Talk:One of Our Aircraft Is Missing

Origin of title

I could have sworn that the phrase used on the radio really was "one of our aircraft failed to return."

Ah. A quick search uncovers several sources. This from a 1978 interview with Michael Powell: "I said to Emeric that this phrase 'one of our aircraft failed to return' was a wonderful one to build a story around and would he think about it. After he'd finished his work on the writing of "49th Parallel", he did think about it and by that time the phrase had been turned to the eventual title of our film, " One of Our Aircraft Is Missing" (1942). I guess they thought 'failed to return' was too downbeat."

The phrase also appears in a January 1942 British government telegram (http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/psf/box36/t328g02.html) and a Nov. 1942 article in an Australian newspaper (http://150.theage.com.au/view_bestofarticle.asp?straction=update&inttype=1&intid=1089).

Curiously, an April 1942 letter includes the line "Monday night Mary & I went to see 'One of our Aircraft Failed to Return' - do see it if you can darlings," which is just bizarre. (http://people.aapt.net.au/~cassynancarrow/letters/19420429.html).

Chelt 17:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I always thought that both forms were used on the radio announcements and that when Powell says "the phrase had been turned to the eventual title of our film" he means the phrase used in the radio announcements. There are a few articles online that use the phrase "One of Our Aircraft is Missing" that aren't referring to the film like those at [1] and [2]. I'm a bit too young to have heard either phrase myself but I'll investigate further rather than just changing the article. -- SteveCrook 01:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Images

I'm truly not trying to be contentious by shifting the images back to where I last had them, but in putting them where they were you get big hunking holes of whitespace in the middle of the article, which is very bad for readability -- just plain ugly. If you can say what effect you're trying to get, perhaps I can find a solution that works in WikiWorld. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, re lo-res -- at this size the images are somewhat hard to see. I'd say that about 225px is a good size, generally, but these showed resolution problems when I blew them up to 200, so I put them back as they were. If you were able to upload very slightly higher res picks that would survive at 225px that would be good. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Does that mess up the layout for you with the images all down the right hand side? In my browser (Firefox) it puts the Edit links for each section some way from the section it's intended to edit -- SteveCrook (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's the Firefox issue mainly, that's why the first image was shifted left, it was to prevent a shift into the production area for the images. I had kinda planted them into a plot and cast section to match up with the text there. Bzuk (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC).

No, it looks fine in IE, but I opened it with Firefox and Netscape and I see what you mean. I didn't realise that there's such a disparity with the way the browsers render the page. I'll have to rethink. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

And Bzuk, we really have to find another solution for what you want to do -- that whitespace in the middle of the article, at the end of "Plot" is really not acceptable. Let me fool around a bit and see what I come up with -- and I'll check it with Firefox as well. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It must be an aberration in one type of browser, doesn't show up in Firefox but if you can fix it, that would be great. FWIW, I should have mentioned that I am also waltzing around "The Lion Has Wings" and if you have time, check the work there as well. Bzuk (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC).

As for larger resolution, I'll try to step up the image resolution on "The Lion" and see how it works. I am also fearful of the image hounds lurking around that stomp on graphics and images, so I usually made the images crummy on purpose. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC).

I think some people (some of them Admins) are trying to destroy Wikipedia by being over-officious about use of images. I went away over Christmas and New Year. They put a notice on a few images I'd provided just after I went away and by the time I got back the images had been deleted. When I added them I had filled in all the details to meet the requirements at the time, but they keep moving the goal. I just didn't bother trying to replace them of find them again -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've just been going back and forth from IE to Firefox, and the problem's only in IE. What a mess. I think I'd better continue to edit to make things look good in IE (as the worst-case scenario) and then check it in Firefox. Shit. BTW, come of my lo-res problems were on my end, a bad switch setting. They look better now, and on Firefox.

Anyone know which browser is the most popular, has the most users? I'd say IE, but I'm not sure. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I record user stats of visitors to the P&P site with webalizer. That shows the browser type as well and of the 370K hits in January 2008, 53% were with Micro$oft Internet Exploder and 35% used Mozilla (Firefox). They're by far the most common browsers that visit the site -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft has now dropped suppport of Navigator and Explorer since they had purchased Mozilla Firefox outright and will dedicate all future development only to this platform. The only other browser that is really competitive is Safari which is a MAC-based system. (BTW, that's the one I use being a MACaholic.) FWIW Bzuk (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC).

Micro$oft haven't bought out Mozilla have they? I thought it was still independent. Is nothing safe from the Gates empire? I see he's after Yahoo! now as well -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've put up a compromise layout, which looks OK under IE, a little less so under Firefox. This new info about rendering disparities (new to me) has thrown me for a bit of a loop, and I may need to get out of the layout-editing business until I think it through and decide what I'm going to do. If you don't like what I've done to the layout, just revert, but now that the lo-res is not a problem for me (sorry about that), I'd reccommend you keep the 225px image size for everything -- looks a hell of a lot better. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 23:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

We might be able to get away with the 225 px although the WP:Aircraft group has a policy about not "hardcoding image sizes" which usually means only a "thumb" size is accepted, but if they aren't looking... FWIW Bzuk (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC).

I just think there's little point in putting an image in an article if you can't get something out of it without clicking on the link.

I moved one image back into "plot" to get rid of whitespace problem under IE in your last. Can you live with this -- it looks OK to be in Firefox. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 23:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good under Firefox when I use partial screen, not so good at full screen. I'm flummoxed - Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 23:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely no problem, all good things in the end will resolve themselves. Thanks for your valiant efforts in wrestling with the mighty Microsoft demons. BTW, what's that blotchy thing on your user page? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC).

Steve, talk about insidious, Gates and the Dark Empire have also bought a piece of Apple Macintosh, probably slobbering over the new iPhone, ibook, ipod, etc. Oh, btw, Firefox is one of their takeovers, Explorer and Navigator are no longer being supplied or supported. FWIW have you checked out The Lion Has Wings? Bzuk (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC).

Would the images German soldier in One of our aircraft.jpg and Lobster trap-in film.jpg be better in the Production section? They are both really more about the production and they do make the Edit link for the Cast section appear in an odd place in Firefox -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've had a look at The Lion Has Wings. Looking good -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The images work both as part of telling the plot and as an aspect of production. It's a bit of comme ci comme ça. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC).

True, but if they were in he Production area then they'd be further away from the tables (cast list & Info box) and wouldn't mess up the display as much. Or maybe they could just be tiled horizontally? -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That was the first solution and I think it still works, let me at it. Bzuk (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC).

The current layout is worse for me than previous ones - I get whitespace at the top *and* at the bottom of the plot section. I've uploaded a screenshot here, if you'd like to look at what I'm seeing. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What about that then? Feel free to revert it if you don't like it but it's the only way I can see to separate everything out. And even that can still be a problem if the browser window is so narrow that the images can't fit next to the Info Box because the browser will then put them underneath it leaving chunks of white space. But if people have their browser window that narrow they're probably used to seeing that on other sites :)

The real trouble is the limitations of HTML and the limitations of the Wikipedia markup to let you even do as much as you can in HTML -- SteveCrook (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The current layout is working for me -- ironically I was trying to do just that at the same time Steve was and kept getting edit conflicts. All I did to alter Steve's was to move the 2 images up from inside Production to before it, and then restore the plane to where it had been. It seems to be good under both IE & Firefox. Could this be it? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It's odd, because under the last layout that Steve made and I altered slightly, there was no whitespace except to the right of the cast box, under both IE and FIrefox on my machine, whereas on this layout you've reverted to, I'm back to a big chunk of whitespace under the plot text. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

write another paragraph of text for the plot section to eat up the whitespace. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Steve and your solutions still block in large areas of white space, I have reverted to tossing all the relevant images down one side and moving the bomber image to production where there is a distinct allusion to the use of the bomber in the studio. This variant works in all browsers, Safari, Explorer, Navigator and Firefox. FWIW, Ed check on that smudge on your user page... Bzuk (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC).

Sorry to say, I've still gotta hunka hunka burning whitespace at the end of Plot, under IE. what smudge - I'll go look. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Awww... you shouldn'ta gone and done it! Many thanks-- my first. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What I'm seeing under Firefox is that the Edit link for the Cast section is in the wrong place. See here -- SteveCrook (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's mine: whitespace2 Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. I hadn't noticed that on my Firefox, but when I went looking, I had it too -- at least under less than full screen. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion

I think it might be a good idea to table the layout problems for a while. I assume (maybe I'm wrong) that the intention is to add to this article, more text, maybe more sections etc? How about when we think we're getting near to a stopping point, we take up the image layout quandry againand see what we can come up with collectively, but in the meantime just live with these various quirks, knowing that we intend to solve them later. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good suggestion as wrestling with spaces hasn't accomplished much other than giving us all fits; as to expanding the article, that also might not be a bad idea. I'll take a look at some sources tomorrow and you can always count on the walking fount of knowledge known as Steve Crook. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC).

Always glad to fount - but what other sorts of things can we say about it? -- SteveCrook (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Curly quotes

Why did you change to curly quotes? I hate curly quotes -- they're so cutsey-pie. Besided the MoS says that blockquotes are preferred to cquote, which should be used only for "shout-outs" or pull quotes. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've seen them used in both ways, but no biggie, just wanted to show Steve that something interesting could still be added to the article. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC).

Nice, but I was wondering more about other content rather than style or ways of presenting it. There's not too much more I can think of unless there's any of the real minutiae like those noted at http://www.powell-pressburger.org/Reviews/42_OOOAIM/OOOAIM_00.html -- SteveCrook (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that's it, the quotes are all I could think of to enhance the article. There may be some more information that can be added regarding production or reception but then it does tend to devolve into trivial and peripheral details. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC).

I think we've got all the significant points about its production. I'll see if I can dig up anything more on its reception. But apart from that, I think that'll do. Thanks chaps -- SteveCrook (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Layout

I've added some links, a small amount of new information, copyedited the text and did some minor rewrites for style and clarity. I'm not aware of anything that's missing from the article at this point.

I've checked the current layout under IE and Firefox, both partial screen & full screen, and the only egregious issue I see is the displaced "edit" link for the "Cast" section, something I have no idea how to fix. The images do bleed a little into the "Production" section, but I don't find that objectionable at all. If you disagree, I think reducing the size of those images from 225 to 215 or (if necessary) 200 would do the trick, but I think they look good at their current size and provide some nice companionship for the cast box.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm happy with the layout, and the article in general at this point, I think you folks did a nice job. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Bunching up of "edit" links under Firefox

Just ran across this, FWIW: Wikipedia:How to fix bunched-up edit links Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ed, thanks for the article link. I think the images in this article now work but it does seem to be a handy guide for the future. Want some more articles to look at? See: The High and the Mighty, Island in the Sky (1953 film) and The Aviator, all aviation film I am tackling at the present. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC).

I had noticed "Island in the Sky" (a film I'm fond of), and was planning to take a look. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've never seen "The Aviator" and the few minutes I watched of "The High and the Mighty" I didn't care for, which is why I haven't done anything about editing those articles.

BTW - should there be an article on "aviation films", and not just a category? Seems to me there should and it also seems to me that you'd be a good person to get it started. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Quote section

I have removed the quote section per the discussion I had on the Village pump recently: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 63#Quote sections. Basically, the quotes have to be integrated in the text, not used as decoration. A reason has to be given (preferably from a reliable, independent source) why a quote is used: otherwise they are, as my edit summary said, random, interchangeable quotes without added value for the article. WP:NOTDIR and WP:UNDUE are the most relevant policies here. Fram (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have had a detailed, in depth discussion with a few people that lasted all of a day :)
Not to take anything away from your intentions, I query your target. The quotes quoted here are very pertinent because they express a lot about the attitude of the occupied Dutch people and why they are so willing to help the British airmen, at a risk to their own lives, even though those airmen are dropping bombs on the Netherlands. I don't think that any of the Wikipedia guidelines that you've mentioned apply to these quotes -- SteveCrook (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the section was listed on the Village Pump for a while longer, and it gets frequented by a lot of editors, so if people disagreed with the sentiment expressed there, it would have been mentioned. As for your quotes: they express something about what the British wanted to show in a fictional propaganda movie, not about the real situation. And there is no indication why these quotes are taken, and not any other: no indication why they are especially relevant or noteworthy. Please try to integrate them into the text, or they will be removed again for the above mentioned policy reasons. Fram (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I can see that your rationale is attributed to a variety of MOS guidelines, but as you have already determined that your position is intractable, albeit your slight concession to "discussion", there is very little that other editors can do other than provide a needlessly contrived statement to link the quotes. In the article that is under review, One of Our Aircraft is Missing, the quotes represent a historical view that delves into the reasoning behind the Dutch resistance in the Second World War. The film was clearly a propaganda tool and the quotes were limited to one exchange and was cited to a source. The original author of the article has now revised the "plot" to incorporate the "quotes." As a sop to the "deletionist" streak that this challenge represented with a broad statement such as "random quotes dont belong on Wikipedia" (sic), I had already moved the aforementioned quotes to Wikiquotes. The author that made the revisions is a well-known historian of the British writer-director-producer team of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger which immediately aroused my attention as his work is impeccably researched and has led to a number of comprehensive articles in Wikipedia revolving around the legendary Powell/Pressburger team. Might I suggest that instead of one editor being the arbiter of the "quotes" conundrum, that a clearly defined style note be considered before more of the crusade stirs up similar contentious exchanges between established "regulars". FWiW, I find that the last statement above is unnecessary and can be considered inflammatory. Bzuk (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC).

I have responded longer at my talk page. The current page indicates the reason these quotes are used and integrates them into the text, thereby providing information instead of decoration. This makes the quotes no longer random. Fram (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Pictures placement

Hey User:Bzuk. Your reversion puts up lots of blank space for me, with the additional disadvantage of the images not being where they should be. In fact, I'm puzzled how my placement could generate blank space. Stacking them one after another, as they are now, seems more likely to do this. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

In popular culture

Yes, there are various things with a title of the form "One of our x is missing". But how many of these have any relation to the film? The title of the film was taken from the announcement used in radio broadcasts during WWII, that one (or often more) of our aircraft is missing. Could these titles have been based more on that expression rather than on the film?

One that does seem to have a more definite relation to the film is One of Our Dinosaurs Is Missing, because that included Peter Ustinov and Hugh Burden in the cast. They were also both in One of Our Aircraft Is Missing -- SteveCrook (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Images

An arbitrary move by an editor recently removed all the images and the commentary that accompanied them which made them qualify as non-free images. No discussion, no nothing... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC).

One of the many reasons why I gave up on images in Wikipedia some time ago -- SteveCrook (talk) 02:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Rowing Boat / Rowboat

I normally would have said that it's usually a "rowing boat" in British English. A "rowboat" is usually just what it's called in North America (and comes up as a spelling error according to my British English spelling checker). But in this case, Jo de Vries (Googie Withers) explicitly calls it a "rowboat" in the film when she's telling the airmen about their escape route (80 minutes in) -- SteveCrook (talk) 05:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I am sure that "rowboat" has now become universally accepted, while a rowing boat is considered archaic useage (another oddity, as "usage" is also acceptable). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC).

Don't be too sure :)
My first instinct was to agree to the change because "rowing boat" is the more commonly used expression by far in the UK. We don't consider it archaic usage. Or maybe we all talk archaic. But then I checked in the film and Jo de Vries does say "rowboat". But she is Dutch :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

(threadjack) Steve--I wanted to add a detail about Sir Arnold Wilson as the inspiration for George Corbett, but the only source I could find for it is you!--Reedmalloy (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You know it's true then :)
You can cite Micky Powell's autobiography as a source -- SteveCrook (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"Railroad"

Several times the aircrew mention "railroads". Anyone from the UK would not use the (US) term "railroad" but would use their native term "railway". No doubt the reason for this usage of a US term (railroad) was "for the benefit of the American public" watching the film. IMO this was not necessary as any North American would have the knowledge to realise just what the British term "railway" meant. It is almost an insult to their intelligence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.20.21 (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Most British people can speak American as well as British English (we're bilingual). There isn't really a distinction between them. Any British person would understand "Railroad" to mean "Railway" without it needing to be explained without any insult to them or to their intelligence -- SteveCrook (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The first mention of "railroad" is by a Yorkshirmen to a Dutch woman. Neither of whom can be expected to speak good English  :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

File:One of our aircraft.JPG listed for discussion

See Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 August 26. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Copyright status

I have deleted the link to the illicit hosting of this British film on Internet Archive. Michael Powell did not die until 1990, so UK copyright subsists until the end of 2060. As a non-US film still under copyright in its country of origin on 1 January 1996, it is protected in the US for 95 years after publication, so to the end of 2037. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Two future British directors get editing and "cinematography" (whatever that might have meant in 1942) credits. But use of up to date "film noir" photography in the film itself, which is so well integrated no-one even notices could only have been possible at the time through Robert Krasker. whose name appears in the film's closing credits. It should also appear hereDelahays (talk) 09:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)