Talk:D. Napier & Son

Automobiles Mid‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Aviation: Engines

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 not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the aircraft engine task force.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lincolnshire Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lincolnshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lincolnshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LincolnshireWikipedia:WikiProject LincolnshireTemplate:WikiProject LincolnshireLincolnshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains: in UK / Locomotives Mid‑importance

	Trains Portal
DYK	July 9, 2011

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Locomotives task force.

This article lacks references.

I Feel the Need for Speed

1905 WSR? What was the exact speed? Where was it set? Who drove?! Who built her (presumably not Napiers)? Trekphiler 13:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feel the Power

I deleted "holds the title for the most powerful piston aircraft engine produced to this day". P&W R4360s & R3350 turbocompounds equalled it, so the Sabre isn't alone. Trekphiler 11:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So its just the most powerful conventional piston engine then?GraemeLeggett 11:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of the Deltic Engine

It is claimed here that the Deltic engines were very reliable. In the main article about Deltic engines they needed much maintenance. Although that being not directly opposite, this is indicating that there is something wrong here or in the other article.

Napier old photographs

There are some old archive photographs from Napiers here; [1] - including plenty of shots of the various engines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.44.121 (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A car is an it

< she overpowered her Dunlops >

No, she didn't.

It overpowered its Dunlops.

212.248.160.84 (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

This article is currently titled Napier & Son, but the company's correct name was D. Napier & Son. Is there any reason this article should not be moved to the actual name? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONNAME. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are two common names, plain "Napier" and "D. Napier & Son". Since Napier is a disambig page, there are several "Napier and son/s" type companies out there and the only such references to this company are scrapes of this article, The much-used D. Napier & Son becomes the obvious choice to disambiguate the article title. So I see my proposal as consistent with COMMONNAME. I suppose one could move the disambig page to Napier (disambiguation) and make room for it, but that seems a bit of a stretch to me. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been at this title for 13 years which would indicate consensus for no change. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know rubbish things that have been on Wikipedia longer than that. And in all that time, just check out the minimal attention paid to this article. No, the only consensus here has been for apathy. This article was/is in a lousy state and needs a lot of work to bring it up to scratch. As for WP:CONSENSUS: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue", "Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments". And as you can see, the arguments I present here have not been considered above. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know we dont have to use the formal name of a company as an article title and the common name is more usual. That said the company tended to use "Napier" or "Napier Engines" or less common "Napier Aero Engines" any of which would make a better title then the formal name. MilborneOne (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the article but a new company called "Napier Aero Engines Limited" was formed in 1961 as a joint venture between D.Napier & Son and Rolls Royce. Again not clear in the article but the original D. Napier and Sons which continued as an engineering company actually remained as part of English Electric. MilborneOne (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The firm of D. Napier & Son specialised for nearly a hundred years in banking, minting, munitions and printing machinery. It produced cars and other vehicles, including some of the record-breaking car engines powering such machines as the Railton, Golden Arrow and early Bluebirds, made speedboats and marine engines, industrial and locomotive engines, and so on. Aero engines form a moderate part of its history and a moderate part of this article and only two, the Lion and the Sabre, ever became major products. The Napier Aero Engines Ltd venture never did more than put the old aero business to bed and was wound up only two years later. Addition of any "aero" word to the article title is wholly unsupportable and the suggested "Napier engines" is almost as bad. I have already pointed out that Napier alone is currently a disambiguation page. For some illustrative examples of where we do in fact use more formal names, ICI is here as Imperial Chemical Industries, Fairey as the Fairey Aviation Company and Epson as Seiko Epson. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC) [Updated 10:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)][reply]

Moved. No viable objections raised. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images

A good few images in this article, especially in the middle sections, are not wholly free but their copyright is dependent on national quirks. Should they be removed from here? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelpillow: can you list the ones in question please. -- de Facto (talk). 19:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following files have US specific license conditions:

And this, licensed under Creative Commons but apparently from a document less than 100 years old:

File:Sir Alfred Herbert's Car.jpg

This may all be fine for Wikipedia as well as the Commons, but I do find the rules a bit opaque. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sir Alfred Herbert's Car.jpg - the licence and originator appears to relate to somebody who took the 2009 photograph - no evidence of the original source and just taking a copy photograph does not give you right to the image. I have tagged it for deletion discussion at commons. MilborneOne (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelpillow: thanks, I see what you mean. I don't know the position wrt old photos like these either. Not many people will read this here though, so It might be worth raising them on Commons:Village pump/Copyright, where more eyes will be on it. -- de Facto (talk). 15:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Posted here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oddities

Hi, glad you are now content with the photo of Sir Alfred's car. I'm a big car fan. Over the years I have been to a lot of trouble to find good pictures of Napier cars. But I wonder if "best known for its luxury motor cars" might be overdoing it. Best known to rich Edwardians for cars might fit better. Having been in "the financial industry" I'm puzzled as to how that industry might have used machinery of any kind except of course for Napier personal chauffeured transport. I plan to amend the lead accordingly. Eddaido (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D. Napier & son, Acton past personnel

Anyone remember Jack Sheer, electrician in the 1950's & 60's? 92.22.92.215 (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]