Talk:Short Empire

message: I'm stretching my memory here, but if I recall correctly, the "golden" boats operated out of Bowmore on the Isle of Islay during the early years of the war in a patrol role, pending deliveries of Sunderlands. Is this correct, and if so, I presume they would have been armed for this purpose. Emoscopes Talk 11:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed! Barnes & James refers to Bowmore on Loch Indaal, where the first boat arrived on Christmas Eve 1940. They had been commandeered for the RAF and fitted with gun turrets, armour plating, bomb racks etc. Only one (Golden Hind) survived the war, eventually being scrapped in 1954.TraceyR 13:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: S.26

message: :Image:Short Empire G-AFBL Cooee - Rod El Faray - Cairo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Short Empire G-AFBL Cooee - Rod El Faray - Cairo.jpg

message: Now Cavalier flying boat has been changed to cover the accident, then Oppose. The accident is probably notable on its own.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose didnt think it was polite to remove the move request but I have re-written the article to cover the accident and as such it is notable for a stand-alone article and not suitable for merging. MilborneOne (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Oppose - accident article stands fine on its own and would crowd this article if merged. - Ahunt (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Oppose - Surely notability for an accident is that they're either notable or not: I find it hard to imagine an accident that's sourceable and worthy of mention under a type article, but not also notable enough for a stand-alone. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose - needs the name changing to bring it in line with the naming convention!!-donePetebutt (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: as in now at 1939 Atlantic Ocean Imperial Airways Short Empire flying boat sinking, though I think attention to the guideline would have dropped "flying boat". (Can't say I'm overly happy with "sinking" but is there a better name?) GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

text: (addendun also  China Clipper crash, and Honolulu Clipper not a crash and possibly not notable. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

text: New name is a bit over the top as we only have Cavalier flying boat ever! perhaps we need to take it to the aero-accident or aircraft project page MilborneOne (talk) 13:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger of [[Cavalier flying boat sinking]] 

message: Comparing the speed of the S.42 with a tailwind with that of the Empire with a headwind smacks of "my airplane is better than yours" and it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Wiki is not about telling a tale - it is about factual, relevant information regarding the topic of the page. Anything beyond that it completed the flight (which was important as the agreement regarding commercial transatlantic flight required both the US and the UK to have completed a commercial transatlantic flight) is irrelevant.
Now if you were to find something on the times each averaged across the same route in the same direction, or to the published cruising speeds, - that would offer some insight, otherwise it is comparing apples and oranges. The info belongs on the S.42 page - not here. NiD.29 (talk) 23:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point about what it may look like. But it was a joint operation, of public interest at the time and highly visible (the captains met the Governor General of Canada, Juan Trippe on one hand and de Valera and the Secretary of State for Air on the other) and the two aircraft are compared by Flight in some detail. I thought that the included detail on the prevailing wind and height flown showed that the two aircraft though similar should not be directly compared. Ultimately some people will read "is better than yours" into anything but here we set things out from a NPOV. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In the 1930s air mail was not seen as so important on the Atlantic routes as there was already a fast RMS steamship service that could get a letter to and from Canada or the US in around four days. This contrasted with other routes such as to Africa, India, etc., which might take several weeks to deliver a letter by steamer.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.114 (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  S.42 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion