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 within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Support About time! I was going to do something like this, but I got distracted months ago. The only suggestion I would make is to get rid of the brackets. It may be part of the Official name, but I think
WP:COMMONNAME applies in this case. We can add a redirect from the bracketed article name if necessary.
Ng.j (
talk)
18:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Support - provided all active squadrons are done. We have have piecemeal attempts to do one or two before and it made a mess. -
Ahunt (
talk)
19:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment - guidelines mention "When a unit...has had multiple names over the course of its existence, the title should generally be the last name used; however, exceptions can be made in cases where the subject is clearly more commonly known by one of the previous names". Any of these units more famous in their Second World War incarnation?
GraemeLeggett (
talk)
19:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)reply
The only one I can think of is "Tiger" Sqn (424), but like most of the articles, there isn't really a lot there to work with. Of course, the fact that Canadians have a horrible time with military history doesn't help. If someone was to look up a sqn, it would most likely be in its current form.
Ng.j (
talk)
22:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Support - also note if a squadron has a notable wartime history we can have two separate articles in time. Any reason why some modern names have brackets and some dont 405 Maritime Patrol or 407 (Maritime Patrol). Think they need to be the same format.
MilborneOne (
talk)
20:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)reply
I think that using the descriptor as is (Tactical Helicopter Squadron) will be fine. We could append (Canada) or (Canadian Forces), but technically there is no "Canadian Air Force", just Air Command. However, I think that we should avoid over-disambiguation. There are no conflicts with the name as is, and it should be very obvious in the
lede that it is an article about a Canadian sqn.
Ng.j (
talk)
22:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Almost all of the Sqns have been moved, except for 427 Special Operations Aviation Squadron which need an admin.
Ng.j (
talk)
21:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
RCAF
I think some of you are behind the times.
Someone in Canada had a sensible caption at last and the RCAF is now actually called RCAF again!!!! Hoorah, and boil looney lefties in oil.
Petebutt (
talk)
08:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
400 Tactical Helicopter Squadron. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.