Talk:Grob G 120
Add topicLatest comment: 13 years ago by Kyteto in topic Merger proposal
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Grob G 120 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Naming
[edit]I think you'll find that Grob do not use a dash or hyphen. the article should revert to Grob G 120 or Grob G120Petebutt (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Merger proposal
[edit]I propose that these be merged and that the resulting article be re-named Grob G 120 or Grob G120 as the current title is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petebutt (talk • contribs)
- I agree they should be merged, they are just engine variants. Also you are right on the article name, the company calls it the G 120A and G120TP, so the article should be moved to Grob G 120. - Ahunt (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support - they should probably be merged, they are the same aircraft with an update. There's no substancial changes or detail to warrent a seperate article. Kyteto (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)