Template talk:Rolls-Royce aeroengines

Bristol/Bristol Siddeley
Is it worth noting the ones that came from Bristol/Bristol Siddeley?GraemeLeggett 09:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

New format
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)


 * See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines for further discussion on this. - BilCat (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Aeroderivative
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)

RR America
I notice the removal of the links to the US companies, I think this is a shame as the company is still very much in business and it's lost the Allison line heritage (which was there to explain the 'AE' designations). We do have articles on the US branches although the names might not be quite correct, the main company seems to be called 'Rolls-Royce North America Inc.' looking at their contact details. No need to ask me if edits to this template are ok BTW as I don't 'own' it as has been discussed at great length elsewhere!! I simply note that I don't entirely agree with the last change that merged all the American products and lost the links, I think the company deserves a mention as they employ 24,000 people. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    08:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * A thought I just had was that the navbox serves equally to link to the related company articles as well as the engines and designers, we have lost that facility with regard to the American links. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    08:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I was merely asking for you opinion/observations. You've given them. The problem is, RR doens't distinguishes between their US and UK product lines on their websites. RR Corporation no longer appears to even exist, as I couldn't find a mention of it on RR's site. RR North America still exists, but is basically manages RR's US and Canadian properties. I thought of adding the RR NA links in a separate field, but you opposed that before too, so I didn't want to push it. This isn't RR's corporate navbox, but the engines navbox - the corporate box is at Template:Rolls-Royce Plc - we don't need to duplicate it entirely, which have just about done here. I understand you want to include the magnanimous history of RR, but isn't that the purpose of the article itself? The engines navboxes should simply list the engines as simply as possible, in my opinion.


 * Personally, it's really frustrating that you refuse to accept any improvements or suggestions to this infobox beyound your changes to the original navbox. Are there any edits that I can make to this navbox that you won't object to? If so, please tell me so I can make them in peace! Because as it stands now, I make every edit in fear of what your reaction may be. Seriously. And that isn't fun. From now on, I'll try hard to limit my edits soley to adding or correcting existing links, as I can't guess what other edits I'm permitted to make tht will be approved. - BilCat (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

template size
I think the template needs some work to make it less bulky. I would also drop all the manufacturers names in the co-design section as the bold names overwhelm the standard text links to the articles. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * We could just drop the bolding in that section. - BilCat (talk)


 * We have actually discussed several options to retooling the template. Gary's options include splitting the template by RR Limited and RR plc products. Mine include a reformatting of the article by type (User:BilCat/Template:Rolls-Royce aeroengines), but that one is a bit long too. We could also dived the tempaltes by piston and turbine engines, though the turbine one would also be a little long. - BilCat (talk) 13:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that it needs splitting, unfortunately a stalemate on previous split suggestions developed and it further descended into personal comments. With more ownership implications in the section above and in this diff (which I really don't care for much) I can not see a way forward. I should state very, very clearly again that I am not some kind of misguided Rolls-Royce enthusiast, I work on all these company templates using the guidelines at WP:NAVBOX in the interest of grouping links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles and that is the limit of my interest. I have created 14 aircraft navbox templates and 46 aero engine templates and there has been no problem with any of them, I did not create this template but did update it (for the better hopefully) in August 2008. If I really 'owned' the template I would be reverting changes which I have not been doing (for fear of more ownership implications), I have been posting my thoughts here as I am allowed to, I am also allowed to disagree occasionally on any matter (generally I agree with suggestions as I believe that I am actually a 'middle of the road' kind of person that will do anything for a quiet life, just get a bit ticked when the opposite is indicated. Nimbus  (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    18:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * And I get ticked when every edit is questioned to the inth degree with unneeded hyperbole. It's a "shame" that we don't mention a subsidiary that RR no longer mentions, and that my not exist? No, it's just editingf or clarity and conciseness. Again, this is not an article, we don't have to tell the complete history of the company, and we should not have ever tried to to begin with. Btw, RR Deutchland is not mentioned here either, is that also a "shame" too? - BilCat (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * We can shorten the template alot by combining the RR Limited and RR plc sections, placing them by type in main sections instead. Also, we could remove non-essential sections like designers. I don't know of any other aircraft or aeroengine template that has designers listed, and I don't think they should be included here any longer. Most of the other major aeronengin templats have Joint developments sections. Perhaps it's time to re-think thoses, though I don't have a preference either way. - BilCat (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a shortend version at User:BilCat/Template:Rolls-Royce aeroengines Shorter. GL, what do you think of this? Is this any better than what we have, and could we make it any shorter without losing content? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Have to say that I completely disagree with the latest revision, we have lost the timeline, company links and joint development engines are now mixed in with others in an ad hoc fashion. As usual there was no clear consensus to do this. What are 'Fan turbines'? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    09:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * GraemeLeggett edited the new format without comment either way, so in the absense of direct disagreement from him, I'm taking that as his support, especially since I addressed the issues he mentioned above. The "Fan turbine" section is now gone, and I've added asterisks to mark the Joint development engines. (The "cross mark" might be a better symbol to use, but I don't know how to make it.) We've discussed the timeline aspect ad nauseun infinitum, and came to no agreeable solution. Since this was the only aeroengine template to use such a format, it's the abberation, not the new format. Perhaps a timeline list page might be in order to convey that info.


 * Also, I removed the RB-numbers section simply because I didn't feel we had room for it. I may not have added all of the more-recent additions to the other sections simply because I didn't know what the engine types were. I've no objection to it being added back as part of a model numbers section - I simply didn't keep it this time to cut down on the length in this version. - BilCat (talk) 08:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As the Germans say "keine Antwort ist eine Antwort". To keep the RR joint developments together with the main list how about a separate template for those. EG after the fashion of WWIIBritishTanks, WWIIBritishSelf-propelledArtillery etc. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * GL, is Template:Joint development aeroengines what you have in mind, or something else? I'm not quite clear on what you meant. - BilCat (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I was thinking specifically of a template that links the joint development engines that involve RR only, separating them out from the main RR lines. But I'm not sure if that's a good idea or not now...GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You guys now have the RB turbine engines in front of the piston engines, not good. Using the † sign looks like the engines are dead, also not very clever. There are two reasons for my recent silence, I did not want to comment in case of more template ownership accusations and I was in fear of adding more 'hyperbole'. The simple answer is to split the template by company as I suggested 18 months ago at WT:AETF. Please carry on experimenting until you find a format that you are happy with. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    02:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * One problem has been fixed. As to the † sign, that's quite cute - LOL. :) And I'm quite happt with it for now, but as WP is noever finished, I;m sure better solutions to some issues willpresent themselves in time. Thanks for your suggestions, and fopr the humor! - BilCat (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Notice on template
@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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

R.W.H Bailey
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)
 * Looks like he was Robert William Harvey-Bailey. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)