Talk:Royal Air Force

message: I suggest that the Royal Air Force station page is merged with the 'Station' section within the Royal Air Force page. The RAF station article is essentially unsourced and what information it does contain is largely unencyclopaedic or would be better placed in and help improve the 'station' section of the main RAF page. Other parts of the page may be better suited to the List of Royal Air Force stations or List of former Royal Air Force stations pages. The main RAF page can then link directly to the two lists of RAF station pages rather than through this page. Thx811 (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Support I have merged in a modest amount of information which is encyclopaedic and can be used. Dormskirk (talk) 11:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Merge from Royal Air Force Station page 

message: The entry does not give the reasons for the formation  of the RAF i.e. the Smuts Committee recommendation for the defence of London to be brought under one centre. Brotian's Radar and the Defeat of the Luftwaffe; D Zimmerman Amberley 2001 ISBN978-1-44561-1    IPR MD.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.171.254 (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikepedia entry for RAF . 

message: ;or United Kingdom Royal Air Force
To keep form with other so-called Royal Air Force (disambiguation) entities, which are several, and because there's no reason to regard one particular monarchist militia as the one and others as the lesser. If brevity is desired then United Kingdom Air Force is simple. The term "royal" is symbolic but not specific. -Inowen (nlfte) 23:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Royal Air Force of the United Kingdom 

message: The RAF was formed on April 1st, 1918. The Finnish Air Force was founded on March 6th, 1918.The history of the Finnish Air Force The FAF is almost one month older than the RAF, hence the oldest independent air force in the World. -Subjektivisti (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read the previous discussions at Talk:Royal Air Force/Archive 1#First independent air force? and Talk:Royal Air Force/Archive 2#'Oldest independent air force in the world'? --David Biddulph (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

text: No, I hadn't. Thank you for linking those discussions. It seems that we have to agree to disagree. I can't see the reason why being chronologically first an air force must have certain amount of aircraft or the commander's rank should be somewhat high enough or if the commander worked in cooperation with the army and/or with the navy. The independency is, however, the key matter here. Both the RAF and the FAF were independent branches of defence from the start. And this is why the British and the Finnish outdid the French and the rest of the World (Yay!). -Subjektivisti (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The oldest independent air force in the world 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Roya Air Force station. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 5#Roya Air Force station until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Regards, SONIC678 23:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Roya Air Force station" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The new article RAF Space Command needs to be linked in from existing articles, including this one of course. 2.25.230.56 (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources say its UK Space Command and not part of the RAF though. Garuda28 (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Now corrected. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think another editor just deleted the entire article, notwithstanding interest in the matter, without any discussion on notability, request for speedy deletion or PROD. For what it is worth, I think the command is notable and is likely to become very notable: views welcome. Dormskirk (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The reversion to a redirect edit summary, "not a major command" is quite unjustified. A two-star's command, joint, dealing with this kind of sensitive issue, is unquestionably notable. But, most important, we're running afoul of WP:CRYSTAL: the only thing officially announced is the officer to be posted in as Commander, and brief details. It has not been established yet, nor an establishment date. Second, the entry should be at United Kingdom Space Command, as Air Commodore Paul Godfrey, when his promotion to Air Vice-Marshal is promulgated, will take up the post of Commander, United Kingdom Space Command (ref at Godfrey article). Buckshot06 (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy to see it at United Kingdom Space Command. Thanks for that. Dormskirk (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a starter United Kingdom Space Command section in :Strategic Command (United Kingdom) where the other Joint Commands are listed.  It is not clear from the RAF News announcement cite naming the commander if it will be called "United Kingdom Space Command", "UK Space Command" or just "Space Command" - all 3 are used; I guess we have to wait and see.  I've redirected existing :UK Space Command and :RAF Space Command to that section for now, rather than them unhelpfully going to the RAF article which does not explain Space Command.  Hope that's OK.  After doing that I discovered this discussion and that the history of UK Space Command redirect contains the start of an article, I've mostly reinvented - sorry. Rwendland (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Between Godfrey's bio and the announcements it's crystal clear that it will be called United Kingdom Space Command. The other variants will be after first mention. See for example again this new event; UK Space Command is to be established on 1 April 2021. https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/in-conversation-with-the-uks-leading-space-commanders-tickets-145256739819. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:    At what point do you think it makes sense for it to move out into its own article? I'm not as familiar with British Armed Forces structure, but I'm not sure its under Strategic Command like the other orgs listed, but also don't want it to be quite as much of a stub (though I have no doubts it'll grow fast). Garuda28 (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think there's enough information yet to create a separate article, but it does not appear to be under Strategic Command, rather, a joint service command, (1) under the auspices of the Royal Air Force/ (2) directly under Space Directorate MOD . But I'm vague about where I picked (1) up and it's not confirmed -- may have been in the online talk between Godfrey and AVM Harv Smith. Leave it where it is for the moment and keep adding material -- we can reassess when significant new material arises or in a month's time. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space Command 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :RAF. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 30#RAF until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  LenaAvrelia (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "RAF" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The main article Boeing RC-135 also uses this name supported by a few sources. Was this used only in the early days? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Air Seeker" 

message: An editor keeps adding flags to the infobox contrary to MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. In my opinion, we should comply with that guideline. Dormskirk (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That is me. I see your point about the [[MOS:INFOBOXFLAG] guidelines, however I believe that they should be allowed. They are visual information that allow further accessibility to the somewhat bland infobox. Furthermore, flag icons are a widespread technique in infoboxes, regardless of what the guidelines say. A good example of this is the United States Air Force page, which features a national flag and individual flags for the commanding officers. I think you will find that this infobox is a huge amount more visually interesting and in no way affects the transfer of information. In my opinion, my flag icons (national flag, commander flags and organisation flags) should be reinstated. Please have a look at the earlier version of the page to see what it would look like. Cheers. J.Weir3 (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen your earlier version and still believe that the guideline should be complied with. Dormskirk (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that you think this, but it is in the name; guidelines, not a rule. A vast number of other pages have flag icons in the infoboxes so this page would not be an ‘outlaw’. I believe adding flag icons will massively improve the overall appearance of the infobox; I know the same can be said about the United States Air Force infobox. I invite any other editors to share their opinion on the matter. J.Weir3 (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No flags. BilCat (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  No flags. No flags. No flags. --McSly (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: May I tempt you with a small, 25px Union Jack next to ‘United Kingdom’? J.Weir3 (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

text: You have a flag on your user page infobox… J.Weir3 (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have one national flag, not a flag on every other line. One national flag would be acceptable here too. BilCat (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok thanks for that J.Weir3 (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

text: According to editor @Oknazevad, the use of multiple flags in the infobox is ‘Military representing the country. Flags are correct and appropriate.’ and that they are a ‘military exception’ and to ‘actually read the guidelines’. Is that enough support/evidence to allow their use here? J.Weir3 (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: They've been part of these infoboxes forever, and it is usually understood that at least the country flag is an appropriate use for an entity that actively represents the country in an international sphere. We could ditch the things like flags for secretaries or chiefs off staff with no issue, but to remove the national flag is not what was ever intended. And the idea that the guideline bans something that's always been a part of the infobox tells me that the guideline needs to be changed to reflect actual practice, which guidelines are supposed to summarize, not dictate. oknazevad (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much for that; well said. J.Weir3 (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I see J.Weir3 has now re-inserted flags. I am aware that a couple of editors have voiced support for J.Weir3's position but that does not imply consensus. My reading of MOS:INFOBOXFLAG is that "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they could be unnecessarily distracting and might give undue prominence to one field among many." It does go on to say that "Examples of acceptable exceptions include infobox templates for military conflicts". However this article is about a military organisation, the RAF, not a military conflict i.e. battle. Views from other editors welcome. Dormskirk (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of flags in military infoboxes has long standing precedence. I support it. Garuda28 (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, they've been there a long time. I don't see a need a to make mass unnecessary changes just for the sake of some guideline. - wolf 18:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

text: I would support the inclusion of the national flag only, as that would seem consistent with how countries are displayed when featured in most infoboxes. The flags associated with commanders just adds clutter to what is becoming a very long infobox and in the case of the RAF commanders listed, the flag is just the same one repeated over and over for no real benefit. Thx811 (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that was an earlier version I believe. The latest version includes individual flags, eg ACM, AM, WO of the RAF etc. J.Weir3 (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Flags in infobox