Talk:Operation Galahad

Help Request[edit]

simple ignorance on my part, i don't know how to put that first quote in proper large newsfont quotations headlining thingy. All my information i'm copy pasting (with a little editing) from Battlepack: fourth succession war 1705--Muddball 00:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Alight, if someone wants to pretty it up, feel free. --Muddball 01:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed merge of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made outside this box. No further edits should be made to this box.

Merge[edit]

I propose that this article be merged into Fourth Succession War. It was but one phase of that conflict and should be wholly contained within it. --Scaletail 03:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

End result: would all the links to operation Galahad and Thor direct to the proper page? If that's what it amounts to then go ahead and do it. I'm just trying to fill in blank links.--Muddball 22:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes. If that is what we decide, this page will be turned into a redirect that will take readers to the Fourth Succession War article, and perhaps even the specific section that relates to the events in this article. --Scaletail 23:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I support merge, also. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made outside this box. No further edits should be made to this box.

Revaluation of Merge[edit]

I respectfully disagree with merging. While Galahad was certainly relevant to the 4th Succession War, it was its own separate event. ClanWolverine101 03:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose merge, 4th Succession War article is too big already, and needs to be split up. --Neufeld 15:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm willing to retract my merge support for two reasons: one, the merge was decided upon but has not happened, which tells me the drive to do it does not exist, and two, the article appears to be well above a sub-stub (or even stub) status. It does need standard references and a cleaning. If there is no opposition to retracting the merge within 7 days, any follow-on editors are free to remove the merge tag.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)