Talk:RAF Woodbridge

MoD Woodbridge

Should this article provide clearer information on its current use as a barracks?[1], [2].unsigned PeterEastern 18 Feb 2012

move to 'MoD Woodbridge'

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

The result of the proposal was: Withdrawn by proposer. Station1 (talk) 06:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

---

RAF Woodbridge → MoD Woodbridge – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• I believe that the name of this article should be updated to 'MoD Woodbridge' or possibly 'Rock Barracks (MoD Woodbridge)'. Here are sources for the proposed name.[3]. Any thoughts? PeterEastern (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose it has been RAF Woodbridge far longer than anything else. May be better to start a new article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have clarified the history of the site more clearly now in the lead emphasising the heritage of the base whilest not ignoring its current usage. I would suggest that the article could accommodate more information about current usage if someone wanted to add it in due course. As time goes by a move/split may wish to be reconsidered, however I am content to leave it for now with the current title and as a single article. PeterEastern (talk) 05:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• I passed the base last weekend and noted that there seems to be considerable confusion about what it is called, with three different road signs on the approach to the base calling it by different names. The first sign was for 'Woodbridge Airfield', the next for 'MoD Woodbridge' and at the entrance for 'Sutton Heath - Rock Barracks'. This seems to be another reason to leave the name of the article unchanged at the present time. As proposer of the move, I am not sure how I should close the move request as 'rejected', possibly someone else could do that in due course. PeterEastern (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on RAF Woodbridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071008060617/http://www.forgottonplaces.co.uk/Explores/Woodbridge%20141006/RAFWoodbridge/index.html to http://www.forgottonplaces.co.uk/Explores/Woodbridge%20141006/RAFWoodbridge/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Timeline not clear

The layout seems disjointed, and the article is currently more focussed on units (squadrons), including one (79th FS/TFS) that was a bit of a cuckoo. Consequently the timeline is fragmented as follows

• WWII (1943-45)
• 79th FS (1952 - 1970)
• Twin-bases (1958 - 1993)
• 67 ARRS (1970 - 1992)
• 1990's (closure 1992/93)

Somehow, the most significant period (1958-93), the most significant units (81st TFW), and the most significant aircraft (F-4D Phantom) are all relegated to 'barely mentioned'. Indeed, the F-4 Phantom doesn't even get a photo!

This needs to be put right. First on my list will be a photo of an 81st TFW F-4D with base code 'WR' writ large all over the tail, not the scrawny version barely visible on the later A-10s. Lol.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 10:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)