Talk:Cessna CitationJet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION 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.
Aviation Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] Merge proposal

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No constest - will merge shourtly. - BillCJ (talk) 03:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(See Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages for details on performing mergers.)

Three of the four CJ articles were created about a year ago, just a couple of months after the rationalization of the existing Cessna Citation family articles to the Cessna Citation overview page. In fact, one year later, no attempt has been made to link the four CJx articles to the Citation overview page. In addition, all four pages lack many features recommended by WP:AIR's page content guidelines, notably the Aircraft Infobox and proper Specs templates. I can easily fix these problems, and I usually do. However, as I found the other CJx pages, I realized their content was so minimal (even after one year, they are all basically still stubs) that none of them were sufficient for an article on their own. As such, I beleive that these pages should be merged together into one article at Cessna CitationJet. I don't believe this should cause a problem, as all of the CJs use the Cessna "525" model number, and are closely related. Other Cessan jet pages follow this pattern, such as the Cessna Citation Excel page, which includes the Excel, the Citation XLS, the Citation XLS+ and the Citation Sovereign. - BillCJ (talk) 04:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.
  • Support - Per my nom. - BillCJ (talk) 04:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - As per BillCJ, very little in standalone articles as they are all just 525 variants they should be put together as suggested. MilborneOne (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose -
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.