Talk:Napier Lion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft engines (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
This article is supported by the aircraft engine task force.
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Shouldn't the 1922 reference to a turbocharger really be a supercharger? Turbochargers use the exhaust gasses to drive a turbine, whereas superchargers are driven from the main shaft of the engine.

I thought turbos were post-war.

there are referneces to turboscharging per-war. GraemeLeggett 14:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See here: Gloster Guan —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
There's a Napier archive photograph of the turbocharged Napier Lioness E71S here; [1] where the turbocharger is clearly seen, together with the ducting from the exhaust ports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem[edit]

This article has been revised as part of the large-scale clean-up project of a massive copyright infringement on Wikipedia. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously.

For more information on this situation, which involved a single contributor liberally copying material from print and internet sources into several thousand articles, please see the two administrators' noticeboard discussions of the matter, here and here, as well as the the cleanup task force subpage. Thank you. --Whpq (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


The MOS says about "see also" that is is "A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links (wikilinks) to related Wikipedia articles". We seem to have a disagreement about this as one editor seems to think that non-links are okay in the see also section. Since a reader can't "see also" something that doesn't exist (i.e. an unlinked non-article) I think these ought to be removed until the appropriate articles are created as per the MOS. - Ahunt (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Bollocks to the MOS. What makes a more useful article for readers? This is why we do any of this.
These two engines should be listed. The best way to list them is to do it in the standard way for aircraft engines, using the template (although this standard format for engines still has a lot wrong with it). If that gives rise to a couple of ghastly redlinks, then what does this matter? It's a total non-issue. If you object to redlinks that much, delink them, or move them out of the See also. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I think the ideal solution would be to have articles on these engines, as I think non-links are of very marginal usefulness, but let's see what other editors watching this article have to say. - Ahunt (talk) 13:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Red links are no use in the see also section and I cant see any reason why the aero-engine project should make up its own rules (which would be ignored if it was ever to go for featured article etc.). If these two engines are really comparable and of note to the Lion then they could be mentioned in the text and a reliable reference would be easy to find to say the Napier Lions main competitor was ... MilborneOne (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Red link, then immediately start on the stub article for the engines. A quick search on Flight found mention of the Assos 750. And there are a couple of aircraft articles linking to it. It's comparable in terms of configuration. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Of course red links can have value - when as here, they list two engines (and two obscure engines that were news to me).
If we had an engine info template that listed "comparable engines" under a section other than See also, no-one would have raised a squeak about this. It would obviously be recognised that simply stating their names (a rare, but non-trivial, fact) would have value, even if there was no article to link to. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Something like comparable engines (of the same type or similar design) should really be dealt with by categories and would be unlikely to be in the main part of the article. Perhaps a better categorisation by type is needed. MilborneOne (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Since a week has passed without further discussion I think we can safely say that we have no consensus here to deviate from the MOS to include either non-links or redlinks in the "see also", so I have removed them. - Ahunt (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Since a week has passed with these dreadful engines listed without triggering further debate, I think we can safely say that we have consensus to leave them here.
I'd also point out that you've just used an appeal to MOS re redlinks in a See also section to remove two items that are agreed here to be relevant (does anyone think they're simply irrelevant?) and were neither redlinks, nor appearing directly in a See also section. Policy and a simplistic styleguide has blinkered you to useful content in an article. Is that really helpful? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
You really need a good consensus and also a good reason to ignore the MOS and you haven't established either here. I would say that if you really want these engines mentioned in this article then work them into the text, or better yet, if they are that significant then start articles on them and then add them as bluelinks to the see also section. - Ahunt (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The guideline is quite clear. The section should contain only links to related articles (no black text apart from notes explaining why something is linked if it not obvious), it also says that there should be no red links. A solution would be to simply nowiki the links and unlock them when the articles appear, this is assuming that these engines that we know nothing about are actually similar. I think it has been mentioned before on this page that disagreements with the guideline should be taken up at the relevant talk page, I have questioned guidelines, gone to the talk page and come away with a better appreciation of the reasoning behind them. It has taken years of MOS discussion and changes to get to the relatively stable position we currently enjoy.

The 'comparable aircraft' section has caused problems in the past (mainly edit wars) because it is open to editor judgement and original research, it's a wonder that we are still allowed to do it. If we make too much noise this section of Template:Aircontent will get chopped, I have no objection to these engines being linked and often do it myself, it's a clear disregard of the guideline to create redlinks in this section though. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)