Talk:Bluebird K7

Past Tense

Should the article describe Bluebird in the past tense? The machine still exists after all, has been out of the lake for nearly a decade now, and is well on the way to being a fully functional hydroplane again. I know that most vessels, planes, cars etc that have been lost are refereed to in the past tense, but the restoration project makes Bluebird a special case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.65.245 (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr Whoppit

FYI Andy Dingley (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Italics?

Should the name of the Bluebird be italicized, as with ships? Faceless Enemy (talk) 12:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Its a name, same as. BrewsterBoy (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Apparent copyvio

I noticed that much of the narrative in this article has errors and is in an unencyclopedic style. Searching on one phrase, I found this text, which is credited to Neil Sheppard and dated December 2011. It's first archived at the Wayback Machine here on August 11, 2013. From the WikiBlame search results, the edit introducing the text appears to have been this one on January 6, 2013, predating that archive, but I think we have to believe the "December 2011" and I see no indication that text is copyright-free. There are two footnotes to a History Press book by Sheppard, both broken, but the errors make it unlikely to be the same text, and the text overwrote a reference and does not appear to have been given its own reference. The edit was one of many in at least two long series by Sheppane; a complicating factor is that their user page suggests they are Neil Sheppard. I'm at work and may lose my connection or run out of downtime, so I'm documenting the links here before attempting to replace the account with an earlier version; there may be earlier copyvio and there are almost certainly subsequent improvements that need to be re-added. And it's possible that Sheppane is in a position to legally release the text to us, although it would need to be rewritten and have at the very least a reference to that 2011 page added. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I believe I have found copyvio also from this transcript of a BBC programme (which may in itself be copyvio). This edit on 26 November 2012 introduced text from there in two separate places. It's one of a series of edits by KW Mitchell. Again, the Wayback Machine first records the transcript at that site at a date later than the edit: 16 February 2014. The page as first crawled by the Internet Archive project didn't have the transcript, although the two immediately preceding crawls, in 2010 and 2011, weren't able to access the page at all. However, if this is an accurate transcript of the programme, it predates the edit here and whatever the actual source, is copyvio in the article. I will make an attempt to summarise and footnote it (I shall footnote it to the actual tv programme because I suspect the transcript I found online is copyvio). Judging from the results of my initial search, the Donald Campbell article and possibly others may also need attention. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yngvadottir, thank you for your sleuthing. I have scrubbed the history back to the KW Mitchell edit--please let me know if I missed anything. Drmies (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Bluebird high speed image.jpg
• K7 Registration.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Bluebird high speed image.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Restoration and future running -- edit war

There appears to be an edit war in progress in this article section between Agreementmade and Nosuchagreement regarding the topic of the section which may or may not involve this purported agreement. Both users have {{Uw-3rr}} notices on their user talk pages. Please discuss this here or elsewhere and work towards an agreement regarding what the article ought to say about this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The contract linked to above is the 2006 deed of gift, NOT the subsequent written agreement from 2013 that The Bluebird Project purport to have, but cannot/refuse to provide a source for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosuchagreement (talk • contribs) 15:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Restoration and future running

All contributions and edits by Nigel PG Dale are suspect due to not applying a neutral point of view [NPOV] His anti Ruskin Museum contributions are visible on the Bluebird restoration X pages. An example of Nigel PG Dale accusing the museum of trying to discredit others is here: https://twitter.com/otboae/status/1780636158663242221 Also of note are his continued characterisations of legal facts and costs regarding Bluebird K7’s ownership not being relevant to K7’s history on Wikipedia pages. It seems therefore it is indeed incongruous NOT to include them. Nigel PG Dales agenda is clearly Bluebird Project driven and far from neutral. With reference to: "...and an agreed proportion of the costs (£25,000) to be paid to the museum", it seems incongruous to include the amount (£25,000) when there has been no reference to money elsewhere in the article. There is no mention of how much K7 cost when it was first constructed, for instance. Hence, the (£25,000) has no context. It is not relevant to the history of K7 itself, and adds little of interest to the article as far as the reader is concerned.Nigel PG Dale (talk) 08:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Unnecessary edit to add "Bill Smith and The Bluebird Project agreed to cover their own legal costs in full." From the previous sentence: "A court order, which settled matters of ownership of K7, ownership of associated parts & equipment, and an agreed proportion of the costs (£25,000) to be paid to the museum...", it is self-evident that "Bill Smith and The Bluebird Project" would have paid their own court costs in full.Nigel PG Dale (talk) 08:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC) Is "undue weight" being given to the financial outcome of court proceedings once the matter of ownership of Bluebird K7 had been ruled upon? Nigel PG Dale (talk) 08:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Three paragraphs from this article are duplicated on the Ruskin Museum pages: 1."On 3 September 2021, it was announced that relations between the Ruskin Museum and Bill Smith had broken down to the point where the remaining option is for the restored boat to be broken down, with new components removed from original, restored material, in order to resolve the parties' dispute.[22] However, as of February 2023 this had not been carried out, even though the BBC had earlier filmed the Bluebird project team commencing disassembly."

2. "On 24 February 2023, The Ruskin Museum served legal papers on Bill Smith and Bluebird Project Ltd to ensure that the rebuilt Bluebird K7 was handed to its owners.[23] In December 2022, The Ruskin Museum had announced WEC Group Ltd as its chosen engineering partners who will maintain Bluebird K7 once she is returned to Coniston.[24] Three Orpheus engines have also been donated to the Museum as The Ruskin Museum plan to run K7 on Coniston Water once it is returned.[25]"

3."A court order, which settled matters of ownership of K7, ownership of associated parts & equipment, and an agreed proportion of the costs (£25,000) to be paid to the museum,[30] ensured that K7 would, from the date of the order on, be housed in the purpose-built Bluebird wing of the Ruskin museum. Bill Smith and The Bluebird Project agreed to cover their own legal costs in full."

As this page is about Bluebird K7 and not about the museum, I propose that these paragraphs be consolidated onto Ruskin Museum.Nigel PG Dale (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC) @83.137.7.168: Nigel PG Dale (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

My main concern about the costs issue is the poor sourcing, not so much WP:V, but the way that it leaves the issue hanging with no explanation as to what these costs were and how they were incurred. The impression given is that there was some sort of wrongdoing involved on the part of Bluebird Project, when in fact it would be closer to describe the CFHT / Ruskin Museum as having had an unaffordably expensive restoration from scrapmetal(*) carried out for them at no cost, and their response to this then being to lumber the Bluebird Project with massive legal costs as a reward.

(*) As CFHT now seem to be selling off bits of Bluebird like the compressor vanes, they must regard these as 'scrap', not any sort of museum artefact. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I propose a "Bluebird" disambiguation page be created listing Donald Campbell, Sir Malcolm Campbell, and Ruskin Museum as users of the name "Bluebird". The museum's line would be "Bluebird - rebuilt K7 exhibit.Nigel PG Dale (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

"The museum have since announced that they have plans to run K7 on Coniston Water in 2026. As of April 2024, just one month since her return to Coniston, there have been over 6,000 visits to see K7 at the Ruskin Museum, and that to date, is more public views than at any time since the 1960’s." This point of information should be included on the Ruskin Museum pages. It has little relevance to Bluebird K7Nigel PG Dale (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

In order to maintain the page as information about the Bluebird K7 craft, I propose a "see also" link is added "Bluebird K7's new home" with information concerning visitor numbers and other points of information @83.137.7.168: Nigel PG Dale (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I have endeavoured to maintain a [NPOV] throughout. Information relating to Ruskin Museum and their "Successful campaign by the museum to bring Bluebird back to Coniston, "its spiritual home"" belongs on their page Nigel PG Dale (talk) 10:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

"A court order, which settled matters of ownership of K7, ownership of associated parts & equipment, and an agreed proportion of the costs (£25,000) to be paid to the museum,ensured that K7 would, from the date of the order on, be housed in the purpose-built Bluebird wing of the Ruskin museum. Bill Smith and The Bluebird Project agreed to cover their own legal costs in full. The museum announced plans to run K7 on Coniston Water in 2026. As of April 2024, just one month since her return to Coniston, there have been over 6,000 visits to see K7 at the Ruskin Museum, and that to date, is more public views than at any time since the 1960’s." moved to Talk page for discussion of relevance of court order and visitor numbers. Also, lack of source material, links and citations make it inadmissibleNigel PG Dale (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

NPOV should be maintained Bluebird K7 civil litigation */ "wrongly" and "by the Bluebird Project" removed as not NPOV - "purported" allows for doubt as to the source.Nigel PG Dale (talk) 07:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC) /* Bluebird K7 civil litigation */ "via The Bluebird Project " removed again - it doesn't make sense - BBP did not release any information about the Tomlin order that would appear to discredit them.Nigel PG Dale (talk) 10:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

/* Bluebird K7 civil litigation */ Comment transferred to Talk page "Nigel P Dale is not of a neutral point of view as evidenced against the Ruskin museum here " It has nothing to do with "Bluebird K7 civil litigation"Nigel PG Dale (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

33,300 miles per hour (53,600 km/h)

That's too fast. It can't be correct. 2603:8001:3300:693A:7DC9:B1FF:596D:EFE5 (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism, reverting now. Good catch. —Tamfang (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)