Talk:List of Royal Air Force aircraft squadrons

message: 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:
:[At XIV army HQ in Burma] There were not only the usual liason offices but, uniquely, an American, or rather Texan, B25 squadron in the Group under RAF command. It consisted mainly of Texans who had originally joined the RAF and had been transfered to the USAAF after America came into the war. They had asked to remain under RAF command for the rest of the war.
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)
thread_title: Eagle Squadrons

message: 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)
thread_title: Squadron codes

message: 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)
thread_title: Overlap

message: 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)
replies: text: I believe it is just a vanity or one-upmanship thing the squadrons officially used arabic numerals but some squadrons like to use the roman version normally if it has been used on the squadron badge. MilborneOne (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman numerals? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ATC squadrons 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agree MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, have now deleted the post-RAF NASs and tried to make the commentary clearer, omitting details of non-RAF units. Letdorf (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

text: It is an accurate listing of RAF squadrons which is what this article is. It is not a listing of squadrons under RN control (refer List of Fleet Air Arm aircraft squadrons). MilborneOne (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, yes, I see... that makes more sense... Magus732 (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAA Squadrons 

message: 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)
replies: text: Template:RAF squadrons includes a "currently active squadrons" grouping. Letdorf (talk) 14:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current squadrons 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not sure what (or to whom) your comment is addressed, do you have a problem with this page? MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this is a bit late in reply, but adding Command information is not helpful as many squadrons did not stay under the auspices of single commands throughout their lifetime. not to mention the many iterations of the Command structure. If you want to research a Command goto that article and start from there, usually they will have a list of squadrons attached.Petebutt (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't think so...! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Deletion of "Others" 

message: 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:
 Nos. 1-50
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)
replies: text: As this is a just a list and all the information is in the related article I cant see much point in what could become a five-hundred line table. Some squadrons had different roles and you could end up writing a history of each squadron in the table. Some squadrons also have multiple formation dates all of which would have to be added. Would this be of benefit to the reader. Would you come to this list to find a squadron motto or would you expect it in the article? I would think it would be better to make sure that squadron articles all have consistent infoboxes as a lot dont have all this information. The use of tables is normally discouraged in list articles but I am not against a table for the sake of it just the repeating of information from the articles. Like to see what other editors think. MilborneOne (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I had another think and perhaps this might be a compromise for now, I have just removed the role as it can be subject to change  and interpretation (which on wikipedia can be edit conflicts!) as 1 squadron was a fighter unit most of its life. Perhaps you could do one section and we can review it again. Comment welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing the role section isn't a problem, but I think that we should add the complete name of each squadron No. 1 Squadron RAF and not only its number 1.--MaxEspinho (talk) 08:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK MilborneOne (talk) 11:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  There only seems to be 54 images in :Category:Royal Air Force squadron crests at the moment, so a lot of entries won't have a badge. Compiling lists of active periods for all squadrons is going to be fun... Letdorf (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I started uploading images of squadron badges yesterday, so at the moment there are 63 images in the category.--MaxEspinho (talk) 08:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Squadrons' Table 

message: 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)
replies: text: Mmm, it seems that you are calling into question the utility of any list. A list is just that, and notability should be a minor concern, left for eventual articles which will cover the entries, either directly or by re-directs. To exclude theless notable entries start a new list titled List of Notable aircraft Squadrons of the RAFPetebutt (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Creating an exhaustive list of flying squadrons would certainly be an impressive achievement. However, creating redlinks for units where the notability or even the availability of sources are questionable is possibly best avoided; to quote WP:REDLINK, In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there exists no candidate article, or article section, under any name. I'm not sure all of the more obscure units you have added could sustain a WP  article.  Regards, Letdorf (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: New additions

message: 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;
*1-299 (Regular RAF Squadrons)
*300-352 (Allied Manned Squadrons)
*400-499 (Article XV Squadrons)
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)
replies: text: Just did a test , on the page it looks fine but in the box at the top it looks pretty messy next to the other numbers. tried inverting the numbers into brackets and it didn't clarify it any further, so probably best not to change. I was wondering about changing "numbers" to "squadrons"?Yellowxander (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  heading 

message: 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)
thread_title: Aircraft types

message: 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)
thread_title: Squadron names

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030112151655/http://www.rafweb.org/Sqn712-825.htm to http://www.rafweb.org/Sqn712-825.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080723131046/http://www.rafweb.org/Sqn330-352.htm to http://www.rafweb.org/Sqn330-352.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081231213627/http://www.rafweb.org/Sqn651-670.htm to http://rafweb.org/Sqn651-670.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110111203443/http://www.rafweb.org/Sqn900.htm to http://www.rafweb.org/Sqn900.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified