Talk:Women's Royal Air Force
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ranks
editJust a small (but possibly important) note for the ranks section is that some ranks (not sure which) used a 'W' suffix, either in the form SACW or SAC(W) for example (think the latter was the official form). On merging with the RAF I am pretty sure it was discontinued. Would add the note myself but have no sources. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Actually still used by aircraftwomen to this day. No parentheses: ACW, LACW, SACW. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Split and merge
editI would suggest that the 1949-1994 material is merged into Women's Auxiliary Air Force and then redirected there, since the 1949-1994 WRAF has only the name in common with the 1918-1920 WRAF. But would rather discuss it beforehand to gain some consensus. MPSHeritage (talk) 10:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- After nearly three months, with no objections, I am going ahead with this suggestion. DilletantiAnonymous (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- I have reverted these edits. Completely unnecessary. The WRAF existed for 45 years, so is certainly not an afterthought of the WAAF (as such a move would suggest), existed for much longer, was an entirely different entity (a regular service as opposed to a wartime auxiliary), and is the clear primary topic over the WWI version, which only existed for two years. Ironically, if "the 1949-1994 WRAF has only the name in common with the 1918-1920 WRAF" then the 1949−1994 WRAF probably had even less in common with the WAAF, with which it didn't even share a name, so a merge is completely illogical. Nothing wrong with keeping the separate article on the WWI version though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Merger proposal
editI propose to merge Women's Royal Air Force (World War 1) into the Women's Royal Air Force. I think that the content in the the WRAF WW1 article can easily be explained in the context of this article, especially as this article as it stands already had content which would be better served in the WRAF WW1 article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LARobson1998 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm really not sure that's a good idea. They were completely separate organisations and the Women's Auxiliary Air Force came between them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)