Talk:No. 255 Squadron RAF

Untitled

Thanks to Nick (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC) an issue with the wrong image of the mascot Bruce being displayed is now resolved.

Thanks to Primefac (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC) an issue with the Template for London Gazette references is now resolved. 255 Historian (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

PROPOSAL TO SPLIT

(arising from the "Tidy up" suggestion appearing at the head of the Article) : Comment invited regarding splitting as between WWI and WWII (problem - WWII alone almost certainly will over-run the recommended size limit), or WWI + WWII up to the point when the Squadron left the UK in November 1942 (that probably would split the finished article about 50:50), or something else. Territory still to be covered:

• ¦ Music. (Length - short)
• ¦ Trophies, including the loss of the Chain of Jerries. Length - medium)
• ¦ 1.2.9 Sicily. (Length - medium)
• ¦ 1.2.10 Italy up to VE Day, including the Balkans. (Length - long)
• ¦ 1.3.2 Italy after VE Day. (Length - short)
• ¦ 1.3.3 Malta. (Length - short)
• ¦ 1.3.4 Egypt. (Length - short)
• ¦ Remainder of "Serials". (Length - short)
• ¦ 1.4 255 in the 21st Century, including the recent history of the Chain. (Length - medium)

Not forgetting that some parts might need to be duplicated, for example the Acronym & Abbreviation Decoder and parts of the Bibliography. 255 Historian (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion a concentration on the broad content and removal of excessive detail (we are not trying to recreate an in depth history of the unit), inconsequential content. Combined with a more direct and less wordy style the content would be more readable and reasonable length. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Before I circulate members of 255 Squadron Association seeking their opinion as to the route to be taken from here on (such as creating our own website instead of using Wikipedia), please would you clarify who "we" are in your post above. Wikipedia management? A descendant of squadron personnel of whom I'm unaware? It would be helpful to know just who is levelling the criticism. 255 Historian (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Please remember that wikipedia is not a provider of space for squadron websites it is an encyclopedia. We are anybody who logs into wikipedia and has an interest. Some users here have been around for a number of years and have a good handle on what should or should not be included but anybody is allowed to express an opinion. MilborneOne (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I would have to agree with User:GraemeLeggett what we really need is a prune to remove the excess and fine detail which should reduced the article considerably. So really no need to split. MilborneOne (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think a split is necessary, just a bit of trimming down to the most relevant content for an encyclopedia entry. (Hohum ^@) 17:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be trimmed down and focussed on the broad history of the squadron, mainly based on reliable secondary sources (see WP:RS). A lot of the article is still either rather tangential to the subject of the article, or concentrating on tiny details - like the discussion of the squadron's mascot.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Great offence has been taken in consequence of four individuals (none, it seems, having any connection with the squadron) diving in and making changes, some major, without any prior discussion whatsoever. 24 edits in 20 hours looks very unfriendly. As the author of the vast majority of the original text, I'm more than happy to receive suggestions - but some recent edits have, in my opinion, been seriously misguided. For example, the deletion of the Nicknames decoder as "Trivia". Much of the squadron's "unofficial diary" (fragments in The National Archives, AIR27/1520 through 1522) refers to individuals only by nickname. Without a decoder, the text of the source document verges on being meaningless. In the light of that is the decoder trivia, or essential data, or something in between? 255 Historian (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Please note that nobody owns this article it is an effort by all the users involved, in fact not having a connection with the squadron is of benefit in writing an encyclopedia. As 255 Historian appears to have a vested interest in the subject then it may be worth them reading our Conflict of Interest guidelines.

I have removed most of the trivia and stuff that is not really encyclopedic, although fine for a published squadron history by an association it is not notable for an encyclopedia. I have reduced the content to a better 30K now but it does need to be checked by somebody else to make sure it makes sense, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

To answer a specific question about including material by way of illustration. The "decoder" is only of use if you are dealing with the original source material (primary source). Wikipedia mostly operates from secondary sources - ones that have done the interpretation already - and avoids inclusion of substantial quotes directly from primary sources. To that end a glossary of terms, or names, in the primary sources is superfluous. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I hear what you all say, but I'm not going to react immediately - preferring instead to consult with others first. IN THE MEANTIME would somebody who knows how to do it please remove the reference to assessment for B-Class. Neither my version nor that provided this evening by MilborneOne is complete; if nothing else the section about Trophies (of which there were two) is awaited. Therefore I suggest that "C" is currently appropriate and assessment for anything higher would be premature. 255 Historian (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The B class checklist is used on lots of articles, it helps to flag up to other editors articles that need attention in certain areas (eg lacking infoboxes and images, or haven't been divided into sections). At the moment this article shows up as "Start". All articles are expected to be assessed against the full spectrum of article quality (how the MilHist project does it, and tracks progress across articles it identifies as "Military history" subjects, is here) from stub to Featured article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Formation query

Luce Bay (523 & 524)

Pembroke (519 & 520)

Bangor
(521 & 522)

No. 255 Squadron RAF (the United Kingdom)

According to http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/255squadron.cfm it was "was formed on 25 July 1918 at Pembroke from Nos.519 and 520 Flights for anti-submarine patrols over St.Georges Channel and the approaches to the Bristol Channel. The squadron was disbanded on 14 January 1919." Yet http://www.rafweb.org/Sqn251-255.htm says "Active from 6 July 1918 it was formed from Nos 519, 520, 521, 522, 523 & 524 (Special Duty) Flights at Pembroke. It was equipped with DH6 aircraft, which were used to carry out anti-submarine patrols over St George's Channel and the Western Bristol Channel. The squadron disbanded on 14 January 1919." and our article says "On 6 June these flights were numbered . . . .". Any thoughts on this discrepancy? Cheers, --Bye for now (PTT) 21:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

More clues HERE :(eg: on 6 June 521 and 522 Flights were formed at Llangefni with DH-4s) --Bye for now (PTT) 22:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

this extract from a book says "the Admiralty's new initiative was hi-jacked and modified by the merger; of the RNAS and RFC on 1 April 1918 to form the RAF. The immediate impact was to impose upon a loose naval organisation the RF's hierarchal orthodoxy of Group, Wing, Squadron, Flight" "...six Coastal Patrol Special Duties Flights (SDF) established on 6 June 1918" and "On 25 July 1918 the six flights came under the umbrella of newly formed 255 Squadron". also "255 Squadron, ....was reconstituted as three squadrons...The official date for the transfer is 15 August 1918. " So flights were numbered up in June, then formed into a squadron for organization purposes, before being split into three smaller squadrons. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Quite simple then, really. I think I'll leave it to someone else to write this up though. --Bye for now (PTT) 22:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that the "active" field in the infobox should be from 25 July 1918, even though its constituent flights had existed before that (from 6 June). Is that correct? --Bye for now (PTT) 13:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

In terms of this specific squadron number, yes. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Given that Patrol Reports exist from 6 July 1918, which undeniably they do, how can it possibly be stated that the No.255 Squadron was not "active" by that date? 255 Historian (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Half the answer to this was on the Article page this time last week, but has since been culled. Before the edit, it said: "Documents discovered in 2014 at The National Archives (TNA) suggest that, whilst the location given by Jefford (2001) is correct, the formation date was earlier than 25 July 1918. Within the Patrol Reports of No.14 Group (prior to the formation of the RAF this was the Milford Haven Anti-Submarine Group of the Royal Naval Air Service) there exists a record of daily sorties by aircraft of No.255 Squadron. The series commences on 6 July 1918.[6] On a purely administrative basis, the squadron must have formed no later than 8 May 1918. That date appears in the RNAS service record of Reginald Rhys SOAR as the date when he was posted to the squadron.[7]"

What I currently suspect to be the case is that the various "Flights" in West Wales, North Wales and Scotland always were intended to group into three separate squadrons, but events moved faster than the paperwork.

My suggestion for a next move is this (unless anybody has a better idea):

Locate in TNA Class AIR1 the earliest RAF Patrol Reports in respect of flights out of each location (already done for Pembroke - answer 6 July 1918) and determine who signed them and in what capacity they were signing. Then go to that individual's RNAS Service Record in TNA Class ADM273 and determine what 'posting' caused them to be where they were.

Honorary Captain Soar signed Patrol Reports as "Officer Commanding A and B Flights, No.255 Squadron" and, as per older editions of the Article, his posting was to No.255 Squadron, RAF. (Yes, that's what it says, even though it's in a RNAS file.) The results of doing this for the other locations (Bangor, Llangefni and Luce Bay) should show what designations were being used on each airfield and when.

That approach worked in respect of Reginald Rhys Soar even though his RAF Personnel File remains closed on account of his having stayed in the RAF after the war.

I may be able to get to TNA next week; I'll put this on the "to do" list. 255 Historian (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The trouble is that rooting around in the National Archives to find links between on one ancient memorandum and then some other document in another file is crossing into WP:Original Research. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Sturtivant and Page give the formation date as the 25 May 1918 as part of 14 Group which is also the date that the numbered flights began to be formed. The numbered flights in 255 Squadron being formed on 6 June only a week and a half after. You also need to remember that it is not unusual for personnel to be posted to a unit before it "officially" forms. MilborneOne (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference the comment above by GraemeLeggett 19:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)) - Is that a good reason not to look? Don't ignore the matter of sorting out discrepancies between different "Secondary Sources". Jefford differs from Sturtivant & Page on this issue. Both cannot be right. Original documentation might well show one to be spot on. Or it might show some third timetable to be the case. Or it might be inconclusive. Until you look, you don't know. But one thing is certain: Endlessly quoting erroneous conclusions arrived at by others, for fear of engaging in any research oneself, is not conducive to arriving at the truth. 255 Historian (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Strange but Wikipedia is not really after the truth but reliable referencing, what we would do is quote one date and then make a note to say that other reliable references disagree, its then up to the reader to make a judgement. MilborneOne (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

A variant on that would be (for example) if one source said 6 July and another 10 July for an event, then the phrase "early July" might suffice for not giving precedence to either, and the two dates would appear in the footnote.GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It was precisely because of this uncertainty that the version of the page as it stood at the end of October contained a section "Uncertain date of formation". It so happened that I compared and contrasted the differing sources of Jefford and AIR1/485. Sturtivant & Page might reasonably have been added to that list - but without deleting the rest. There may be other opinions of which we are all unaware. Right now, the page mentions only Sturtivant & Page. Why the assumption that they are correct and everybody else is wrong? 255 Historian (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Sturtivant & Page are only used in the article as a source for the formation/rearrangement of individual flights and for the disbanding of the squadron ie: not for the formation date of the actual squadron. I think we are agreed that the formation date is as yet unclear and that no single source is conclusive about this. --Bye for now (PTT) 22:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

"...no single source is conclusive about this". Agreed, which is precisely why there was a section headed "Uncertain date of formation" in my original text. 255 Historian (talk) 12:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

TNA file AIR1/485/15/312/270 at Folio 59 evidences that the Bangor site reported its daily activities to HQ No.14 Group at Pembroke with effect from 8 August 1918, using the ID No.244 Squadron (not 255) to do so. There is no evidence in that file of land-based aircraft of the RAF being flown from the Bangor site at any earlier date. Neither is there any reference to 255 being at Bangor, even by way of a notional administrative detachment from Pembroke pending the formation of No.244 Squadron. In passing, note that by 13 August, 244 Squadron had acquired the ultimate symbol of separate identity - a Rubber Stamp! My efforts to do the same check in respect of Luce Bay were frustrated by the relevant file being in use by another reader. 255 Historian (talk) 12:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

www.rafweb.org

Incoming e-mail from Malcolm Barrass, just read, points out that the items currently attributed to him in References were not his own research but quotes from other sources. The detail of what Malcolm says suggests a risk of Circular reference. Would whoever inserted those references please check this out. 255 Historian (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Replaced with a reference to Sturtivant and Page. MilborneOne (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)