Talk:Option (aircraft purchasing)

Merge proposal

This concept is certainly noteworthy, however I'm not sure I see enough distinction between aircraft purchase options and options for other types of assets (such as movies, etc.) to justify a separate article. Perhaps the title for an umbrella article is Option (asset) that would include all non-financial options? Ronnotel (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The merge tag should be removed. The tag was placed on this article only 15 minutes after the stub was created. This article will expand into much more than a brief definition, and a separate article is necessary to allow for that expansion. It would look silly to have a merged article with a paragraph defining property law, followed by large amounts of specific aviation industry coverage. The tag merge must go. Lester 23:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to forego the merge proposal for now. But please understand that an option can be written on essentially any asset and the number of articles with repetitious content will become unwieldy. I believe there should be some over-arching structure so that the common elements of asset options are described once in a main article and asset-specific details are described in parallel sub-articles with consistent format. Go ahead with the article, and let's review what makes sense to concentrate (if anything) when you're done. Ronnotel (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• A renaming to the asset name might be in order first before merging to the law article which does not seem to fit point of view-wise. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)