Talk:Vickers Vimy

Bomber designs

The Vickers Vimy looks like Sikorsky's 1913 bombers (S-21, S-22). Maybe Sikosky was also working of an even earlier design. Anyone know the history of these large planes. DonPMitchell (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vickers Vimy. 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/20070918143921/http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/images/I040/10308252.aspx to http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/images/I040/10308252.aspx

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) 16:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR?

Where is the consensus for the reference format changes?Nigel Ish (talk) 09:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I've been bold (see WP:BOLD). If the community as a whole doesn't like it then we can always revert. Using the new templates, the page looks pretty much the same to the reader. But it makes it easier for editors to maintain the references. It also guarantees that the references are in a consistent style. It also makes it easier for the servers to serve up the information in different ways in the future so that we can have even better referencing. Manual references are harder to maintain and don't allow us to easily add new features in the future. To sum up - easier to maintain for the editors and allows the WP servers to do their job better.

I've done 3 authors so far. I will hold off doing the rest until this discussion has finished. Depending on the result of the discussion, I will either do the rest (for consistency) or revert them. Note that the readers don't see any difference between these 3 and the others, so we're not hurting the readers.  Stepho  talk  10:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, the historic style was consistent throughout and was well established, and was one that could be readily worked upon. I really do not like citation styles being converted without consensus. Kyteto (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I normally don't get involved with discussions like this, because referencing is the one thing guaranteed to arouse everyone's emotions. I have been chatting recently with a number of editors about reffing styles, and here's a summary. There are many arguments both for and against both manual refs and {{sfn}}s. Manual refs are simply much easier to create and require less typing and general effort. Manual refs can be enhanced with {{rp}}, which is supported in the Visual Editor. Employing the reusable <ref name="Wotevs"> allows all the links to a certain source can be seen in the reflist at a glance.

One reason people don't like sfns is that they seem to require too much clicking through the refs. Also, since Jan 2021 {sfn}s are not supported in the VE. However, if you go to Preferences → Gadgets and disable 'Navigation Popups' and enable 'Reference Tooltips', then all the sfn links to {reflist} and bibliography using {cite book} etc. can been seen by simply hovering over the inline ref., and Nav. Popups also still work. I feel it is a great pity that this isn't the default. Also, when creating a cite book I also place a hidden {sfn} for the convenience of later editors, such as {{cite book <!--{{sfn|Bloggs|1978|p=}}--> |last=Bloggs |etc. but again this is extra trouble for those with a lot to do.

On the other hand, many people don't understand how to make the link work between {sfn}s and {cite book}: the params must be completely correct, or they just don't work: specifically, just forget |author=Bloggs, Fred and instead use |last=Bloggs |first=Fred |date=1978 |etc.and 99% of your problems will be solved. Other difficulties arise when people use |edition=1978 ed. when the 1st edition is 1907: so use |date=1978 and |orig-date=1907. I agree that {sfn}s simply involve more trouble and understanding to create than manual refs, and more troubleshooting when they don't work. There thus are thousands of articles with non-working {sfn}s, because people have simply misunderstood the meaning and import of various params: and how they lead into dereliction and darkness. These are listed at Category:Harv and Sfn multiple-target errors and Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors and can be identified by adding a script to common.js - but it can get quite tedious unless you are deliberately looking for such errors. All {cite book}s etc. now automatically create their own CITEREF without having to set |ref=harv.

As to the Citevar in question here, I am a great fan of {sfn}s when your Prefs are set correctly as above. Having had a look at the bibliography, all the sources are eminently suited to {cite book} or {journal}, and in this case I would agree with Stepho-wrs's change of referencing format, although people may be unswayed by the foregoing, and consensus should indeed be reached. >MinorProphet (talk) 09:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

What the hell is a Vimy?

That this is named after?

Wschart (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

From the article, "The type had received the official name of Vimy, after the Battle of Vimy Ridge."  Stepho  talk  08:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

See Battle of Vimy Ridge. BilCat (talk) 09:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

Wschart (talk) 01:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)