Talk:RAF Dumfries

Military history: Aviation / British / European

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

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Merger proposal

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 merge Gavbadger (talk) 21:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that RAF Tinwald Downs be merged into RAF Dumfries. I think that the content in the RAF Tinwald Downs article can easily be explained in the context of RAF Dumfries, and the RAF Dumfries article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of RAF Tinwald Downs will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned.

The airfield is called RAF Dumfries in the following links which could be used as references within the RAF Dumfries article

Gavbadger (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Subject to any objections I would concur with the merge ... with a redirect on RAF Tinwald Downs to the merged article. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 18:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Is it or is not the same base? If it is, you can merge it to the most significant/most used name, with a redirect on the other one, without having to alert the main talk page - just be WP:BOLD. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is the same base, sorry i honestly thought i needed consensus to perform the merge and the Mil:Hist talkpage seemed the only relevant place that gets enough traffic to gain some input. Gavbadger (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2012 (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.