Talk:Royal Radar Establishment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is a phase in the history of one single establishment and location that has been the major employer in Malvern for nearly 70 years. The focus of research and its permanent employees has changed only slightly over the years in spite of the frequent renaming. It has always been a facility for the research and development of electronic defence tchnology. I'm suggesting a merger of all these articles into a main article with subsections for each, leaving rediretcs. But, it's only a suggestion...
- TRE Telecommunications Research Establishment 1942 - 1953
- RRE Radar Research Establishment 1953 - 1957
- RRE Royal Radar Establishment 1957 - 1976
- RSRE Royal Signals and Radar Establishment 1976 - 1991
- DRA Defence Research Agency April 1991 - April 1995
- DERA Defence Evaluation & Research Agency April 1995 July 2001
- QinetiQ & DSTL July 2000 - present
--Kudpung (talk) 02:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
looking at the pages TRE and RRE maybe should be merge. One could also possibly also merge in RSRE. If you merged RSRE you would have to also merge Signals Research and Development Establishment. Also DRA and DERA may be could be merged. DRA should not be merged with RSRE as DRA was much more than just RSRE. Also as QinetiQ is a very different entity to what DERA was I would not support merging QinetiQ. Iccaldwell (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a difficult one, this, isn't it. I feel that all the establishments from TRE to DERA should be merged into one decent article. The name changed a lot, and the scientific focus may have changed a bit, but the staff didn't. The problem would be in choosing which name to give the article and redirect all the others. I suggest using its last name, DERA. The bigget changes didn't really happen until North Site closed down.I do agree with you however that QinetiQ should retain its own article. Probably the best thing to do is to call for a debate. I can organise it if you like.--Kudpung (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- yes please do!!! I have just run into this in the course of amending John Gunn's page Michael P. Barnett (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)