Talk:List of Air Training Corps squadrons

Untitled
What is the naming format for these squadrons?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 14:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by naming format, as in how are the squadrons iven names, or how are they numbered? Sedd&sigma;n talk Editor Review 16:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * An article 2352sqn atc was created and speedily deleted unfortunately (I have asked for it to be brought back). I was wondering if the article would be called 2352 (Stone) squadron Air Training Corps or No. 2352 (Stone) squadron RAF--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 01:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I tend to patrol the atc pages. I'm in the organisation myself. Don't forget if you create an article. Don't forget it must be notable, verifiable and it must not read like an advertisement as previous squadron articles have sounded like. Regarding naming i suggest something based like this 360 (Llwchwr) Squadron. Thats the standard in the corps. Hope that helps. Sedd&sigma;n talk Editor Review 22:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Needs Clean Up
This page is a bit of a mess. Is anyone on the case?90.240.102.254 (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Does the table format work on this page? Perhaps it should just be split into the ATC regions.. Jez ☎ ✉ ✍ 18:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it appears that a lot of contributors to this article are having difficulties editing the tables. It has to be said the layout of the tables doesn't make this easy. I suggest a better layout would be to have one row for each wing, with a sorted list of squadrons for each wing. Given the different numbers of squadrons in each wing it doesn't make sense to have a fixed number of columns (or rows in the current layout). Letdorf (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC).


 * A lot of people have had problems editing this page as you can see from the edit section. Not all squadrons have been put in the table etc. because of bad formatting. I trying to clean up some of this (mainly 3 welsh wing at the moment as i'm in it) but will try to clean up more when i've got time. Ziaix (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Problem - Some of the squadrons I've seen are not even in the right wing. Anyone know where I could find a list of squadrons and they're wings? Ziaix (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * See the Squadron Finder under External links in the article. Letdorf (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC).
 * Ah. That helps. bit awkward thought as it won't let you sort by squadron. thanks anyway Ziaix (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You can sort by squadron number by clicking on the Squadron column heading. Letdorf (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC).


 * I've redone this page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ziaix/atcsquadrons.
 * The table format has been removed, as this was getting very messy as people didn't know how to format it.
 * The numerous links hav been removed, as user:Letdorf suggested.
 * Ziaix (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent! I was going to do something similar myself, but the amount of work involved was putting me off! One suggestion I'd make is to use multiple columns (maybe two or three) to reduce the amount of blank space in the page - see Help:Columns. This shouldn't really make it any harder to edit. Also an external link to DMOZ, ie.:




 * would be a good thing to have. Cheers! Letdorf (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC).
 * Yep - about to do that now. It hasn't been changed recently as ive been away. Thanks Ziaix (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * All done!!! Wooo! (see below) Ziaix (talk)
 * *edit* Almost All done. Letdorf, colud you add the DMOZ link to the new version of the page, it wouldn't work for me... Ziaix (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Format
This article has a really bad format. It needs to be totally rewritten. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 11:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Ziaix is working on a reformatted page - see above. Letdorf (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC).
 * Actually, it's been finished - again, see above. Ziaix (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking good :)
This article is looking much better now. All it needs is the locations of the squadrons to be linked to articles, which i shall start myself. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 18:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ummm - part of the new formatting was to remove the numerous links to the actual squadrons - your not going to start that again are you? Ziaix | (Talk) 18:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, wikipedia is not a collection of external links. I will be linking the location of each squadron to an article on wikipedia concerning that village/town/city. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 19:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Pictures
There is a great blank space down the right hand side of this article. Perhaps this could be filled with the pictures of each wing/regions emblem/flag. If someone could upload some images that would be great. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 18:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone has filled this by using coloums witch made the page fill up a bit more -  well done to whoever did that. Ziaix | (Talk) 18:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just noticed the templates I used to do this only work in certain web browsers - for instance, they have no effect in IE7 or Opera. Letdorf (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC).
 * I was wondering what was meant by filling up the page. I use IE and it still looks the same. I still believe pictures would give the article a better feel. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 22:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Article value
Not sure that the article has any encyclopedic value I am sure it breaks a lot of guidelines about list for the sake of it. Would be better as an article about Air Training Corps squadrons which could give some background into the how they are organised, established and closed. It has no historic information at all. Any thoughts. MilborneOne (talk) 11:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this, if its not added to in any substantial way then I would expect it to be up for deletion by years end. Pandaplodder (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The PROD has been moved by one editor (Colonel Bogey/Blimp whatever he calls himself) he has not bothered to justify he reasons which fly's in the face of WP conventions, he did however when challenged gave the article List of RAF Squadrons as an example why this one should stay. However that list links to individual articles about RAF Squadrons, this article does not link to articles about individual ATC squadrons but merely links to place names, where the articles have no content about the ATC, so would seem tenuous at the very least. I was the original author for this article after being asked to move the drivel it has become as it did not meet Wiki standards. Nobody has bothered to do anything with it apart from adding place names, therefore I have now added a speedy delete tag to this and it will be due to be deleted today. Pandaplodder (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think WP:CSD G7 applies here, it only applies "provided that the only substantial content to the page and to the associated talk page was added by its author". There have been many contributors to this article since it was created on 25 February 2008 by . Regards, Letdorf (talk) 12:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC).

41DF (Wellington) disbanded?
I can't find any sources but it looks as though 41DF (Wellington) has been disbanded/doesn't exist. Can anyone confirm? --Aluxosm (talk) 10:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

2340 (Blandford Forum) disbanded?
I can't find any sources but it looks as though 2340 (Blandford Forum) has been disbanded. Can anyone confirm? --Aluxosm (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

1942 (Wadebridge) or 2533 (Wadebridge)?
On their social media, they go under 1942 (https://www.facebook.com/wadebridgeaircadets/), but on the MOD squadron finder and their logo it is 2533 (https://www.raf.mod.uk/aircadets/find-a-squadron/south-west/plymouth-cornwall-wing-hq/2533-wadebridge-df/). Any ideas about what the case is or how it should be described? --Aluxosm (talk) 10:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)