Talk:Hawker 800

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
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
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.

The result of the proposal was

[edit] Old Merge suggestion

  • Agree with merge. Akradecki 01:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. This article should be merged with the HS125 entry and the "Raytheon" lable dropped. user:el-dodo

I agree too - the aircraft is the same, just that it has experienced name changes due to different manufacturers over the years.

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.

[edit] New Merge discussion

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 consensus for merge at this time, after nearlay 4 months of an open poll. - BillCJ (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC) I also agree - it's confusing to have both entries. Does anyone know how to tag with merge? Jddriessen (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose - This article covers development since Hawker's purchase by Raytheon, and covers the new models such as the 800XP, 850XP, and the even newer 750 and 900. It would be far more confusing to have thes models covered under the BAe 125 page, especially since the company has changed ownership again. It's not unusual to split sub-variants off to there own pages, and that is basically what this page is. This page does need updating and expansion, however. - BillCJ (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose too. The change of ownership and concurrent upgrades makes seperate articles justified in my opinion. Whale plane (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Bill has said it all - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
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.