Talk:Airbus SE/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Merge

While done in good faith, I think the reversion of the move of EADS and the splitting off of Airbus a group into separate articles was a mistake, as they are the same company. Yes, the company was internally restructured a the same time as the name change, but restructuring is not unheard of for a company, and we don't usually create separate articles for a company just because of a name change and/or internal restructuring. Notably, the company continues to trade on stock markets as the same company (with the same ticker symbol), so clearly it wasn't reincorporated. The press likewise has characterized it as just a name change, as seen in this Reuters article. So it seems that both legally and popularly it is considered the same company, and a separate article is not needed. oknazevad (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


I totally agree, the EADS article should be included in the "History" section of the Airbus Group article. It has been done in the french edition, and it makes more sense: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_Group Milou34 (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Totally agree Mark83 (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment A draft of the merged article is here, for consideration. oknazevad (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support  Liam987(talk) 15:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article describes an historical corporate entity that existed for over a decade in the early 2000s, and was a very notable company as EADS. To simply merge it into a later instantiation of another European conglomerate will end up losing relevant history about the EADS company. Wikipedia is not short of space for verifiable information about notable companies, even if those companies no longer exist, or have merged with other entities to form new(er) companies. N2e (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
    • But that's just why a merge needs to be carried out; you are approaching this absolutely incorrectly, falsely believing that EADS no longer exists, when it clearly does; it is the exact same company having changed its name, not a new company. That was the problem with the incorrect split of the articles, it gave the false and incorrect impression that Airbus Group is a new company, not the same company with a new name. To that end, the merge had to happen for factual correctness. And that it is the same company under a new name is well verified by the sources quoted in the proposal above and in the article itself. You are incorrect in you assertion. oknazevad (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

BRD on recent Merge

I have reverted the recent merge per WP:BRD. The discussion should continue longer, at least a week. Moreover, since the merge is contested, the discussion should be formally closed by an uninvolved closer prior to any merge taking place.

The article MOVE to change the name of the EADS article to Airbus Group should also be reverted while the Discussion is ongoing.

The rationale for leaving the article as is, describing the now defunct company EADS, is that the article describes an historical corporate entity that existed for over a decade in the early 2000s, and was a very notable company as EADS. To simply merge it into a later instantiation of another European conglomerate will end up losing relevant history about the EADS company. Wikipedia is not short of space for verifiable information about notable companies, even if those companies no longer exist, or have merged with other entities to form new(er) companies. Airbus Group can have an article describing its period of existence, from the time it was formed, until such time as it may no longer exist at some point in the future. N2e (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

EADS is not defunct, it just changed its name. See above. You are incorrect in your facts. oknazevad (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
So let's Discuss it amongst many editors, for a bit of time, per WP:BRD. While it is obvious the first two editors to comment here have opinions that lead in opposite directions, give it a little time to allow other interested editors to engage. And in the meantime, leave the article in the Rerverted state, during the Discussion, per WP:BRD. N2e (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Premature multi-page move needs to be undone

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move after a relisting and no fresh comments in over two weeks. Cúchullain t/c 16:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


– The multi-page move that was done to change the EADS page to Airbus Group should be undone while the Merge discussion continues. I have no idea how to undo complex multi-page moves so am bringing this to the attention of the Requested Moves editors and administrators who may know how to clean up ths premature move. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC) --Relisted. N2e (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

This wasn't just a move, it was a merge. You say in the section above that you "... have reverted the recent merge", but as far as I can see you have merely changed the Airbus Group article to an earlier version of the EADS article; where have you put the previous Airbus Group content which went into the merge? --David Biddulph (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as I've already said three times on this page, as supported by sources, the assertation that EADS and Airbus Group are different companies is incorrect. It is the same company, having undergone a name change. The need for a separate article is false and based on an incorrect reading of the plain meaning of the sources. (Even the company's stock ticker symbol is the same.) oknazevad (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I have to agree, the company press release is pretty clear: "... the EADS group has been rebranded as “Airbus Group”..." The company was renamed on 2 January 2014. - Ahunt (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - While it it true that EADS and Airbus Group are essentially the same company, the "rebranding" is not a simple renaming either, but a complex reorganization. I stand by my original decision that it was simpler to create a new article on Airbus Group, and leave the original EADS article as a historical snapshot. I honestly didn't anticipate much opposition to that decision, but in reality, only a few users have opposed that decision to this point. But we definitely have a mess now, which is what I had feared the attempt to merge would produce. If the original Airbus history can be restored, it would probably be best to move the EADS history back to that location, regardless of whether or not the merge is eventually carried out or not. - BilCat (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if I'd call combining two units together and renaming a third to match the new name of the parent company a "complex reorganization". Doesn't change the fact that they are more than just "essentially" the same company, they are outright the same company and it is a mistake to treat it as two separate companies when they are not. oknazevad (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, they've combined three units into one, with one being taken from one of the others. And no, having two separate articles is not treating them as two separate companies, as long as it's made clear in both articles. As EADS has made the effort to "rebrand" itself, having two articles illustrates both the before and after "brands" quite clearly. - BilCat (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - as nom. This merge and multi-page move should be undone! The merge was controversial, as evidenced by the the reaction/discussion following the quick/premature merge, and it had not been discussed for a sufficiently long period to establish a consensus. While normal WP:BRD process would put the page back to the condition prior to the Bold edit, in this case, that is tough to do without more than a simple revert, since the page name was changed in the process. (so, per User:BilCat in the article edit comment, I will leave the article in the bogus/incorrect state while the discussion continues here.) N2e (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

EADS UK

Can we please have more about EADS UK? [1] Biscuittin (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

As a start, I have created a page for CEO Robin Southwell. Biscuittin (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Boldtitle: European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company

The phrase "European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company" and "EADS" redirect to this page. Should the first not be bolded re point 3 of WP:BOLDTITLE (significant alternative titles (which should usually also redirect to the article))? And the second, as an abreviation covered at MOS:BOLDSYN? The policy anchors themselves may seem to be redundant, but regardless I would think EADS qualifies as a significant alternative title or synonym. Techhead7890 (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

PS: it would be great if User:ssolbergj could clarify re: his (slightly ninja) edit on that. Techhead7890 (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
You're right. Bolded. oknazevad (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Synonym? No, it's the former name. As such, it should probably be italicised. ---Ssolbergj (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
No, former names are bolded as alternate names that redirect to the page. See WP:MOSBOLD. That's not how italics are used here. oknazevad (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Yep, that's exactly the one I ought to have linked to as justification. Techhead7890 (talk) 11:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Will someone please claify where Airbus Group's Home Office is located?

On the Airbus Group Wikipedia page, the first paragraph claims that Airbus Group is headquartered in Toulouse, France. In the column to the right, it says next to the header titled: "Headquarters", that Leiden, Netherlands (headquarters) is its headquarters and then it says that Blagnac, France (main office) is their main office. Which is it? Is Airbus Group's Home Office in Toulouse, France, Blagnac, France or Leiden, The Netherlands? If the the Home Office is located in Blagnac France, then shouldn't both references be the exact same wording? Such as Toulouse, France OR Blagnac, France OR TO BE MORE EXACT, such as: Blagnac (Suburb of Toulouse), France?

Thank you for your help. Mikewest (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

As per [Official website], Airbus headquarters is close to the Toulouse-Blagnac airport. I had made the necessary changes in the article. Thank you for highlighting this issue. - Ninney (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Er actually the infobox was correct, according to http://www.airbusgroup.com/int/en/toolbox/contact-us.html the HQ is at Leiden, Netherlands and the Main Office is Blagnac, basically "Airbus Group SE" is legally a Dutch company hence the Leiden address but is run mainly from France. As far as I can see the infobox was correct. MilborneOne (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Airbus Group SE consists of the three business divisions,
  • Airbus,
  • Airbus Defence and Space, and
  • Airbus Helicopters
AIRBUS GROUP SE headquarters is in Leiden, Netherlands whereas AIRBUS headquarters is close to the Toulouse-Blagnac airport. Thanks User:MilborneOne for correcting. - Ninney (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Airbus Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.


☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Moved to above to show what is working/not

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

  • The first one is functional, however, there does not appear to be an archive anywhere for the second link. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 22:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Airbus SE/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==B-Class==

Born2flie: For a company that only came together in 2000, I thought this was a good start. Of course, I'm not used to reading too many company articles. YMMV. --19:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Has some cleanup tags that need addressing, and could use a general cleanup. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 11:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 06:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge proposal (2015)

I propose that EADS is merged into this article, Airbus Group. Even though corporate changes and a change of name have been made, the fact remains that Airbus Group and EADS have the same history (this includes EADS#Criticisms) and the same range of products. I reckon the reorganisation of divisions could easily be explained within one article. Mergers of companies undertaken to create a new, radically different entity do perhaps require a new articles, but I don't see why a renaming would require a new, separate article. Thoughts? - Ssolbergj (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Strongest possible support: As seen above and at Talk:EADS, I've always thought this split was an absolute mistake, and against the simple, well cited fact that it's all the same company. The articles were actually merged, suitably, for some 9 months after the rename and should have remained such. oknazevad (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible Oppose - While it it true that EADS and Airbus Group are essentially the same company, the "rebranding" is not a simple renaming either, but a complex reorganization. Having two separate articles is not treating them as two separate companies, as long as it's made clear in both articles. As EADS has made the effort to "rebrand" itself, having two articles illustrates both the before and after "brands" quite clearly. - - BilCat (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment - I don't see why the importance of having two articles with different names would be greater than that of merging two articles that substantially describe the same thing. The history is shared, and duplication of such information is unnecessary and should be avoided IMO. As I've said, I'm convinced the reorganisation of divisions could easily be described within one article. --Ssolbergj (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
That's been tried and it failed, which was why the EADS article was restored. It proved not to be that easy. Perhaps you'd do a better job at it. You could give it a try in your userspace, and if it works and addresses my concerns, I'll support the merge. - BilCat (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm quite busy for the time being, but I reckon having to explain the reorganisation of divisions ought to be quite straight forward, and certainly not be a reason not to merge.--Ssolbergj (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
It's not my only reason, but I was willing to compromise if you would make the effort to do the merge effectively. I'm still of the opinion it can't be done effectively, hence my support of separate pages, but I was willing to give you a chance to prove me wrong. - BilCat (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose no reason why EADS cant be left as a historical article, no need to roll everything forward, the previous components of EADS still stand alone as they all have a story to tell and were not rolled forward into EADS. That said I do see room for a History of the Airbus Group which could include information on the previous companies that now make up the group. MilborneOne (talk) 11:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment The reason for not leaving EADS as a separate article is that this is the same company as Airbus Group, just prior to the renaming in the company's articles of association. The legal personality and the product range are precisely the same as before. One would not see the article of Hungary referring to a separate article for the "Republic of Hungary" for all history and information on matters that existed prior to 2012, just because of an amendment of the constitution that year, which changed the name and some institutional provisions. "the previous components of EADS still stand alone as they all have a story to tell": Sure, and no one is suggesting e.g. the Airbus Military article is to be changed. This, as well as other historical divisions, would be duly described in a unified article. - Ssolbergj (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment OK but we have in the past had seperate articles for airlines that have changed name but still have legal continuity. On the grounds that only the name has changed, I will not stand in your way to merge the articles but you should make sure that it clearly retains the pre-rename "EADS" story. MilborneOne (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Alright, the proposal has been here for a while, and there appears to be a clear majority in favour of the merger, so I'll do it now, making sure no content is lost. The following template hopefully adds some clarity when it comes to the reorganisation of divisions (please help correct it if you see errors):

Structural evolution of Airbus SE
Dec 1970 Jan 1992 July 2000 Sep 2000 Jan 2001 Dec 2006 Apr 2009 Sep 2010 Jan 2014 May 2015 Jan 2017 Apr 2017
    European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company NV Airbus Group NV Airbus Group SE Airbus SE   
Airbus Industrie GIE Airbus SAS     
  Airbus Military SAS Airbus Defence and Space SAS   
    EADS Defence and Security Cassidian SAS
    Astrium SAS EADS Astrium SAS
  Eurocopter SA Eurocopter SAS Airbus Helicopters SAS   
                       

PS: The company changed its name yet again yesterday. I hope we don't need to have this discussion all over again. ;) - Ssolbergj (talk) 12:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply -@Ssolbergj:, where did you hear about this May 2015 name change? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
here. - Ssolbergj (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Before "Airbus Military" it was a separate division of EADS called "MTAD: Military Transport Aircraft Division"; it was a division from the founding of EADS until the incorporation into Airbus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.146.166.162 (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Airbus Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I reckon we should merge Airbus into this article, reflecting the corporate merger that is recently undertaken between the parent company and the subsidiary, as explained e.g. in the company's annual report (see for instance page 8 and 9 in the PDF file). Thoughts? - Ssolbergj (talk) 12:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I wish Airbus wouldn't make things so complicated. :) I would merge this article to Airbus, and restore the old EADS article. The Airbus article has a much longer history, and is the common name. - BilCat (talk) 11:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
The Airbus article (started in September 2001) is strictly speaking only one year older than the old EADS article (September 2002), and considering that the focus of the present Airbus SE article is primarily the parent company (other than the intro, which has been rewritten to reflect the merger), I believe the most sensible option would be to merge the subsidiary article (the present Airbus (SAS) article) into it. In the corporate merger, the name of the parent was kept, not the doughter's. The most important thing, however, is to get on with the article merger.
I think we should prioritise to establish a new, decent, merged article instead of establishing separate ones with duplicate information for EADS, Airbus Industrie or additional historical entities for that matter. The new, merged Airbus article should include all the EADS stuff anyway, and then there was the "Airbus Group" period, which an EADS article name wouldn't suit entirely either. Ssolbergj (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Absolutely no need to restore the EADS article. The reason for the previous merger, that all the history belongs in one place, is still just as true. There should never have been separate EADS and Airbus Group articles in the first place.
But a reorganization of the articles to reflect the company's reorganization of its units may be needed. But I want to make sure that I'm understanding this correctly. The company is legally merging the parent holding company into the civil aircraft unit, which has long been the largest part of the company, thereby eliminating a largely unneeded layer of corporate bureaucracy, and turning the defense and helicopter units into subsidiaries of the civil aircraft company. Is that correct? If so, then I can support the merger, as, just like the EADS/Airbus Group merger, readers are best served by having the entire history in one place where they can get the full story. oknazevad (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
The annual report states "[...] the Company [is] merging its Group structure with the commercial aircraft activities of Airbus." It's only a legal detail: I'm not sure if any of the companies were merged "into" the other, although I would suspect that Airbus SAS (daughter company) was merged into the parent company, the former Airbus Group SE (former name of the "Airbus SE" article"), as the Airbus Group SE name - and more importantly the SE corporate form - was kept at the time.
You are right; "Airbus Helicopters" and "Airbus Defence and Space" are now the two "Divisions" of the company. - Ssolbergj (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. -Ssolbergj (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Airbus Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Checked - Ahunt (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Airbus Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Airbus Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Airbus SE. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Airbus_SE/Archive_1&oldid=1127400031"