This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The following is a closed 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 the article was not merged. --Born2flie 05:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Merger
Don't Merge - I think that the articles should be kept seperate, as the company has a long history, so it should be seperate in the same way that BOAC and British Airways have separate articles. --GW_Simulations 21:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Except that Bell Helicopter grew out of Bell Aircraft they have very little in common and should not be merged. Bell Helicopter builds helicopters in Texas and elsewhere, Bell Aircraft/Aerospace built aircraft and rocket engines in Buffalo and no longer exists. It would be like saying Boeing and United Airlines should have the same entry because of their common origin. If they didn't both have "Bell" in their names no one would even make the suggestion. --130driver 15:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that the modern Bell Helicopter didn't come about overnight, or suddenly seperated themselves from their origins. Bell as a company existed for decades as a producer of both aircraft and helicopters, and it would be impossible to present a complete and meaningful history of the company without discussing both aspects within the same article. Since articles already exist on the various aircraft the article on Bell as a company should focus on the company's origin, growth and diversification, as well as its current status. The two articles should be merged to give a complete timeline for the company from its beginnings to its modern form.
I would suggest that the title of the article be "Bell Aircraft Company" since heilocopters are aircraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken keisel (talk • contribs) July 31, 2006 15:11:34 GMT
I agree with Ken (merge) -- There was a linear progression. Look at Sikorsky -- they made the same transition and there is only one article there (two if you could the recent addition of Schweizer.) The modern name would be most appropriate, as that is what we use for other articles in this case. I urge the previous commenters to reconsider their stance, and for future editors seeing this to vote in favor of the merge. —Joseph/N328KF(Talk) 15:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Merge - After reading both articles, they both refer to a common history, even if they focus on the specific incarnation of the company each article is named for. (Born2flie 01:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC))
IMHO, they do not be merged due Bell Aircraft exists long before Bell Helicopters Textron as said at the beginning of —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jor70 (talk • contribs)
'In 1960, Textron of Providence, Rhode Island bought various Bell Aircraft properties including the Helicopter operation. Textron
changed the name of the helicopter operation to Bell Helicopter Company, and within a few years established itself as Textron's
largest division. In January 1976 the name was changed to what it is today, "Bell Helicopter Textron".'
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.
There is very little Texas content here. In fact, they have a lot of operations elsewhere. This Texas vanity tag is superfluous. —Joseph/N328KF(Talk) 01:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The bot retagged it. Putting "WikiProject Texas" text in here so it won't happen again. Ingrid 20:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Bell is a very important company here in Texas and considering 2 out of Bell's 4 largest facilities are here in Texas is probably why it has the tag. The headquarters and production facility is here in Fort Worth along with a shop in Grand Prarie and a logistics center in Alliance. There are probably more Bell employees in Texas than all the rest of the facilities in America combined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 08:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering how Westland aircraft gets a licensing agreement from Agusta to build an aircraft that Agusta manufactures under license agreement from Bell? I'm familiar with subletting, but totally drawing a blank on sublicensing. I understand the reference says that, but it still begs the question. Did Agusta facilitate a licensing agreement for Westland, or did Agusta adjust its licensing agreement with Bell to include Westland? (Born2flie 21:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC))
Just wondering too, I have no access to trade agreement itself but may be as Agusta owns the exclusivel y rights of the model for europe the licence need to be done throught the italians instead of directly from Bell --Jor70 18:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The Canadian Constitution introduced by Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau in 1982 and signed by her majesty the Queen Elizabeth II is essentially the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for Canada. If a Foreign company came to the United States and said "Well old chap... you constitution is all good and well in practice but we need to do something that contradicts it so shut up and play along"... I don't think Americans would be amused as her Majesty might put it. Clean up all you want but don't tread on us say Canadians to Americans.
The latter's nomenclature is a result of a misplaced understanding of web protocols put in place in the mid-to-late 1990's.However, it is needed and used in our email service across the enterprise. Our official site (PRIMARY DOMAIN) is bellhelicopter.com
Use of the "non-mirrored" other (SECONDARY) domain will generate errors in viewing the web pages for Bell Helicopter due to non-synched content loads, CSS errors, etc. We ask that you do not use or propagate the use of the domain "bellhelicopter.textron.com"
Thank you -
Kipp Baker, Manager, Web Communications Bell Helicopter Textron Kippbakr 16:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)