This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2402:8100:264a:3dd0:678:5634:1232:5476 (talk) at 15:35, 4 April 2022 (→Coding dicoding: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:35, 4 April 2022 by 2402:8100:264a:3dd0:678:5634:1232:5476 (talk) (→Coding dicoding: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Royal Air Force article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2 |
| |||||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:WP1.0
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
.svg)
 | A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on April 1, 2006, April 1, 2008, April 1, 2009, April 1, 2012, April 1, 2018, and April 1, 2020. |
 | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Royal Air Force was copied or moved into United Kingdom Space Command with this edit on 23 June 2021. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Proposed Merge from Royal Air Force Station page
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)
- 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)
Wikepedia entry for RAF .
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)
Move to Royal Air Force of the United Kingdom
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)
- Oppose - Per WP:COMMONNAME, and as it is the actual name of the air force in English, and it is used more in English for the UK's air force than for any other "Royal Air Force". - BilCat (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- The argument above asserts that the binding between "Royal Air Force" with "United Kingdom Royal Air Force" is "common," when its not common in Saudi Arabia, for example, or Qatar, or other places which have a monarchy, where when they use the term "Royal" they mean their own royalty. And then the above user extends makes a linguistic imperialism argument where anyone who speaks English is also stuck with a queen, and the idea that whenever we say "royal" we mean "Royal" and then specifically the British. -Inowen (nlfte)
- Totally irrelevant. - BilCat (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. - wolf 06:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- The argument above asserts that the binding between "Royal Air Force" with "United Kingdom Royal Air Force" is "common," when its not common in Saudi Arabia, for example, or Qatar, or other places which have a monarchy, where when they use the term "Royal" they mean their own royalty. And then the above user extends makes a linguistic imperialism argument where anyone who speaks English is also stuck with a queen, and the idea that whenever we say "royal" we mean "Royal" and then specifically the British. -Inowen (nlfte)
- Oppose - per WP:COMMONNAME. Whenever English language sources refer to the Royal Air Force it almost always, with few exceptions, refers to this RAF. Garuda28 (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - we've been over this like, a bah-zillion times, (like adding "British" to "Royal Navy"). Royal Air Force, Royal Navy and Royal Marines are all well-established as being British/UK as per commonname and sourcing. (Perhaps we could set up some kind of moratorium on these requests and maybe limit them to one a year... ) - wolf 06:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - This is an utter rubbish of a "suggestion" brought up once again. Nuff said~! --Dave 06:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - in agreement with above comments. - LÒÓkingYourBest 08:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - for reasons above. Dormskirk (talk) 10:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose particlarly for the "monarchist militia" showing bias, but mainly per other leave alone comments above. MilborneOne (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose as per WP:COMMONNAME and arguments already outlined above Thx811 (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose as per WP:COMMONNAME. The joy of all things (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - WP:COMMONNAME governs here and this is by far the most common usage in English. - Ahunt (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Nice job on the article.Cassell04 (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
The oldest independent air force in the world
The RAF was formed on April 1st, 1918. The Finnish Air Force was founded on March 6th, 1918. 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)
- 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)
- 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)
References
It seems that the article has sometimes adopted a nationalist point of view as might be yours. Only telling the RAF or the FAF is the oldest national independant air force in the world is not the same that telling it became the first independant air force in the world or being one of the oldest air force, it is the oldest national independant one. In this post-colonial and post-brexit world, we need more than nationalism.-Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.23.17.14 (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
"Roya Air Force station" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Roya Air Force station. The discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages: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)
Space Command
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)
- The sources say its UK Space Command and not part of the RAF though. Garuda28 (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Now corrected. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Happy to see it at United Kingdom Space Command. Thanks for that. Dormskirk (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- 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)::::
- 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)
- @Dormskirk: @Buckshot06: @Rwendland: 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)
- 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)
- @Dormskirk: @Buckshot06: @Rwendland: 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)
- Happy to see it at United Kingdom Space Command. Thanks for that. Dormskirk (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Now corrected. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
BlueD954 has helpfully found this
https://twitter.com/HarvSmyth/status/1356662328696201223
UK Space Cmd sits under the RAF and so has an RAF command chain. But it’s a Joint Command and the Cdr appt is competed Jointly. In addition UK StratCom’s equities as Cap Sponsor for MDI, ISR, PNT are enabled via the UK Space Cmd construct.
..which provides further information, though as a tweet it does not seemingly meet standards for WP:RS. I have copied this over from Talk:Strategic Command (United Kingdom) so the information is available for the discussion - it was a useful, good find. I have also found and referenced a February source which says UKSC will 'sit' under the Royal Air Force, seemingly at a roughly equivalent status to a group. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
"RAF" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect RAF. The discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages: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)
"Air Seeker"
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)
Coding dicoding
Why the coding dividing are the developer forum same the pari do youbro. ......... But so that tthe devloped
Md sakir alam Date .08/08/2003 2402:8100:264A:3DD0:678:5634:1232:5476 (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Categories:- Old requests for peer review
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
- High-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
- B-Class United Kingdom articles
- Top-importance United Kingdom articles
- WikiProject United Kingdom articles
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class military aviation articles
- Military aviation task force articles
- C-Class national militaries articles
- National militaries task force articles
- C-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- C-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- C-Class World War I articles
- World War I task force articles
- C-Class World War II articles
- World War II task force articles
- Selected anniversaries (April 2006)
- Selected anniversaries (April 2008)
- Selected anniversaries (April 2009)
- Selected anniversaries (April 2012)
- Selected anniversaries (April 2018)
- Selected anniversaries (April 2020)