Talk:Supermarine S.6

message: As article stands virtualyl all ofwhat is here is actually about what happened after the 1929 race/record attempts. Surely this properly belongs on the S6B page, so that this page deals solely with the events of 1929, which are in fact dealt with very scantily and could eaily be expanded to fill the gpap left by any removl of stuff.
Since these airframes went on to be used in 1931 a summary of their use would be appropriate, but as it stands much here exclusively concerns S6B ie new-build (modified) airframes.TheLongTone (talk) 02:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not seeing that at all after thoroughly reading it, one S.6 aircraft was available to take part in the later competition and that should rightly be fully covered here. It is normal in the aircraft project to cover the full history of a type in its own article, including destruction, museum placement or restoration to flight for rarer types. I also can't see how the S.6B participation can be omitted as it is intertwined as part of the story. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Taken together with the S.6B page, it's all a mess. or two messes. The narrative as it stands has the airframe/engine developmentof the 6B dropped into the s6/S6a story. The simples solution would be to merge the articles, which leaves the problem of where Lady Houston fits into the standard way of handling an aircraft type. (This is a story which is about politics and air-ministry funding.) I approached all this backwards.I  was looking at the 6B page & my eye was caught by a citationless claim that Mitchell had examined the idea of coping with long landing run of the s6 by converting it into a biplane. This seemed like nonsense, so I posted a few lines on the talk page, returned a few days later (having in the meantime thought about the biplane idea and found it increasingly implausible) blew it away & then started fiddling about with the rest of the page, which I hope reads a bit better thann it did.TheLongTone (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Not at all, the story of the biplane is in the Supermarine book. It was actually well-thought out if not a regressive design. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: move some of operational history to S6B page 

message: I am sorry if I have added too mant images, taken by myself, in an inappropriate way. I have a nasty feeling they should be accessed via the Commons link. The layout is not ideal, but as I have only been editing for less than a month, I am not up to Trophy winning speed. SovalValtos (talk) 11:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Images 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Supermarine S.6. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110427105039/http://www.theheritagetrail.co.uk/piers/southampton%20royal.htm to http://www.theheritagetrail.co.uk/piers/southampton%20royal.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I don't know how the automatic conversion of measurements works in Wikipedia, but it's not the first time that I see considerable errors like this.
The length overall is listed as 25'10" (7.87 m) and the fuselage as 25'3" - shorter - being equivalent to 8 m - longer, when it should be 7.7 m. Diego bf109 (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, the convert template significant figure parameter was too coarse. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length measurements conversion 

message: These are done inconsistently at present, I'll be working on them as partof my work on getting the article up to GA. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: I saw your revert message after restoring the text (something I wouldn't have done if I had seen the message earlier). Would you prefer the word 'competition' in the section title? It's the race/competition that is the subject of the section, not the trophy. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Race doesnt look right and just using the word Trophy should be understood, we do use the word contest in the rest of the article and the Trophy article confusingly uses a mixture of terms. MilborneOne (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  No worries, thanks for your input. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert

message: User:Amitchell125 I do not have Green 1967 to check but it seems more likely that Napier would have made the judgement rather than Supermarine.SovalValtos (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Napier Lion VIIB engine was judged by Supermarine to be incapable of further development