Talk:Canard Rotor/Wing

Stub Sorting

I saw this was just sorted as an aircraft component. Isn't it technically a type of aircraft no a piece of an aircraft. A Rotor/Wing would be a component and a canard would be a component but a canard rotor/wing is a type of aircraft. Am I the only one that sees it this way? Am I missing something in the big picture that would explain this classification? Stardust8212 21:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Rotor wing?

Is this article worth keeping? It is basically a stub about the Boeing X-50 Dragonfly, and the minimal information about the basic configuration is already in the Rotor wing article. I personally think it can be deleted, but should it more correctly be merged with say the rotor wing article and talk page? If there is significant disagreement or other complications, I will post a more formal discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I can't see any reason to keep it separately from Rotor wing, this is a closely related subject with little scope for a longer article and Rotor wing is not too long to accept a bit more material from a merge. - Ahunt (talk) 11:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I completely agree. It would seem this very much belongs in the rotor wing article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]