Talk:Sopwith Triplane/Archive 1

Untitled
I have a lovely picture of a Sopwith Triplane in restoration. Although, the only problem is that it's somewhat mediocre in terms of lighting and quality, I can make the quality a bit better, but should be allow the picture to be up? It's quite a good picture. - RPharazon

YES!
YES! By all means! If you can, upload it to Wikimedia Commons (commons.wikimedia.org) so no copyright hound will complain over it. Then put it in Category:World_War_I_aircraft. Looking forward to it!

There. I did what I could to make it a little better. Such a nice change to a color version, especially one in such good restoration in these days! - RPharazon


 * I have lightened it and adjusted the contrast. Nice picture. Ian Dunster 23:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Copyright of main picture
This picture of no. 1 squadron RNAS is a well known one, and has been frequently published - it has absolutely no connection whatsoever with Russia - or the single example of the triplane that somehow found its way to that country. I mention this because the PD tag is obviously the wrong one!!

When?

 * By the autumn of 1917
 * in the spring of 1917

The above excerpts violate the chronological guidelines for seasonal references in the Wikipedia Manual of Style (MOS). Please correct these with neutral wordings. Some examples of more suitable wordings may be found in the MOS. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 02:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not just correct the statements... FWIW Bzuk 04:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC).
 * I do not know enough about the topic to provide an accurate date from reliable references. Additionally, Wikipedia is riddled with these MOS violations (tens of thousands per Google). I intentionally choose not to correct many of them so that other people become more aware of them. They even exist in featured articles from time to time, which is a clear sign that people do not follow the MOS as diligently as they should.
 * Additionally, I see that you have not chosen to read the MOS yourself before correcting the article. What is this "autumn" and "spring"? Whose autumn and spring? Please read the pertinent section in the MOS for yourself. I have replaced the "when" tags. The article would read a lot better if it had months instead of these stupid ambiguous seasonal references. Per MOS, I suggest wordings with specific months if they are known, or similar to "early 1917" and "late 1917" if they are not. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 00:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone supposing that a seasonal reference to warfare in France in 1917 did not refer to northern hemisphere seasons would indeed be stupid! Fair enough, of course to standardise on style - but "late" and early" are even more ambiguous. The seasonal reference is more relevant than you realise (flying in the early years of the last century was VERY dependant on the weather). Not worth fighting over, and in any case there is of course a strong case for standardising style where possible - but the result is hardly less ambiguous - and definitely not less stupid. Soundofmusicals 08:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A further thought - perhaps the MOS should be modified slightly, with an addition to the relevant sentence of something like "unless the season is actually relevant in itself, and in context unambiguously refers to a particular time of year in a specified country or region". Note also that often a specific month (however it might read) would actually be misleading. An aircraft type's introduction to an existing conflict often has a delayed and gradual impact. In this context, new French and German types often arrived at first in ones and twos supplied to various units, only later achieving full operational status with a complete squadron. British types generally arrived as the equipment of at least one full squadron, but even in this case numbers at the front often built very gradually at first. In a more general sense, lots of things happen over a period of time rather than on a particular day. We are not all wall-eyed computer geeks sitting in subterranean airconditioned computer labs 24/7 to whom the seasons of the year have lost all meaning!!Soundofmusicals 04:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Incidentally - things like the MOS, useful (and in fact indispensible) as they might be, should never be allowed to turn into some kind of latter-day holy writ, incapable of improvement. The stupidity of the one-eyed religious fanatic is the last thing we want introduced here.Soundofmusicals 04:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Back again - aha - I have noted your highly POV agenda - and realise that your objection has nothing to do with MOS at all. I come from Australia myself, and have a sneaking sympathy with your basic argument - but I TOTALLY disagree with your thoroughly STUPID objection to a season name in the context of something like the Western Front in France in 1917. What possible relevance to the season of the year it was in Australia or Argentina might that have???? You have obviously let this hemisphere thing so warp you that you can't think straight about the names of the seasons at all. I would revert this back to where it was before your STUPIDITY if it weren't so pathetically trivial.Soundofmusicals 08:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you tell me why it is wrong to change seasonal references for dates when the season is simply being used as a substitute for a date?
 * There is nothing wrong with mentioning seasons when they have an impact on the events. For example, many wars throughout history have "spring campaigns" because the winter is a difficult time during which to fight a war. It is especially important to call it a "spring campaign" if that is an actual term used to refer to the campaign in primary references (and not just something a Wikipedia editor made up because they thought it sounded cool at the time they made the edit). It is also important not to modify direct quotations, edition names of magazines ("Spring 2006 edition") and the like - even if those quotations refer to southern hemisphere seasons.
 * However, simply saying that something happened in the "spring of (year)" when the season has nothing material to do with the event is questionable at best, and can lead to insidious factual inaccuracy at worst. Consider the following quotation from an old version of the article on the Comet Hale-Bopp:
 * The comet was much less impressive to Southern Hemisphere observers than it had been in the Northern Hemisphere, but southerners were able to see the comet gradually fade from view during the summer and autumn of 1997.
 * This is an example of this use of seasons as dates at its very worst. It is describing the visibility of the comet from the Southern hemisphere using northern hemisphere seasons. Such usage is indefensible and clearly POV.
 * Consider also the Falklands War article. That article describes a war in which the southern hemisphere seasons had an impact in the theatre of war. Some editor has taken care to qualify most of the seasonal references by prefixing them with "southern hemisphere", as if readers were too stupid to infer from the link to the location of the Falkland Islands within the article that these islands were located in the south Atlantic. So how would you treat these seasonal references? Would you retain the "southern hemisphere" qualifications to pander to the POV of the northern-hemisphere majority? Or would you assert that people can click the in-article link for themselves to discover the location of the Falkland islands in the South Atlantic Ocean and remove these references as unnecessary?
 * You are correct when you say I have an agenda here. My agenda is factual accuracy and clarity. However, I do not make wholesale changes to articles to purge them of all seasonal references as you seem to believe. You are also incorrect when you state that my edits are "highly POV", as it is in fact the editors that assume that seasons on their own must default to Northern hemisphere seasons and southern hemisphere seasons must be clarified that impose a boreocentric POV on articles. Changing text that conforms to the general structure of "(event) happened in the (season) of (year)" to "(event) happened in (date) of (year)" is an improvement in cases where the season has no reasonable impact on the event in question, but is just being used as a substitute for a date. If it is important to mention the season and the article does not justify this as written, then it is probably a sign that the article is missing some needed information. Thus, in some cases the article can be improved by supplying the needed information that is currently implied. For example, not everyone knows the usual state of ports on the Arctic Ocean in winter: were the seas frozen over in the winter, preventing freighters from reaching port? Maybe the winter was unusually warm (the seas remained open)?
 * Overall, few people have issues when I question a seasonal reference that is being used as a date. Nobody can reasonably argue that initiating a change from "summer 2001" to "July 2001" detracts from the article if it's just a date reference. And nobody is perfect, sometimes I make mistakes, sometimes I tag the wrong things. But I do draw attention to the seasonal references, and sometimes it results in an editor finding a problem that they overlooked. For example, in a northern-hemisphere context, which winter is being referred to by "winter of 1944" - 1943-44, or 1944-45?
 * Finally, I see you are so incensed about my questioning the appropriateness of a seasonal reference that you go running straight off to the talk page for the Manual of Style and try to impose your own POV into the MOS. That is hardly the actions of someone who is willing to listen to constructive criticism. You may have your own POV issues to deal with on this issue. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 02:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly - must apologise - it did annoy me when I had a look at your own page and saw how you have blown up this whole matter - and in response some of my last post here was absolutely inappropriate. Sorry for that. On the other hand, seasons are in practice almost never used merely as a substitute for a date - and most such use is pretty harmless anyway. As I pointed out, in early aviation, and in (as you admit yourself) warfare, the weather that can be reasonably expected IS relevant, even if this relevance is pretty peripheral. As in this case, which is actually why I can't be bothered reverting. I did complain on the relevant MOS talk page (without changing the MOS myself). As for "running off to the MOS" and "trying to impose my own POV!! The MOS has in fact now been changed (not by me) - and I think does - without simply deleting your rule altogether - give it a much more reasonable slant. I suspect the rule involved had either originally been written, and most certainly edited, by you - so it was hardly an independent reference, was it??
 * "Nobody can reasonably argue that initiating a change from "summer 2001" to "July 2001" detracts from the article if it's just a date reference.???" Well, just maybe - but one month does not a summer make!! Maybe (in fact VERY probably) one meant July and August as well?? "The period between mid June and early September 2001" is DEFINITELY no substitute for simply saying "Summer 2001".
 * Further! It is very POV and highly ethnocentric to suppose that "Northern People" would (or should) be expected to think of southern seasons. Of course they deserve to have it pointed out (where appropriate) that these differ. On the other hand any "Southern Hemisphere person" (speaking as one myself) who doesn't know when summer and winter are "up there" is an illiterate moron, and probably couldn't make head nor tail or anything on Wikipedia anyway. A matter of everyone in Launceston Tasmania knowing where Melbourne is, while the reverse would probably not be true. For precisely the same reason. Northern and Southern hemispheres are NOT equal anymore than Melbourne and Launceston are!!
 * Having said all this - I am, as I think I mentioned, Australian myself, and I have no issue at all with what you have to say about the more extreme of your examples - they are of course badly written, and the "season" reference is indeed "stupid". On the other hand - were these examples real, or just dreamed up by your goodself to make a point? Just asking. Even those that might be "real" examples are, I suspect, a tiny minority. And in any case I do take issue with the way you have elevated the whole (very minor) issue into a major crusade. Have you REALLY nothing better to do???? If so, I respectfully suggest you go hence and do it!! Soundofmusicals 03:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Comet Hale-Bopp example is real. Go here to see for yourself. You have to agree it was a particularly bad seasonal reference. Where I gave a specific article, the examples are real. Examples without specific citations were general examples based on recent revisions.
 * Your assumptions about the general level of education of the Wikipedia audience are questionable. The Southern Hemisphere has many third-world countries where the level of education is relatively low, and thus we should not assume that such a Southern Hemisphere reader will always be able to disambiguate the seasonal references for themselves. Wikipedia was started as a free encyclopedia to provide an inexpensive reference that can be used by such people (among many others) and it is thus a good idea to bear them in mind when making edits.
 * A date change such as from "summer" to "July" depends on context. I forgot to give it, but in this case I was thinking of the release date of a movie or video game, which is definitely able to be clarified to a particular month. If the month given is correct, the article is clearly improved by such a change.
 * Finally, I accept your apology and wish you well in your future edits. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 04:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The examples you gave were plain bad style, without reference to any sort of hemispherical (love that word!) bias. Manufactured or "natural" there is of course no excuse for them, and I am not attempting to make one. Even you will accept, I hope that the highly trivial example here (which I can't be bothered reverting because I honestly can't see much difference from the point of view of style) is in any case in an absolutely different class.


 * Glad you admit context is relevant. Might I suggest that context is EVERYTHING so far as this question is concerned??? Incidentally, the computer game person is in a bind. He wants to say something like "sometime between June and September, depending how long it takes us to iron out the bugs!!" Of course he could be honest and say just that - but this would be at least as confusing as saying he intends to fix it "by the end of summer". That means what he intends for most people - and we SH folk, even if we come from 3rd world countries, very probably have the sense to realise that "their" seasons are upside down. You don't think so??


 * Your assumptions about the average education of the person from a third world country (North or South) who has access to a computer and can intelligently use something like Wiki is very offensive. I can tell you he (or she) is very usually at least an undergraduate student - and quite often has more than one degree under his (or her) belt. In any case the average education and intelligence of the average third world user of Wiki is almost certainly higher than the average Western user - and he or she has a much higher level of awareness of the planet as a whole. The smaller and poorer the country you come from (speaking very generally) the less likely you are (given enough education to use a computer, anyway) to have an ethnocentrically warped picture of the world. Not being judgemental here - just stating a fact.


 * Thank you for accepting my apology. In view of the fact that it was you who actually raised the word "stupid" which was the main thing I was apologising for, you might have been even more gracious to have offered an apology of your own. Soundofmusicals 06:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Major "Style" edit of Design and Development
This was in several places rather unclear - and had many "echoes" of a well-known source (possibly to the extent of breaching copyright). I have re-written much of it to convey basically the same information rather more elegantly, anyway. Soundofmusicals 22:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Total numbers built
After referring to a number of different sources, Peter M. Bowers and Ernest R. McDowell's Triplanes: A Pictorial History of the World's Triplanes and Multiplanes (1993) has the most authoritative listing of all production contracts and emphatically declares there were only 147 Triplanes built, including prototypes. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC).

"RFC" orders
The article repeated the oft-cited statement that the RFC orders were "inexplicably" cancelled. This actually produced a contradiction - in that the next paragraph pretty well explains what actually happened to the "lost" "RFC" triplanes - they were cancelled due to slow delivery (and possibly poor workmanship) by the two contractors involved. By late 1917 the triplane was being withdrawn from service - at which time the long-outstanding orders were very understandably scrubbed - what would have been the point?

I have rearranged the section accordingly - although it may well now need some clarification I wouldn't reinstate the contradiction (that we don't know why the "RFC" triplanes weren't built and delivered to the RNAS in exchange for their SPADs - followed by a pretty good explanation as to what happened in the next paragraph!!). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally this and the Dr.1 articles are really great now!! Most impressed. (FWIW) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

File:Sopwith Triplane in Russland.jpg nominated for deletion: source?
Does anyone know the origin of File:Sopwith Triplane in Russland.jpg? It's obviously got nothing to do with Russia, but was it an official picture, or in a newspaper somewhere, or ... ? Absent a source it will likely be deleted when the admins on Commons finally get round to closing the discussion. A cursory look suggests that several of the other images have dubious, at best, license tags: File:SopTri5.jpg (if you don't know the author, you don't know when he or she died); File:Sop3pit.jpg (same); File:SopTri.jpg (same); File:SopTri2.jpg (same). File:SopTri4.jpg (same). Sooner or later, absent cleanup, these are likely to be deleted. So if anyone has Frank's book on Triplane aces, or some other source of photographs of known provenance, ideally produced by the RNAS, this would be a good time to skim through it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This version of the same image says it is from the IWM File:Sopwith Triplanes 1 (Naval) Squadron France.JPG. MilborneOne (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, details cloned. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * File:SopTri5.jpg is credited in J.M Bruce's British Aeroplanes 1914-18 (London:Putnam, 1957) as being from Major R E Nicoll - who appears from here to still have been alive in 1954 - assuming that it is the same R E Nicholl and that he took the photo.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The nature of the photograph (a squadron line-up) would strongly indicate that it was taken "officially" rather than casually. The lining up of the squadron's aircraft was obviously not something that would normally happen for any other purpose than being photographed. Even ignoring this factor, non-official, or "casual" photography of service aircraft by civilians or service personnel acting on their own behalf was actually forbidden in both the the RFC and RNAS (obviously this regulation, like many others, was more often breached than observed) - so all such photographs of the period were considered "official" and the property of H.M. Government. The possibility that Major Nicoll took the photo himself on his own behalf and had any copyright claim over it is thus very doubtful - J.M. Bruce's acknowledgement is much more likely to have been no more than thanks for having provided him with a copy of the photo from his own collection. Photographically inclined service people of the time often had such collections - by no means all of them taken by themselves, as in the good old schoolboy tradition they "swapped" a lot. The Imperial War Museum's collection drew heavily on such personal collections, as well as the odd genuinely "official" photograph.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Further to the above - the other copy File:Sopwith Triplanes 1 (Naval) Squadron France.JPG actually has an Imperial War Museum ref. number so the fact of Crown Copyright (expired) cannot be reasonably disputed - the tag should be removed from this image! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 06:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

"Triplane" as a proper noun
I've added a source which states "The first prototype of what was to be referred to simply as the Triplane..." to back up my assertion that, in common usage, when referring to this specific aircraft type, "Triplane" is a proper noun, and not just when used with Sopwith in the phrase. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * BilCat is, of course, entirely correct. M Van Houten (talk) 05:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have moved the footnote into the main text. M Van Houten (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Missing word?
"As pilots were commonly slow to trust any aircraft that defied, the consistently strong approval it garnered from pilots was particularly telling and soon influenced decision-makers back at home.[3]" "Aircraft that defied..." what? I would assume "convention", but since there was hardly a "convention" yet in 1917, I am not sure enough to add it myself. Defying expectations would be a good thing, and pilots would hardly distrust aircraft that did so, and defying the enemy would be strange phrasing, and also not something the pilots would distrust. But aircraft in general had only settled into the now-familiar tractor biplane/monoplane, rear-tailed in the year or so preceding this; in 1915 and even 1916 we still had plenty of pushers, mono and biplanes flying around in combat, and only a few years before this they were still flying aircraft that looked like boxkites. Can you really call it "convention" and claim the pilots were 'conservative' and didn't like "unconventional" aircraft based on a a couple year's trend towards tractor biplanes? 64.223.159.220 (talk) 04:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The tractor biplane layout was indeed already "conventional" by 1916 so on the surface this paragraph makes more sense might seem. Much worse, however, there seems to be an implication that there was an initial negative reaction from pilots to the "unusual" triplane layout. This doesn't make much sense, as the Tripe had already proved to have an outstanding performance before it had a chance to establish a reputation to the contrary based on its appearance. Anyway the paragraph concerned doesn't seem to add any real substance to the article, at least in its current form, so I have been "bold" enough to simply excise it. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * There is a missing word, but having read the book that sentence is cited to, it goes to great lengths to explain how pilots didn't trust the very first combat triplane fighter in the world, perhaps understandably as nobody else was doing this configuration before and therefore probably for a good reason, yet despite prejudice, those that actually flew it found it to have positive qualities. It seems at least notable, to the author of the book certainly, to explain "This was original, and was hated at first glance for being original. Then people tried it, and found it adequate/their resentment to be unfounded". More may have been produced if production hadn't been initially quite limited in scale due to baseless scepticism, to fail to mention this entirely seems odd. Rewording, rather that outright deletion, seems more appropriate IMO. Kyteto (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Was production really "initially limited in scale due to baseless scepticism"? No evidence of this in Bruce 1963, which seems to be the only source cited throughout this passage. Truth lies more in "inter-service rivalry" between the RNAS and the RFC. Sopwiths were actually contracted to the navy - and their entire production was earmarked for that service, at least in 1916/17. The RFC had to wait for licence produced Sopwith types, and so couldn't get Triplanes at all, and had to wait for their Pups (and even their Camels!). This nonsense was an important factor in the founding of the RAF. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was "Bruce 1965, p. 3" that was being cited, not "Bruce 1963" - I'm guessing you're looking at the wrong book? Kyteto (talk) 14:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected about the year of the Bruce cite (my typo) - but that still doesn't apply at all - it's still not a satisfactory citation for this particular fact. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please stop mistaking opinion and logical assertion for fact. I don't know how many facts start with "More may have" but I cannot imagine too many. This is an editorial supposition on a talk page, not a statement on the article - Talk page comments don't require citations normally, and I believe you know that. I've already pointed out that you provided no citation for the assertion "as the Tripe had already proved to have an outstanding performance before it had a chance to establish a reputation to the contrary based on its appearance" so I don't think you're being even handed in your demands for evidence of conjecture on the talk page... Kyteto (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * On the original topic of configuration scepticism - I've rechecked the book - I still have it to hand. The assertion is there in print, on the cited page. Kyteto (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As for my comment on the production, that was editorialising by me in this talk page, it was certainly not asserted in the article - note my use of the word 'may' above. I'd dare say the assertion on equal levels of credibility as the statement "This doesn't make much sense, as the Tripe had already proved to have an outstanding performance before it had a chance to establish a reputation to the contrary based on its appearance" - Can that be said to be a verifiable statement either? I coupled together the cited statement about the deterring factor attached to the unconventional with the surprisingly small orders for the type; while the Camel got a fat initial order for 250 aeroplanes out the gate, the Triplane got a meagre first order for 42. I think its fair to speculate on here, but certainly not in the article, that there appears to have been more pessimism (and thus less orders) for the Triplane than either the Pup or the Camel either side of it in the eyes of planners. I'd draw a parallel to the old adage "nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM" - When there are hundreds of types of biplanes, and dozens of monoplanes out there, and no triplanes in combat use, could some officials have feared putting big orders on a configuration nobody else used, when there were dozens of less unorthodox configurations that had actually seen a single hour of combat use? I'm not afraid to say I probably would have been in favour of the "How about ordering more biplanes - We know that configuration" thinking - certainly British military planners even in the mid 1930s were still stuck on the configuration when France and Germany had long switched over to favouring monoplane fighters; it is an evidenced fact that officials have often been scared to put their careers on the line for the 'oddball' - and by the time the oddball proves itself, if it even got the chance to, it might be far too late to regear production plans and get more of them in. Kyteto (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we both rabbit on a bit here with stuff that either doesn't belong in the article at all, or would need a proper cite, but then that was the point, wasn't it? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)