Talk:Percival Mew Gull

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION 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.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] Terminology

Copyedit from the article: Even though the Lockheed 'Airdraulic' undercarraige legs were also outsourced from a commonly used supplier (Percivals were a very small company at that time.) of such EQUIPMENT in the 1930's, they are not described as 'proprietary' or 'EQUIPMENT' here, because one of the 'experts' editing this page of course knows better. Clearly the drawings and manufactures plates are all wrong! Comment by 88.110.161.238. There may be a rationaization here. If the editor is referring to undercarriage "legs" then that is exactly correct, while the spatted structure that represents the external undercarriage would be unique and designed and manufactured by the Percival company. I believe this is a matter of interpretation and an edit will be made in the article to reflect this distinction. Bzuk 16:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Percivals did wheel-off the spats and cowlings... However, the paragraph in question is comparing the commonality in equipment with the Gull VI / Vega Gull with the Mew. The 'standard' Mews used the same spats too (Strictly only a fairing anyway.), so the distinction is meaningless in that context and was correct. The E1 originaly used the strutted u/c off the Gull IV, and the E3 was a more narrow version of the E2H's. I thought this page was about Mew Gulls, not just one or one pilot..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.65.248 (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Please be careful about making major edits without consulting the talk page. A very large quote from Desmond Penrose was recently inserted and may need revision or editing, Make a case for the change here. I was reluctant to simply "slash" a good faith edit without further discussion. BTW an "anon" or any contributor/editor calling another editor a troll is not considered acceptable. FWIWBzuk 22:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC).
The original short reference that covered the episode in question was factual, ample and germain to the Type Hisory. Quoting a huge tract from Alex' Henshaws book (Presumably to assuage Penrose. Perhaps he should start his own page...)is not. People can read Henshaw's book for all that. The insertion also threw out the chronology of the modifications to the machine in question, which you keep re-buggering. The quote is from A.H's book anyway, not Penrose. "BTW an "anon" or any contributor/editor calling another editor a troll is not considered acceptable." I was quoting you Einstein. Evidently irony doesn't travel well......... In any event, this page isn't about one machine or one pilot. It's supposed to be about Mew Gulls. A no-brainer I would have thought. PP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.65.248 (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Well Einstein, - we now have 50% of the Type History relating basically to one episode on just one aircraft. Just exactly what was it about the original brief para' that was 'inaccurate'...? I suppose now we might just as well paste-in the whole contents of any book that happens to mention a Mew Gull... PP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.69.59 (talk) 11:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know who you are fighting with but it isn't me, another editor made a "good faith" edit; it's contingent on subsequent editors to improve rather than revert the edit. Taking it up here is the proper forum. BTW – knock off the taunts, that's completely uncalled for. Bzuk 13:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)._____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Well, you are the one creating conflict - as per usual.... Screwing-up the facts and re-reverting so that we end up with War and Peace to apparently assuage someone's embarrassment over bending a kite by inserting an extra 50%. Your arbitary interventions seem to work on the basis that everybody else is a 'Troll' or offender of some obscure wiki-sensibility or other. It seems changes are only 'improvements' if you say so...... As usual too, you have contributed absolutely nothing to disseminating further knowedge of the subject. How tedious. I bet you were a trainspotter too...... OCD I think they call it. ___________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________PP ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[edit] Revision required for type history section

A recent addition to the section has enlarged the section appreciably. The suggestion to revise the information to more closely adhere to an encyclopedic format has been forwarded through a note in the edit history of a change to the article. This is appropriate and the additional information, if warranted, can be either "pruned" or moved to another article, as per suggestion, to the Alex Henshaw article. Other comments? Bzuk 21:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC).

"15:16, 4 September 2007 Bzuk (Talk | contribs) (18,635 bytes) (Additional reference, a fight over a meaningless point?)" Not at all. It's heading the whole article and prominently colours it with one aside by one person that happened to be picked-up in an on-line article and it is demonstrably not in 'common usage'. That's not a dig at the speaker or the a/c. It's about balance. I always try to imagine the weight of words upon the uninformed reader. I look at it this way, If one says that the Beaufighter was known as the 'Whispering Death', - that's a fair comment and was in very wide and well-documented contemporary usage when the a/c was in service. Spit'. Hurribags, Hallibags, Wimpy, Emil, Dore et al... Aside from the works nickname for the E1 as 'The Beetle-in-boots', the only commonly used epithet for a Mew that I'm aware of was the unofficial late 1930's references to the E3H as the 'Super Mew'. Not that EWP would have approved.... 88.111.70.176PontiusPilot

Get back to the topic at hand- the article section was the type history that we were discussing.
As to the the lead paragraph, there are now two references cited for verification; as well, the issue was discussed previously. Both authors independently referred to the aircraft in the same words at two different times. I established that as being "common usage" when two contemporary (modern) independent but knowledgeable observers made the same statement. The reason why two different citations were not given is that was not normally the convention for citations.

"Independently"... after both interviewing the same bloke, - probably on the same day? That establishes 'common usage' does it...? That's plain daft. That means that if I get two magazines to quote me as saying that Wiki is 'Anorak Central' it's in 'common usage' is it..??? Mew's have simply been referred to as 'Mew's' since first flown as far as I know, in all the pre-war magazines and books, by their pilots and the people that built, flew and maintained them. A mere 77 years - THAT is common usage IMHO. I honestly don't object to the epithet BTW - per se, just the headline prominence and the inference that it is in 'common usage', which it plainly, factually isn't. Blindingly obvious I'd have though. Both of those magazines are full of the sort of glaring factual errors which is why I contributed to this article in the first place. Not good souces for anything, except filling Wiki pages with misleading crap. That's why some folks think Elvis is living in a menage with Earhart and Noonan..... 88.111.70.176 00:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the easiest way to "sign" your comments, is to use four "tildes" which will automatically sign your Wikiepdia username and give the exact date. Trace back the edit on this exchange and see how it works. FWIW Bzuk 13:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC).

Getting back the the main article; Can't the details about the Kings Cup go to the Kings Cup page, and the detailed blather about Penrose go to his own page or Henshaw's....? 88.111.70.176 00:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

- The aircraft was designed for Handicapped Air Racing which gained huge popularity in the U.K. during the 1920's and especially 1930's, - the so-called 'Golden Age' of aviation. The King's Cup Race, an annual handicapped air racing event developed to aid in the development of British light aircraft, was considered to be the 'Blue-Riband' event. Mew Gulls went on, ultimately, to win this event four times

+ The aircraft was designed for handicapped air racing which gained huge popularity in the UK during the 1920s and especially 1930s – the so-called "Golden Age" of aviation. The King's Cup Race, an annual handicapped air racing event developed to aid in the development of British light aircraft, was considered to be the "Blue-Riband" event. Ultimately, Mew Gulls went on to win this event four times.

Just what in Gods name is the POINT in this sort of editing...????????????? It isn't even good English. Why does everything have to be 'dumbed-down'....? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.133.218 (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)