Template talk:Napier aeroengines

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Aviation: Engines This template 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 template is supported by the aircraft engine task force.

Would the Oryx listing be better on the same line as the turbines? It's not an unreasonable coupling and it keep the navbox shorter in height. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about re-adding the Deltic (and Baby Deltic), but on a separate line. They might not be "aero engines", but this is hardly the worst inconsistency on WP. It would be better IMHO to include Deltics under the "Napier engine navbox" than it would be to preserve the "purity" of tying strict inclusion criteria to something as unimportant to the reader as the name of a template. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that we should try to link the Deltic in the navbox somehow, the article does relate to its aviation development history. The 'Baby Deltics' appear to be locomotives rather than engines, or at least that is the impression I get from the articles. My train spotting days are long gone! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Baby Deltics" were both a smaller deltic engine, and a smaller locomotive using them. Neither had a good reputation for reliability, but this is a complex history and related to some mis-use issues with the locomotive, more than engine design. I think (can't remember for sure) that Baby Deltics also ended up as generator sets in a handful of magnetic influence minesweepers. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't know anything about the Napier engines at all. Are there enough train and marine engines to warrant a separate template for them? Some of the aeroengine templates do incude aeroderivitive engines such as the GE LM2500, derived from one of its larger turbofan engines. I'm not so much trying to preserve purity as trying to limit tempaltes to reasonable coverage within the scope of the project creating them. I'd sincerely hate for someone to start adding a slew of automobile engines to some of these templates, as there are far more of them, and in greater permutations. Worse, consider how many other products companies like GE produced, such as toasters and refrigerators! There has to be a limit somewhere, the question is what is the reasonable limit. I'll follow the consensus here, though it may be something to take up with WP:AIR and the other related projects. I'd be OK with a separate group on this template for the Deltics for now. - BillCJ (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Deltics are sufficiently unusual in layout alone that they justify inclusion in a Napier navbox, but their very early car engines (although notable in their context) wouldn't. Readers of WP just aren't going to care which project authored the template. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're fairly safe here Bill, Napier had very few other products, the Deltic engine is the only other one I can think of. Interesting point though about the cars, who made the engines for Rolls-Royce cars? I've never even looked or thought about it. In that case and others it is a wise move to name the templates 'aeroengines'. There are lots of car engine articles out there and maybe the relevant project will produce navboxes for them taking our lead ;-) Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]