Talk:Boulton Paul Bolton

Boulton Paul or Boulton & Paul?
Shouldn't this be the Boulton & Paul Bolton rather than the Boulton Paul Bolton? The company only became Boulton Paul when the aircraft part of the company was sold off and moved to Wolverhampton. Certainly Mason's The British Bomber since 1912 refers to it as the Boulton & Paul Bolton.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Nigel: as you say (and as in the info box), at the time and for a long while into the future the company was Boulton & Paul. Maybe we should use this in the header and article, probably should.  There is a separate question about the name of the article, where one important principle to counter the contemporary name is ease of finding, particularly given the Wiki's rather fussy search engine.  Yes, we could redirect.  A more extreme example (and there must be many more, for these companies, especially from the '30s onwards were forever changing names) is Bristol.  For example, we use the title Bristol F.2 Fighter, but its manufacturers were the British & Colonial Aeroplane Co. Ltd.  I think calling it the British & Colonial F.2 Fighter would make it hard to find, though historically accurate.  Maybe we need to widen the debate?TSRL (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking back I see I've used Boulton & Paul everywhere except in the header. I'll change that now.TSRL (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)