Talk:One of Our Aircraft Is Missing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.



Contents

[edit] origin of title

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 Jan. 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)

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 [1] and [2]. 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)

[edit] images

I'm truly not trying to be contentious by shifting the images back to where I last had them, but in putting them where they were you get big hunking holes of whitespace in the middle of the article, which is very bad for readability -- just plain ugly. If you can say what effect you're trying to get, perhaps I can find a solution that works in WikiWorld. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 22:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, re lo-res -- at this size the images are somewhat hard to see. I'd say that about 225px is a good size, generally, but these showed resolution problems when I blew them up to 200, so I put them back as they were. If you were able to upload very slightly higher res picks that would survive at 225px that would be good. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 22:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Does that mess up the layout for you with the images all down the right hand side? In my browser (Firefox) it puts the Edit links for each section some way from the section it's intended to edit -- SteveCrook (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's the Firefox issue mainly, that's why the first image was shifted left, it was to prevent a shift into the production area for the images. I had kinda planted them into a plot and cast section to match up with the text there. Bzuk (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC).
No, it looks fine in IE, but I opened it with Firefox and Netscape and I see what you mean. I didn't realize that there's such a disparity with the way the browsers render the page. I'll have to rethink. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 22:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
And Bzuk, we really have to find another solution for what you want to do -- that whitespace in the middle of the article, at the end of "Plot" is really not acceptable. Let me fool around a bit and see what I come up with -- and I'll check it with Firefox as well. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 22:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It must be an aberration in one type of browser, doesn't show up in Firefox but if you can fix it, that would be great. FWIW, I should have mentioned that I am also waltzing around "The Lion Has Wings" and if you have time, check the work there as well. Bzuk (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC).
As for larger resolution, I'll try to step up the image resolution on "The Lion" and see how it works. I am also fearful of the image hounds lurking around that stomp on graphics and images, so I usually made the images crummy on purpose. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC).
I think some people (some of them Admins) are trying to destroy Wikipedia by being over-officious about use of images. I went away over Christmas and New Year. They put a notice on a few images I'd provided just after I went away and by the time I got back the images had been deleted. When I added them I had filled in all the details to meet the requirements at the time, but they keep moving the goal. I just didn't bother trying to replace them of find them again -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I've just been going back and forth from IE to Firefox, and the problem's only in IE. What a mess. I think I'd better continue to edit to make things look good in IE (as the worst-case scenario) and then check it in Firefox. Shit. BTW, come of my lo-res problems were on my end, a bad switch setting. They look better now, and on Firefox.

Anyone know which browser is the most popular, has the most users? I'd say IE, but I'm not sure. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 22:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I record user stats of visitors to the P&P site with webalizer. That shows the browser type as well and of the 370K hits in Jan 2008, 53% were with Micro$oft Internet Exploder and 35% used Mozilla (Firefox). They're by far the most common browsers that visit the site -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Microsoft has now dropped suppport of Navigator and Explorer since they had purchased Mozilla Firefox outright and will dedicate all future development only to this platform. The only other browser that is really competitive is Safari which is a MAC-based system. (BTW, that's the one I use being a MACaholic.) FWIW Bzuk (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC).
Micro$oft haven't bought out Mozilla have they? I thought it was still independent. Is nothing safe from the Gates empire? I see he's after Yahoo! now as well -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've put up a compromise layout, which looks OK under IE, a little less so under Firefox. This new info about rendering disparities (new to me) has thrown me for a bit of a loop, and I may need to get out of the layout-editing business until I think it through and decide what I'm going to do. If you don't like what I've done to the layout, just revert, but now that the lo-res is not a problem for me (sorry about that), I'd reccommend you keep the 225px image size for everything -- looks a hell of a lot better. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 23:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
We might be able to get away with the 225 px although the WP:Aircraft group has a policy about not "hardcoding image sizes" which usually means only a "thumb" size is accepted, but if they aren't looking... FWIW Bzuk (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC).
I just think there's little point in putting an image in an article if you can't get something out of it without clicking on the link.

I moved one image back into "plot" to get rid of whitespace problem under IE in your last. Can you live with this -- it looks OK to be in Firefox. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 23:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good under Firefox when I use partial screen, not so good at full screen. I'm flummoxed - Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 23:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely no problem, all good things in the end will resolve themselves. Thanks for your valiant efforts in wrestling with the mighty Microsoft demons. BTW, what's that blotchy thing on your user page? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC).
Steve, talk about insidious, Gates and the Dark Empire have also bought a piece of Apple Macintosh, probably slobbering over the new iPhone, ibook, ipod, etc. Oh, btw, Firefox is one of their takeovers, Explorer and Navigator are no longer being supplied or supported. FWIW have you checked out The Lion Has Wings? Bzuk (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC).


Would the images German soldier in One of our aircraft.jpg and Lobster trap-in film.jpg be better in the Production section? They are both really more about the production and they do make the Edit link for the Cast section appear in an odd place in Firefox -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've had a look at The Lion Has Wings. Looking good -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The images work both as part of telling the plot and as an aspect of production. It's a bit of comme ci comme ça. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC).
True, but if they were in he Production area then they'd be further away from the tables (cast list & Info box) and wouldn't mess up the display as much. Or maybe they could just be tiled horizontally? -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
That was the first solution and I think it still works, let me at it. Bzuk (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC).

The current layout is worse for me than previous ones - I get whitespace at the top *and* at the bottom of the plot section. I've uploaded a screenshot here, if you'd like to look at what I'm seeing. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 02:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What about that then? Feel free to revert it if you don't like it but it's the only way I can see to separate everything out. And even that can still be a problem if the browser window is so narrow that the images can't fit next to the Info Box because the browser will then put them underneath it leaving chunks of white space. But if people have their browser window that narrow they're probably used to seeing that on other sites :)
The real trouble is the limitations of HTML and the limitations of the Wikipedia markup to let you even do as much as you can in HTML -- SteveCrook (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The current layout is working for me -- ironically I was trying to do just that at the same time Steve was and kept getting edit conflicts. All I did to alter Steve's was to move the 2 images up from inside Production to before it, and then restore the plane to where it had been. It seems to be good under both IE & Firefox. Could this be it? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 02:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It's odd, because under the last layout that Steve made and I altered slightly, there was no whitespace except to the right of the cast box, under both IE and FIrefox on my machine, whereas on this layout you've reverted to, I'm back to a big chunk of whitespace under the plot text. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 02:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
write another paragraph of text for the plot section to eat up the whitespace. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 02:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Steve and your solutions still block in large areas of white space, I have reverted to tossing all the relevant images down one side and moving the bomber image to production where there is a distinct allusion to the use of the bomber in the studio. This variant works in all browsers, Safari, Explorer, Navigator and Firefox. FWIW, Ed check on that smudge on your user page... Bzuk (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC).
Sorry to say, I've still gotta hunka hunka burning whitespace at the end of Plot, under IE. what smudge - I'll go look. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 03:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Awww... you shouldn'ta gone and done it! Many thanks-- my first. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 03:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What I'm seeing under Firefox is that the Edit link for the Cast section is in the wrong place. See here -- SteveCrook (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's mine: whitespace2 Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 03:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I see what you mean. I hadn't noticed that on my Firefox, but when I went looking, I had it too -- at least under less than full screen. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 03:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A suggestion

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)

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).
Always glad to fount - but what other sorts of things can we say about it? -- SteveCrook (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] curly quotes

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)

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).
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)
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).

I think we've got all the significant points about its production. I'll see if I can dig up anything more on its reception. But apart from that, I think that'll do. Thanks chaps -- SteveCrook (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Layout

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)

[edit] Bunching up of "edit" links under Firefox

Just ran across this, FWIW: Wikipedia:How to fix bunched-up edit links Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 18:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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).
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)
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)