Talk:Captains of the Clouds

message: "Plane" may have been a colloquialism at one time, but it is certainly not any longer, it's an accepted and quite ordinary word in the English language.  I'm not going to undo the changes hat have already been made, but please consider that while constant use of "plane" would give the article a feel that is too breezy for an encyclopedia, substituting "aircraft" for every instance of "plane" will start to make it quite a bit too stilted.  Perhaps "airplane" can be used when appropriate, and even the occasional "plane" when the demotic touch is called for. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 12:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Plane" is definitely not an aeronautical term and not in use in official documents or aeronautical circles. The use of the word is not recommended in Wikipedia, as the term is deprecated due to its ordinary definition as a mechanical tool. There is a long-standing MoS directive on the usage of the "aeroplane", "airplane" and "plane" – words that have also been grouped under the same headings. The months-long debate was astounding as all sides from across the world weighed in and eventually a consensus-driven decision was made that "aircraft" or the use of exact terminology, such as "rotor aircraft", "lighter-than-air vehicles", "spacecraft" "fighter aircraft" be used. As this article is also under the auspices of the WP:Aviation group, it is one of thousands of articles that have already been placed under review and scrutiny in order to maintain correct aeronautical terminology. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 12:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encycopedia aimed toward the general user and not an aeronautical document.  And this film is not an aeronautical documentary, it is a piece of entertainment meant for the enjoyment of the general public.  Therefore, general terminology is appropriate, where it might not be in a more technical article.  Please keep this in mind. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 12:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "That doesn't fly!" The term "plane" is not recommended and has been replaced wherever it has appeared in Wikipedia. The film Captains of the Clouds is today considered more as a wartime period piece in which aircraft play a significant role and the use of the correct names and terminology is important. For example the aircraft in use are contemporary types that played an major role in either training, bush plane (note the correct use of the terminology here) or combat operations. I'm not trying to be a "burr under the saddle" but it's an established practise, clearly defined in the MoS and administered by a righteous group of us "old-fuddy-duddies" in the WP:Aircraft group. Picture the scene as each of us edit wearing silk scarves and leather aviator's helmets and you get a vivid image of these "purists" (not unsurprisingly as you can determine, I am one of the breed, as a pilot, instructor in aviation safety and executive director of an aviation association as well as an editor of an aviation magazine and author of six books on aviation history and heritage, I long since joined their ranks). Again, treat my comments in a light-hearted way as nothing I do or say in this Wikywacky world is meaningful. LOL, IMHO Bzuk (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My goodness, people do seem set on making editing Wikipedia about as interesting as filling in your income tax.  Color me unconvinced by your argument in this context.  Were we talking about, say, an article about B52s or Sopwith Camels, that would be very different, but, however much the air-fans may want to take command of this vessel, "Captains of the Clouds" remains a motion picture, a movie, a film, a piece of ephemeral entertainment meant to amuse and tittilate the masses, not an aeronatutical document, and the use of "plane" is perfectly appropriate. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 12:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Convinced or not, that's the recommended practice as determined by consensus. There were many editors that had opinions on the matter but whenever a consensus-driven decision is made, it is contingent on all parties to accept the decision and basically learn to live with it. You can take this up with the MoS discussion group and all power to you if you can make a change in a MoS decision that was "hammered out" with the input of experts from all sides of the aeronautical, literary and research worlds. If you take the time to look at any contemporary authoritative works on the subject, you will see that the derivation of "plane" is from the now-arcane "aeroplane" while "airplane" is an American derivative. Although technically, these are actually the correct terminology to describe a mechanical flying device, the use of "aircraft" is now accepted worldwide  and is the standard for all official and even "popular" publications. Even the prestigious Aeroplane magazine which dates back more than a half-century requires authors to use "aircraft" in their style guide. This is the typical dictionary definition of "plane": 1. Mathematics. A surface containing all the straight lines that connect any two points on it. a. A flat or level surface. b. A level of development, existence, or achievement: scholarship on a high plane. c. Airplane or hydroplane d. A supporting surface of an airplane; an airfoil or wing. 2. A carpenter's tool with an adjustable blade for smoothing and leveling wood. a. A trowel-shaped tool for smoothing the surface of clay, sand, or plaster in a mold. See: . FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid your conception of Wikipedia is a little different from mine. MoS is a guideline' and not Holy Writ, and I am not a dogmatist.  My overriding concern is for the readability and usability of the text, and if, in my judgment, "plane" works better than another word, I will use it, and prepare for all the Hoary Hounds of the Heavens to fall upon me.  Let's drop this nonsense -- you go your way and I'll go mine.  Cheers Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 13:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And my final word is check the story again, it's not nonsense to use correct terminology. I also use "plane" when it's appropriate but generally, it is not a huge issue, and in most cases, "aeroplane" can be used in a historical context just the same way as "aviatrix" was also commonly used for a period of time. Note the word "actor" has gone through a similar transformation as "actress" is becoming redundant today. Please check that my tongue is firmly in my cheek throughout. It's an old argument by now, and within the last week, has come up again (see my talk page) and I don't think the heavens fell that time either... IMHO, Bzuk (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Plane" 

message: Really?  Were there no Canadian feature films before this?  Or is the intent of the statement that it was the first Hollywood feature film made in Canada? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 15:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, the first Hollywood production entirely filmed in Canada; a kinda dubious distinction but I will make that more clear in a revision. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "first feature length production filmed entirely in Canada" 

message: Quotes should not be included here unless they have achieved iconic status (e.g. Casablanca (film)#Quotations). Note that MOS:FILM does not list quotes as a standard section. Also see Wikipedia:Quotations#When not to use quotations, specifically the last point. Wikiquote is where they belong, if they are somewhat memorable (although I don't consider the ones here as reaching that standard).
I also fail to see why the duplicate links listed in the See also section should be kept. They already exist in the body of the article. It's not done in any of the other film articles I've edited. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All good points, and when I noted that IMB included memorable quotes from this movie, that is when I had put them in. Quotes can enhance an article if they advance or illustrate a point. If you read the particular article's quotes in relation to the plot line, they are actually integral to the telling of the plot and were the marginal reason for including them. As for See also sections, they are and are not part of articles (film or otherwise) and I have seen many occasions when they are in use. After saying all this, I am not wedded to any alterations or changes in the article, what I was mainly concerned with are major revisions that were not discussed despite the provision of a talk or discussion page, which has recently been the scene of a lengthy discussion over the use or deletion of one word. I suggest the "string" here remain in place for a suitable length of time, one-two days, for example, to see if any other editors wish to contribute their views. At the end of the period, a decision can then be made for their retention or deletion.  Whatsayyou? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 08:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't discuss it because I didn't believe the deletions to be particularly contentious. Oh, well. Okay, let's see what others say. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As to quotes, since this is one of the few movie articles that I have edited, I have had to go back to examples and found that more lengthy appraisals have used "quoted" lines within the body of the plot text. Is that the more appropriate way to include these quotes? The first one was to indicate the flippant character Cagney was portraying, the second, the involvement of Bishop in the production (he basically ad-libbed all his interaction with the cadets and although the shooting script called for only a few seconds of him on screen, Bishop showed up on set with a carefully written five-minute monologue that the director eventually used in the final production. Curtiz also kept in a lot of the unrehearsed banter between Bishop and the cadets as they received their wings) and the third was a key plot point showing the hero's determination to "right a wrong." The See also section, like other sections seems to fall under the MOS:Film dictum that "The sections listed above are the standard film sections and by no means should they act as limits to the content of film articles. Larger and more complex film articles would warrant additional sections..." although the See Also is a true appendage that is only provided to aid readers/viewers in further exploration. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the See also section per WP:MOSLINK#Overlinking and underlinking: what's the best ratio? point #5. Cagney is already linked 3 times, Bishop twice. See also's are IMO intended for links that don't otherwise fit into the flow of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can live with that. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See also's are IMO intended for links that don't otherwise fit into the flow of the article I'd agree with that except for one caveat, having to do with reader psychology. "See also" should also include any links that a reader who's just finished the article might want to use which aren't otherwise easily available.  In other words, the reader gets to the bottom of the article on "widgets" and realizes they really want to check out "geegaws" as well.  If the link for "geegaws" is right nearby, or is someplace easily findable, like in the lede, that's fine, but we shouldn't make the reader search back through the artcle for that link, we should make it easier for them by providing that link for them in the "See also" section. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 20:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections that I believe should go

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Captains of the Clouds. 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  tag to http://www.ualberta.ca/EDMONTON/CONTRIB/airmuseum/aamfairchild.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110104211407/http://www.acesofww2.com/Canada/aces/NazisOverCanada.htm to http://www.acesofww2.com/Canada/aces/NazisOverCanada.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified