This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
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)[reply]
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. SeddσntalkEditor Review22:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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).[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.:
{{Dmoz|Regional/Europe/United_Kingdom/Government/Defence/Cadets/Air_Training_Corps|Air Training Corps}}
*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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 AgrippaTalk | Sign18:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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).[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 WDT-MSP (talk·contribs). Regards, Letdorf (talk) 12:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
