Talk:Republic of China Air Force

message: In the tables that list the various aircraft, missiles, etc and anon-IP editor has changed upper case descriptions to lower case ones. For example "multirole fighter" instead of "Multi-role fighter". I personally prefer upper case, so unless anyone has strong objections I will change them over when I have the time. Otherwise please leave your views here.
Furthermore I'm not happy with the current colour of the tables. if there are no objections I'll look into changing the colour when I have the time. John Smith's (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Upper or lower case?

message: i just noticed that there are free wallpapers available at the official website of the republic of china air force, perhaps we can add some of those images to this page.--K kc chan (talk) 11:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if the website says that any images available are copyright free/can be used for any use. If they're copyrighted/rights reserved/etc we shouldn't use them. John Smith's (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  possible new images 

message: This editor has been removing wikilinks from all three ROC military pages with no explanation. I have reverted his latest changes as vandalism - please be on the look-out. If he does it again, please report him. John Smith's (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by 24.85.227.16‎  

message: User:Nimbus227 added this list to the "see also" section on a large number of articles rather hastiliy. After pointing out that this could be considered spamming and was inappropriate given the relatively tenuous link to this and other articles, he agreed that they could be removed. I have removed it accordingly. John Smith's (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of F-104 Starfighter operators 

message: Is there an explanation of this emblem (pictured) missing? --84.56.4.185 (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Air Force of the Republic of China emblems

message: I have restored the flags because Pyl's justification in removing them is invalid - there is no "flag convention". There is a MoS that makes suggestions over how they can be used, but I do not see anything that contradicts their use here.
He has complained that:
# The flags make the article difficult to read.
# These tables do not fall into the MoS guidelines.
# It is confusing to use the ROC flag with the word "Taiwan".
I would respond as thus:
# The flags do not make the article difficult to read and actually enhance the tables, making the origins easier to identify.
# The MoS gives suggestions, not a finite number of examples, as to when flags can be used. Again, a MoS is not binding and there appropriate people can make their own styles.
# It is not confusing at all, because Taiwan is a well known location. On the other hand "Republic of China" is highly confusing. Having "Taiwan" is thus a lot better and as the flag is flown on the island there's no reason not to use it.
On another note I am trimming the arms discussion as most of it is not relevant to the air force. John Smith's (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added back the TWN flags, reminder to all, the flags will now be TWN not ROC to clarify the article's content. kliu1 (talk) 08:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of flags 

message: thumb|right|300px|The Flag of the Republic of China
Discussion is welcome on this talk page.Arilang1234 (talk) 09:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you want to add it? I think it's unnecessary myself. I've reduced the roundel size as it was a bit large. John Smith's (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I think you fail to understand. Look at the RAF page. There is no Union Jack there except on a template. If you want to design a useful ROCAF template and include the ROC flag on it, fine. But there's no point in sticking the ROC flag randomly into the article. If you click on the ROC page you can see the flag there. John Smith's (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: I propose addition of official ROC flag

message: I think this article should have a proper infobox like all the other airforce articles have. i.e. Template:Infobox Military Unit. Sample -->
Good idea. I have replaced the infoxboxes. John Smith's (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper infobox 

message: That's not a ROCAF F-16 A/B Block 20---it's missing the Hazeltine AN/APX-113(V) Advanced IFF (AIFF) blade antenna....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryan TMF (talk • contribs) 09:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out, Bryan. I have removed the reference to tbe block type. John Smith's (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: F-16A/B picture

message: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/taiwan/2011/taiwan-110114-cna01.htm
The lawmaker said when he discussed arms sale issues with U.S. officials during his last visit to the United States, he could feel that Washington was more inclined to upgrade the existing F-16 A/B fleet than to sell new F-16 C/D fighters to Taiwan.
Ouch!  Should have more details next week.  Hcobb (talk) 04:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oh say can't you F16-C/D? 

message: The Taiwanese air force and the entire military has serious problems.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/MC18Ad01.html
http://www.china-defense-mashup.com/taiwan-missile-test-flops-again.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.212.187 (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's better to find out all the problems during peacetime exercises than find out the damn thing doesn't working when shit hitting the fan. It's better than those fake "100 percent" on-the-target dog and pony shows/exercises due to believing in the party and the little red book......Bryan TMF (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems 

message: I've also got Gertz, but it is the same Mooney Times.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/19/arms-sale-to-taiwan-may-fray-china-ties/
So I didn't bother. Hcobb (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  F-35B refs 

message: An image used in this article, File:Republic of China Air Force.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 9 December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Republic of China Air Force.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Besides regular breaking dawn to late evening fighter patrols over Taiwan Strait and various patrol stations off Western Taiwan, each ROCAF fighter squadron is required to maintain various levels of 24/7 hot pad alert fighters, usually 2 fighters in 3 minutes alert status with pilots all dressed up in the alert room next to the fighters in HAS, 2-4 fighters in 15 minutes alert status with pilots required to stay in the squadron ready room, and 4 fighters in 30 minutes alert status with pilots required to stay on the airbase. With 17 fighter squadrons, that means there's 34 Alert 3/5 birds, 34-68 Alert 15 birds, and 68 Alert 30 birds on ready status at all time in Taiwan. It used to be night time fighter patrols before 1990s over Taiwan Strait and over Taiwan, but due to noise complaints about late night and midnight air operations, ROCAF had to cut back those nighttime operations. The only nation that has 24/7 fighter patrols in the air now is South Korea with ROKAF.
The closest ROCAF operational fighter airbase to Mainland China is the Makung Airbase on Penghu Islands, near middle of the Taiwan Strait. There's no permanently assigned fighter squadron on this airbase, but a F-CK-1 fighter squadron from either CCK or Tainan AB would stationed there from the month of April to October, due to winter months the airbase is very windy. But before dusk for the whole year, a 4 ship or 8 ship section of fighter, either F-CK-1 or F-16 would arrives at the Makung Airbase at Penghu Islands as the nightly hot pad alert fighters.
Question, where do I put this info into which section, or create a new section, like "Operational"?  Bryan TMF (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hot Pad Alert Aircraft 

message: So he ain't a notable figure WRT Taiwan's defenses? Who then, is? Hcobb (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  chairman of the National Yuan's Diplomacy and National Defense Committee is undue? 

message: http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Taiwan_US_to_sign_fighter_radar_contract_report_999.html
The United States has quoted a price of $600 million for the radars
:That's like $5 - $6 million per radar set, which sounds low to me. Will check. Hcobb (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost for radar upgrade 

message: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/taiwan/2012/taiwan-120705-cna01.htm
:Not quite enough changed to warrant additional edits at this time. Let's see what was left off first. Hcobb (talk) 01:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taiwan close to sealing F-16 A/Bs upgrade deal with U.S. 

message: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/taiwan/2012/taiwan-120813-cna01.htm
The Ministry of National Defense denied Monday local media reports that Taiwan has recently made a proposal to the United States for a procurement of 24 F-16C/D jet fighters.
:Which means the proposal is at a higher, political level, of course. But not solid enough to report yet. Hcobb (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ministry denies report of proposed purchase of only 24 F-16C/Ds 

message: The MND has announced the goal. What makes it not notable? Hcobb (talk) 02:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Domestic stealth fighter program not notable? 

message: Please don't revert my edits on the numbers of fighters in the inventory. There has been two crashes recently one F-16 and one Mirage 2000.
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/national-news/2013/05/16/378715/Air-Force.htm
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/kyodo-news-international/130520/taiwans-mirage-fighters-grounded-after-crash  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.166.23 (talk) 09:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plane crashes 

message: Shouldn't that page simply be put under the History section?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_Chinese_Nationalist_air_force_(1937%E2%80%9345)
Edinyuma (talk) 10:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably due to the length, it would overwhelm this article so no reason to merge it here. MilborneOne (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is "Development of Chinese Nationalist air force (1937–45)" a separate page? 

message: The article appears to be crowed with too many images, of which some are non-notable, particularly the commanders. These guys appear to have no significance, and don’t provide any real education value to the reader. Also the T-5 prototype at rollout, is probably best to stay with  AIDC T-5 page, the aircraft isn’t in inventory, & may not even go to production. As stated in the WP: Image dos and don'ts "Don't use images or galleries excessively", and this should be followed, as WP is not a picture book. IMHO - FOX 52 (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I think we should get rid of all of them except for Hsiung Hou-chi and even that should be resized. My one big point is that when trimming the pictures in the armaments section we remove images that are not Taiwan specific and that are only illustrations rather than pictures first, I suggest the paveway illustration. I think there only needs to be one F-16 picture, whether thats the first or the second one I have no opinion on. I think the T-5 picture makes sense under "Domestic development” as the Air Force is a development partner in the project, its isn't purely AIDC. Production has also been approved and funded, I haven't seen any suggestion that they won’t go through with full rate production... Have you? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well staying in line with WP:IMAGEMOS, I think the  F-CK-1A file is better suited as a successful program for the Domestic development section. I can’t predict if the T-5 will make it of or not, but it’s can also be cancelled like  , , ,   (cause we can't use all the pics) - FOX 52 (talk) 02:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Imagemos says not to use excessive imagery, it does not provide detailed guidance as to what images are appropriate. I would say that as long as there aren’t multiple pictures per major platform or munition it isn't excessive. If we’ve eliminated five or six pictures already then its definitely not excessive anymore. I should note that I’m probably biased as I made the T-5 page, I wouldn’t object terribly to it being replaced with the F-CK-1 image. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The T-5 being dropped is fine by me - FOX 52 (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I would certainly agree that we don't need all of the photos of senior officers - currently we have four photos of senior officers who aren't mentioned in the body of the text, which take up a large chunk of the right-hand side of the page- perhaps trim to on (if he can be mentioned in the text), which hopefully will move the historical portrait closer to the history section.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, it seems we have a consensus to drop 3/4 pics of Generals and to make the one remaining smaller as well as remove the T-5 picture and replace it with the F-CK-1A pic and to get rid of one of the two F-16 pics (I’d suggest keeping the shot with both an F-16 and a PLAAF bomber). Does that sound right to you guys? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image overload  

message: To add to this article: mention of the Republic of China Air Force Song (中華民國空軍軍歌). 173.88.246.138 (talk) 09:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: To add to article

message: This is the place to get consensus for your changes, hopefully other editors can assist you in finding WP:RS as well. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It is on YOU to gather consensus for your mass removal of content, not others for restoring it back. 176.222.34.114 (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thats not how WP:BURDEN or WP:ONUS works... Its on those who want to include/restore content not those who remove it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do the colossal Chinese language quotes in the citations in the history section really add much to an English language article? Quotes should only really be used if they are essential and if necessary should be as short as possible to conform with Fair Use requirements - they should also be translated to English so that they are of use to the reader.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed, it doesn't add much and many of those sources appear to be from the PRC not the ROC. Obviously given the reality that is press and academic freedom in the modern PRC we just can’t be using these sources on a Taiwan related article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

text: So - does this article exist only for you and Got Milked to edit war on? - If any attempts to edit the article and add references are just going to be reverted then the article needs admin attention.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can’t help it if they refuse to seek consensus for their changes on the talk page, reverting back to the status quo is common procedure even if there is almost always some level of regrettable collateral damage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

text:  This should have been largely over and done with on the 25th. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content dispute