Talk:2 Squadron SAAF

message: I note the end date for 2 Squadron's involvement in Korea is given as 30 April 1952. This is not correct. I would think 30 April 1953 is more accurate but have no references. — [Unsigned .]
:Thanks for spotting it. It was a typo that somehow missed our attention and was actually contradicted by the article itself. — Impi 23:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  End date for Korea 

message: I have just completed the B class checklist and believe that the article could be improved by addressing the following issues:
* referencing: the article requires in line citations for B class status;
* coverage: the article does not adequately cover the squadron's history, e.g. the History section begins in Korea in the 1950s when the Background section and infobox both show that the squadron served during WWII also. Thus the history section should begin with by outlining when the squadron was formed and go from there;
* structure: the Background section is not necessary - the information in it should be included in both the introduction and the history section, however; and
* supporting materials: whilst this criteria has been met, the article could still be improved by including some images.
Just a few ideas. Hope this helps. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for improvement

message: You may find this useful
http://scientiamilitaria.journals.ac.za/pub/article/view/689/693 
Gbawden (talk) 11:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting article 

message: * I believe that the ROH absolutely does belong on the page. The policy WP:NOTMEMORIAL states 
In my opinion, that does not exclude the ROH because the list of casualties is part of the history of the Squadron it is not an arbitrary memorial for some individual..BoonDock (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't been looking forward to having this discussion with you BoonDock because you're obviously committed to adding memorials for most SA units. The widespread interpretation of NOTMEMORIAL - including mine - is that these are not suitable. I believe that if you asked clarification - for example at Milhist - you'd get exactly the same answer. I would advise you to stop adding to or maintaining them. However, if deaths occurred as part of significant engagements that would be part of a unit's history, these of course should be mentioned in the text (that is, you can mention them if you write everything up in great detail.) Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually,  I read the policy very carefully before adding any. I honestly posted the ROH lists in good faith because they make as much sense in terms of the history as the lists of past commanding Officers do in that they are a part of the unit's history.  I'm not "committed" at all, simply thought they were a part of the unit's history.  I'm quite willing to bow to concensus of course, as much as as I might dislike it. I have had other decisions go against me which I bitterly resent, such as the deletion of the page on André Diedericks. Maybe this question should be asked on a broader forum and if necessary a change made to that policy one way or the other? BoonDock (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think WT:MILHIST is probably the most apropriate "broader forum" for such a discussion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:   I suspect it might be better if someone else raised the issue as I am clearly too partisan? BoonDock (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just been reading the deletion debate on Andre Diedericks. It's a pity that more GNG-compatible sources aren't around for some of these figures. I understand your situation somewhat, BoonDock, and should you wish me, for example, to raise this at Milhist for you I'd be happy to. Not sure whether I should recuse myself from the debate there. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 04:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

text: Thanks Buckshot! I wouldn't mind seeing the issues raised. BoonDock (talk) 05:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  How do you wish me to do it? I can raise it completely in the abstract, without mentioning your case and views at all, or weave your arguments into the way I put it forward. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  As you wish although I'd be happy for you to mention me and or or my argument. BoonDock (talk) 06:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  ROH