Marischal Square, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

—Darkwind (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exercise Joint Warrior, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the .
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Excellent improvement and expansion of RAF Lossiemouth, an exceptionally large project. DarjeelingTea (talk) 06:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Defence High Frequency Communications Service, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the .
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  15:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article RAF Lossiemouth you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Ministry of Defence Main Building (United Kingdom). Thanks! ~Kvng (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry of Defence Main Building (United Kingdom), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the .
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

 sami  ^talk 02:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You probably haven't noticed, but I've finally started the review at Talk:RAF Lossiemouth/GA1--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article RAF Lossiemouth you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:RAF Lossiemouth for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi you left a message about seeking a reference to 115 Squadron's re-subordination under 6 Flying Training School (incidentally from 3 FTS not CFS). I can't find the direct reference as the RAF website has just been re-published and lost a lot of previous articles in the process. However, I did find a link to the 2017 Tutor Display Pilot that states that it is being undertaken by 6 FTS and, if you look, at the pilot's name badge you can see that the pilot is a member of 115 Squadron http://www.airshows.co.uk/features/2017/raf-tutor-display-pilot-sqn-ldr-andy-tagg/

Climebear (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But should it be just merged with Joint Ground Based Air Defence Headquarters? No offence to your creation; it is nice. I read the FTC Handbook, and don't see any reference to a disbanding of the JtGBAD.

BlueD954 (talk) 06:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete question. BlueD954 (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

HQ 1st Artillery Brigade, as per the Wikipedia page, and other Google-ble sources, say it is under Forces Troops Command. But recently, the British Army's website places it under 3rd (UK) Division here and here and there is a distinct absence of it in the [1] which you discovered 7 Air Defence Group.

Do you think it is worthy to change the 1st Artillery Brigade page as such then?

Thanks

BlueD954 (talk) 02:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BlueD954:

It does look like its not part of FTC any more as the FTC Handbook looks like a fairly recent publication. The HQ 1st Artillery Brigade page stil lsays FTC but the the navigation bar about says 3rd (UK) Division so a bit confused really. As such I'd maybe just remove any reference to what formation it comes under as its not entirely clear at the moment. Thx811 (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thx811. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Hï Ibiza".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. DannyS712 (talk) 08:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Please can you add some citations to the new organisation structure you have added to this article. Thanks, Dormskirk (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dormskirk:, citations added now, the changes were largely expanding on the content already there rather than adding much new (headings added and the ACC squadrons sitting under regiments) Thx811 (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Many thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strike Attack Operational Evaluation Unit, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the .
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bkissin (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the changes you made to the Eielson Air Force base page. I was trying to change the confusing layout. The page doesn't seem to have a logical layout. I was using the Langley AFB page as reference.

Hi @Davidsmith2014:, Whilst I would agree the layout on most USAF air base pages needs improved I would maintain that moving the sections on historic matters into the 'Based Units' section confuses matters further. The Langley AFB page probably isn't a good example as it doesn't have a 'Based Units' section (Little Rock Air Force Base or Minot Air Force Base have a more standard layout. The 'Based Units' section is meant to reflect the current units present at the base rather than those at were historically there. Looking at a few USAF base articles most seem to have these sections under the 'History' section, although some have each as a main heading. I feel that they don't really sit there comfortably as the history section is normally a narrative of the history of the base whereas the sections in question are lists of command, units, aircraft etc. Perhaps a new section called 'Base lineage' would help group them together, it could sit after the 'History' section? Thx811 (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article RAF Benson you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:RAF Benson for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article RAF Benson you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:RAF Benson for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:New scotland yard logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article RAF Elgin you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article RAF Machrihanish you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tayi Arajakate -- Tayi Arajakate (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:HMS Jufair Crest.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

The article RAF Machrihanish you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:RAF Machrihanish for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article RAF Machrihanish you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:RAF Machrihanish for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Sciencefish. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to RAF Northolt have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Sciencefish (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I had added a relevant piece of information with a relevant source (the registry clearly mentions the UK MoD-owned satellites in orbit). Please see the Skynet (satellite) satellite summary section for the full list. The satellites are indeed operated by Airbus, but is a Private Finance Initiative (PFI), which means that the RAF still owns the satellites, but is just outsourced to reduce costs. This is the same sort of thing as the UKMFTS being outsourced by PFI - the RAF still owns the aircraft but is just maintained/operated by a private, civilian company. I hope we can agree this is a relevant addition to the page, and also reflects the RAF’s role as an air and space force - the satellites are officially organised under UK space command. J.Weir3 (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @J.Weir3, I would agree that its a relevant addition to the page now that the RAF has a larger role in relation to space. I think a better source is required to confirm that it is the RAF that the satellites are organised under. The register just says the MOD. Thx811 (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you have a link to the MOS which is about the styling of current Royal Air Force aircraft types such as if it's Beechcraft Texan T.1 or Beechcraft Texan T1? Gavbadger (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gavbadger, the style guide is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Naming (British military aircraft) Thx811 (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you. Gavbadger (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Joint helicopter command badge.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed an edit of yours at RAF Lakenheath which was a couple of months back (September 2024 - I'm not clever enough to provide a full link to your edit, but you'll find it easily enough). Your edit summary was;

 Tidied up infobox. Major command emblem goes in image2 parameter per Template:Infobox military installation

I would like to discuss this with you, and probably a few related issues that go way beyond RAF Lakenheath, which is why I have arrived here on your Talkpage. If you think we should have this discussion somewhere else, let me know.

Before getting stuck into any specific detail, my own history is that I have used Wikipedia for decades, but only edited for 11 months. In that time I have come to realise that across Military History there appear to be countless articles suffering from what I am going to call Infobox abuse, and I guess I am looking for another editor to bounce ideas off. Or maybe burst my balloon. Am I asking too much already? Perhaps we should just take it one edit at a time, but at least you have a heads-up as to what might be coming.

So, back to RAF Lakenheath; I had edited the article in general, and the Infobox specifically, about a month before you, and one thought I had at the time was whether the RAF ensign should be there at all? Technically the MOD own the land, the USAF are 'just visiting', and the actual RAF presence on the base is mostly token (unless you go back to 1941-44). It seems unnecessary detail for an Infobox. If it was a multi-national corporation, would we quibble over whether their head office was owned outright, or just rented accommodation? And how do such UK airbases compare to say Ramstein AB in Germany? And for that matter, what about other sites we have both left our pawprints at - MOD Chicksands (three ensigns)? Or MOD Boscombe Down (no RAF ensign)?

p.s. I've got Lakenheath traffic overhead me right now; can't see it because of the thick clag, but I can hear it. Or maybe it's a couple of Marham F-35s?

RSVP WendlingCrusader (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the Template:Infobox military installation template documentation isn't particular helpful when it comes to how most of the of parameters in the template should be used. I've always thought it best to keep the contents of an infobox related to the current use of the installation, with historic details kept in the 'site history' section of the infobox, which generally covers whether other military arms have operated the installation. However, there does seem to be a tendency to try and include various flags, emblems and other historic details such as previous commanding units, which just confuses matters as it is then not at all clear as to what information is current.

On the USAF stations in the UK, they are still RAF stations and it seems that the use of the RAF ensign in the infoboxes is consistent across the the articles on the various RAF stations the USAF occupy and also articles on regular RAF stations. The 'site information' section of the infobox explains the ownership (UK MOD), operator (USAF) and then the command that the installation falls under (USAF in Europe) which I think is important to explain. Perhaps it would be useful for a paragraph to be added to the body of each article explaining the ownership and control situation, like at RAF Menwith Hill. The List of RAF stations article also has content that might be useful for this.

I would agree the three ensigns in an infobox isn't appropriate in the MOD Chicksands (or any) article, but I see they've gone now. MOD Boscombe Down isn't an RAF station, its operated by private contractor Qinetiq on behalf of the MOD so wouldn't be correct to have the RAF ensign there.

Great to hear the jets above, even if you can't see them!

Thx811 (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I was reminded of our previous conversation after noticing your superb work tidying up No. 4 Squadron RAF; basically finishing off the edits I half-started. And then improving it further. Good job!

So... returning to the issue of trimming Infoboxes back to the basics, I have now taken a stronger position regarding flags in infoboxes. Here is my latest rationale;

1. MOS:INFOBOXFLAG talks about the risk of icons being unnecessarily distracting, and giving undue prominence to one field among many. This is exactly how I feel about the disruption they cause within the infobox.
2. MOS:FLAGCRUFT makes a similar point
3. MOS:INFOBOXFLAG also identifies that flags may be used when Summarizing military conflicts. I fear that somewhere back in time some editors saw that as a green light to use them in all military articles.
4. The Battle of the Somme is a fine example not just of where flags are permissable, but where they are arguably indispensable! The key fact is that flags are needed here to differentiate between more than one nationality.
5. WP:MILICONS touches on much of the above, and mentions previous discussions at WP:MILHIST. Avoid adding icons that provide neither additional information to the article subject nor navigational or layout cues that aid the reader. Icons should serve a purpose other than solely decoration.
6. As we are obliged to accompany flags with country names (at the first use), in cases where it is only used once (e.g. most infoboxes), the flag cannot help but be mere decoration. This probably comes hard to any editors with a military background themselves, but Wikipedia is here for everyone, not just those who get a buzz from honoring the flag.
7. My own straw poll surrounding aviation unit infoboxes (typically squadrons) is as follows.

• RAF - a mixed bag, although some of that is due to my own editing.
• RCAF (CAF) - 50/50 based on a straw poll of four squadrons (2 fighter, 1 heli, 1 transport)
• Germany - all four units polled featured the current German flag, but no ensign
• Sweden - neither the Swedish flag nor any ensign was featured anywhere that I looked
• RAAF - as yet I have not come across a single flag amongst RAAF squadron articles. Meanwhile please note that at least 15 RAAF articles have reached FA status, whilst the score for the rest of the world is... a big fat nil?
• I am not going to mention the USAF; they have their own unique view of patriotism which flavors everything they do.

Summary; if we look beyond our own borders, the application of flags in infoboxes is quite variable. I cannot detect a consensus as such, just editors slavishly following what somebody did twenty years ago. Plus it's in the nature of military-minded people to favor flags anyway. I never served, so I'm viewing it with civilian eyes, like most of the world.

Two final thoughts;

1. I asked myself who was it first introduced these flags, and picked a squadron at random - 10 sqdn, RAF. It's only a very limited sample of one, but on 5 April 2009 it was a Dutch editor that made the key edit. But the best bit is his user page; it is littered with flags of all the countries he's visited. I guess he's a vexillologist. Honestly you couldn't make it up!
2. If you want another laugh, check out Sweden's Blekinge Wing, which has an infobox with no flags or ensign, but it does list a whopping 30 different aircraft types, 29 of them retired. And I'm not even joking!

WendlingCrusader (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @WendlingCrusader, good work on the squadron articles. Only thing I would query is the changing of the 'garrison_label' parameter from 'Home station' to 'base'. RAF sites are known as stations rather than bases, as reflected at https://www.raf.mod.uk/our-organisation/stations/ and in the article title and terminology used at List of Royal Air Force stations. Perhaps a compromise would be just to have 'Station' rather than 'Home Station'?

Good luck on your crusade against infobox flags, as you have discovered there’s has been a wide range interpretations on their use!

Thx811 (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will start off by saying loud and clear that I will accept your compromise, but you'll forgive me if I also add some words.

No doubt you noticed that my simple change allowed the entry to take up one line instead of two, another step towards making the whole Infobox shorter, and giving the First World War half a chance. What do I mean by that? After the introduction, the next entry for most squadrons is WWI, except there is often no possibility of adding an image on the right hand (default) side of the page, because the infobox is dragging itself halfway down the page. This leads to one of three things

1. Placing an image on the left, and sandwiching the text between image and infobox, contravening MOS.
2. Placing an image of a frail WWI biplane on the right, and having it appear halfway through the World War II text.
3. Giving up and not providing any image to illustrate what could be an important part of squadron history.

But I'm guessing you are already perfectly aware of this conundrum.

Back on track; whilst it is true that RAF sites are still known (formally) as RAF Stations, I believe that in common language that term is less and less used. If you meet RAF personnel in the street, the question they will be asked is "where are you based?". To which they will reply; I'm based at RAF Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh, still avoiding the "S" word! Need a better source for that claim? I'll give you two guesses what word is used by the in-house newspaper; RAF News.

But what of RNAS Culdrose and RAF Lakenheath? It seems that RNAS locations avoid the word "station" in their intro, describing themselves as airbases. If you were to point out to them that their name includes the word station, they might make a counter-argument that it isn't a station, it's a ship, as in HMS Seahawk. It's just a name, not a description. Meanwhile the USAF units at RAF Lakenheath are absolutely going to fight their corner too, sticking with the default "Garrison/HQ" label.

As far as I am concerned, they are all airbases, but I'm still ok with your compromise if the arguments above don't sway you, particularly RAF News.

One more thing; where do you stand with units such as RAF Brize Norton Base Support Wing, and the RAF Akrotiri website that offers advice regarding Living on Base

WendlingCrusader (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, it's me again, stirring up the status quo.

I see that you reverted one of my edits at No. 78 Squadron RAF, in that you re-instated the badge size (150px) and the caption/link to Heraldic badges of the Royal Air Force.

150px is the convention for squadron badge size established across the majority of RAF squadron articles,

Even before your intervention, I have been searching high and low for solid guidance on this, but the infobox template documentation gave me nothing except general advice to strip the image filename down to the basics, and let the infobox template handle it from there. Can you point to where the image size was agreed? It must have been back in 2004 to 2006, but it would have been so useful to see that detail incorporated into the template documentation. Or maybe it is and I missed it?

As an alternative I tried to find a model article to follow, but no RAF units seem to have made it to FA standard, so for some time I have based some of my edits on the best and most suitable military FA articles that I can find, which appear to be RAAF, such as No. 33 Squadron RAAF, which of course has a squadron badge of a similar design to RAF examples. However, that RAAF badge is sized at 120px, which leaves me slightly puzzled.

As for the caption; again I searched high and low for solid advice and settled for MOS:CAPLENGTH, which specifically addresses Infobox image captions, and yet still gives all sorts of contradictory messages including

Additional descriptive information about the image should be contained in the image description on the image's page

and

Infobox images with mission insignia – no caption needed, but if there is a description of the symbolism, it should be included on the image description page.

I'm always looking for guidance from old hands, although I'm also wary of accepting something simply because it has been there for a long time. WendlingCrusader (talk) 04:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @WendlingCrusader, there isn't detailed guidance for a lot of matters in Wikipedia, however MOS:VAR does provide some guidance on where a certain style has been established. Essentially, unless there is a good reason to change it to something else, it shouldn't be. If a different way would be better, then consensus should be sought through discussion. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history would be a good place to discuss anything and maybe a consensus can be reached and more detailed guidance produced for RAF squadron articles for example.

In terms of the squadron badge link, I guess its there as the squadron badges aren't just nice pictures, but have a lot of history and tradition behind them so its a useful link to have. I don't think it does any harm having it there.

Thx811 (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]