Talk:History of Australian naval aviation

Proposed merges and redistributions

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 Aircraft carriers of the Royal Australian Navy. That merge has already been performed, back in July 2011. The proposal on what to do with Fleet Air Arm (RAN) is less specific, but there seems to be a consensus to merge the history section of that article into this article. However, such an edit can be done boldly without a merger proposal. NukeofEarl (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

---

At the moment, we have three articles on RAN aviation with fairly overlapping scopes: History of Australian naval aviation, Aircraft carriers of the Royal Australian Navy, and Fleet Air Arm (RAN) (specificly the History section). I think some merging and redistributing of information is needed to better establish the individual articles. I'm not sure exactly how to do it, but my thinking at the moment runs along the lines of:

• The Aircraft Carriers article, at the moment, has a lot of content that isn't about aircraft carriers (which is a side effect of the RAN only ever operating three and a half of them). I think it would be best for this article to be merged into the History article, as discussions of the RAN's aircraft-operating ships would be better taken as a whole, instead of focusing on one ship type. Failing that, most of the non-carrier information could be merged over, with the Aircraft Carriers article focusing on Albatross, Sydney, Vengeance, and Melbourne (with additional context re: how we got carriers and why we don't have any anymore).
• The Fleet Air Arm article should focus more on the FAA as an administrative body. This would focus on the history of the body itself and its subordinate squadrons, and the current/future state of the FAA. At the moment, there is a lot of duplication between the FAA History section and the latter half of the History article, which needs to be addressed.
• The History article would focus more on the ships and aircraft (particularly historical), along with the people and events related to Aussie naval aviation.

Any thoughts? -- saberwyn 01:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That all seems sensible to me Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with merging the carrier article into the history article. Obviously we would need to leave a redirect page to catch unwary editors and readers. The suggested break up of the info then between the FAA article and the history article seems reasonable to me. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I've folded Aircraft Carriers into History (there wasn't much that was both sourced and unduplicated). Dealing with FAA will be a little more complicated (basically, the squadron-focused content will have to be generated to replace what's there now). History could do with a "21st Century/Future" section, that deals with (among other things) the Canberras. -- saberwyn 09:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

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.