Talk:One of Our Aircraft Is Missing

message: I could have sworn that the phrase used on the radio really was "one of our aircraft failed to return." 
Ah. A quick search uncovers several sources. This from a 1978 interview with Michael Powell: "I said to Emeric that this phrase 'one of our aircraft failed to return' was a wonderful one to build a story around and would he think about it. After he'd finished his work on the writing of "49th Parallel", he did think about it and by that time the phrase had been turned to the eventual title of our film, " One of Our Aircraft Is Missing" (1942). I guess they thought 'failed to return' was too downbeat."
The phrase also appears in a January 1942 British government telegram (http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/psf/box36/t328g02.html) and a Nov. 1942 article in an Australian newspaper (http://150.theage.com.au/view_bestofarticle.asp?straction=update&inttype=1&intid=1089).
Curiously, an April 1942 letter includes the line "Monday night Mary & I went to see 'One of our Aircraft Failed to Return' - do see it if you can darlings," which is just bizarre. (http://people.aapt.net.au/~cassynancarrow/letters/19420429.html).
Chelt 17:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I always thought that both forms were used on the radio announcements and that when Powell says "the phrase had been turned to the eventual title of our film" he means the phrase used in the radio announcements. There are a few articles online that use the phrase "One of Our Aircraft is Missing" that aren't referring to the film like those at  and . I'm a bit too young to have heard either phrase myself but I'll investigate further rather than just changing the article. -- SteveCrook 01:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of title 

message: I think it might be a good idea to table the layout problems for a while.  I assume (maybe I'm wrong) that the intention is to add to this article, more text, maybe more sections etc?  How about when we think we're getting near to a stopping point, we take up the image layout quandry  againand see what we can come up with collectively, but in the meantime just live with these various quirks, knowing that we intend to solve them later. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 03:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good suggestion as wrestling with spaces hasn't accomplished much other than giving us all fits; as to expanding the article, that also might not be a bad idea. I'll take a look at some sources tomorrow and you can always count on the walking fount of knowledge known as Steve Crook. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Always glad to fount - but what other sorts of things can we say about it? -- SteveCrook (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A suggestion 

message: Why did you change to curly quotes? I hate curly quotes -- they're so cutsey-pie. Besided the MoS says that blockquotes are preferred to cquote, which should be used only for "shout-outs" or pull quotes. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 17:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen them used in both ways, but no biggie, just wanted to show Steve that something interesting could still be added to the article. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice, but I was wondering more about other content rather than style or ways of presenting it. There's not too much more I can think of unless there's any of the real minutiae like those noted at http://www.powell-pressburger.org/Reviews/42_OOOAIM/OOOAIM_00.html -- SteveCrook (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, that's it, the quotes are all I could think of to enhance the article. There may be some more information that can be added regarding production or reception but then it does tend to devolve into trivial and peripheral details. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curly quotes 

message: I've added some links, a small amount of new information, copyedited the text and did some minor rewrites for style and clarity. I'm not aware of anything that's missing from the article at this point.I've checked the current layout under IE and Firefox, both partial screen & full screen, and the only egregious issue I see is the displaced "edit" link for the "Cast" section, something I have no idea how to fix. The images do bleed a little into the "Production" section, but I don't find that objectionable at all. If you disagree, I think reducing the size of those images from 225 to 215 or (if necessary) 200 would do the trick, but I think they look good at their current size and provide some nice companionship for the cast box.I guess what I'm saying is that I'm happy with the layout, and the article in general at this point, I think you folks did a nice job. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 22:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout 

message: Just ran across this, FWIW: Wikipedia:How to fix bunched-up edit links Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 18:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ed, thanks for the article link. I think the images in this article now work but it does seem to be a handy guide for the future. Want some more articles to look at? See: The High and the Mighty, Island in the Sky (1953 film) and The Aviator, all aviation film I am tackling at the present. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I had noticed "Island in the Sky" (a film I'm fond of), and was planning to take a look. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 19:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, I've never seen "The Aviator" and the few minutes I watched of "The High and the Mighty" I didn't care for, which is why I haven't done anything about editing those articles.BTW - should there be an article on "aviation films", and not just a category? Seems to me there should and it also seems to me that you'd be a good person to get it started. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 03:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bunching up of "edit" links under Firefox 

message: I have removed the quote section per the discussion I had on the Village pump recently: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 63#Quote sections. Basically, the quotes have to be integrated in the text, not used as decoration. A reason has to be given (preferably from a reliable, independent source) why a quote is used: otherwise they are, as my edit summary said, random, interchangeable quotes without added value for the article. WP:NOTDIR and WP:UNDUE are the most relevant policies here. Fram (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to have had a detailed, in depth discussion with a few people that lasted all of a day :)Not to take anything away from your intentions, I query your target. The quotes quoted here are very pertinent because they express a lot about the attitude of the occupied Dutch people and why they are so willing to help the British airmen, at a risk to their own lives, even though those airmen are dropping bombs on the Netherlands. I don't think that any of the Wikipedia guidelines that you've mentioned apply to these quotes -- SteveCrook (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the section was listed on the Village Pump for a while longer, and it gets frequented by a lot of editors, so if people disagreed with the sentiment expressed there, it would have been mentioned. As for your quotes: they express something about what the British wanted to show in a fictional propaganda movie, not about the real situation. And there is no indication why these quotes are taken, and not any other: no indication why they are especially relevant or noteworthy. Please try to integrate them into the text, or they will be removed again for the above mentioned policy reasons. Fram (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see that your rationale is attributed to a variety of MOS guidelines, but as you have already determined that your position is intractable, albeit your slight concession to "discussion", there is very little that other editors can do other than provide a needlessly contrived statement to link the quotes. In the article that is under review, One of Our Aircraft is Missing, the quotes represent a historical view that delves into the reasoning behind the Dutch resistance in the Second World War. The film was clearly a propaganda tool and the quotes were limited to one exchange and was cited to a source. The original author of the article has now revised the "plot" to incorporate the "quotes." As a sop to the "deletionist" streak that this challenge represented with a broad statement such as "random quotes dont belong on Wikipedia" (sic), I had already moved the aforementioned quotes to Wikiquotes. The author that made the revisions is a well-known historian of the British writer-director-producer team of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger which immediately aroused my attention as his work is impeccably researched and has led to a number of comprehensive articles in Wikipedia revolving around the legendary Powell/Pressburger team. Might I suggest that instead of one editor being the arbiter of the "quotes" conundrum, that a clearly defined style note be considered before more of the crusade stirs up similar contentious exchanges between established "regulars". FWiW, I find that the last statement above is unnecessary and can be considered inflammatory. Bzuk (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have responded longer at my talk page. The current page indicates the reason these quotes are used and integrates them into the text, thereby providing information instead of decoration. This makes the quotes no longer random. Fram (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote section

message: Hey User:Bzuk. Your reversion puts up lots of blank space for me, with the additional disadvantage of the images not being where they should be. In fact, I'm puzzled how my placement could generate blank space. Stacking them one after another, as they are now, seems more likely to do this. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures placement 

message: Yes, there are various things with a title of the form "One of our x is missing". But how many of these have any relation to the film? The title of the film was taken from the announcement used in radio broadcasts during WWII, that one (or often more) of our aircraft is missing. Could these titles have been based more on that expression rather than on the film?
One that does seem to have a more definite relation to the film is One of Our Dinosaurs Is Missing, because that included Peter Ustinov and Hugh Burden in the cast. They were also both in One of Our Aircraft Is Missing -- SteveCrook (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  In popular culture 

message: An arbitrary move by an editor recently removed all the images and the commentary that accompanied them which made them qualify as non-free images. No discussion, no nothing... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the many reasons why I gave up on images in Wikipedia some time ago -- SteveCrook (talk) 02:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: I normally would have said that it's usually a "rowing boat" in British English. A "rowboat" is usually just what it's called in North America (and comes up as a spelling error according to my British English spelling checker). But in this case, Jo de Vries (Googie Withers) explicitly calls it a "rowboat" in the film  when she's telling the airmen about their escape route (80 minutes in) -- SteveCrook (talk) 05:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure that "rowboat" has now become universally accepted, while a rowing boat is considered archaic useage (another oddity, as "usage" is also acceptable). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be too sure :)My first instinct was to agree to the change because "rowing boat" is the more commonly used expression by far in the UK. We don't consider it archaic usage. Or maybe we all talk archaic. But then I checked in the film and Jo de Vries does say "rowboat". But she is Dutch :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: (threadjack) Steve--I wanted to add a detail about Sir Arnold Wilson as the inspiration for George Corbett, but the only source I could find for it is you!--Reedmalloy (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You know it's true then :)You can cite Micky Powell's autobiography as a source -- SteveCrook (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Rowing Boat / Rowboat

message: Several times the aircrew mention "railroads". Anyone from the UK would not use the (US) term "railroad" but would use their native term "railway". No doubt the reason for this usage of a US term (railroad) was "for the benefit of the American public" watching the film. IMO this was not necessary as any North American would have the knowledge to realise just what the British term "railway" meant. It is almost an insult to their intelligence.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.20.21 (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Most British people can speak American as well as British English (we're bilingual). There isn't really a distinction between them. Any British person would understand "Railroad" to mean "Railway" without it needing to be explained without any insult to them or to their intelligence -- SteveCrook (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

text: The first mention of "railroad" is by a Yorkshirmen to a Dutch woman. Neither of whom can be expected to speak good English  :)  -- SteveCrook (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Railroad" 

message: See Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 August 26. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  File:One of our aircraft.JPG listed for discussion 

message: I have deleted the link to the illicit hosting of this British film on Internet Archive. Michael Powell did not die until 1990, so UK copyright subsists until the end of 2060. As a non-US film still under copyright in its country of origin on 1 January 1996, it is protected in the US for 95 years after publication, so to the end of 2037. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright status