Talk:Imperial Gift

Edits

I kind of jumped in feet first here, as I do have a bit of a background on Canada's Imperial Gift. Hope I haven't mashed too many toes. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC).

Thanks for joining the effort. I do however have one objection to what you've done so far - why did you strip out the already established citation style using cite templates and replace them with the most writer-unfriendly citation format ever invented? I find constructing references without the aid of templates such as "cite book" to be tedious, difficult and very error prone. Roger (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, how I wish there was a standard format or even the prospect of citation templates that are properly designed and formatted, but there isn't and many editors have become proficient in creating a work-around by manually forming the citation and bibliographic notation, informally known as "scratch cataloging" in the library world I formally inhabited. My background as a reference librarian for over 30 years before I turned to the "dark" side of becoming a writer and editor in the "real" and "reel" world, is to assure you that I am no Luddite as I have championed and used MARC record templates for cataloguing for over 20 years; but those templates were "bullet-proof" and not the "buggy" home-made #$%^&* citation templates that the Wiki gods on high have proffered on us. To begin with they are formatted to output in the simplified APA style guide which is supremely unsuitable for academic work in the social sciences or in use for non-print materials which have led to a profusion of templates for news releases, video, magazines/journals, encyclopedias, ad infinitum. After years of trying to get the template designers to reconfigure their designs, and it can be done but it takes a rewrite of the template that is waaaaaaay more work to do than entering the bibliographic fields by hand, I have a diffident opinion about referencing. Sorry for the effusive reply, but the example of use of the amalgam of MLA/Harvard citation style guides has become my only refuge in the Wikiwacky storm. FWiW, whenever there is a profusion in errors in the citation templates, as was evidenced in this article, it is sometimes easier to start from "scratch." Bzuk Bzuk (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC).

Will you forgive me if I continue to use the cite templates if I promise to be careful to fill in all the required fields? I can be relied on to always mess up a "handmade" reference. Roger (talk) 06:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I can alter the citation templates as I mentioned but it does take a bit of manoeuvering to make the output read correctly; I find that most erstwhile editors not versed in the black art of bibliographical notation, usually make a hash of it. FWiW, the cite templates as presently written will not return a Modern Language Association citation or bibliographical record, so if that is the format used, there is little need to use the malformed templates. Bzuk (talk) 13:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC).

Roger, I can see you are trying but unless I conduct a References 101 practicum, it is far easier to simply correct the edit than to try to rescue a template, as the problem, in some cases, is not the fields, but what is put into them, the classic IT "garbage in, garbage out" syndrome. FWiW, see my last edit of a new submission to the bibliography. Bzuk (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC).

The only referenciing system specifically taught in South African universities and colleges is the Harvard system, which differs only in minor detail from the one you've instituted here. Some friends on a local military aviation forum have scanned relevant pages of a few books for me, so I'm slowly expanding the South Africa section. Roger (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The comma as "thousands separator" is an Americanism, most of the rest of the world uses a "half space". See Decimal mark#Digit grouping and ISO 31-0#Numbers. Roger (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily a U.S. affectation, the "numbers separator comma" is also a standard in military and technical writing nearly universally. The WP:Aviation group does use the "comma" in all aviation-related articles, and in checking the vintage Aeroplane, Flight and other European magazines and books, they have also continued the practise from earliest times to now. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC).

Well then it makes sense to follow the aviation and military conventions. Roger (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Royal Aircraft Factory SE.5a in the SAAF section

Roger, have you considered some pruning of this section; it is very long and detailed and not entirely in keeping with the rest of the article. Perhaps some notes to the readers can help frame the context, re: awards for Captain Andrew Frederick Weatherby Beauchamp-Proctor, or the serial numbers of individual aircraft. FWiW, if you would like, I can show you how to set up an ancillary note or a note to readers. Bzuk (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I have actually gathered sources to write similar sections for the other aircraft types too - This article is going to expand. Do we really need to add notes if there is an entire article on Beauchamp-Proctor?

If it turns out to be impossible to add similar levels of detail for the other countries we could split out separate aricles for each country and have this one cover the generalities and concentrate the British end. Roger (talk) 05:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Likely the articles on each individual type are best located at the aircraft article that deals with that subject. What I meant was that the number of awards for a particular individual are incidental to the markings for a preserved aircraft. Interesting, yes, but not essential, to knowing why the aircraft was painted that way. As for expanding the article to cover all the service histories of Imperial Gift aircraft types in SAAF service, there will probably not be enough sources to do a similar treatment for the other countries involved. FWiW, I will temporarily do a notes section to show you how it works. Bzuk (talk) 11:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC).

The notes work nicely! Keep them, at least until I've done the following:

I'll develop the "expanded" SAAF history in user-space for a separate "South Africa's Imperial Gift" article (not sure of the name). Then summarise it for the section here with a "Main article" link. How do you like this idea?Roger (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Sound eminently workable. Bzuk (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC).

Wikilinks

Billion Dollar Gift and Mutual Aid may be similar. Should we cross link in see also sections? Is there a category for all of these gifts or should we create one?--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

HMS Aurora (1913)

It appears the HMS Aurora (1913) was an Imperial Gift to Canada so perhaps it was not just aircraft? MilborneOne (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps rename to Imperial Gift aircraft? This seems to be the name used in both the The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History (and the NZ edition also). Anotherclown (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

None of the sources about the aircraft and related equipment ever mention the ship or anything naval at all, thus it must have been a separate "deal". The history of how the plan came about also shows that it was exclusively about aviation. The ship article never uses the phrase "imperial gift". Yes the aircraft are referred to as "Imperial Gift aircraft" but the gifts included more than just the aircraft, they were in fact practically complete "instant air forces" with hangars, workshops, tools, vehicles, spares, consumables, etc. I think a hatnote would be sufficient if the ship article shows that it was actually called an "Imperial Gift" (proper noun/title case) over a sustained period. All I could find was a few places where the donation of the Aurora to Canada is called "an Imperial gift", whereas the aviation scheme is widely called "the Imperial Gift". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

CE

Gleaned a bit from Wise, 1981. Keith-264 (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)