Talk:Mignet Pou-du-Ciel

message: This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Suggest that this article should be renamed Mignet Pou de Ciel which is the official name of the aircraft. Any comments? MilborneOne 19:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately your comment is a little slow as the article was indeed renamed on 20:22, 28 December 2007. - Ahunt (talk) 10:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: Are there no public domain pictures of the various Pous? It is unfortunate that the article does not show Henri Mignet with his aeroplanes...and that half the pictures are of Balerit produced aircraft.Bristol Sycamore (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They are certainly useful as they show modern applications of the design, Ahunt, so thanks for that. I have seen quite a lot of photos on google, which I will try and load up. They are all over 50 years old, so surely not covered by copyright anyway, so hopefully there should be no issue with using them?Bristol Sycamore (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That would depend greatly on what country they come from and who owned the copyright, whether it was renewed or even renewable. You will want to have a go through Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions to be sure. Personally other than a few corporate logos I have only uploaded photos I took. At least then they don't get deleted for copyright reasons! - Ahunt (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Ahunt. I found three pics in Wiki Commons but I don't seem to be any good at putting them in the article. Please could you do it, as you seem to know your way round here.. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Terrific! I must work out how that is done. ThanksBristol Sycamore (talk) 00:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need to mention that the Balerit was designed as a microlight by Dr Pierre Mignet, Henri's eldest son, after his father's death. A useful source about this and all things Pou is Ken Ellis and Geoff Jones's book, Henri Mignet and his Flying Fleas. Bristol Sycamore (talk) 00:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balerit  

message: If you have flown a Flying Flea, please feel free to put this userbox on your user page!
Code	Result
    	
- Ahunt (talk) 11:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Userbox

message: Note from a HM 360 pilot: the HM 8 descripted in the article as "flying flea" IS NOT A FLYING FLEA, but the last conventionnal 3 axis aircraft from Mignet!!! The first flying flea like design is the HM 13 (prototype), but he never fly correctly, the realy first flynig flea is the HM 14! I take a correction of the article, but my correction is erased...If you prefere a false information, it's your choice...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.159.89.78 (talk) 06:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a reference and 'll be happy to correct it. Right now the cited ref (Peter M Bowers: Guide to Homebuilts - Ninth Edition, Chapter 7 Shattered Dreams, page 73. TAB Books, Blue Ridge Summit PA, 1984. ) which I have a copy of here specifically says that the HM.8 was the first of the Flying Flea designs. Now it is possible that Bowers is wrong, but we need a better ref that says that. - Ahunt (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: HM 8

message: I have standardised the mixture of designations in the form HM.14, in accordance with 1930s photos and data in Ellis & Jones 1990, eg p. 128. That ref also has Mignet's own spec data for HM.14 - could be added, or replace the HM.290 specs? PeterWD (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Aircraft_specifications we only use one representative set of specs in aircraft type articles, but if you want to change them from the HM.24 in place of the HM.290 that is fine. - Ahunt (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. After more studying, the ref offers the equivalent of only six parameters, compared to twelve at present for the HM.290, so I'll shelve that idea. Mignet's own book might have more, but not got that, and the Ellis & Jones book must be returned in a few days, anyway. PeterWD (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense. I originally added the HM.290 specs and it was only because I had those available in a ref. It probably makes sense to go with the most complete set we have, since they are only representative of one type anyway. - Ahunt (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Designations

message: Further thoughts about the various Flea-related articles, while I still have Ellis & Jones, and Ord-Hume (2000) from the same loan source, plus my own Jackson (1974) BCA vol.3 and other refs. Ord-Hume has specs with eleven parameters for three British variations of HM.14. We could leave the current article for general Flea variants, and I could break out HM.14 into a standalone article, and move stuff around from Henri Mignet, Stephen Appleby and Flea articles. Ahunt perhaps to break out HM.290/293 into a standalone page, with HM.1000 to follow ? PeterWD (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as you have the refs to make stand-alone articles of some length then that would work fine. This article could remain as a series overview and link to the new ones. We should make up a nav box too, which I can do. - Ahunt (talk) 12:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. My preference is to compose an article out-of-sight and offline, with occasional unsaved tests in sandbox, finally slam it into WP (almost) fully-formed. For HM.14, I could just copy the Flea code as a template with its existing navbox etc and hack it about. One minor point - I've never  been totally clear about the application of the MAIN template, per WP:SS. In this case, would you expect the Flea and Henri Mignet articles both to have sections and MAIN links to HM.14, and would the HM.14 article perhaps have a MAIN link back to Flea? PeterWD (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That will all work fine! The Flea article should have a main template pointing to HM.14, but normally the Henri Mignet and HM.14 articles would just have a wikilink to the Flea article. In case you aren't aware there is an aircraft type article template creator at Template:WPAVIATION creator that can be useful in making new aircraft type articles. Also when we do create new type articles we usually list them at Wikipedia:New articles (Aircraft) for peer review! - Ahunt (talk) 13:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Making some progress. Looks like HM.14 might be as long as current Flea, after the relevant On display and other stuff is moved there. Main problems are deciding how to accommodate so many variations (ie not officially-recognisable 'variants') anticipated and allowed by Mignet's principal design 'plans'. I intend to finish a Development section with the 'finalised' 1934 Mignet design, then a Design section with general design and construction. The usual Operational history section would perhaps be replaced by a Variations section, then a crashes and investigations section (title?), and perhaps a Later variations section(?). For specs, I'm planning to use those for the Appleby Flea modified by Baynes, because I have more data for that than basic Mignet HM.14 with French engine not much used elsewhere. I haven't yet found another WP homebuilt article that might serve as a good layout model. PeterWD (talk) 08:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds okay - the usual page layout for aircraft type articles is explained at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content. - Ahunt (talk) 12:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting out variants

message: Last month, I removed the HM.14s from the section Aircraft on display, and transferred them to the new HM.14 article, but one has now returned. Perhaps we need something like "See Mignet HM.14 for other examples" alongside the section title, also remove all HM.14 images except the one in the infobox?
Also noticed two refs that appear to have dubious value. "Leigh in the War, 1939-45" contains absolutely no mentions of Pou, Flea, or Mignet. Also, external ref "Midget Plane Does A Mile A Minute" arguably contains no useful content. Suggest both are deleted. PeterWD (talk) 08:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If the refs are no good then yes they should be removed. The question of aircraft on display might be solved by retaining the non-HM.14s and using a main template. Let me do that and see what you think. As far as I am concerned teh photos are okay where they are, although we'll have to keep an eye on both articles to make sure that additions are in the right one. - Ahunt (talk) 11:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Two unproductive refs now removed. PeterWD (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: HM.14s on display, references

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mignet Pou-du-Ciel. 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/20130303014153/http://www.flyingflea.com.ar/ to http://www.flyingflea.com.ar/
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) 05:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)