Talk:John Cyril Porte

Headline text

Porte's middle name is often spelled 'Cyrill' on various web articles, however his burial uses the name 'Cyril' Ephebi 11:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

DSM (US)

The article mentions that Porte was posthumously awarded the US DSM. This honour is not listed after his name in the intro paragraph. Do some rules prohibit this mention, or could and should it be added, e.g. DSM (USA)? --TraceyR (talk) 08:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure but I dont think (in real life) it is normal practice to list foreign decoration as post nominals. Dont think that would stop you adding it here but it may be questioned by users as it wouldnt appear in official references. MilborneOne (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I have asked about this here Talk:List of post-nominal letters. TraceyR (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I replied to the discussion at Talk:List of post-nominal letters. PalawanOz (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Images

There are way too many images, I added a link to Wikimedia Commons where the images belong. They currently extend way beyond the text in the article. Should we link to Wikicommons or should we switch to a gallery view, or should it stay as is with them running past the text at the bottom of the screen? The anonymous IP editor prefers the status quo. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I agree that the article has too many images for so little text. The images should help explain certain elements of the text, but they should not be the primary part of the article (Wikipedia is not a picture book). A "gallery view" is not necessary. My suggestion is to remove the excessive images by keeping those only relevant to the text. All other images can be accessed at Commons (and could certainly be used if, in the future, the article truly needs them). Regards. MarshalN20 Talk 03:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Changes agreed, frees up some pics for other articles as required - Hallett, Deperdussin, etc. My caption of the Porte and Curtiss image can be verified in the NYT as 10 March 1914 if you wish to use it for Commons. It looks as though a para is needed somewhere in Transatlantic flight for the Wanamaker and Edgar teams?81.149.141.199 (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

External Links

I have removed a batch of random links that are not directly connected with improving the article, wikipedia is not a dumping ground for external links with or a replacement for a seach website, they have to add something. If you think any of the links need to be added then please explain the relevance and what they add to the article, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

This discussion has been noted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#John Cyril Porte MilborneOne (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, these links are quite unsuitable. For several reasons why, see WP:External links. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure how MilborneOne has reached the conclusion that these links are 'random' in any way or why they are not an improvement to the article that describes Porte the man, his designs and associated places. These links are long standing, why has it taken so long after the original edits (that were not challenged) to notice? If there is something missing in the supported text that needs stating, I would recommend adjusting it instead of wiping the information out altogether to the detriment of the reader.

I can't see why the links are unsuitable or unhelpful to the reader, please point me to the relevant sections in WP:External links.81.149.141.199 (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

See WP:ELNO #13, these don't belong here, it is just clutter. Most of the links have little or nothing to do with Porte. These have now been removed by three different editors, so please do not put them back in without a clear consensus here to do so. - Ahunt (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank-you, I see the rationale - the following relate directly to Porte as he appears in person to different extents:

• Wanamaker's transatlantic America flying boat Film of the assembly and naming of America, 22 June 1914 [1]
• Sons of Our Empire: Film of the Royal Naval Air Service at Felixstowe taken after the Battle of Jutland, including John Cyril Porte studying a map with some :::::other officers, Curtiss H-2 and prototype Felixstowe F.1 (No. 3580) fitted with Anzani engines, Flight Commander Porte and Commodore George C. Cayley RN :::::returning from a flight in a Felixstowe F.1; Porte, Cayley and Commander Hubert Lynes RN together in front of a Short Type 184 seaplane, 1916. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.34.113 (talk) 11:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
• American flying officer Lt. Wendell Phillipo Loomis Documents and photographs, including the launch of the Felixstowe Fury on its first flight.

The subject of the article just happening to appear in a video isn't enough to include it. It is basically WP:TRIVIA in this context. If a video was just about them, as in a biography, it could be included, but not a "mere mention" of him. Several of the videos that were in the article weren't even vaguely about him. Keep in mind that external links are usually kept to a bare minimum. We try to include as few as possible, not as many as possible. See WP:NOTLINKFARM. - Ahunt (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Added the Loomis page above as I overlooked it - although we can't see him, Porte is reported to be in the cockpit of the Fury on its maiden flight on Armistice Day. There are of cause other photographs there and the emphasis is on aircraft not Porte.

Will study the WP refs above - my line of thinking before was the relevant material within the links supported and expanded upon in a broad sense the subject matter in the article i.e. Porte the man, his designs, associated places (and events) as opposed to a narrower frame on the individual themselves. With the best intention.

There is a significant emphasis on the America in the Early Aviators link so the inclusion of the America film seems a reasonable proposition? Regards80.229.34.113 (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

No. If Porte had designed the America class then perhaps, but his involvement in was bordering on the trivial and his appearance in the film is definitely the wrong side of the border. The Loomis page is even further on the wrong side. My strong advice to you is to stop stressing about this and move your life on. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are talking about Steelpillow or whose interest you represent, please explain yourself?80.229.34.113 (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Your links are worthless. You are flogging a dead horse. The interest I choose to represent may be found at WP:POLICY and its associated pages, and in particular please note WP:AGF. If that has not told you all you need to know here then there is no hope for you. I have nothing further to add. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Patronising an editor acting in good faith is not the way forward and does not form rational debate - adhere to the subject. The links are clearly not worthless, if they were they would have been dismissed out of hand about 3 years ago!

A helpful test to apply in these circumstances for any individual: Does the film/photograph(s) represent a significant moment in the individual's life? That applied the Sons of Empire film is eliminated.

Another test to apply to any individual: Does the film/photograph(s) represent the individual on a significant date in history? If yes, does the film/photograph(s) represent a significant moment in the individual's life? If yes the media might be worthy of inclusion.80.229.34.113 (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

For an external link to be included it has to be clearly about the topic of the article. Three editors (including one admin) have evaluated the links and the consensus is that they don't belong. Time to drop it and move on. - Ahunt (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Our IP editor is changing IPs and still at it. Looks like a rangeblock may be needed to get the message across. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Refer Steelpillow for bullying as he appears to enjoy double standards, provides no real justification for his edits and for reasons unclear prefers to deny readers information?80.229.34.113 (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Cite journal error

This malformed {{Cite journal}} which has no |journal= is used nearly 40 times in the article:

"<ref name='Chilton'>{{cite journal |last1=Chilton |first1=Air Marshal Sir Edward |author-link=Edward Chilton|title=John Cyril Porte (1884–1919) Naval Officer, Pilot and aircraft designer extraordinary}}</ref>

Sadly, it appears to refer to this IWM item: Private Papers of Air Marshal Sir Edward Chilton KBE CB FRIN where Ts=Typescript. It's therefore an unpublished primary source, and can't be used. I may be wrong. Since someone has obviously had a look at the document, it would be a pity to have to pepper a load of {{cn}}s all over the place. See also Talk:Charles Rumney Samson for the same reason. Any thoughts? MinorProphet (talk) 12:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

If it was accessible to an editor it very likely would qualify as published by our definition. It also seems likely that the author would qualify as a subject-matter expert. Given that, although care is needed, I wouldn't agree that it needs to be entirely excised. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your helpful reply which certainly clears things up. Maybe {{citation}} would be better if I'm on the right track, e.g. "<ref name='Chilton'>{{citation |last=Chilton |first1=Edward |author-link=Edward Chilton |title=John Cyril Porte (1884–1919) Naval officer, pilot and aircraft designer extraordinary |type=Typescript |url=https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1030006743 |series=Private Papers of Air Marshal Sir Edward Chilton KBE CB FRIN |place=London |publisher=Imperial War Museum}}</ref> and a |date= might be useful even if only n.d. MinorProphet (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Introducing {{citation}} when the other refs largely use CS1 templates would introduce formatting inconsistencies. {{cite document}} exists as a redirect to {{cite journal}} which is probably what resulted in the current setup - if this results in problems because documents don't have journal titles, I think that's an issue that needs to be addressed more broadly. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I asked at the Help Desk. MinorProphet (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)