Jump to content

Talk:List of Royal Canadian Air Force squadrons

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Squadron Names and Article Titles

[edit]

So it's come to my attention that the "No." prefix and "RCAF" suffix are being used as the standard for many CF squadron articles. This seems anachronistic, since the DND has not used either of these in the official names for units since unification in 1968. For example, "No. 410 Squadron RCAF" has been known as "410 Tactical Fighter (Operational Training) Squadron" for years. Article titles for existing squadrons should reflect their proper, official names, while it seems only fair that articles for disbanded units should be titled with the official name of the squadron when it was folded. GrahamNoyes (talk) 09:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current standard way in Wikipedia of designating CF air squadrons is with their RCAF designations. These could all be changed to their CF designations, but they would need to be all changed and a decision would have to be made whether they would be short forms or correct tiles (ie: "427 Squadron" or "427 Tactical Helicopter Squadron"). One problem in changing to CF designations would be that squadrons that currently exist would have CF designations, while those that were disbanded before 1968 would retain older RCAF designations (ie 445 Sqn). Personally I don't mind it being done either way, but we need to agree on a standard and stick to it to prevent a chaotic situation developing. - Ahunt (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of the Canadian 400-series squadrons started as RCAF squadrons. Agreed that these are not the current monikers, but since all squadron articles include (or should include) a history beginning with their RCAF roots, it really isn't necessary to label them with a current name (e.g. 427 Tactical Helicopter Squadron). Historical articles should "start at the beginning", which in the case of these squadrons, is with the RCAF. Articles should be including information on how a squadron has evolved since the war, and so current CF designations would be included in this history. Squadrons also have a habit of changing functions (and hence names), or even disbanding, so if a CF squadron name is changed, all you need to do is modify the history rather than changing the title. Another issue is the article title. If the title were, for instance, 427 Tactical Helicopter Squadron, it must be made clear what tactical helicopter squadron it is, so it would need to be named something like "No. 427 Tactical Helicopter Squadron, Canadian Air Command", which is a bit unwieldy. I agree that there should be a naming standard, and the way we do it now is a good way of maintaining this standard.BC (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brian: Your comments make a lot of sense! The only thing I would add is that there should be re-directs to the article from all historical and present titles. For example "427 Squadron" and "427 Tactical Helicopter Squadron" would both redirect to "No. 427 Squadron RCAF" - Ahunt (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adam, yes redirects are important. I've been redirecting whenever I see squadrons alluded to as such.BC (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong guys, it would only make sense to leave disbanded squadrons' names as they were in the beginning. However, for existing units, to apply that same format for their article titles seems more like simplifying for simplicity's sake than keeping an historical benchmark. It only takes a second to move an article or make a redirect, and as long as it's clearly laid out that the standard is that article titles are to follow the most recent name of a unit, existing or disbanded, it shouldn't be a problem. Royal Air Force articles use a similar standard, and this nomenclature hasn't required specifying the nationality or command the units fall under either, so there's no reason why it wouldn't work for CF squadron articles as well.

GrahamNoyes (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at this list again, I noticed it mentions the unification in 1968. Therefore, I feel it would be a good plan to create a seperate list for squadrons post-1968, both existing and defunct. This would allow two constant standards, divided between the pre and post-unification eras. All squadrons on the post-1968 list would use their most recent name as the title, and any squadrons which existed both before and after unification would be included on both lists, with their pre-unification name on the corresponding list, redirecting accordingly. For example, the article "442 Squadron" would be titled (and redirected from) "No. 442 Squadron RCAF" on the "List of Royal Canadian Air Force squadrons", while it would appear simply as "442 Squadron" on the "List of Canadian Forces Air Command Squadrons."

GrahamNoyes (talk) 04:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like your idea. There is, however, already a list of current operational squadrons on the Canadian Forces Air Command page. We could move this list to a new separate "List of Canadian Forces Air Command squadrons". I would recommend we get some consensus on the Canadian Forces Air Command discussion page before the new list is constructed and the list is moved over. Since there aren't that many squadrons, I'm concerned that the new list, would be nominated for deletion like the RCAF squadron list was, and the RCAF list has many more squadrons.-BC (talk) 05:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in favour of creating two lists. Considering that squadrons go into and out of existence and old RCAF-only squadrons may be stood-up again and thus moved from one list to another, it isn't very practical. You will also find the the RCAF-only list will be very short. Most sqns exist now. The 400 series is one unified series, with its origins firmly in the air battles and honours won in WWII. It should stay as one list. I would also like to see the sqn article names unified. Right now we have most of the units with their original formation names but a few, like 427 Squadron, with truncated versions of their current names. It is getting disorganized. The names should either all be their names at original formation or their current full and correct names. - Ahunt (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Royal Canadian Air Force 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Royal_Canadian_Air_Force_squadrons&oldid=1203683052"