Talk:Formosa Air Battle

message: I believe the current article name, "Aerial Battle of Taiwan-Okinawa", has some problem. The Aerial Battle happened off the eastern coast of the island of Taiwan. And most events happened near Taiwan island, not Okinawa. Japanese name, "", means aerial battle of "sea area of Taiwan". "" in Japanese means "water area near some-land", not Okinawa. However, I am not sure which name is better in English Grammar. Could any one please suggest suitable name for this article?-alberth2 07:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am the user who initiate the name change discussion in Zh version of this article due to the confused title. Since I am not a Japanese reader, so I rely on English version to verify/update this title. I assume there is no official operation name of this battle to help us. All suggestions are welcome and we can make it more clear for everyone. Thanks in advance.-Cobrachen (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

text: First move would be to see how it is named in English language publications on the history of the war. Or an offical name for the operation from US records. After that would come a translation of its name from say a Japanese source. And then if all else fails there is a descriptive name. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The chapter of Samuel E. Morison's official history of the US Navy in World War II on this engagement is titled 'Formosa Air Battle'. 'Aerial Battle of the Taiwan Seas' isn't a good article name as there is no such body of water as the 'Taiwan Seas' in the English language classification of the world's seas. Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Formosa Air Battle' looks better to me, though the subtitle of the chapter is 'Carrier strikes on Okinawa and Formosa 10-14 October'.Oneam--(Talk in ZH wiki)10:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move suggestion 

message: I think it is important to establish an order of battle for this engagement, but there is difficulty in doing so within the page itself rather than on a subordinate page. 
Reconstructing the IJNAF/IJAAF side of things is complicated due to agreements between the two forces concerning command. IJAAF aircraft were controlled by 2nd Air Fleet after the implementation of Sho and their forces are often counted among the total for that force. The 3rd Air Fleet was detached from the carriers and moved south to function as part of 2nd Air Fleet under Fukudome. Whoever constructed the initial order of battle seems to list this force twice, giving two different numbers for 3rd Air Fleet strength. I have yet to see a citation for 12th Air Fleet's participation in the battle; they were based in the Kuriles, after all. 
There are similar problems with the order of battle on the U.S. side. Whoever made this reconstruction of fleet organization put Cabot in TG 38.1, but it was at the outset a part of TG 38.2. The ship was ordered detached after the torpedoing of Canberra. The order of battle also lacks a TG 30.3 even though the BAITDIV is an important part of this overall story. 
These are the reasons I excised the order of battle originally. Do you think, given these problems, it would be alright to leave out the order of battle for now until there is time for me to reconstruct it and give it a subpage space off the main article? Cheers, Finktron (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: An order of battle doesn't necessarily have to attempt to portray a complex command structure, it could just be a breakdown of the forces involved, or available to be involved. That the current content needs work is the case for most every sub-GA article. Striking out the lot because one or two elements are wrong isn't the way to go.GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of Battle: Problematics