Template talk:RAF squadrons

	Aviation portal This template is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
Template	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This template is supported by the aircraft project.

Military history: Aviation / British / European Template‑class

This template is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Template

This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Untitled[edit]

I'm wondering - might it be best to have an overall split into active and inactive squadrons? This might be more helpful for navigational purposes... Shimgray | talk | 22:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, a proposed alternate layout:

Currently active squadrons at the top, in sequence; we could then break this up into active and reserve squadrons, or organise them by type, or something.
Inactive squadrons - a single long list like here, and then a second list of foreign units. I'm not sure we need the link to 633 Sqn. on its own. Thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 15:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to make these edits, they seem like good ideas to me. LGF1992UK (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Roman numeral" squadrons[edit]

I'm not sure it's meaningful to separate these squadrons from the main sequence. 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) 14:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Mmm. They're part of the main sequence, just rendered differently (as a slightly odd traditional honorific? I'm never quite clear why) - I'd keep them together. Shimgray | talk | 15:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better? LGF1992UK (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they ought to be merged in but with the Roman numerals? It does seem to be a formally accepted thing, though I don't know why. On the other hand, the version we have now has the glorious advantage of looking tidy, and we do have redirects :-) Shimgray | talk | 15:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, the Roman numerals are added. LGF1992UK (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any references to justify listing these particular squadrons here in Roman numeral format? Letdorf (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

From a quick look at the RAF website, it basically seems to be depend on whether Roman or Arabic numerals were used on the original squadron crest. David Underdown (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The RAF website is not consistent: the drop-down selector on the main squadrons page uses entirely Arabic numbering, whereas the individual squadron pages all use Arabic in the page title, but the sub-headings follow the type of numerals shown on the squadron crest - except for 20 Sqn, which has "20" on its crest, but "XX" in the sub-headings!

In any case, the set of active squadrons listed in Roman numerals in this template does not match the set of active squadrons with Roman numerals on their crest on the RAF website. IMHO, in the absence of any hard and fast rules, all squadron numbers should be presented in Arabic for consistency. Letdorf (talk) 10:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Many of these have articles here titled with Roman numerals - if we're going to be consistent, we probably ought to think about retitling them. I believe the original Roman set here came from article titles, in fact, and they probably came from this list. It's not entirely clear how that set was decided on... Shimgray | talk | 12:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely, I raised the same issue previously on Talk:List of Royal Air Force aircraft squadrons, but no-one has yet responded there. Letdorf (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Article XV squadrons[edit]

Might be an idea to make a distinction between foreign manned squadrons, and the Article XV squadrons. David Underdown (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the Australian, Canadian and New Zealand squadrons. I've also put in a list of the three Rhodesian ones, even though they weren't strictly speaking Article XV, and entered No. 75 Squadron under the New Zealand squadroms. This means these four are listed twice, which makes sense - they had both "normal RAF" identities, in the prewar period, as well as "overseas" ones. Shimgray | talk | 20:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...okay, now we have the problem that the template is huge. thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 20:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the template, wonder where 1435 sqn did go though...--62.166.34.203 (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, but where should it go? As an active squadron, since No. 1435 Flight RAF still exists, or as an inactive squadron, since the current unit is a Flight? Letdorf (talk) 12:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The Commonwealth squadrons are "RAF Squadrons" only in a very loose sense, as they were units of independent air forces, so their inclusion here I find questionable. Plus, there are RCAF, RAAF and RNZAF templates, lists, categories and infoboxes that already include these squadrons, so to have them here is also redundant. If you wanted to cut back on the size of this template, I'd suggest removing the the links to the individual squadrons and include the links to the three Commonwealth air forces instead. McMuff (talk) 04:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They were largely administered by the RAF, they took their day-to-day orders from the RAF command system, and due to the habit of shifting pilots/aircrew around they did at some point include RAF/RAFVR crew. The Canadians were more independent but the RNZAF were more dependent. The lines are blurred. Perhaps a separate Article XV template to link them together? GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that the lines are blurred when it came to the administration of the squadrons, the RAF itself was heavily dependent on personnel from those three air forces in all aspects of its operations, so the blurring went both ways. I respectfully submit that if the RAF is treated as a wholly British institution, then the same treatment should be given to the RCAF, RAAF and RNZAF with respect to their own countries, even if the independence is just on paper in some cases. That aside, I think an Article XV template is a great idea.McMuff (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing non-notable and unused number inactive squadrons.[edit]

Hello! I would propose that numbers that were a simple proposal (ie squads 567 or 599) or unused numbers should be removed from the template. Although the 599 squad was proposed, it never came to being, and as such, it is not notable. Since Wikipedia does not cover every proposed law in congress or parliament, I would vote to remove the "proposed and never used" numbers and non-existent numbers. Please give me any feedback. Thanks! --Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 01:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

599 isn't on the template. 567 (an Anti Aircraft Cooperation Unit) is listed on rafweb.org etc. Did you mean a different number? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there are any squadrons in this navbox that were never actually formed, then it's unlikely they'd be notable enough to warrant a WP article about them, and hence shouldn't be listed here. However, as Graeme says, 599 isn't here and 567 did exist. Are there any others? Letdorf (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Riotrocket8676 is mixing up numbers: he means No. 569 Squadron RAF and No. 597 Squadron RAF, which were both never formed. Other contenders: No. 586 Squadron RAF and a squadron whose single claim to fame is that it was ever alloted a squadron code (can't finf it at the moment, but have been across it)--Dirk P Broer (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 569, 597 and 586 all have WP articles, so as far as this template goes, I don't see why they shouldn't be included. Whether they are notable enough to justify those WP articles is a different question! According to the articles though, they were all notionally formed, but never received equipment or personnel, so it could be argued that they did, technically, exist for short periods. Letdorf (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Argentine squadron[edit]

Shouldnt the 164 be on the second group [1] ? --Jor70 (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point. But are there any other WW2 squadrons with substantial numbers of foreign personnel that we've missed? Letdorf (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I saw once the 164 Argentine-British RAF squadron s book "Wings of Thunder" and is amazing including lot of pictures, unfortunately is sold out, if you are in the UK perhaps you can contact [2] --Jor70 (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

84 Squadron[edit]

I've added 84 squadron back into active squadrons. Can't find any source suggesting that it has disbanded and a recent news article on the RAF website would indicate its still active https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/84-sqn-from-raf-akrotiri-assist-greek-cypriot-government-fight-fires/. Thx811 (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]