Talk:Construcciones Aeronáuticas SA

Untitled

There's no mention here of the CASA/Nurtano venture. Nurtano, the Indonesian aircraft company, was unable to sustain its certification effort because of irregularities in Nurtano's documentation. So their effort at producing CASA airframes fell on its face when FAA certification was refused when the FAA was unable to sort out the certification audit trail. Santamoly (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Article title?

Construcciones Aeronáuticas S.A. or Construcciones Aeronáuticas SA (long term stable)?

I can see the Spanish argument for this being "S.A." as the original source of the acronym. However: 1. Is this still the common form used in Spain? 2. What does the WP styleguide and MOS:TITLE say? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

1. I can see no contemporary Spanish use with the periods. Nor do commercial directory sources like Bloomberg [1] still use them. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 6 September 2017

The following is a closed 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  — Amakuru (talk) 09:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

---

Construcciones Aeronáuticas SA → Construcciones Aeronáuticas S.A. – S.A. is the short form for Sociedad Anónima, which is esentially Spanish for public limited company, as can be seen in the referred English Wikipedia page. SA hurts in the eye, it is never written that way in Spain where CASA was born. IMHO this move should not be controversial. Jasón (talk) 11:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• This is far from an uncontested move. See talk: Andy Dingley (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• @Jasón and Andy Dingley: Queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• I am the editor advocating for the S.A. spelling. For disclosure, I am Spanish, I work in the Aerospace industry, and among other things, my daily work entails drafting and negotiating contracts for my company. However as I have no way to prove this to be true and establish authority here, I'll make the case for "S.A." thoroughly:

1. You can check the meaning of "S.A." in the English Wikipedia itself at S.A. (corporation). This article correctly explains that "S.A." is the acronym of "Sociedad Anónima" in Spanish (The country of origin of Construcciones Aeronáuticas S.A. is Spain). You see that its title contains "S.A." and not "SA". Moreover, SA (corporation) redirects to S.A. (corporation)!!!
2. The country of origin of CASA is Spain, and you can check in the Spanish Wikipedia that the title of its article is Construcciones Aeronáuticas S.A., and that the acronym for Sociedad Anónima is "S.A." (see also [2] for Real Academia Española support).
3. You can check the correct spelling of the name of Spanish companies within the Spanish and English Wikipedia. Check e.g. Técnicas Reunidas or Telefónica or Banco Santander, and you'll see within the first line of these articles that their legal name is spelled "S.A." and not "SA".
4. If this were not enough, you can check websites of as many Spanish sociedad anónima companies as you wish. Either at their bottom or in their 'legal' sections you will invariably find the spelling "S.A.". (e.g. "© Telefónica S.A." at [3] or "©Banco Santander, S.A." at [4]). So Spanish usage of S.A. cannot be put into question objectively.
5. Following MOS:TEXT#Foreign_terms the original Spanish version should be used unless there is a well established anglicised version, which is obviously not the case. My UK (and international) colleagues always used the short form "CASA" in speech, no need to refer to the long form.
6. The fact that a stock-quoting web lists the company with "SA" is anecdotal. It is likely the result of them not being aware of the right usage. Why should they? Spelling is not their business, and their listing includes companies from all over the world.
7. I would argue that the proper name for the article should be simply Construcciones Aeronáuticas. For instance, the article for BAE Systems, altough its legal name is "BAE Systems plc", right?. Check also the aforementioned Técnicas Reunidas or Telefónica or Banco Santander. Nevertheless, there is a good reason to append "S.A." to the name of the article here: this company was widely known both in international and national contexts as CASA. Thus, adding the "S.A." to "Construcciones Aeronáuticas" helps readers in identifying the company as "CASA". But if we do add "S.A." to the article, and therefore we are referring to the legal name of CASA, let's at least use the right legal name with the right spelling!

I hope all this evidence for "S.A." clarifies why I think this topic shouldn't be controversial. I understand that other editors with less background on the subject needed evidence, it is good to be critic at first sight. However I believe I have provided overwhelming support for the use of "S.A." Jasón (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I can see the Spanish argument for this being "S.A." as the original source of the acronym. However: 1. Is this still the common form used in Spain? 2. What does the WP styleguide and MOS:TITLE say?

1. I can see no relevant contemporary Spanish use with the periods. Nor do commercial directory sources like Bloomberg [5] still use them. The periods are still recognised as part of a definition, but they're archaic. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Construcciones Aeronáuticas - I would strongly oppose this, given that the company has always been best known as CASA. "CA" alone would lose this connection.

Then there is the overriding aspect of MOS:TITLE. WP hates nno-standard orthography, in aspects like company or product brandnames. I'm not saying this is right, but it's how WP works and it's beyond my control. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that "Construcciones Aeronáuticas" could be a nice title for the article. It would be much more coherent with how companies' articles are usually named in the English Wikipedia. For example, we have here BAE Systems and not "BAE Systems plc", Técnicas Reunidas and not "Técnicas Reunidas S.A.", Telefónica and not "Telefónica S.A."; Banco Santander and not "Banco Santander S.A.". If, as an exception, we are going to include the legal type of company in the article's title, we should use it right. I prefer "Construcciones Aeronáuticas S.A." over "Construcciones Aeronáuticas SA". Nevertheless, for me the best solution for consistency with the rest of Wikipedia and ease of identification would be to have as title "Construcciones Aeronáuticas (CASA)". This would be my best choice.

Regarding your contemporary concern, you are not going to find any contemporary use of either "Construcciones Aeronáuticas SA" or "Construcciones Aeronáuticas S.A." as the company was renamed to EADS-CASA when it merged with DASA and Aérospatiale-Matra to create EADS in 1999. I wouldn't trust a commercial directory that lists Construcciones Aeronáuticas as if it were an active company. Jasón (talk) 08:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Any way to resolve this move? I definitely support “Construcciones Aeronáuticas (CASA)” as the best title for this article and believe it overcomes the concerns of my fellow editor Andy about “Construcciones Aeronáuticas”. Jasón (talk) 10:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. I note a previous move 22:46, 12 June 2008‎ BilCat (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (23 bytes) (+23)‎ . . (moved Construcciones Aeronáuticas to EADS CASA: It's never called "Construcciones Aeronáuticas", and this is it's current name; CASA not available, as it is a DAB page). The discussion above and this move rationale all seem to centre on what it's called in Spanish, although that's never explicitly stated. As Andy Dingley says, that's not the way English Wikipedia works. As this article deals with a particular period in the company's history (before EADS CASA existed), the question is, what is it called in English when referring to this period? The candidates appear to be Construcciones Aeronáuticas and CASA. The rationale for moving it away from Construcciones Aeronáuticas was weak, but perhaps needs exploration. The rationale for rejecting CASA is completely invalid; If that's currently the common name in English for the company in this period of its history, as seems to be the case, then we simply disambiguate to CASA (aeronautics) or similar. The disambiguator does not need to be in common use for this particular company but there may be better ones. Andrewa (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd be fine with CASA (company), which is the correct disambiguator for a company. - BilCat (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Good point. Relisting (although involved) to allow discussion of that alternate suggestion. Andrewa (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• WP:NCCORP is the applicable naming convention. Generally we title the article with the "common" name and then begin the lead sentence with the full legal name. FWIW, Britannica uses "S.A." Most Spanish companies, including the others given as examples above, include a comma before the "S.A." That this company omits the comma implies that the "S.A." is part of the common name, not just the legal name. The logo and acronym "CASA" further support the idea that "S.A." or "SA" is not strictly limited to the legal name, as it is with most other companies. Is the comma used in the legal name? If so, a comma should be inserted into the name in the lead sentence. Now, given that "S.A." or "SA" is a component of the common name, then S.A. (corporation) may not apply, though the "(and variants)" qualifier in the lead sentence seemingly allows for either form "S.A." or "SA". Generally to determine the common name we look for the name most commonly used in reliable sources. Checking the Google Ngram, it indicates that "SA" is slightly favored over "S.A." – wbm1058 (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2017 (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.

Merge with EADS CASA

I suggest merge EADS CASA with main article of Construcciones Aeronáuticas SA (CASA). Both articles are about the same - CASA, initially as a independent company, later as part of EADS, and now as part of Airbus. Article of EADS CASA is a separate article covering a short period (1999-2009, 10-years) of under the government of EADS. This is unnecessary article, introducing unnecessary confusion. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Merged. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Does CASA website still exist?

Hello, everyone! I noticed that the link on the info pane (or what is it called?) to the CASA/EADS website currently doesn't work. Considering EADS doesn't exist anymore, I assume the web site doesn't either. If no one knows for sure, I can ask from Airbus. If it doesn't exist, do you think the link should be replaced with one to the Airbus main website, or perhaps this one?:
https://www.airbus.com/company/worldwide-presence/spain.html

The Airbus main website seems perhaps more appropriate to me, but I'm not sure, as I don't know Wikipedia conventions well.

By the way, the current link in the Wikipedia article seems to originate from this page:
CASA (Q1128353) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arito (talk • contribs) 04:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, CASA still exists and EADS still exists in 2024. Both companies have been renamed but remain legally the same organizations. CASA is now called Airbus Defence and Space S.A.U. and EADS is called Airbus SE. The first is still a 100% subsidiary of the second. Felipealvarez (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)