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.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dallas-Fort WorthWikipedia:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthTemplate:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthDallas-Fort Worth articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
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.
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)[reply] 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)[reply]
It should be obvious not to merge. --ProdigySportsman 18:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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))[reply]
IMHO, they do not be merged due Bell Aircraft exists long before Bell Helicopters Textron as said at the beginning of [1]—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jor70 (talk • contribs)
Don't Merge
'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".'[2]
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.
How separate are Bell Textron and Bell Aircraft, really?[edit]
From the article text, it sounds like Bell has been a continuously operating company since 1935. Sure, it became a subsidiary and was reorganized, but that happens to loads of companies. It doesn't mean there's no organizational continuity. Now, if there is organizational continuity, it seems misleading to list Bell Textron as founded in 1960 and Bell Aircraft as defunct in that year. And if there is not organizational continuity, that should be better explained. --Jtle515 (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, Bell Aircraft split into 3 divisions: Bell Helicopter, Bell Aerospace, and one other that I can't recall the name of, but possibly Bell Aerosystems or something. So while there is some organizational continuity, it's not a complete one. I don't have sources for that at this time, so I can't add it to the article. BilCat (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another observation when looking at the company’s website… I can’t find where they call themselves “Bell Textron.” More often than anything else, they simply call themselves “Bell” and mention that they are a subsidiary of Textron. That could support a page rename or at the very least a tweak to the infobox and intro. RickyCourtney (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On a second note, I agree. We should merge the two pages back together. We can explain the split and merger on one page. RickyCourtney (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RickyCourtney: Sorry for the delayed response. On the company's website, at the bottom of the main page, it states, "Copyright 2023 Bell Textron Inc.", as it has since the rebrand, using the current year of course. That's the company's official name anyway, and why I chose "Bell Textron" as the article's title, per WP:NATDAB. As its official name, it's rightly listed per MOS in the title line and infobox title as "Bell Textron Inc." You're welcome to propose a move, but to what? We can't use "Bell", and while Bell (company) is available, it's probably not unambiguous. You're also welcome to propose a merge, but I would still oppose it per my reasons above. The title would also have the same issues. BilCat (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
