This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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 some controversy over the actual lyrics. From a variety of sources is the following:
... which is in variance to the article. Comments. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 18:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
'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 talk, your page. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 14:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Absolutely amazed the derivative cartoon is not mentioned here. /info/en/?search=Dastardly_and_Muttley_in_Their_Flying_Machines — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.178.132 ( talk) 11:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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 some controversy over the actual lyrics. From a variety of sources is the following:
... which is in variance to the article. Comments. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 18:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
'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 talk, your page. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 14:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Absolutely amazed the derivative cartoon is not mentioned here. /info/en/?search=Dastardly_and_Muttley_in_Their_Flying_Machines — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.178.132 ( talk) 11:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
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)