Talk:Sky Sword I

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Taiwan Low‑importance

	Taiwan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Asian / Chinese

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 met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Chinese military history task force

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

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]

Actually, you supported merging in the discussion above. That's why I pinged you. - BilCat (talk) 23:49, 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]

Comment - Adamgerber80 is no longer active on Wikipedia, so I don't expect a response from him. I've notified WT:AIR of the discussion, so I'm waiting a few days to see if we get any objections. BilCat (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, these are pretty distinct weapons. Nick-D (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - yes please split them back! - Ahunt (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - We all make mistakes. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Two years of being two independent topics with duplicate structures is two years too long. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:43, 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.