Talk:ANZAC Squadron/Archives/2013/July

Merge discussion

I am proposing that the ANZAC Squadron and Task Force 44 be merged. Both articles deal with a single entity made up of a fairly consistent group of ships that operated under the first name, then the second, (then Task Force 74, but that article deals with a 1971 US-only force). -- saberwyn 03:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - Task Force 44 was also assigned to the US Navy group of the Northern Honshu & Hokkaido Surrender Force. I propose that the information regarding the ANZAC Squadron be merged with main article link at Task Force 44 and then addition of Northern Honshu & Hokkaido Surrender Force to Task Force 44. Newm30 (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. It seems to me that it's easier for the reader to follow the narrative of this organization by following the storyline of each article under the separate names. That's the reason why I created separate articles in the first place. For example, all Imperial Japanese Navy air squadrons in WWII were originally named after the location of their original place of origin, e.g. Tainan Air Group, but all were redesignated with numerical identifiers on 1 November 1942, e.g. the Tainan became the 251 Air Group. I think it's easier to have separate articles for each. Cla68 (talk) 10:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Though ships and persons overlapped these were two distinct forces with distinct missions involving the evolution of the command structure from ABDA/ANZAC in the emergency of the first weeks into the final SWPA and POA with the SOPAC special case and the SEA command out to the west. It also correlates to a shift from the SOPA/SWPA "cooperative" in the Solomons to SWPA's New Guinea push. I think handling those distinct phases separately with linkage is the better course than merging and trying to account for those other factors in one piece. As just one example of reader confusion consider ANZAC Squadron's involvement with TF 11 only to find it is TF 14 in a unified article. I note too that Gill is cited in both articles but specific references and a good bit of information from that source is omitted. A further cautionary note is that TF 44 is itself a problem, as is any such use, unless defined in time and place. Task forces are formed and numbered in widely different times and places. What happens when someone decides to cover Task Force 44 as in "By 2 November, all PHIBLANT units assigned to the Cuban operation were loaded and had been formed into the Task Force 44 organization"? Yeah, 2 November 1962 here.Palmeira (talk) 02:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)