Talk:Naval Air Station Banana River

Military history: Aviation / Maritime / North America / United States / World War II

This redirect 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

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Maritime warfare task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War II task force

Aviation: Airports

	Aviation portal This redirect 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
	This redirect is supported by the airport project.

Why is article still here?

If the material is in two places, why not just redirect, rather than force future editors to maintain material in two places?

Another way is to summarize this material in PAFB. Student7 (talk) 12:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think there's enough on NAS Banana River alone to warrant a separate article. I think what's here only scratches the surface. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to have two articles; but the "main" one being PAFB, "summarizing" this one. I don't think all the time-related material should be in the Patrick article (as a duplicate). Student7 (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just summarized it in Patrick. Apparently the original problem is that there was too much in PAFB and not enough here. Just completed the series of edits, I guess. Student7 (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The PAFB article is, in total, 31kB, while this is 5.1. WP:SIZERULE says splits can occur maybe over 60ish; to continue having this small stub is ridiculous, though if much more material is found, it can of course be split again. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just merged the article again, as it is ridiculous to have two separate articles. Additionally, while merging the material, I noticed that the material from my last merge wasn't reverted, so in effect, the Patrick article is more comprehensive than this page was at the time of merger. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And honestly, if the article "scratches the surface", then add the material to the Patrick page, prove that there is a ton of material that warrants an article split, and do that. Honestly, the amount of text here in total was less than the summary on the Patrick article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]