Talk:318th Cyberspace Operations Group

Merge from 8th Reconnaissance Group
I suggest merging the 8th into this article and creating a redirect. They are technically the same unit and most of the information is duplicated. Boring39 (talk) 05:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree--Lineagegeek (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Keep separate articles for WWII and present day units. --Kkmurray (talk) 03:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Why?--Lineagegeek (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) change in unit number - 8th to 318th, 2) change in mission from reconnaissance to information warfare, 3) the 8th PRG was a WWII USAAF unit whereas the 318th IOG is a 21st century USAF unit, 4) the 8th PG was inactivated in 1945; the 318th was activated 55 years later in 2000 with negligible activity in the intervening years, 5) the individual units appear to be notable. --Kkmurray (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * See related discussion at Talk:622d Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron--Lineagegeek (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggest Merger
This article should be merged into the 318th Group, in line with all other USAF units which share this type of lineage consolidation. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This article has been tagged for merger for more than a week without objection. In response to previous objections:
 * Number change. Excepting duplicate designations, every USAF bombardment squadron from the 391st to the 436th and every fighter squadron from the 491st to the 529th started out with a different number.  Moreover, the number change was solely to bring the unit into the single series of numbers USAF uses for operational groups and wings.  Not a reason for multiple articles.
 * Mission change. The noted bombardment squadrons all started as observation or reconnaissance squadrons and the noted fighter squadrons all started as bombardment squadrons or reconnaissance squadrons. Not a reason for multiple articles.
 * WW II v. 21st Century. This argument starts with the presumption that the two units are not one, contrary to all references.   Not a reason for multiple articles.
 * Gap of 55 years. This is merely a restatement of the previous argument.   Moreover, nearly every USAF unit has one or more gaps of varying lengths in its service. Not a reason for multiple articles.
 * Individual units notable. Again, misstates the presumption that these are two different units.  Unlike many similar mergers, this does not involve a consolidation and a single unit is involved.   Not a reason for multiple articles.
 * The 8th Reconnaissance Group article has not had a substantive edit in six years. It has been tagged for a lack of citations for seven years with no attempt made to add citations.  Presumably, this would be long enough to permit removal of unreferenced material.  In addition, it appears to have had its length "padded" by the inclusion of material on its assigned squadrons when they were not assigned to the group, which is not relevant to the article.

Therefore, a merger is in order. --Lineagegeek (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)