Talk:D. Napier & Son

message: 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)
replies: text: So its just the most powerful conventional piston engine then?GraemeLeggett 11:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I Feel the Need for Speed

message: 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)
replies: text: So its just the most powerful conventional piston engine then?GraemeLeggett 11:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Feel the Power

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

message: < she overpowered her Dunlops >
No, she didn't.
It overpowered its Dunlops.
212.248.160.84 (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A car is an it 

message: 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)
replies: text: WP:COMMONNAME. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Oddities 

message: Anyone remember Jack Sheer,  electrician in the 1950's & 60's? 92.22.92.215 (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  D. Napier & son, Acton past personnel