Template talk:Rolls-Royce aeroengines

message: Is it worth noting the ones that came from Bristol/Bristol Siddeley?GraemeLeggett 09:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Template :Template:BristolAeroengines also appears on pages of engines of Bristol parentage, and the articles always explain this, so I felt it would just complicate what is essentially a navigation template around the RR engines (hence I didn't link Turboprop, Piston engine etc. as these would be linked from the parent article.) Emoscopes Talk 12:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bristol/Bristol Siddeley

message: I've been bold, and updated the template to list the main divisions by type, rather than by company. I think this format is more intuitive when it comes to finding or adding engines to the list. In fact, it's becoming more difficult to tell where the newer engines come from, as RR isn't making a clear distinction in it's material, usually listing all turboshafts or turbofans on the same pages, regardless of origin. (Note that the German and Italian versions also list by type.) I know some prefer the previous format, so, could we let this run for a couple of week, say to the end of June, and see what the consensus is then? If it's against the new format, I'll revert back to the old one myself. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines#Template:Rolls-Royce aeroengines for further discussion on this. - BilCat (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: New format

message: Is there a plain English version of this phrase or a wikilink that could be used to explain it? From the article names I get the context, but what of others?GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aeroderivative 

message: @User:Nimbus227 - apologies regards reverted edit. Did not realise that the templates for products up until 1971. Would it then be worth putting a hidden comment at the top of the template to make sure users who are not deep into the subject matter realise this? - Master Of Ninja (talk) 07:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, at the foot of both templates is a visible 'See also' note to see either Template:Rolls-Royce plc aeroengines or Template:Rolls-Royce aeroengines. originally it was one very large template that was split in to the two distinct companies (Limited and PLC/Group/Holdings etc) about 10 years ago. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a note (that won't transclude) to hopefully head off similar conflicts in the future. Primefac (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice on template 

message: Curious why the red link to the designer R W H Bailey has been removed (with the edit summary 'corrected links' (which actually broke a good link))? I would probably have created that article this winter. Before we go down a path of moving articles to RB with a dot or without (again) there should be a discussion. I believe the company was not consistent in its use in any case. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like he was Robert William Harvey-Bailey. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Harvey was a first name and then he moved it to his surname to become Harvey-Bailey. Deeply involved in the Kestrel, Buzzard and R designs. 14:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  R.W.H Bailey