Talk:2nd Battalion, 121st Infantry Regiment

Merge to 48th Infantry Brigade Combat Team (United States)

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. MartinZ02 (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Individual battalions do not normally have a separate article on Wikipedia unless they are independent units. Suggest merging this article with the 48th Brigade article. Note that in a merge, no content from this article would be lost; rather, it would be moved into the 48th Brigade's article. W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per W. B. Wilson. Some material might be also moved to 121st Infantry Regiment (United States). Buckshot06 (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1-108th Cav (RSTA) has its own page. Current Army doctrine allows for deployments of individual battalions, especially of National Guard formations. Because of this, unit histories will vary significantly, especially going forward. 96.38.226.166 (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And note of such deployments could be made in articles about the parent brigade or regiment. Note that a merge is an organization of article space, not deletion of content. As for 1-108, that article should be merged with the 48th Brigade article as well. W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MergePer W.B. Wilson and Buckshot. Intothat darkness 21:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep separate (with links to current larger unit). This is an old unit with a proud history that deserves to be seen as such, not lost in the paper shuffle. I was XO of HQ Co in 1970-71 in Americus, and continue to be proud of my affiliation with 2/121.--Leroydel (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are confusing the organization of an encyclopedia with a "paper shuffle". No content will be lost or hidden. There is nothing unique about the 2-121 that calls for a separate article. In any case, this is a question of Wikipedia's organization of article space, not whether a given topic is particularly notable. W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.