This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Beverley Aerodrome article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Beverley Aerodrome is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
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
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Latest comment: 1 month ago6 comments3 people in discussion
B class. Possible typo: In the second-to-last paragraph under History, this is written: "No.s 78 and 79". Shouldn't it be "Nos. 78 and 79"? If so, then please correct it. Djmaschek (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
The joy of all things, I don't know if "No.s 78 and 79" is an English-English thing but in American-English it would be expressed "Nos. 78 and 79". Your edit is OK. You could also have done this: "No. 78 and No. 79". Whatever! The important thing is that the article is good for B class. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
Declaration; I am not a trained Professor of English, but I do take an interest in language, so three years after your discussion ended, I followed this up for my own peace of mind.
No. is of course short for the latin word 'numero', which we all know means 'number'. The period at the end is to signify that this is an abbreviation, in the same way that bro. is shorthand for brother. Oh, hang on, these days nobody ever adds a period to that word, but you get my drift.
My first thought was that the plural form would have to be No.s because it is an abbreviated word, to which a plural has been added.
Moss Bros., Oxford Street, London, March 2016
Except, the renowned tailors Moss Bros feature a period at the end of Bros. on their storefront.
But if we were describing a series of successful hit singles we would say in normal speech 'number ones' (No.1s), not 'numbers one' ('Nos.1').
And so, returning to 'No.s 78 & 79', is what we are saying in speech 'number 78 and (number) 79 squadrons', or 'numbers 78 and 79 squadron'?
Whatever the answer is, the format should follow British-English because the article is specifically about a British entity, which isn't exactly the path you outlined above.
Instead I note that your final edit neatly side-stepped the issue over whether the world as a whole prefers no.s or nos.
.svg)
