is notable. That being said, this article needs a lot of work. Here's the notes I took on some of the issues the article has. It's what I wrote for the AfD so it may sound a little weird.

Article currently has 6 reference. The 4th, 5th, and 6th are all the same PDF which was published by INSIGHT SRI, a consulting company, that verifies information in the article but has no coverage of WheelTug at all. The 2nd and 3rd references are reports written by two Research Fellows from the University of Westminster and is used to verify information in the article but do not mention WheelTug at all. The 1st reference is a pay PDF that I can't view but is used in-line to verify a claim of an engine noise curfew so I would guess it doesn't mention WheelTug at all either.

The article has 15 external links which I believe are meant to be references. The links are either to YouTube videos (3, 6, 7), PDFs or webpages that make no mention or a small mention of the subject of the article (1, 9, 10. 13) , were self-published by WheelTug (2, 5), or were published by a PR firm or as a press release (4, 8, 11, 14). In my opinion, only article 12 could be claimed to be used as a support for notability but I'm not sure how reliable of a source it is.

I found no articles through a Google News search. (Here's why I change my mind regarding notability) The subject does show several hits through a Google News Archive search.

The only other concern I have is that there's WAY too much content regarding the problem that WheelTug is trying to solve. Ideally, the article would make a small mention of the problem and include an internal Wikipedia link to that subject so that a reader could go to that article if they wanted to. That's assuming that articles for those subjects exist but I would guess they do in some form.

I'm going to tag the article with several improvement tags but I felt that showing my work here would be more helpful than just splattering the article with tags. OlYeller^Talktome 06:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing the Issues

I'm in the process of making the changes you suggested. I think I've confused "references" with being references to a topic in the wikipedia entry, as opposed to references of the wikipedia entry subject. Hence linking to articles or surces on a topic mentioned mid entry (like FOD) that explain and provide more information on FOD in general but don't mention WheelTug (since they predate WheelTug). Can you help me on understanding the difference? I still want to provide links to the specific 'topic' that is of relavent to the 'subject' (of the wikipedia article) for those who want to know more about what is being refered (or referenced) to.

As for notability through articles, there are several articles in Janes Airport Review, but they are paid subscription, but there are others including one in Motor Trend magazine: http://www.motortrend.com/features/editorial/112_0901_flying_hybrids_technologue/index.html that are accessible through a search. Furthermore, they have attended the farnborough air show and are attending the paris air show (but through their partners who are well known in the industry).

"...that there's WAY too much content regarding the problem that WheelTug is trying to solve"

In an effort to show notability, I tried to put in why it was notable. The problems it is desiged to solve are major ones plaguing the industry, and not all of them are obvious (such as the early start times). Furthermore, since all the articles out on it each have their own little piece of the pie, I figure I'd put the whole pie there AND give people the links to explore areas that are of interst to them as they leave the topic of WheelTug itself. Chovesh (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend a 2015 review of this page to provide some needed balance. EGTS International and Taxibot have far smaller stub pages with less company info and history, the cites that are more than company PR. Taxibot has a certified and in use product yet only rates seven sentences, EGTS only six after I added a marketplace comparison sentence to match Wheeltug and Taxibot. I recommend a page haircut to balance competitors and cut Wheeltug PR bloat. Solomon(for now)109.64.148.72 (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Insider editor issues

Is it an issue that chovesh is actually a company officer for Borealis and Wheeltug, Aaron Bianco http://www.linkedin.com/in/aaronbianco and he appears to be advertising his company here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.216.37 (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is an issue if an editor is affiliated with the subject of the article - it's called a conflict of interest (COI). COI editors are not forbidden from editing, however they will find themselves subjected to a higher level of scrutiny to assure that their edits are neutral and verifiable from reliable sources. --Drm310 (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wheeltug officer Chovesh has an interest in whitewashing this article. He has removed the entry quoting Wheeltugs's own financial statements from the article, removed the link to parent Borealis Exploration, as well as removing mention that the order book claims and previous year's delivery dates were from company press releases. The Wheeltug entry in Borealis is more complete than this stub, questioning wikipedia relevance as a separate page, perhaps better to merge with Borealis?109.66.17.228 (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned out factual claims by Chovesh from article only backed up by company press releases or info on wheeltug.gi rebuilding what I can from remaining cites that were from industry websites commenting on electrical ground taxi systems or joint press releases form Wheeltug and partners. I hope this is more balanced, it is hard to find wheeltug info that is not a press release or company promotional material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.206.175 (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've overdone the stripping so I have reverted it. Please bear in mind that WP:SPS are allowed to be used for simple factual information and be a bit more selecetive about what and how much to remove. One example; you removed the fact that the device allows a plane to push back from a gate without a tug, that is a highly significant feature of the technology. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dodger67, info on this topic is for the most part only to be found in the form of Wheeltug or Wheeltug joint press releases. Can a topic fairly be presented based almost entirely on the advertising claims or tech comparison articles written based on the claims from Wheeltug? After searching for good cites, and nearly all of the real industry magazine cites(based on WHeeltug PR) have been placed by me, it seems that other than reading Wheeltug press release claims nobody in the industry has been able to write or evaluate anything about any of the actual wheeltug units or their dev progress. In ten years the only non-Wheeltug provided proof of company existence I can find is a few promotional youtube clips of taxiing airplanes and a few promo bits on financial shows. Extraordinary idea that nose gear taxi is, and I have my hopes that the patents and tech will go somewhere, but I wonder what Wheeltug is actually doing with the tech and patents anymore. They seem to have missed their Delta deal as well as apparently never getting FAA type certification by 2009(I can find no certification for 737 or any aircraft being issued, can't cite a non-issuance though). It seems that without non-PR cites, which only a few exist the whole article requires weasel wording to avoid presenting as fact optimistic company hopes for a product. We need cites for the following or change the article language; can an in-wheel Wheeltug actually back away from a gate on APU, can it travel down a taxiway on APU without interfering with airport ops. Additionally is the additional nosewheel weight a safety concern, are any technical downsides covered in this article anymore? The only other major contrib I see in history is Chovesh who is a Wheeltug corporate officer.79.180.206.175 (talk) 06:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At what point does an article based almost entirely on Wheeltug advertising become a Wheeltug advertisement? There are only two independent cites, placed by me, one an interview with WHeeltug CEO and another is a comparison article based on Wheeltug PR claims, all others are from Wheeltug. I have worked on this article but this is still IMHO a free and mostly uncritical ad for Wheeltug needing trim down to a stub or more appropriately moved to it's corporate parent company's established wikipedia page. 79.181.125.29 (talk) 10:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gutted to the point of uselessness.

The entry for WheelTug has been gutted to the point of uselesness. No information of significance can be found.

There needs to be an 'e-taxi' page (electric taxi) that discusses WheelTug, L3, and Safran/Honeywells competing e-taxi systems. This e-taxi page could then link to 3 separate entries on each electric taxi system including this one "WheelTug". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chovesh (talk • contribs) 17:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Factors for proposed rewrite

WheelTug has now signed 13 airlines as customers, including 7 flag carriers for a total of 731 aircraft, representing more than 7% of all 737NG and A320S built. Electric taxi has become a significant topic and the subject of numerous industry articles. I'm looking for someone who is interested in helping me update this article as I am closely connected to the company and would appreciate another viewpoint. Chovesh (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Chovesh[reply]

What are the sources of this "new" information? The shortage of independent reliable sources is the main problem with this article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marketplace section expansion(Taxibot)

I added a section explaining rather than just linking Taxibot to mirror equivalent Wheeltug content on the Taxibot page. While Taxibot is in airport service Wheeltug has a larger page based almost entirely on Wheeltug PR. I hope that User:YSSYguy will come here and better explain his thoughts on an unexplained and a later "inappropriate content" revert. Solomon(for now)109.64.148.72 (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on WheelTug. 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/20100818053150/http://www.wheeltug.gi:80/press/pr_WT20100201.shtml to http://www.wheeltug.gi/press/pr_WT20100201.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} 23:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Complete rewrite to address existing issues

I have completely rewritten the article to incorporate suggestions from Wikipedia editors and address flagged issues. I have:

1) Removed all marketing language and references to primary sources, substituting accepted third party sources that address the notability issue; 2) Written an entry that is similar in format, approach and length to that used for competitors EGTS and Taxibot; 3) Focused on the core technology rather than the company Avindustrygeek 00:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

looks good, did some minor tweaks and added early history, beautiful prose but toned it down to functional if boring encyclopedic language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.56.241 (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason for the rollback? As I said, your rewrite of the article is very polished and professional, but presents without qualification as established fact statements by Borealis/Wheeltug press releases filtered as quotes in industry publications, it also eliminates all company history since '05 as well as corporate ownership information. I see you have a newly created account, you need to be careful for neutral POV style vs enthusiastic tone(I am interested by the concept's potential too), but wikipedia is not a PR platform for Borealis/Wheeltug and this particular article has already had serious insider editor/work for hire problems.

Thanks for your note. The rollback (and the original rewrite from several weeks ago) was to bring the page in line with the competition in the same space, TaxiBot and EGTS International. One of my concerns from the earlier versions of the WheelTug page (prior to my rewrite) was that there was excessive use of company press releases, quotes of company officials and company website references. That is why I undertook a rewrite from scratch. My goal was to make sure that every asserted fact in the article was backed up by an independent, 3rd party source. I also feel that reference #3, which points to the graduate research, is important, as the research uses hard data to demonstrate some of WheelTug's attributes. Finally, I feel the technology is much more important than the company history or corporate ownership. Please compare to the TaxiBot and EGTS pages. Avindustrygeek 21:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avindustrygeek (talk • contribs)

Several problems I see, mostly Point of View

history section, removes all company history and partnering ie Boeing, Delta, El-Al; instead presents two competing Wheeltug marketing positions, remove everything and move down latest FAA certification application. Consider adding when founded, first attempt with Boeing and Delta, this might help https://news.delta.com/delta-looks-simplify-tow-and-tug-processes-taxiways
company ownership, it is of encyclopedic interest the parent entity of a company as seen in Taxibot and EGTS articles, Wheeltug's is Borealis Exploration(not essential but far more important than the changing history of most advertised Wheeltug advantages)
20-22 airlines interested, this is recycled Wheeltug press release quote, numbers change but source is always Wheeltug; needs real 3rd party source, I would drop that line
Dual door boarding, wheeltug twist, etc; marketing statements from CEO or press releases recycled in industry mags, too much info for stub article
everything present tense, wheeltug is not type certified for any aircraft so all statements need to be all future tense, some statements may be flexible here if applied to the whole tug-tech field and not directly to Wheeltug
extolling/explaining the tech beyond the short explanation requires starting a new page for Alternate Taxing Technology and then using proper POV to explain both the ups/downs in cold encyclopedic style not the style you might see in a Boeing or BAE industry mag ad. ie "EGTS is an electric taxiing system that is used prior to takeoff and can help airlines reduce cost by eliminating the need to use jet engines which are not efficient on the ground. It can also reduce foreign object damage and is environmentally friendly as it reduce carbon and other emissions created during the taxiing phase." that is enough, you could even sub in Wheeltug to that sentence.
excessive positive adjectives, looks great but is off from WP POV ie. "particular savings", " Lowered emissions are especially important", etc when applied to a Wheeltug's article, it could probably work if done carefully in a tug-tech article when applied to the whole field.
all statements are positive tone and none of the particular negatives of Wheeltug & nose wheel drive from 3rd party industry analysis have been retained in the article, with proper POV and brevity might not be a problem

As you can see above in talk there have been problems with hired edits in the past trying to get cheap exposure and free positive press high in Google search for Wheeltug so there is a big need to keep this article on track and not into an advertisement again. As you mention the two competing tech articles as your guide please note that these POV problems are not present in either, follow their style especially EGTS which is also not in service but getting certified, you will see neutral vs positive POV. Also note the brevity of both articles one of which is in airline service. You are clearly a skilled writer and have concentrated your wikipedia effort on this Wheeltug article so the company and the tech are an interest to you, make the required edits and keep adding updates if the company progresses, with your help this article will be great. Thanks for joining Wikipedia and I look forward to your future contribs! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.23.179 (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to reply to (and discuss) your thoughtful criticisms in detail, but would you be willing to set up your own Wikipedia account and profile first. Thank you very much.Avindustrygeek 21:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avindustrygeek (talk • contribs)

It is unlikely that I will register, in any case I think having the discussion on the topic's talk page vs going more private leaves a better record for others to see.

Levitune May 2021 and long history of commercial edits

Viewing user history it appears that user Levitune is an editor who 'tunes' (favorably edits) wikipedia pages for commercial clients. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/LeviTune You can view the users history on this page as well as a long list of other 'tuned' wikipedia pages via the above link. May 2021 edits changed or removed reviewed and long accepted cited neutral encyclopedic information; most problematically removing all mention of the only competitor TaxiBot, who is the only certified and operational e-taxi solution, while leaving information of another competitor who exited the field years ago, from the marketplace section while Weasel wording the section to now say "This leaves WheelTug as the only on-aircraft e-taxi solution currently seeking certification." This particular page has seen reviewed encyclopedic tone repeatedly de-neutralized to preferential advertisement over the years by employees and consultants as this talk page shows. Consultant, company, or intern editors are allowed by wikipedia but past edit history and the current major edits lean towards bad faith edits that added no useful cited information and only change article tone to preferred commercial polish rather than cited neutral history and empirical encyclopedic information for a traded company.79.180.67.118 (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will repair the missing information and cites in a few days if Levitune doesn't respond.79.178.4.119 (talk) 12:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RE: ChaosDruid cite requests

several sentences are cited from the Forbes article

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelgoldstein/2020/09/11/can-wheeltug-a-driveable-aircraft-nosewheel-save-airlines-money/

The quote "actively discourage airlines" which you added a needs cite tag to is a quote from the third to the last paragraph in the Forbes cite.

here are three relevant to context paragraphs toward the end with the quote used int the article in bold

There are, of course, obstacles to overcome driving towards a WheelTug future. Existing labor contracts might have to be modified if the pilot “drives” a plane on the ground (one reason WheelTug has yet to sign a US customer.)

Cox says an airline executive at a US flag carrier told him “I don’t care how good it is, even if it saves me a million dollars per plane a year, I’m not going to renegotiate my [labor] contracts.”

The duopoly of aircraft manufacturers, Boeing and Airbus, are also not fans. In some cases they actively discourage airlines from trying WheelTug, according to Cox. In addition to “not invented here,” he suggest aircraft manufacturers don’t like WheelTug because they are primarily in the business of selling new planes. “Are airlines going to retire old airplanes first, or new ones that they don’t want to buy?”

for the MS-flight sim quote it is this paragraph from the cite

WheelTug was founded in 2005. A private company, it has hundreds of investors. The concept has grown so popular, claims Cox, that there’s even a good chance Microsoft Flight Simulator may add WheelTug to future editions.

the more than 20 airlines pre production slots is from this line in the Forbes cite “We have back orders with 26 airlines for 2200 units,”

fixing missing(when was it deleted? found the problem atwonline.com is offline added a wayboack archive link) 2016 supplementary type certification application, this should work https://eepower.com/news/wheeltug-announces-airplane-e-taxi-system-certification-plans/