Talk:No. 29 Squadron RAF

Untitled
The wording of the final para of the main section (beginning "When the squadron number...") seems a little cumbersome as it now comprises my original edit of the 28/30 Aug 2005 merged with the anon edits of the 26 July 2006, which I don't perceive as adding much information. However I'm hesitant to push my original wording if there's a perception that the anon addition adds something. Callum 18:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Re the roman numerals XXX vs XXIX. When I was the Squadron's adjutant in the early 1980's, I was asked to research the question. I wrote to all surviving previous officers conmmanding and acheived nothing concrete. However, it was apparent that the number of X painted on 29 Sqn aircraft varied depending on the type of aircraft, (presumably somthing to do with the fuselage size (smaller aircraft had fewer Xs)) and other undetermined reasons - whatever, some aircraft types had 2 Xs each side of the fuselage roundel, others had 3. However, the situation stablised with the Squadron's use of the Mosquito Mk XXX - which, unsurprisingly, had three Xs on each side of the roundel - and remained so thereafter through the Javelin, Lightning, Phantom and Tornado.EWoc 15:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"Re-write"
I've done a bit of a re-write of this article - although the "history" is largely an amplification of the list of types used by the squadron. I've also rephrased the "markings tradition" a bit - and added a reference. Comments welcome of course, especially from present and former members of the squadron!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

WWI aces
I can understand your last edit to this article. That glaring scarlet wasteland of aces' names is offensive to the eye. However, articles will be written for these aces (most likely by myself). Listing all the notable aces in squadron history supplies a link, and chases away the horrid "orphan" tag.

I have reverted your edit as part of my effort to keep the aviation wing of the wiki-orphanage unpopulated. Please do not be offended.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a matter of me being offended. And while I agree that a lot of red ink is unsightly that is not the main point either. More a matter of notability - an air ace is not necessarily notable enough for a wiki article - in fact unless he has an exceptionally large "tally" (considering time and place) it is reasonable to expect him to have a real notability independent of his actual "acehood". Many WWI aces (both sides) went to the front pretty well straight from school, shot down their eight, nine or ten enemy aircraft, and were either killed before they had a chance to make any further impact on this world, or survived the conflict to lead postwar lives of more or less complete obscurity. They will never have a wiki article, any more than you or I will. I take your point about orphans, but on the other hand - when one adds a new article, even a stub, it is sensible to add wikilinks both ways at that time rather than rely on "red links" waiting in the ether to take up the slack. Never mind - not important enough to get heated about - I'll leave it up to you to either delete the "non-notable" names altogether, leave them there but remove the "link" brackets, or, if you really believe there is enough notability (and enough published information) to warrant an article in the future, leave them as they are. I suspect in the current red desert there may even be particular names in all three categories. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is the proviso that any individual honored by their government is considered notable by Wikipedia standards. All of the aces in question qualify under that standard. That is not to say all aces qualify, however. While vetting the names for this project, I "bumped" several aces from the list for lack of proof of their acedom. I am closing out all the remainder (probably 300 or 400) that were not decorated as being non-notable. Those that are left qualify for bios.

So that has been my aim all along--to have a bio for every notable ace. I did not know about, nor count on, the orphan tag. When that was sprung on me, I began linking aces to home squadrons to alleviate orphandom. I don't feel like spinning my wheels defending orphans against deletion; it seems simpler to deal with the orphan problem from the front, rather than chasing after it.

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)