Talk:Republic of China Air Force

Upper or lower case?

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)

possible new images

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)

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)

Edits by 24.85.227.16‎

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)

List of F-104 Starfighter operators

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)

Air Force of the Republic of China emblems

Is there an explanation of this emblem (pictured) missing? --84.56.4.185 (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of flags

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:

1. The flags make the article difficult to read.
2. These tables do not fall into the MoS guidelines.
3. It is confusing to use the ROC flag with the word "Taiwan".

I would respond as thus:

1. The flags do not make the article difficult to read and actually enhance the tables, making the origins easier to identify.
2. 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.
3. 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)

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)

I propose addition of official ROC flag

The Flag of the Republic of China

Discussion is welcome on this talk page.Arilang1234 (talk) 09:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

@user John Smith's, well Republic of China Airforce should have the national flag shouldn't it? A military force does not have a national flag would be the laughing stocks of other nation.Arilang1234 (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

Proper infobox

I think this article should have a proper infobox like all the other airforce articles have. i.e. Template:Infobox Military Unit. Sample -->

Republic of China Air Force
150px
Active	1920–present
Country	Republic of China

Good idea. I have replaced the infoxboxes. John Smith's (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Equipment Origin

Given the tight relationship between the state and the military, and the fact tha production and export of military equipment is usually tightly controlled by the government of the state, the important information about the "origin" of the equipment is not the geographical location, but the state the that regulated the production and export of the equipment. Readin (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Given the confusion over what the ROC is amongst most people who access the site, it's best to use Taiwan where possible. After all, the article on Asus says that it's Taiwanese not "Republic of Chinese" or some such. It's a lot easier to just say the origin is "Taiwan" and take the politics out of it. User:John Smith's (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Confusion can be a problem, which is why the beginning of the article makes note that the "Republic of China" is what most people know of as "Taiwan". I happen to be of the opinion that we should always use "Taiwan" since that is the common name of the state. However there are many thousands, perhaps millions, of bytes are arguing back and forth on the issue, with people saying that it is the "Republic of China" and thus the correct shortened term would be "China", and arguing that "Taiwan" is nothing more than the name of an island whose inhabitants are subject slaves of greater China who must never ever be free. The argument is stalemated without common ground. Rather than endlessly edit war, a sort of consensus was reached long ago to use the name "Taiwan" for non-state/political matters and "Republic of China" for state/political matters.

Your example of Asus is a computer company. Computer companies are not in the state realm the way the military is. Readin (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Readin, your argument is disingenuous. There's no one here trying to change the equipment origin list to China, nor have they done so. We had this discussion a while ago and the long-standing consensus since then has been "Taiwan". Please change it back. If someone wants to dispute it, they can try to get consensus. Similarly if you want to change it, you should get consensus. User:John Smith's (talk) 07:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

When and where did this discussion occur? I would like to look at it but I don't see it on this page anywhere.

If you change it back to "Taiwan" I will propose that we change it to "Republic of China" and since this discussion is so far experience low participation, I will place a note on the Republic of China and Taiwan talk pages to ask for additional opinions. Does that sound fair? Readin (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't remember off the top of my head, but no it wasn't on this page. It sounds fair, provided that you self-revert the pages to their original state first. I don't want to be accused of slow edit-warring. Thanks, User:John Smith's (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I have made the changes back to "Taiwan" with the understanding that if Readin was not happy with them, he would start a discussion to try to get consensus over the matter rather than revert my restoration of the long-standing version. John Smith's (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

F-16A/B picture

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)

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)

Oh say can't you F16-C/D?

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)

Problems

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)

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)

F-35B refs

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)

File:Republic of China Air Force.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

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)

Hot Pad Alert Aircraft

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)

chairman of the National Yuan's Diplomacy and National Defense Committee is undue?

So he ain't a notable figure WRT Taiwan's defenses? Who then, is? Hcobb (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• You? Removing them again per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 14:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

What does it take to qualify as a notable figure WRT the defense of Taiwan? Hcobb (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Cost for radar upgrade

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)

Taiwan close to sealing F-16 A/Bs upgrade deal with U.S.

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)

And the final deal seems to be sans engines. Hcobb (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Ministry denies report of proposed purchase of only 24 F-16C/Ds

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)

Domestic stealth fighter program not notable?

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

Plane crashes

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)

Why is "Development of Chinese Nationalist air force (1937–45)" a separate page?

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)

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)

Image overload

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)

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)

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 [1], [2], [3], [4] (cause we can't use all the pics) - FOX 52 (talk) 02:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

The T-5 being dropped is fine by me - FOX 52 (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

@FOX 52: This edit [5] violated the consensus we established here, whats the point of agreeing to a consensus if you’re just going to be disruptive after the fact? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

To add to article

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)

Content dispute

@176.222.34.114 and Got Milked: 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@Got Milked: did you miss this talk page section? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

@Got Milked: This is getting tedious. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Got Milked: Come on, now you’re just turning this into a joke. You’re trying to add massive amounts of information based on blogs and internet forums, also as you have been informed a number of times talk page participation is not optional. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, a high percentage of the information being added is dubious and isn't being cited to reliable sources for the standards of a history article. I agree with the reversion of the content per Horse Eye's Back, and I would prefer Got Milked not edit this article again until a consensus emerges on this talk page for his changes.Homemade Pencils (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)