Talk:South Vietnam Air Force

message: I'm happy to see someone finally create a VNAF page.   I'm the son of a VNAF F-5 captain and was on the front lines of the DMZ on the Da Nang base as a toddler.  Bomb raids on the base were an all too common occurence.  I was saddened to see that with all the other Vietnam War related pages, no VNAF page was ever setup before.. The VNAF is now defunct, but they will never be forgotten. Anyone interested in the VNAF should really check out http://vnaf.net --hvn73 07:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've prepared some userboxes for different Air Forces freaks - if you would like to use it, feel free to copy & paste following code in your Babel Tower or another place:

When properly copied, should be displayed like below. --Piotr Mikołajski 07:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a cool user box design, Piotr Mikołajski. Anynobody 08:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox 

message: Despite what the closer said, perhaps it is time to WP:drop the stick? Cinderella157 (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Close of move request. 

message: Can I ask you some questions? What do you mean by MoS and they are just decorative shoulder sleeve insignia? Also, I don’t thinks all of them all the same and the one that are different has not been make yet, but anyway I just want a further explanation on deletion. Thanks. (Also sorry about all those mistakes on your talk page) Emperofvietilia ☎  ✎ 14:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: MoS means Manual of Style which you can find here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons, see in particular Encyclopedic purpose and Do not use too many icons. The logos for all the Air Divisions are exactly the same other than the Roman numerals and the Wing logos are exactly the same other than the numbers. They don't convey any useful information and are actually a distraction to the reader. I am also concerned by your comment that "the one that are different has not been made yet" and note that you created all of these yourselves. What is the WP:RS that shows that any of these are actual RVNAF logos? Mztourist (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I see thank you for the help in explaining the meaning and the rule of MoS. However, those duplicate images are supposed to be the same as that is how they make. An example is the ARVN Corps, aren't they the same from Corp 1 to 4? Another is this pic of the squadron logos. Those pictures are not a distraction but just there for people to see what it used to look like. But anyway I got this information from the South Vietnamese veterans website, which is in Viet by the way. If you say something in the line of "they are the third party and might be untrustful sources", I could try and looks for others sources (images of airman back then, books, etc.), and ask relatives for information. The book that I think might have the information is the "VNAF Flying Dragons: Vietnam War & History" at Appendix D: Unit Insignia of VNAF. Here are some images that prove the SSI (more will be later): 4th Air Division, 33rd Tactical Wing, 74th Tactical Wing, Photos website one, and Photos website two. Sorry for the inconvenience, took me 2 hours non-stop from the time you post your comment till now to find further proves since you can be counter anything I said or show, like fake images, website, or just flat out not enough. Anyway thanks for listening. Emperofvietilia ☎  ✎ 05:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  In relation to the ARVN Corps, the Corps insignia aren't used on the Army of the Republic of Vietnam page, they are used on the page for each Corps which is appropriate. The fact is that there is relatively little information available regarding the RVNAF, this page was only 32.89 kb before I began my major expansion earlier this month and unless some new WP:RS can be found I don't expect it to expand much more. With the scarcity of available information there is no justification for separate pages for RVNAF Divisions or Wings where logos/insignias would be relevant. In relation to their inclusion on this page, obviously I do not agree with you about them being a distraction and as advised above I believe in accordance with MoS that they serve no Encyclopedic Purpose. You are of course free to Wikipedia:Requests for comment regarding their inclusion on this Talk Page and invite input on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and I will of course abide by consensus. regards Mztourist (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand now, then can it be shown as an example of how each division and wing are like? So maybe a gallery of one logo/insignia of each organization at the bottom of RVNAF units or on top of it (one in the Division, Wing, Squadron, Training, and so on). I think only one for each organization would be defined as Encyclopedic Purpose? Anyway, those logos/insignia will be there temporary until new page dedicated for it had been created. Thanks for hearing. Emperofvietilia ☎  ✎ 14:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't believe that the logos/insignia serve any Encyclopedic Purpose, they are merely decorative and so do not belong on the page. There isn't enough information available to have separate pages for each wing or division. If you want to elevate this you are welcome to do so by starting an RFC. Do not put them back on this page until this issue is resolved. Mztourist (talk) 03:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: So how about adding a photo like this, 33rd Tactical Wing, as a presenting how an airman should wear it and how it looks like, is that photo count as decoration too? (Of course, I will show where I get the sources and follow any guideline in posting the image on here). If so then that is the end of our conversation, as further talk here will just going back to your refusal of any insignia going on this page. Anyway, I will be deleting all of the decorated/insignia that I uploaded on the wiki as it will go nowhere either way. Goodbye Emperofvietilia ☎  ✎ 03:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not a very high quality or informative photo so it shouldn't be added.Mztourist (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logos/insignias 

message: - A little confused on your recent revert(s) you stated "we dont need multiple links to United States", so I removed them - Now whats the issue? - FOX 52 (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Multiple different errors: grammar "were absorb into", wordiness: "with the collapse of the South Vietnamese Government" and inaccuracy: A37 was an attack plane not a fighter. Mztourist (talk) 06:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh that's all, OK thanks I'll take care of them (one side note according to SIPRI, the RVNAF didn't have a F-5 "C" variant as well as no "A" variant for the A-37 Dragonfly) - cheers FOX 52 (talk) 05:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inventory Table 

message: User:Great Brightstar the pushpin map you added omits a number of air bases such as Tan Son Nhut, Phan Rang, Phu Cat, Pleiku and Soc Trang. Mztourist (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No, have no idea how to do it, you added the map...Mztourist (talk) 04:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I got them, seen from source code, it looks not so difficult if you got their geographical coordinates. --Great Brightstar (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of air bases, November 2021