Talk:Regional Force Surveillance Group

Military history: South Pacific Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force

Australia: Military history Low‑importance

	Australia portal Regional Force Surveillance Group is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

This article was created or improved during WikiProject Oceania's "10,000 Challenge", which started in November 2016 and is still continuing. You can help!

Proposed Merger

I propose the contents of the Regional Force Surveillance Units page should be merged into the page Regional Force Surveillance Group. The content is clearly the same. I can't see a use for two separate articles. --TinTin (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the articles should be merged. The Regional Force Surveillance Group is a specific military unit which was recently established. The Regional Force Surveillance Units article covers the units in general, especially their unique composition and histories. Nick-D (talk) 07:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand they are slightly different concepts, one is a TYPE of unit and one is a GROUPING / FORMATION of units, however currently ALL RFSUs are contained within the RFSG and the RFSG contains ONLY RFSUs (the RFSG contains no other unit type except the Indigenous Development Wing which is not of unit status). Therefore the overlap is huge and there is very little which is unique between each article. The lack of depth in the new RFSG article I think highlights the fact there is only really enough information for one article.

Just to be clear I recommend keeping all content from both articles. I recommend moving the existing RFSU content into the RFSG article, including noting that RFSUs pre-date the creation of the Grouping / Formation and converting the RFSU article to a re-direct. --TinTin (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the RFSG isn't even two months old, it isn't surprising there isn't much to say about it. It's not good practice to have articles on notable military units redirect to generic articles. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and there's no problem with having specialised articles. Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about we leave this open until next week (ie. 5th December) and then if no one else feels strongly about this we will keep things as they are and remove the proposed merge tags? --TinTin (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds sensible Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As there has been no other feedback, and Nick-D feels they should be retained, I will remove my proposed merger. --TinTin (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. --TinTin (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]