This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of Royal Air Force aircraft squadrons article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Why is there not a section for US manned for the Eagle squadron?
Also in in his autobiograohy "Make for the Hills" Sir Robert Thompson (counter-insurgency expert) wrote:
I think that this must have been been 490 Bomb Squadron USAAF (the Bridge Busters). Should there be a section for this? Philip Baird Shearer 16:17, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Contrary to what David Newton wrote in the edit summary, the Polish squadrons were integral part of the Polish Air Forces (except for the Skalski's Circus and the Special Squadrons not listed here). They were formed by the Brits with British equipment and fought under British command, but nevertheless were part of the RAF only logistically. They were given RAF numbers for reasons of consistency but were part of Polish Air Forces, not RAF. That's why I believe they should be named the way they were named in history, not how they are referred to by some books. [[User:Halibutt| Halibu tt]] 19:49, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
It would be good if there were an article on squadron letter codes (e.g. 1 Squadron: NA (Nov 1938 - Sep 1939) JX (Sep 1939 - Apr 1951)) - the whys and whens and hows. And a list of them. Jagdfeld ( talk) 12:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a very ugly overlap of the RAF box and the list of 1-50 when the contents box is not extended (many people have their preferences set to keep contents boxes unextended). If someone wants to find another way to place the RAF without the ugly overlap please do. Jagdfeld ( talk) 14:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit puzzled about what the criteria is for using the Roman form of the squadron number on this page (and the squadron articles). Squadron crests vary as to whether the number is shown in Arabic or Roman, but AFAIK, throughout the history of the RAF, the usual convention has been to write all squadron numbers in Arabic numerals, with one or two quasi-official exceptions (eg. No. XV Squadron RAF), and the current RAF website seems to follow this. Letdorf ( talk) 14:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC).
In the absence of any evidence of hard and fast rules regarding the presentation of squadron numbers in either Roman or Arabic, I propose that all squadron numbers used on this page should be listed in Arabic numerals, for consistency and in accordance with popular convention. This would also apply to all squadron-specific articles. Letdorf ( talk) 10:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC).
I'd like to make the point that Air Training Corps squadrons, like RAF Regiment squadrons, are numbered independently of RAF squadrons and have no formal connection to similarly-numbered RAF squadrons. Therefore, I don't think it's relevant to mention ATC squadrons in this article. However, there is a separate List of Air Training Corps squadrons article. Letdorf ( talk) 18:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC).
Surely the only FAA Squadrons that are appropriate to list here are ones formed before the transfer to the Navy in 1939 (ie. Nos. 712, 715, 718, 800-803, 810-814 and 820-825) - the others never actually having been RAF squadrons. This would also get rid of a lot of redlinks. Letdorf ( talk) 18:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
No, you should list ALL of them, or it's not an accurate listing, is it? Magus732 ( talk) 20:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I think there should be a section or page specifically for currently operational RAF squadrons, like other countries pages have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by George4405 ( talk • contribs) 15:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
You're joking, right? If I want to know which of these is Coastal Command, I should look at over 200 pages to find the handful I want? Surely there's a source with a narrower list...? (I just hope it's easier to find than anything on this list.) TREKphiler hit me ♠ 16:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Were these units not also flying squadrons? No.1 PRU was certainly a flying unit (later renumbered as 39 Sqn), I couldn't say for sure if the other ones listed were, but they certainly sound like flying units. Letdorf ( talk) 22:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC).
Instead of having a simple list containing only the squadrons' names, I think we should add basic info about the squadrons in a table. I was thinking of something like this:
Name | Role | Active years | Badge | Motto |
---|---|---|---|---|
No. 1 Squadron RAF | Close Air Support, Reconnaissance | 1927 - present | 50px | Latin: In omnibus princeps ("First in all things") |
If the badge column slows page loading, then we could remove it.-- MaxEspinho ( talk) 16:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Squadron | Active years | Badge | Motto |
---|---|---|---|
1 | 1918-1926 1927-1958 1958- |
50px | Latin: In omnibus princeps ("First in all things") |
While I appreciate users are trying to improve the article I suspect the addition of loads of non-notable minor squadrons is not really needed. This is a list of aircraft squadrons not every squadron that ever operated an aircraft. Certainly the communications squadrons are not really notable for inclusion and I suspect some of the others are not notable. Can I suggest that some of these new additions need to be looked at for notability and encyclopedic value. MilborneOne ( talk) 19:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
hey great list, i just tweaked the headers a little to give the page a more uniform look, and i thought maybe the headers would look better starting with the numbers first. eg;
I think it would help the numbers to stand out whilst still being able to include the relevant text. Yellowxander ( talk) 19:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Do we really need to list types flown by active squadrons, this is a complete list if all Squadrons not just the current ones so is probably undue weight. MilborneOne ( talk) 18:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Users seem to be adding squadron names to the article but in most cases these name only relate to part of the history of the squadron, do they need to be mentioned differently ? MilborneOne ( talk) 18:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Royal Air Force aircraft squadrons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of Royal Air Force aircraft squadrons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of Royal Air Force aircraft squadrons article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Why is there not a section for US manned for the Eagle squadron?
Also in in his autobiograohy "Make for the Hills" Sir Robert Thompson (counter-insurgency expert) wrote:
I think that this must have been been 490 Bomb Squadron USAAF (the Bridge Busters). Should there be a section for this? Philip Baird Shearer 16:17, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Contrary to what David Newton wrote in the edit summary, the Polish squadrons were integral part of the Polish Air Forces (except for the Skalski's Circus and the Special Squadrons not listed here). They were formed by the Brits with British equipment and fought under British command, but nevertheless were part of the RAF only logistically. They were given RAF numbers for reasons of consistency but were part of Polish Air Forces, not RAF. That's why I believe they should be named the way they were named in history, not how they are referred to by some books. [[User:Halibutt| Halibu tt]] 19:49, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
It would be good if there were an article on squadron letter codes (e.g. 1 Squadron: NA (Nov 1938 - Sep 1939) JX (Sep 1939 - Apr 1951)) - the whys and whens and hows. And a list of them. Jagdfeld ( talk) 12:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a very ugly overlap of the RAF box and the list of 1-50 when the contents box is not extended (many people have their preferences set to keep contents boxes unextended). If someone wants to find another way to place the RAF without the ugly overlap please do. Jagdfeld ( talk) 14:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit puzzled about what the criteria is for using the Roman form of the squadron number on this page (and the squadron articles). Squadron crests vary as to whether the number is shown in Arabic or Roman, but AFAIK, throughout the history of the RAF, the usual convention has been to write all squadron numbers in Arabic numerals, with one or two quasi-official exceptions (eg. No. XV Squadron RAF), and the current RAF website seems to follow this. Letdorf ( talk) 14:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC).
In the absence of any evidence of hard and fast rules regarding the presentation of squadron numbers in either Roman or Arabic, I propose that all squadron numbers used on this page should be listed in Arabic numerals, for consistency and in accordance with popular convention. This would also apply to all squadron-specific articles. Letdorf ( talk) 10:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC).
I'd like to make the point that Air Training Corps squadrons, like RAF Regiment squadrons, are numbered independently of RAF squadrons and have no formal connection to similarly-numbered RAF squadrons. Therefore, I don't think it's relevant to mention ATC squadrons in this article. However, there is a separate List of Air Training Corps squadrons article. Letdorf ( talk) 18:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC).
Surely the only FAA Squadrons that are appropriate to list here are ones formed before the transfer to the Navy in 1939 (ie. Nos. 712, 715, 718, 800-803, 810-814 and 820-825) - the others never actually having been RAF squadrons. This would also get rid of a lot of redlinks. Letdorf ( talk) 18:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
No, you should list ALL of them, or it's not an accurate listing, is it? Magus732 ( talk) 20:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I think there should be a section or page specifically for currently operational RAF squadrons, like other countries pages have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by George4405 ( talk • contribs) 15:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
You're joking, right? If I want to know which of these is Coastal Command, I should look at over 200 pages to find the handful I want? Surely there's a source with a narrower list...? (I just hope it's easier to find than anything on this list.) TREKphiler hit me ♠ 16:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Were these units not also flying squadrons? No.1 PRU was certainly a flying unit (later renumbered as 39 Sqn), I couldn't say for sure if the other ones listed were, but they certainly sound like flying units. Letdorf ( talk) 22:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC).
Instead of having a simple list containing only the squadrons' names, I think we should add basic info about the squadrons in a table. I was thinking of something like this:
Name | Role | Active years | Badge | Motto |
---|---|---|---|---|
No. 1 Squadron RAF | Close Air Support, Reconnaissance | 1927 - present | 50px | Latin: In omnibus princeps ("First in all things") |
If the badge column slows page loading, then we could remove it.-- MaxEspinho ( talk) 16:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Squadron | Active years | Badge | Motto |
---|---|---|---|
1 | 1918-1926 1927-1958 1958- |
50px | Latin: In omnibus princeps ("First in all things") |
While I appreciate users are trying to improve the article I suspect the addition of loads of non-notable minor squadrons is not really needed. This is a list of aircraft squadrons not every squadron that ever operated an aircraft. Certainly the communications squadrons are not really notable for inclusion and I suspect some of the others are not notable. Can I suggest that some of these new additions need to be looked at for notability and encyclopedic value. MilborneOne ( talk) 19:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
hey great list, i just tweaked the headers a little to give the page a more uniform look, and i thought maybe the headers would look better starting with the numbers first. eg;
I think it would help the numbers to stand out whilst still being able to include the relevant text. Yellowxander ( talk) 19:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Do we really need to list types flown by active squadrons, this is a complete list if all Squadrons not just the current ones so is probably undue weight. MilborneOne ( talk) 18:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Users seem to be adding squadron names to the article but in most cases these name only relate to part of the history of the squadron, do they need to be mentioned differently ? MilborneOne ( talk) 18:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Royal Air Force aircraft squadrons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of Royal Air Force aircraft squadrons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)