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)

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)

Cite journal error
This malformed Cite journal which has no journal is used nearly 40 times in the article:

"

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 It's therefore an unpublished primary source, and can't be used.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 cns 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. " and a date might be useful even if only   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)