Talk:De Havilland Gipsy Queen

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft engine task force.

Engine vs Engines

The whole Queen page is a mess. This isn't ONE engine, it's a whole range, many of which shared no common parts whatsoever...! My suggestion is that this is either re-structured accordingly, or new, separate pages created....! I can suggest how it should be split-up if you wish. 94.197.195.170 (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)S[reply]

Please do but cite your new sources and refrain from adding editorial comments to the article. Engine type articles often do not cover one specific engine variant but the range bearing that name. The guideline for aero engine article page content and structure is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/page content. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:00, 18 October 2011 (U

Gordon Bennett. Like a lot of people, I sometime wonder why I even bother with Wiki, as this is exactly the sort of numbskull behaviour that leads to wildly misleading articles which simply enhance Wiki's reputation for inaccuracy....! Instead of editing the article into some sort of coherent order, the changes have been deleted, twice. As it happens, I have the engines, the manuals and the drawings, so, unlike the berk who just deleted my addition, actually have some idea what I'm talking about. Really, I have met more anoraks editing Wiki than one might at a trainspotter convention.

I repeat, these are DIFFERENT engines, they share the name Gipsy Queen, like they share a D.H. heritage, that's about all. As it stands, instead of aiding clarity, your just perpetuating gobbledegook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.160.164 (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite reliable sources, and refrain from personal attacks. Also, original research is not permitted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The actual engines, manuals and drawing are hardly 'original research'. Why is it that Wiki attracts such complete anoraks and trainspotters.... This page is utter rubbish, and frankly, thanks to you idiots, it can stay that way. I'll stick to the engineering and flying. What the **** do I know...

Survivors?

At a quick glance it looks like there are no DH Doves airworthy in the UK now but there are some Percival Proctors flying apparently. Section needs updating, would do it but there are better researchers about than me!! Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]