Talk:Hawker Beechcraft
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject. | |
| Stub | rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
[edit] Merge
I agree, but it should probably be done as a move, so as to retain the edit history of the Raytheon Aircraft Company page, with this page being deleted first. Waiting is also good, as this may not be the final name chosen for the new company (they might choose Beechcraft Hawker, or maybe even Hawkcraft Beecher). - BillCJ 23:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- The new name is official, per the press releases. Yes, what we should probably do is move the other page here and merge this content into it. But the deal is not final yet and so for now they should be separate pages. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
As of March 26, 2007 at approximately 10:40 a.m. central time, the transfer is official. The name is Hawker Beechcraft. It was never discussed that any other name be used. They should be separate articles with connecting links.
- Thanks.
Honestly I can see both side on the articbale merge. Content-wise it makes sense, and it is still the same company, just with new owners. However, they are separate entities, and have unique histories. As it stands, this article is basically a renamed Raytheon Aircraft article. Both have the potential for greater expansion.- BillCJ 17:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Fully Support - After re-reading the Raytheon AIrcraft article, I see that that company was actually formed in 1994 when Raytheon merged Beechcraft (owned from 1980) with its newly acquired Hawker asset. THere is an article on Raytheon itself, so both these articles are really very complimentary. Separate pages for Beechcraft and Hawker still exist, so nothing is really lost by merging them. A similar article, MD Helicopters, covers both McDonnell DOugulas Helicopters and the current MD Helicopters. In full disclosure, I created that article that way, but there have been no major objections to that format.
