Talk:Miss Shilling's orifice

Naming
Most historical and aviation engineering books I have read on the Spitfire/Merlin refer to this device as "Miss Tilly's Diaphragm". I have never heard it referd to as "Miss Shilling's orifice".59.101.71.235 15:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC) craigd

It seems we have diferent sources. Most pilots writing on the matter uses the "orifice". I guess the oficial name may have been "diaphragm", and that "orifice" was pilots slang. 24th April. Petter Bøckman

Why is this page separate?
Wouldn't it be more logical to add this page to the one on the Rolls-Royce Merlin?Minorhistorian (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the Merlin page, however, it's not too well covered there, and the section would need a full re-write. The reason I made this page in the first place was that I was trying to find out what Miss Shilling's orific was, but couldn't find it on Wikipedia. It seems the name of the thing, being a sort of not too PC joke to begin with wouldn't quite do in the Merlin article. Besides, it wans't Rolls-Royce's invention. Petter Bøckman (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

RAF toasts
I understand that "To Miss Shilling's Orifice" is still a toast in RAF fighter mess. Anyone have a ref? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Illustration
An illustration, diagram and/or photograph would be nice. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Article name
Hello. Do we know if Ms Shilling was comfortable with her invention being labelled "Miss Shilling's oriface". If not, there is a risk that this is a grubby workshop joke now being propagated by Wikipedia. Maybe "R.A.E. restrictor" would be a better title? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Paging the RFC people, to hopefully get some input. If anyone can access either of these biographies, it might produce some useful information. Thank you, MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Procedural close as bad RfC. It doesn't look like this matter has been discussed (or that there's even been disagreement over it), so fails WP:RFCBEFORE. If there's good cause to believe that the naming is inaccurate, first, just change it, and if anyone reverts and/or objects, discuss it. If that discussion comes to an impasse, then it may come time to involve the community further, but that would probably take the form of a requested move rather than an RfC since it's the article naming that's the primary issue. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello . Apologies for not following the procedure correctly and thank you for your explanation.
 * Before making any page moves, I would be much more comfortable if there is input from people that have more knowledge about the topic. Could you please suggest the best place to ask others to look into this? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You might try asking at one of the Wikiprojects listed at the top of the page here, that probably has some who would know where to find information on it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I see three problems here. First, the RfC statement (which is what brought me here) is hopelessly inadequate, telling us absolutely nothing about the matter in hand. Second, as noted above, there has been no RFCBEFORE that I can find. Third, article name changes are not matters for RfC. Therefore, I am removing the tag. Discuss the article name if you like, but don't do so in the form of an RfC. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have been involved with the aircraft project for 15 years and the aircraft engine task force (which I started) for 13 years. I successfully nominated the Rolls-Royce Merlin article to Featured Article status (the engine to which this device was fitted). I also created the article on Arthur Rubbra, one of the Merlin's designers. Reference to this device is also found in many Spitfire sources (and probably also sources on the Hurricane). Reading the lead section of this article I would say that it is accurate, naming four variations of what this device was called. The name used for the article title seems to be supported by a citation from her biography (I don't have it).
 * One author, Alec Lumsden, acknowledges but avoids using the term, describing it as ribald. Wikipedia article naming convention is based on the common name principle, my feeling is that the article is using the most common name for this device. There are other wiki articles with names that the subject might not have liked, Vlad the Impaler, Boston Strangler etc. The article title boils down to the frequency of use. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  09:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have ben invited to comment by Yapperbot (DOI: I know nothing of the subject). The immediately foregoing post by Nimbus seems an eminently reasonable and authoritative summary.Kitb (talk) 11:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "One author, Alec Lumsden, acknowledges but avoids using the term, describing it as ribald": this needs to be addressed in the article. (There seems to be unspoken agreement among contributors to this Talk page tht the term is grossly sexist.)  From a non-specialist perspective, what makes the topic notable, and the whole article worthwhile, is this grotesque example of mid-C20 cultural sexism!  (See also above, Andy Dingley's 2008 query, "RAF toasts".)  The effect of the War on the development of women's role in the economy is an important focus in feminist theory.  This is reason to keep the article title, of course.  84.9.118.19 (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I always feel that I have to oppose on principle when the proposer cannot spell the article title - and thus the object of their ire - correctly in order to complain about it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

This article title should be changed to 'REA Restrictor'. I came across the invention while reading Jeffrey Quill's 'Spitfire'. He mentions the carburetor modification made by Shilling, without giving it a name. I can't see any reason (besides sheer sexism) to keep as the title of the Wikipedia page about the invention a crude sexual joke rather than the actual name of the device. The only reason it still stands is that I couldn't get in to change it myself. Sure, mention the disrespectful name it was called by airmen at the time (and mention that it was disrespectful), but give the article its proper name. Tricia Dearborn, 31 August 2023 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tddhoz (talk • contribs) 09:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Undiscussed move
A requested move does not mean apply the template then move the article, a discussion must take place and consensus gained for the move. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  07:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Change article title from "Miss Shilling's orifice" to "RAE Constrictor"
Tddhoz (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Wikipedia article naming is established using the common name principle (WP:COMMONNAME), this has been discussed above. Wikipedia is not censored, this is a policy, not a guideline. If it was we would not have an article such as Nigger (dog). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  11:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * See also Content disclaimer. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  11:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The name 'Miss Shilling's orifice' is contained within the article, so removing it as the title would not be "censorship". Searches for that term will still bring the article up. Seeing this type of reductive, dismissive "joke" applied to the female anatomy (especially when it's in reference to a skilled female professional), not just mentioned in the article (which is fair enough, since it's a term that was used historically) but used as the title of a the article, has the potential to have a harmful effect on female readers, and supporting its retention is hardly a "neutral" action. Tddhoz (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read the pages that I have linked in blue, to change the no censorship policy you would need to put forward your case at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. There is a guideline of not 'biting the newcomers' but so far you have ignored all and any Wikipedia consensus practises, no rational conversation can take place while that is happening. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  12:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - as per Nimbus' arguments. I suspect that proposer may be trying to soapbox somewhat. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * These are facts, not soapboxing.
 * I don't see much chance of getting consensus on what looks (to a rational person) to be a clear-cut case. Call the device by its proper name for the article title, since its common name is a sexual joke at a woman's expense. Include the common name in the article as a matter of historical fact.
 * Could I recommend that Chahell Riens and Nimbus both read Gender bias on Wikipedia in detail before you get back to me again. Neither of you seems to have any idea of why the Wikipedia space can seem profoundly unwelcoming to women, but that's been my experience so far, and I'm not alone. Tddhoz (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That is bordering on a personal attack on two editors (WP:NPA), I can only assure you that your thoughts are very wide of the mark in my case. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  12:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's hard to see how my statement about my own experience could be construed as "bordering on a personal attack". Wikipedia has a problem with gender bias, partly because there are so few female editors. This is a fact documented in Wikipedia itself. It's a fact that might be worth bearing in mind when someone is asking that an article title be changed to one that is accurate without being offensive to women. A common name that is offensive to a group of people is not "neutral", and that seems to be what Wikipedia doesn't understand. But I'm not trying to convince you of anything – just trying to convey why the current set-up feels like a closed shop. Tddhoz (talk) 13:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I think we're heading into WP:BADGER territory. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have raised an ANI case concerning this user and article at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, sorry but I will not tolerate attacks on my character. We need to let the administrators decide the way forward. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  13:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

For reference Tddhoz, the personal attack is most likely the statement - my emphasis. You are essentially stating that two editors are not rational persons. Also, you spelled my name wrong when referring to me above. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Recommending that we read an article on gender bias would, to me, appear to say that we are unaware of this problem and biased, again very wide of the mark. Until my recent retirement I worked as an engineer for a large and very successful motor sports team/company with very strict HR policies and an active diversity recruitment stance. I was asked to look after new starters/work experience students/interns and reassure them in what could be an intimidating environment (mostly down to sheer technical complexity). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  14:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per COMMONNAME. It's not WP's role to reinvent history, just to meet modern sensibilities. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)