Jump to content

Talk:5th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 18: Line 18:
This article contains quite a bit of material which isn't directly relevant to this battalion and is adequatly covered in other articles. For instance, the 'Origins' section is about the formation of the RAR 20 years before 5 RAR was formed, and the first two paras of the 'Iraq' section are about 5/7 RAR, not this battalion. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 10:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
This article contains quite a bit of material which isn't directly relevant to this battalion and is adequatly covered in other articles. For instance, the 'Origins' section is about the formation of the RAR 20 years before 5 RAR was formed, and the first two paras of the 'Iraq' section are about 5/7 RAR, not this battalion. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 10:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
: I agree, this material could be removed with out detracting from the article. [[User:Anotherclown|Anotherclown]] ([[User talk:Anotherclown|talk]]) 10:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
: I agree, this material could be removed with out detracting from the article. [[User:Anotherclown|Anotherclown]] ([[User talk:Anotherclown|talk]]) 10:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
::Yes, I agree, Nick. This article is on my list, but I'm not sure if I'll have time in the next two months to do any work on it. [[User:AustralianRupert|AustralianRupert]] ([[User talk:AustralianRupert|talk]]) 06:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:47, 6 October 2010

Over-long

This article contains quite a bit of material which isn't directly relevant to this battalion and is adequatly covered in other articles. For instance, the 'Origins' section is about the formation of the RAR 20 years before 5 RAR was formed, and the first two paras of the 'Iraq' section are about 5/7 RAR, not this battalion. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this material could be removed with out detracting from the article. Anotherclown (talk) 10:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree, Nick. This article is on my list, but I'm not sure if I'll have time in the next two months to do any work on it. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]