Jump to content

Talk:Sky Sword I

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Proposed merge with Sky Sword I

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to combine the two articles. Adamgerber80 (talk) 08:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough on both these systems to justify individual pages. Adamgerber80 (talk) 04:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree... It would also align the format with the Sky Bow page merlinVtwelve (talk) 05:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Split proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Unanimous split. - BilCat (talk) 02:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that this article be split back into two separate pages called Sky Sword I and Sky Sword II. These are two completely different types of missiles, one being based on the Sidewinder, and the other on the Sparrow. I'm sorry I missed the original discussion, and would certainly been against it at the time had I known about it. The merge should never have happened. BilCat (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamgerber80, MerlinVtwelve, and Horse Eye Jack: - BilCat (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the merge should never have happened, it makes no sense. They’re completely different missile families with basically no commonalities. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, shouldn't have been merged. I was on a long WikiBreak and missed this one altogether. merlinVtwelve (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK...apologies...so I did. Don't know what I was thinking. I will disagree with myself and support this proposal to split. merlinVtwelve (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Merging small articles is a good idea if the items are somewhat related, and these names do imply a close relationship. - BilCat (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.