Talk:De Havilland Sea Vixen/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about De Havilland Sea Vixen. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

DH.110 at Farnborough

There exists some film of the DH.110 flown by John Derry disintegrating at the Farnborough Air Show. It clearly shows the separated but still-running engines (presumably running on the fuel remaining in the severed fuel lines) arcing over until they impact, I believe, somewhere amongst the watching crowds.

BTW, John Derry was the same Derry who was responsible for devising the aerobatic manouvre known as The Derry turn Ian Dunster 12:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The RAF version of the DH 110 was allocated the name 'Vixen' (in line with the preceding 'Vampire' and 'Venom'), and as a result the naval version automatically became the 'Sea Vixen', despite the RAF version never being ordered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.235 (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Usage of non-WP:RS sources

This page has a slight issue with the usage of sources. Sources are there for the purpose of verifying information, and as such must be beyond questioning. Home-made fan sites aren't verified, their contents are as unreliable as an uncited statement is to begin with, thus do not add anything to the verification of the information they stand as evidence for, as the reference itself then needs to be verified. Non-RS sources are worse than useless, they decieve readers and editors into thinking information is reliable and sourced when it is in fact unreliable; and on policy are to be removed for the usage of new ones. In the case of the one I removed today, there was no need for an alternative to be placed, as it was acting as part of a pair of references, its removal did not create an absense of citation. We don't need, and do not benifit from, unreliable sources being included as collaborative verification, the unverified should not be used to verify. Doing such is needless, and brings us into question when such examples are found. Routine clean up exercises include the removal and replacement of sources where need be. Kyteto (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Mark Russell's History of FRADU does not have the hallmarks of an unreliable site, as it is not a Spam site, has indicated that materials such as photos should be checked for sources, has a list of sources that were used, acknowledges other sources for photos. I would accept that some might consider the site as "home-made" but there is information there that I find as useful. Would you still consider its use as an external link? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

Some editors have also questioned the veracity of Birtles' details, using FRADU's research. These question may need to be explored in a note section. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

I'd be happy with its useage in External Links, the EL entries don't need the same verifiability as they're not being used as evidence, more as a site of interest, which it certainly is. I do like the information on the site, but it really don't belong in the role of verification. Kyteto (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That's fair, let's leave this discussion up for at least a day to see if there are any more comments from interested editors, then make the change. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

What about the Bircham Newton website - this does not appear to be a WP:RS either and is used to support a claim that eight D.3s were operated from Bircham Newton. It does not state how many D.3s were converted, and doesn't state that they were operated from Bircham, but does show a few photos of the D.3, apparently at Bircham. The Birtles Air International article states that "a handful" were converted by FR at Bircham. Shall we change to what we can verify?Nigel Ish (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Birtles should likely be used as the most reliable source, IMHO. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

Infobox image

Since there is a bit of a "flap" about the image, how about the image on right? thumb FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I like it, perhaps a bit too much sky, but it is in service colours, and it shows the distinctive boom tail. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Same as GraemeLeggett. I'm changing it now. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry guys I have removed it, cant replace a free image with a non-free image. MilborneOne (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Found a (hopefully appropriate) photo and added it to the infobox, moving the Red Bull logo one down to the Survivors section.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Very nice. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Capital! GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent picture, a thank you to everyone involved in making such a good improvement. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction template

The lead paragraph states that all of the production was at Christchurch, but "Development" indicates that later production moved to Hawarden, Cheshire.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the Christchurch bit from the lead as they were built at Christchurch and then Hawarden, the prototypes were built at Hatfield. MilborneOne (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

That was quick! Thanks. --217.155.32.221 (talk) 13:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Question on philosophy of edit reverts

Kyteto, you haven't justified your blanket reversion of my edit which was done in good faith to bring wording more in line with Wiki Manual of Style:Words to Watch.

What was your reason for reverting the whole lot? Surely there was something good in there? Your answer could be most helpful for my future edits (Reason required as per wiki guidelines)

The following comments are not meant to be antagonistic but I think are important, but only if we think there is always room for improvement. Your revert re-instates redundant words which offer no extra insight, difficult words where a simpler one is available, and unusual expressions. Here are some examples: "would need" changed to "would have to have"....radar "equipment" changed to radar "facilities"...."31 people" changed to "a total of 31 people"...."introduced"modifications changed to "enacted a series of" modifications...."evolved" changed to "gestated"...."included" changed to "elected to implement"...."where" replaced with "under which" RegardsPieter1963 (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I have noticed that the improved wording, in a few examples, had made some sentences worse. For example, as mentioned in the edit window, "Early flight tests of the prototype demonstrated the aircraft's performance exceeded expectations" - I read that several times over, "demonstrated the aircraft's performance exceeded expectations" - it just doesn't sound right to me, especially when spoken out

The removal of the commas from "In response to the loss of the first prototype de Havilland introduced modifications to the design which were implemented on the remaining second prototype" - I can't speak this sentence in one breath, the commas present fall in natural places which do allow it to be done so; their elimination didn't seem to improve readability or the ability to speak it - it's a bit long to go without any break at all - it's hard to quantify a subjective feeling like that, but it seemed like a step back rather than forwards, and I'm trying to explain why.

Many of the wording changes are good; I particularly like the ones for the air show crash, it is simpler and works more neatly; I just didn't want to untangle the trip-ups from the improvements as I was in a bit of a rush. I've had similar critical review of my own writing, such as this example on the Vickers VC-10 article, all that writing rejected due to a single character being auto-corrected! I encourage many of your contributions to be added back in, it'll likely be ever better than before upon the second editing :) Kyteto (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.Pieter1963 (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on De Havilland Sea Vixen. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on De Havilland Sea Vixen. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

the brake

"The front fuselage, composed of the pressurised cabin, the brake below the pressure flooring..." What is the brake? CheersPieter1963 (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

[1] It's an air brake.

Foxy Lady having hers fettled

Parts for a 1:48 model (best photo I could find) Andy Dingley (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

In checking Sea Vixen armament, I came across a set of pilot notes. In them it's "airbrake". A British, or RN, quirk? (I also found it's on the Green hydraulic circuit, and that it automatically retracts when undercarriage lowers, though that's neither here nor there) GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd always use airbrake, but on WP I do tend to link generic terms to whatever version is already there, unless it's obviously wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you bothPieter1963 (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)