Talk:Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines

70mm or 65mm?

The article states that the film was shot in 70mm, but it's been categorized as 65mm. Which one's right? — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 00:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I see they're the same thing. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 23:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Annakin or Annikin?

Is the director's name Annakin or Annikin? The article uses each spelling multiple times. I'll change it if someone tells me which is correct. 165.91.65.9 (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)RKH

It's Annakin. Where do you see Annikin? I just did a search for it and got no hits. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 22:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

There were in fact when I looked several variant spellings of Annakin's name splattered through the article - I have hopefully stanbdardised on the correct one!!--Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft

There is a very full description of the aircraft used in the film - several of which (although based on genuine aircraft of the general period) "impersonated" other types. Before inserting casual comments about the aircraft in other places - do read this section!--Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've since noted many had "phoney" cylinders (the German one) and modern Lycoming engines (Underneath the German and the entire engine of the Italian's last plane). This is interesting, but it probably Had to be, considering the age, value, and unreliably of using the actual, original aircraft. Better than the obvious, wooden "machine guns" i saw in "The Blue Max"-! 68.231.189.108 (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Some of the period aircraft were modern flyable reproductions made for the film and would not have been insurable for filming purposes with the correct period engines, as well as possibly not being reliable enough for strict filming schedules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Stuart Whitman's Character's Name?

Orvil Newton is spelled in the credits with one "l", although Orville Wright spelled it with two "l's" and one "e"."Orville" and "Wilbur" were very popular boys' names around the turn of the century (My father was one), but Stuart Whitman's character would have to have been named in 1880 or before. If he'd been actually "named" for Orville Wright,it would have been in 1904...making him 6 or so in 1910? Perhaps it was a nickname?68.231.189.108 (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• He wouldn't necessarily have to have been named for Orville Wright, as if he and Wright would have been contemporaries, the possibility of them both having the same popular first name is not that surprising. D. J. Cartwright (talk) 02:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Farce?

I am surprised to learn the movie Wasn't based on a true story, gagged-up a bit to be a comedy. I always thought it was.68.231.189.108 (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ronald Searle

He is not really an author as such at all - much less a children's one. He is credited as if he were the co-author on the title pages of the "Nigel Molesworth" books - but Willans actually wrote all the text of these. Searle drew those wonderful illustrations, and was responsible for a few of the captions. He also illustrated some other children's books (e.g. some of Dahl's). The St. Trinian's cartoons were also not particularly "for children" - they are about a set of very adult and totally disreputable schoolgirls, in fact many of the jokes are not ones that (most?) children would (one hopes) get the full point of. The St. Trinian's books, films etc. have only a peripheral association with Searle of course. But Molesworth and the St. Trinian's girls are in sum a minor part of Searle's work as a cartoonist. Just read the articles I have linked to this if you think I am making all this up. Seriously, to people of my generation, at least, Searle is SUCH a household name that perhaps we don't need to qualify him as anything, but if we are going to do so - essential to be accurate, even if we just call him a cartoonist without specifying that much of his work is satirical.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

PS - thanks for correcting my spelling!!--Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Back to my days as a children's librarian, I discovered the wonderful whimsey of Searle, and although you are most probably right to identify the adult work with which he is associated, my cloudy memory placed him inaccurately into the category of a children's author. I stand corrected. Are you sure you're the soundofmusicals? I seem to remember a more caustic fellow that went by that name. FWIW (LOL) Bzuk (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC).

Alas, I am the (occasionally) caustic soundofmusicals - although I think editing Wiki has been good for my soul.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No Silver Ghost is worth $50 million

There was an uncredited claim that the Silver Ghost was worth $50 million. That would make it the most valuable car in the world by a factor of about four. There are in fact four Silver Ghosts and the last one to be sold went for about $1.5 million. The $50 million estimate is unsourced so I removed it completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.39.121 (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The information regarding the Silver Ghost came with the material supplied in the DVD on the film. See the following for estimated value of a Silver Ghost: Value which is listed at $57 million. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC).

Intermission

Just after the scene in the film with the balloons (not exactly accurate about the scene) there is an intermission (which modern day films no longer have). We should include that somewhere in this article. trainfan01 11 June 8:31 am —Preceding undated comment added 15:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC).

Bristol Boxkite

If the direct action of the director had anything to do with the selection of the Boxkite then there really ought to be a reference to this very surprising fact somewhere or other. I would be very surprised if he had any anything to do with this (from his point of view probably thoroughly mundane) aspect of the film, which was very much under the supervision of Air Commodore Wheeler. This idea is NOT mentioned by Wheeler (see page 4, and also the whole of Chapter VI pp.44-59) which is in much better agreement with this version.

The "third rudder" was not added by the manufacturer - it was a quick and simple "lash-up" added by Wheeler's team, responsible for testing the aircraft, to improve directional control. There seems to be some evidence that at least some original Boxkites had a similar modification.

The "Gruber-Newton Flyer" is a fictitious type (its involving the name of a character from the film ought to be a giveaway here. Comparing it with the Curtiss "D", as "another type of the era" is a bit misleading in this context. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Annakin had indicated wanting a Wright Flyer type in the film; the character Newton actually says the line "Curtiss with Anzani motor" in the pub scene. I have added where the reference comes from. I will take a look at some other references about the aircraft in the film to see if there is any other mention. When I originally wrote the section, I had just watched the Bonus features of the DVD version, and have cited that. Do you have any page numbers for the Wheeler cites? I no longer have the book. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC).

Page numbers are as given above - see page 4 and chapter 5, pages 44 to 59. Sorry but I changed it back before I realised you had inserted any reference or added to this page - as I went back to it it after a prolonged interruption it looked like a straight revert. Still not sure that the Annakin reference is all that notable - the type was selected (apparently by Wheeler himself) because it was the same general layout (pusher with a fore elevator) but had a reputation for good flying characteristics, which the American types most certainly did not - the Wright in particular having been so unstable as to be almost uncontrollable by anyone but the famous brothers themselves - who had mastered its very sensitive and poorly coordinated controls during its development. I still think that Wheeler has to be the best source for the aircraft themselves - although if you can squeeze Annakin back in... Also did the changes about the third rudder etc. that I meant to do earlier. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

OK I've put Annakin back in myself! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That sounds great, yes, the character says his aircraft is a Curtiss, making the whole situation more confused. Annakin apparently wanted a Wright Flyer because he believed that the aircraft would have been representative of American aircraft of the era, while in reality, more Curtiss Flyers dominated, as Glenn Curtiss was not adverse to selling his designs. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

At 44:30 in the film, Stuart Whitman says the photograph of him in his aeroplane which Sara Miles assumes is a Wright biplane is actually a "Curtiss... it's got an Anzani engine in it, developing 70 horsepower." FWiW, if you turn on the director's commentary in the DVD bonus feature, you can hear Annakin talking about the choice of aircraft types. 13:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Prologue or not

I don't believe that the opening sequences are separate nor represent a true mini-movie. I have instead set up a notes section to move the aside comments to a more appropriate section. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC).

I have been looking back on the Toy Story 3 page and there have been constant edits about its western opening sequence that keeps getting deleted because the user points out that "it is not part of the plot and is unneccesary to include in a summary". And I see this stuff about the comic/flight history and opening sequence does not relate to the plot (it all happens BEFORE the plot starts). Therefore it either would have to be put in a more appropriate seperate section or get removed completely (which I do not intend to do as it is sourced and has your said notes). trainfan01 6:26, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Advisors

In an article on the "Early Aviators" website, the niece (by marriage) of Ronald C. Kemp (1890-1978, an early aviator and chief test pilot at Short Brothers before WWI), writes (here) that Kemp was consulted about the aircraft to be used in the film and that his advice was instrumental in the choice of the Avro Triplane model IV rather than the model III. If this and other information about those consulted could be corroborated, a list of such aviation consultants would make a useful and interesting addition to the article.--TraceyR (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Our reference for this is the book by Air Commodore Wheeler - the official advisor, who states that they selected a triplane primarily for variety's sake (to contrast with the biplanes and monoplanes) - and the Mark IV Triplane over the Mark I, II or III ultimately on the grounds that A.V. Roe was a careful and systematic engineer likely to have built a "better aircraft with each succeeding model" (P.20). BUT Ronald Kemp IS mentioned (P.21), as having actually flown the (original) Triplane IV - and when contacted, as endorsing it as thoroughly suitable. So Wheeler's book and the website do not substantially contradict each other, and we could well work in a mention of Kemp here. IMHO, however, this is borderline notability - we already go into a great deal of detail over the aircraft, in what is after all a movie article. In any case Kemp is someone who was casually consulted about one particular type rather than a reular consultant or "Advisor". I doubt he was even paid a fee. I'm sure a lot of other people were asked about this and that - most of them even less notable than Kemp, I think we'd be pushing the notability barrier to try to list them. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Most likely, other advice was sought out but Wheeler was the key ingredient to the film production. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC).

Thanks. I was thinking more along the lines of early aviators named in the film itself as having been consulted, rather than those mentioned in other sources; if it was a casual remark he probably wasn't mentioned. Notability is, of course, an important criterion here, otherwise we would end up naming the film's Best Boy Grip etc! Kemp is otherwise notable as one of the earliest professional test pilots and is mentioned a couple of times in other articles. --TraceyR (talk) 07:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

A "children's" movie??

Someone put it into this category - perhaps confusing it with something like "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" ??? While "Magnificent Men" is certainly "family friendly" I don't think it is mainly intended for children, especially not very young ones. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Connection to real events

The folowing edit was recently made, and is transferred here for discussion first: "The film does loosely have basis in fact. In 1906, the Daily Mail had offered a prize of £10,000 for the first flight by a heavier-than-air machine from London to Manchester, which at that time were the two most important cities in England. The winner of the prize was the Frenchman Louis Paulhan who made the flight in April. He had one rival - the Englishman Claude Grahame-White. There were no other competitors. One of the centres of aviation in England in 1910 was Brooklands motor racing circuit. To compare fiction to fact for the Daily Post read the Daily Mail, for London to Paris the two most important capitals of the world read London to Manchester the two most important cities of England and for Brookley read Brooklans. However one would not suggest that Lord Rawnsley was based on the proprietor of the Daily Mail, Lord Northcliffe. For the record there was an English newspaper existing at that time called The Morning Post. However the promotion of an air race was not something that The Morning Post would have done. That was more in the line of the Daily Mail which was as is a popular middle of the range newspaper. The Morning Post was absorbed into the Daily Telegraph in 1937." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC).

Not sure if it is true or original research - really needs some reliable source to link the film with the 1910 race. MilborneOne (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Notes

Those "notes" really need to go. The information belongs in the article itself, or doesn't need to be there at all; I don't see that sort of format in any other article here.--jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Seek and yee shall find: A Matter of Life and Death (film)#References, German battleship Tirpitz#Footnotes GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, those need to go too. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Did you notice that Tirpitz is a featured article? GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, right, featured articles are perfect. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Lots of articles have foot notes - they allow remarks that would otherwise gum up passages of text. In fact they are often mixed in with the references (that's something that DOES need fixing, where it does occur, as it can make an article look better cited than it is). The fact that (many) feature articles have such notes show that there is a strong consensus among the people who assess articles that they are not necessarily a bad thing. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course - whether THOSE particular notes belong is another question altogether.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually - I've had a look at that battery of "out-of-context" notes and I've done a bit of rearranging! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Way better. It actually flows well now. Thanks! --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Revert of recent edits

Soundofmusicals, While I appreciate that you were acting in good faith, your revert was particularly poor. You reverted to a point where there was overlinking, a poor approach to the MoS and the wrong date format. The recent edits by others have actually improved the article, rather than weakening it. - SchroCat (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Probably I was a bit hasty, and should have bored in and made specific changes rather than reverting the lot - there were a couple of things you don't mention that I didn't (and don't) like, but certainly not worth fighting over. Hang in there. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

No probs. There probably are a few bits that have changed back and forth which are still wrong, but the whole thing could do with a good re-write sometime! I'll add it to my list of several thousand things that I plan to do but will probably never get round to doing! - SchroCat (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh goodie ... sarcasm turned on (LOL) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

? - SchroCat (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Cast lists including the one that the film provides have major variances that are being resolved by listing an approximate list in the article. A note to that effect was in place for much of the past edit history. MOS provides a guide but when there are exceptions and even corrections to cast credits, a note to the reader/viewer can explain the discrepancy. 13:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Plot synopsis and aircraft types

I am tempted to remove ALL the aircraft types mention in the plot synopsis, since listing them ALL at this point is not practical (and as far as I can tell was never done). The "Eardley-Billing" impersonates both the "German" and the "Japanese" biplanes, which ought to be at least mentioned here if we mention it at all. And mucking around calling the Boxkite a Curtiss is plain daft. It works in the movie, but actually the Boxkite looks nothing whatever like a Curtiss. We explain everything properly a little later (in the "aircraft" section) so adding confusion at this point is unnecessary. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I've actually done this now. trying to describe the aeroplanes at the same time as we outline the plot was downright confusing. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, that was the very reason for the use of the Bristol Boxkite, apart from its reputation as a stable aircraft. The scene where Patricia identifies the aircraft is intended to show her suitor that she is knowledgeable and bases it on a photo of the American entrant's aircraft where it is obvious that in a close-up, it has a superficial likeness in the centre section. The photograph does show an upright seating position, later used by the later Wright types. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I recently was able to host an aviation film festival where Magnificent Men ... was one of the features that was showcased. With the passage of time, and even with an audience of aviators, the film was a revelation to the group. Despite its vintage and an overly-long preamble to the air race, the film is still a delight, and when the back story of its development and production was added to the evening screening, Annakin's gem was the hit of the festival. 13:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

Bzuk, Please do not continually edit war with others and revert without actually reading the edit summaries of why things are being done. There is no need to put a source on the cast list: the film acts as a primary source for this. Furthermore, as nearly no cast list on Wiki is "complete", we do not need to try and put in reference to the list being abridged. Finally, no I am not being obtuse, I am following the practice and guidelines followed by other film articles, so please do not be so WP:Uncivil to others with your comments.- SchroCat (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

If the cast list is including uncredited roles, this means that certain actors are not identified in the film itself. Would that not be a reason to have a reference? Erik (talk | contribs) 14:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be if some of the cast were uncredited, but according to the BFI cast list, those we show are credited. - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

What do the brackets mean there, then? Wondering if it means uncredited roles or not. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

They do - parts and actors not included in the official cast list. If we add a couple of those in, then yes, we will have to identify them as being uncredited, as well as providing a supporting source. As all those on this list are credited (ie. actually appear in the cast list at the end of the film) then that acts as the primary source. - SchroCat (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at your comments as to incivility. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

From above: Cast lists including the one that the film provides have major variances that are being resolved by listing an approximate list in the article. A note to that effect was in place for much of the past edit history. MOS provides a guide but when there are exceptions and even corrections to cast credits, a note to the reader/viewer can explain the discrepancy. 13:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be many different cast lists given by diverse sources; for example, Turner Classic Movies does not list Red Skelton at all. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC).

That's because Turner Classic Movies is crap. Try using a decent database, such as the BFI or AFI. However in this case, the film acts as a primary source for those who appear. - SchroCat (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, TCM is a moderated and edited site not run by users as is IMDb. Their articles are identified by author and include external reviews that link to the film. Nonetheless, the issue was that a reference source was being used to identify a particular listing, and I have found another appropriate site for its use. AFAIK, the film listing also does not quite correspond to the entire cast list as listed in other sources. (I have to do a check to verify this.) Readers, however, now have a context for what the issue behind cast lists involves, by referring to this discussion. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"moderated and edited" does not mean that it is not crap: it is not as bad as IMDB, but not far off. As above, try official film databases, such as BFI or AFI. - SchroCat (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I have never heard that Turner Classic Movies is a discredited site, although the banter about the usefulness of others- Rotten Tomatoes, IMDb is a constant refrain on the film group forums. Nevertheless, the point was that the film and other credit lists have variances and that quoting/citing from one particular source, and not even one that I submitted, was being challenged, was the issue. Are you confident that the film has a complete listing? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The impetus to qualify the cast list came from finding Norman Rossington as Assistant Fire Chief being listed prominently in the bonus material provided on the film in DVD form but then not finding him in the article's cast list or on many of the "shortened" cast lists although he appears a s foil for Benny Hill in many scenes. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The only thing that needs to be cited in the list is that Villiers provided the voice of Yamamoto: I will add a citation to support. Rossington appears in the film's list already. - SchroCat (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Rossington's addition to the cast list was a recent one that I made. 14:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC).

He appears on the cast list at the end of the film, so needs no further citation to support. - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

That was the point, he appears on some cast lists and not others, and the article did not have him listed at all. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The only cast list that matters in this case is the one at the end of the film: he appears on the final page along with Trubshawe, Willie Rushton and Hancock. - SchroCat (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Willie Rushton as Tremayne Gascoyne? and not listed? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

He possibly should be listed, but there's nothing to say we should list everyone in the film. However, as others in the film with smaller parts are listed it may be as well to do just that. - SchroCat (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that in a cast list of a major film, you can't possibly list everyone, but a case can be made to list prominent actors, even in lesser roles, and based on Rushton's multi-faceted career, he possibly should have a mention. 15:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Song Lyrics

There appears to be some controversy over the actual lyrics. From a variety of sources is the following:

Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines.

They Go Up, Tiddly, Up, Up.

They Go Down, Tiddly, Down, Down.

... which is in variance to the article. Comments. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

There must be some "history" behind the transcription of that lyric in this article that I was not aware of. I give up.(Hcunn (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC))

Following up, I found the same lyrics in at least three different sources, but only cited one of them. A look at the sheet music would probably resolve any other concerns. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Before posting, I decided to double-check my memory and look for a recording on youtube.com. Succeeding, I found that the word often transcribed "tiddly," "diddly, etc is deliberately slurred and almost inaudible. I prefer my version

"They go uppity-up-up! They go down-diddy-down down!"

on grounds of simplicity (Occam's razor): "Uppity" is an actual English word. I no longer argue, however, that it is phonetically accurate.(Hcunn (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC))

Sorry, but ears can deceive, I went with established sources instead. FWiW FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC).

I have to concede that you are correct. I wonder if the singers obscured the "tiddly"/"diddly" syllables precisely because they were awkward and unnecessarily difficult to pronounce? (Hcunn (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC))

Film AND Aviation article

As the Wp:Aviation Group has recognized the value and worth of films as historical documents that relate to aviation, the use of the MOS from the aviation group has been added to many articles as another means of helping editors establish protocol. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC). See the banner above for the important role that this film plays in aviation. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Stop being such a dick. I can't believe you're still edit warring over your WP:OWNership of the article, with a pathetic message which people won't see if they section edit. How dumb is that? We have project tags on the talk page for a reason NOT IN THE ARTICLE SPACE. Your project has no priority over any other project, and the MOS of all projects are subservient to the overall MOS. I'm not sure how you could possibly think otherwise. - SchroCat (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

You want to say something then use the talk page, not leave little pointy messages in edit summaries. It's on your watch list? So what? It's on mine too - does that mean I can own it too? Of course not. - SchroCat (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Re-read your comments; this is not a personal thing. The use of "invisible notes" began to appear due to an extensive period of vandalism, and was often used to assist editors in understanding what was required in developing a particular section. These notes first began to be used when there was a great number of trivia lists that were being culled from aviation-themed articles. As the lists were gradually replaced by more standardized sections such as "In popular culture" and "Notable appearances in media", the use of the "invisibles" began to diminish. One of the notes that still was left in place was the use of a MOS that often was understood by new editors, As I was also an administrator/director (I can't remember the exact title used) at the WP:Film Group, there was also an effort to rationalize the many film article styles that were out there. The use of the WP: Aviation Group MOS being already in place and available, also gave newbies a way to work on aviation-themed articles, in whatever way they appeared; e.g. history articles, engineering articles, and the like. The remnant of that is the aforementioned tag on this article, which alerts a new editor to the importance of the article to aviation. In this case, yes, it probably is overkill, as the article "Invisible" has now proceeded past its original purpose and can be accommodated in its new position. Forgive me if seeing your appearance on this article edit comments raises red flags to me, given the previous acrimonious discussion and what I felt was an overly curt operating style. You still do not appreciate the BRD, but I do appreciate the effort to find a resolution to differing views. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

In response to the earlier statement, my comments were stopped by the typical "edit conflict" that stops a submission when both parties are simultaneously editing. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It certainly comes across as personal from you: "I substantially wrote this article" makes it personal and really goes way into WP:OWN territory. To then cast aspersions on the approach and motives of other editors as "do not appreciate drive-by-editing". Staggering - and a great foray into WP:Civil too. Just so you're aware, anyone can edit any article, drive-by or "owner". I'd also hardly call the second biggest editor of the page "drive-by". I'm glad you have finally admitted that the ridiculous note is both out-dated and overkill: I'd add pointless and misleading to those epithets too. As to my "curt" editing style: I get like that in the face of knee-jerk reverts from someone who thinks they own an article and is prepared to pointlessly edit war to protect something flawed. - SchroCat (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

ps. The fiancé information is still a sub-clause and still needs to carry a comma. You're edit warring over the ownership of a comma? Now that's utterly laughable! - SchroCat (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The original form looks clumsy as typically, a clause begins the statement; I have not abiding interest in who writes the sentence, as I simply proposed a change in style.

'Enuf said, you and I are on different planes (LOL). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Either way, you've still left it grammatically incorrect: the comma is still needed in the same place. - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

See another version of the statement. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

No, life is too short to deal with such abominable editing as this. Well done, congratulations, you've beaten off another of those pesky editors who was trying to improve something. Good work: you get to keep the deeply-flawed article all to yourself with one less editor to worry about. I'll drop this off my watchlist - you're just too much of "I-must-get-the-last-edit-in" merchant to ever work with many others. It's just a same that this article will remain slumming it around the C standard, and never get a chance of getting any higher. Well done: a good afternoon's work by you. - SchroCat (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

See talk, your page. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Wheeler's book

I once had a copy of Alan Wheeler's Building Aeroplanes for "Those Magnificent Men." (1965) but it was a public library book that has now been lost and no other copies are in our local collection. Does anyone have this book? It appears in a number of cites in the article and having the exact page number would be more useful. Sound? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Somehow, oh Bazookerous one, I missed this when you first posted it - noticed it just now when I went to insert a note of my own about charging in with queries about typos in the form of visible remarks in the text!!! I have inserted page references for all specific points covered by Wheeler - although these tend to be in the form of page ranges (for instance the theme of the Boxkite's tractability is developed over several pages) to match the original text, which I do own (from memory I think I bought it in the foyer when I went to see the first (Australian) screening of the movie!!! The first reference to the Wheeler book is of course an acknowledgement of its existence, and doesn't need a page number (what would you put anyway, the title page? but that doesn't usually have a number...). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Allen/Alan Wheeler?

Why can't all those Allans spell their names the same way? ALL KIDDING ASIDE!! The bright spark who picked up our inconsistency here might like to bear in mind that although a Wiki article is in a sense a "work in progress" it is presented to the reader as if it were "finished" - and we don't add in-line comments about the text into the article itself. Common sense if you think about it.There is a "talk' page for comments and queries - we only edit the text to "correct" a mistake, not to call attention to it. The Air Commodore's first name WAS (assuming he has passed on after all those years?) "Allen". I have that on the very best authority (the cover and title page of his little book). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

"Earnest" aviation history and what is after all a silly comedy movie!!

As funny movies go some aspects of this one are actually fairly "historical" - but it remains very much a fictitious and frequently anachronistic romp rather than a serious historical documentary. Really. Edits to the plot line description to "correct the historic point of view" are unnecessary and irrelevant to an an article about a real movie as opposed to a discussion of a period of aviation history. Interesting perhaps, but definitely off-topic. (This relates to well-meant edits that were re-inserted after being excised for this reason - same date as this, of course). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

On second revert by you:

Did you happen to notice these: <ref name="PLOT"/> tags before reverting? I was adding those points FROM THE MOVIE as it entered that 'interesting' blank screen intermission. Your version INACCURATELY tells the wrong information about the state of British Air Power at the setting of the movie, and the motives. My correction to your misstatements in the lead are just that. Fixes of flaws. Don't WP:OWN! Particularly when you're full of it and wrong. // FrankB 15:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The film was entirely fictitious and did not aspire to being a historical record. This issue is an example of BRD- Bold, Revert- DISCUSS (not keep reverting). Unless you have consensus, which is definitely not happening here, the original edit stands. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

An aside to the reader with appropriate cites to reference sources, as to the aeronautical progress taking place in the United Kingdom during the early 1900s can be made, such as "Historical accuracy". This note can be similar to ones that appear in Tora! Tora! Tora! and Battle of Britain. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• • Don't recall justifying anything per historical accuracy. The story is fictional. THE PLOT DETAILED IN THE ARTICLE IS FICTITIOUS NOW AS WELL... That was the fact I was correcting, AND if you've any integrity, fire up the movie on Netflix and you'll see my edits are facts in the first ten minutes of the film. Further, the correction actually enhances the plot section, which I didn't touch. It explains why the outrageous prize was offered better than this lie you are keeping in place. But why go for accuracy. It's only a reference project. // FrankB 06:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but that just isn't so. Your excision from the end of the lead is (I believe, perhaps I need to watch it again) a direct quote from the dialogue. Never had any real problems with the general drift of your content - although some phrases need to be "rewritten in English" - ("backstory?"). And most of it, at least, as another editor has remarked, would be better moved to a new section, specifically headed something like "Anachronisms" (there are a number you don't mention) or "Historical inaccuracies". (See his useful references above). It is quite a trick to keep comment like this "on-topic" however. Generally speaking, an encyclopedia article is seldom genuinely enhanced by "editorialising" - any we feel constrained to add needs to well well sourced (i.e. NOT original, or referenced vaguely to "the plot", but something someone else said). The very features that might get edits a "good mark" if they were part of a high school (or even university) essay will get reverted here - if not by me then by someone else. Instead of slapping the undo button yet again (Since you made the first change to long standing text the onus is on you to justify it) have a look at the links to Tora! Tora! Tora! and Battle of Britain, as suggested. Finally - we don't make personal remarks here - stay focused on the text, not supposed characteristics of other editors. See WP:Assume good faith. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Quaint

Some aspects of this movie ARE quaint even by the standards of the 1960s - this is half the charm of the thing of course - in any case there is no need whatever to bring things "up to date" - especially in political terms. Some things (in the account of the plot for instance) may not be fully understood for one reason or other by younger readers, especially those who have never seen the movie. Bringing up possible revisions here first is good policy. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Soundofmusicals: I really do not understand what you mean. Could you explain what parts of my edit you object to and why? Zacwill (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a (nineteen) sixties movie, set in 1910. "Britain" was the name of the country back then, believe me. Changing it to "England" in this context is an anachronism. The young man regards himself as the young lady's fiance - she is not quite so committed - the phrase you excised put this succinctly without labouring the point - if it doesn't succeed, then rephrase it, perhaps? It is a point worth making, as the plot develops. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually - some of your changes, like cutting some of the excess wikilinking, are probably fair enough, really. Baby with the bathwater and all that. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

England is a nation within Britain. This has been the case since 1707. The characters clearly refer to England rather than Britain; Rawnsley says that he expects an Englishman to come first.

Your point about the fiance bit is fair, I will leave that as it is. Zacwill (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course "England is a nation within Britain" - in fact even that is de-emphasised by some English people nowadays in the atmosphere of devolution. The point is that older usage (including that in the movie) leaned much more towards "Britain". I don't have a DVD of this one to check - if you have one by all means reinstate the odd "England" or "Englishman" IF this is what the script actually says. I initially saw your edit as part of the tendency of some editors (with a devolutionary axe to grind?) to remove every mention of "Britain" in all kinds of article and replace this with a specific nationality. This is rarely appropriate, especially in historical contexts. All the same - I am not always right (just usually). lol --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I watched in the day before yesterday and I am fairly sure it was always England they said, except when they said "Britannia rules the waves, but it doesn't rule the skies!". Zacwill (talk) 11:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Watching this just now, there is typical ambiguity of English=British. Referring to them as "English" is accurate for 1910, for the 1960s ... and for now. Gordon Jackson plays a Scottish character:kilt, whisky and all. As for "the country" being called "Britain, this is wrong, then and now. No country called Britain really exists. It is a casual nickname. In 1910, the United Kingdom included what is now the Republic of Ireland as well as the countries of Great Britian. The island of Ireland was never part of Britain, just part of the political country of the UK. England is the majority part of the UK in population, and around half of the island of Great Britain. The English for over 100 years have referred to themselves as English or British interchangeably, and only make the English/British distinction when forced to. Even now there is no official "Britain" as a country. This stuff is somewhat important in a film much of which is concerned with lampooning (while simultaneously exploiting) national stereotypes. Given the context of being a very English film, there is opportunity for class, gender, age, religious and social stereotypes appear within the British (and Irish) characters. The "Brit" stereotypes are more detailed and varied. As for the others: the are more homogeneous. Notes from a Jock.

Dick Dastardly etc

Absolutely amazed the derivative cartoon is not mentioned here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dastardly_and_Muttley_in_Their_Flying_Machines — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.178.132 (talk) 11:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

You need a reliable source that makes the connection between the film and cartoon. MilborneOne (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Wacky Races is mostly about motor racing, so Dastardly and Muttley in Their Flying Machines is a bit of a spin-off. Disney's Planes is similarly vaguely related. There are not that many comedies about planes, might these be appropriate to a "See also" section? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Daily Mail Circuit of Britain air race

A "See also" link to the Daily Mail Circuit of Britain air race is no more acceptable now that it was when previously removed several times [1][2][3]. See also this project discussion. What does it take to get the message across? Sanctions? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Taking MilborneOne's last comment in to account no reliable source that they are connected, I tried to find a reliable source, however unless I am mistaken it seems Steelpillow does not consider Brookland's Museum version to be reliable?81.149.141.199 (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Again Steelpillow STOP your bullying and cease your patronising rubbish.81.149.141.199 (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The Brooklands page is useful but no, on its own I do not see it as enough to verify the connection. Other editors might disagree, which is what these discussion pages are for. However it does suggest to me that the Museum might have got their information from somewhere more reliable in this context, so if you can track that down then it would merit a mention in the main text, citing your sources. But "See also" links are meant to be for topics only indirectly related, so finding that source would still not validate a link in the See Also section. I have to go now, I'll try and hunt that information trail down myself if I get the time in the next few days. Thank you for your confidence in my good faith. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I have done a fair Internet search but I cannot find anything more authoritative than the Brooklands Museum claim, but one can hardly describe the source as independent comment. Frater[4] is unreliable in many other details and clearly scrapes eye-catching "facts" where he finds them, without checking. In such doubtful cases, Wikipedia's policy is clear: the burden is on the editor who makes the claim to verify it, not the other way round. It is an unsatisfactory situation I agree, but better than drowning in unfalsifiable claims. By all means canvass other editors in neutral language to see if they disagree with me, but as far as I am concerned the policy I outlined settles the matter. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

A source(s) from the film world may tie it down and support Frater in the process. Agreed, the connection could be let in the text with a few lines.81.149.141.199 (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone have a hard copy of Frater [5] with evidence as to the source of the brief passage, The 1965 movie Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines was inspired by the 1911 Circuit of Britain race.80.229.34.113 (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)