Jump to content

Talk:RAF West Raynham

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

Units

[edit]

I intend to revert the re-addition of the units section because 1) it's still not properly sourced (for instance this page mentions nothing of 85 Squadron) 2) it's incomplete and 3) because articles shouldn't be just a collection of trivia. I'm not saying the article shouldn't mention which units were stationed at the base, just that it doesn't need its own section; it can be woven into the main text, as has been done with 114 Squadron for example. I realise other articles on RAF bases may have the same format, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's right. Comments are welcome. Nev1 (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By deleting this section without giving time for sources to be added it appears (probably unjustly) that you are attempting to prevent the addition of said sources, which are getting pretty heavy after just a couple of minutes work.
This format is used on almost every other RAF page in the Project, as it is of considerable use for researchers trying to quickly locate information from this encyclopedia. Unless I see evidence of a larger consensus against such inclusions I will treat any reversion as vandalism and an attempt to incite an edit war. DiverScout (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When it is not the middle of the night I intend to expand the section, and tabulate it, to include all squadrons and units formerly based at the station. As shown from the above reference, there is a need for a complete record and this seems a logical place to have it. DiverScout (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism? What utter bollocks. As you would see if you bothered to check the article history I've been improving the article by rewriting it and adding sources. Go and read WP:AGF before you embarrass yourself again. Thanks for adding sources though (the section is still basically a trivia section though and should be expanded). Nev1 (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know policy, including the one not to quote it. If you attempt to delete that section again without allow people a chance to develop it you are, as far as I am concerned, vandalising. As a fellow established editor I ask that you please don't let yourself down.
Although several of your edits are great, may I ask why, other than personal preference for the photo, you changed the photograph of the Mosquito, captioned as being "equipped for night fighting" from a correct picture of a FB (Fighter-Bomber) nose-gun equipped FB VI to a B (bomber-variant) XVI? DiverScout (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looked better and I did not know there was a difference; if the original image was closer to what 141 and 239 squadrons used then replace it. Nev1 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Not everyone is (or ought to be) a rivet-counter like me! If others from the Project et al go against the idea of a unit section on RAF station pages I'll always go with the flow (and start to update all the local RAF pages to match). As someone who uses Wikipedia for research starters I use that information a lot, so would be upset to see it become harder to access.
I do not, by the way, see your actions so far as anything other than enthusiastic and helpful. I apologise for the irritation that the v-word caused. I would also point out that you have not carried out the action that I would have constituted as such. I'm watching this article pretty hard this week as I am expecting chaos due to a certain TV programme drawing a lot of new interest in a place that has been generally ignored until now. DiverScout (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an "established editor" you should be more cautious about insinuating that good faith editors are vandals. I started the discussion here to explain my position, but the point of a discussion is not to entrench opinions but to compromise or establish a course of action. I can assure you that I will not be removing the section, regardless of what you would consider that action to be. I started on this article because I too saw the adverts for a certain programme and thought it would be a good chance to showcase Wikipedia. The article's article's all yours now as I no longer have any interest in working on something with someone so hostile. Nev1 (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fair enough. I would point out, though, that you marked the section as needing references, then deleted it before anyone had a chance to add any. You then posted your intention to revert the restoration of it (while sources were in the process of being added). As I have said all along, if there is a consensus I will always go with it. Neither you nor I own anything here.
As I have said, I like a lot of your edits - and I did not state you are a vandal but said that if you acted as you said you intended to I would consider such an act to be vandalism. DiverScout (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You continue to talk out of your arse. I enumerated my reasons here; had they not been addressed it would have been well within policy to remove the section. It still needs work, but at least now it's not unsourced. Nev1 (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your actions, as I have listed, are on record so whatever. I'm not getting drawn into personal attacks.
1) It was quickly referenced.
2) I have stated an intention to add to it, aiming for completeness.
3) The units based at a military establishment are pretty core to it, not trivia.DiverScout (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still no mention of 85 Squadron

[edit]

The squadron and its Bloodhound missiles were a major element of RAF West Raynham for the best part of thirty years, including Bloodhound Servicing Flight and Bloodhound Force Command (BFC Commander was also station commander. Surely they have to be mentioned. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 10:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. 85 and the Bloodhounds are now in the units section table, but I agree that they really need a decent mention in the text body as well considering how long they were associated with the base; hopefully not duplicating their own entries too much. If you want to add referenced information on them it would be great, or I will get round to it once I've gathered a few more sources. DiverScout (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most Haunted Live

[edit]

While I feel that the filming is notable in terms of a post-closure activity at the site and the media attention generated, I'm not sure that content related to the merits of the show, or any outcomes from the same, is really appropriate to an article about the RAF station. Could people let me know if this seems a sensible line to take, perhaps with any additional content on the TV show being suggested to go onto the Most Haunted Live! entry? Cheers. DiverScout (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two sentences in the article is enough: stating that Most Haunted filmed on the base, and stating which areas they looked at. Details on the threats "discoveries" etc belong in the Most Haunted article. It would be interesting if we could find a reliable source that gives some detail about any ghost stories related to the site, but Most Haunted itself does not count as reliable. Nev1 (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

90 Squadron and B17s

[edit]

I've added details of the 90 Squadron B-17s as there are sources indicating that they were operating at Raynham. However, there are also sources placing them, and 90 Squadron, at RAF Polebrook. As Raynham was still a grass strip at that time I'm just a bit dubious about heavies operating from there. Anyone able to confirm or deny whether they were here? If they were at Polebrook, was 90 Squadron also active at Raynham at the same time? If so, what were they flying? DiverScout (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed paragraph: "In May 1940 90 Squadron was reformed to take delivery of the B-17 Fortress I heavy bomber, flying their first combat mission on 8th July 1941.[1] The first Fortress I was written off on delivery when it ran off the runway while landing at West Raynham and lost its undercarriage. It remained beside of the runway as a source spare parts. On the second combat mission one of the Fortresses was so badly damaged by enemy fighters that, despite making it back to Raynham, it disintegrated on landing. A third Fortress burnt out on the ground, three more were lost in a raid against Oslo, one more due to problems encountered during a high altitue test flight and a final aircraft was lost when it emerged from out of a cloud in a vertical dive and went straight into the ground.[2]"
Removed as I am almost certain that the sources placing 90 at Raynham at this time are in error. I will leave the entry in the table until someone can confirm or deny whether 90 were using Raynham at this time. DiverScout (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ 90 Squadron, Ministry of Defence, retrieved 2010-01-19
  2. ^ Joseph.F.Baugher, Bomber Series--Boeing B-17 Fortress (6 of 27), retrieved 2010-01-19

Deletion of referenced account of crash

[edit]

An editor has removed mention of the RAFP rescuing US airman from a crashed USAF bomber stating that the account is inaccurate. They may be right, but as the RAFP tend to be pretty on the ball, could they explain why this is inaccurate (and provide a verifiable source) as otherwise I think that the referenced account should be restored. DiverScout (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on RAF West Raynham. 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) 00:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:RAF_West_Raynham&oldid=1208365369"