This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the South Vietnam Air Force article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Military history: Aviation / National / Asian / Southeast Asia / Cold War C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	National militaries task force
	Asian military history task force
	Southeast Asian military history task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Vietnam High‑importance

	Vietnam portal This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Aviation

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Untitled[edit]

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)[reply]

Userbox[edit]

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:

((User:Piotr Mikołajski/Userboxes/VNAF))

When properly copied, should be displayed like below. --Piotr Mikołajski 07:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user edits VNAF related articles

That's a cool user box design, Piotr Mikołajski. Anynobody 08:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the air commandos?[edit]

The history section breaks off abruptly, just before Operation Farm Gate. In 1961, the air commandos of the 4400th Combat Crew Training Squadron began training the VNAF in counter-insurgency air operations. Although I know this, I don't have the reference to hand. Could someone please include this bit of history?

Georgejdorner (talk)

Requested move 3 September 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to the title that got rough consensus: South Vietnam Air Force. If folks are concerned about the capitalization of air force, suggest open another RM here, no qualms. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 03:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam Air Force → Republic of Vietnam Air Force – To avoid confusion with the current Vietnamese air force of unified Vietnam. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 04:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC). --Relisting. — Sam Sailor 23:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles..

Prefer South Vietnam Air Force since South Vietnam is the name of the old country page, and it's more obvious what it means. Many people not know that "Republic of Vietnam" means the old South Vietnam rather than present day Vietnam. — Amakuru (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted - please add new comments below this notice. — Sam Sailor 23:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to South Vietnam Air Force per WP:UCN, as this appears to the common name used in a wide variety of sources, and is the least ambiguous name. - BilCat (talk) 08:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer South Vietnam Air Force ; the only Vietnam that now exists is the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, as this is the one currently in the UN and recognized by all countries; South Vietnam ceased to exist on 30 April 1975 and its last remaining unit, the KC705 and its "exile government" in California were disbanded long ago. In short. as of September 2016, the word Vietnam solely, only and exclusively refers to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
South Vietnam Air Force would be incorrect, since that wasn't the actual name of the organization, and the capitalization is wrong too. South Vietnamese air force would be grammatically correct, but again, usually we title the articles of military branches on the proper noun of the organization. For example, the South Korean air force is labelled "Republic of Korea Air Force", since that's what they use to call themselves. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 08:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 6 December 2016[edit]

The result of the move request was: Not moved — Amakuru (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South Vietnam Air Force → South Vietnamese air force – "South Vietnam Air Force" [sic] is not a proper noun, so the capitalization is gramatically incorrect. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 07:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - if by "not a proper noun" you mean it's not the official name, fine. But as a common name, it is commonly written as "South Vietnam Air Force". That was already decided above. WP:STICK. - BilCat (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's certainly the proper name in English sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I'd also be fine with South Vietnamese Air Force or Republic of Vietnam Air Force (no idea why that was rejected above, given it's used in many organisations and I would agree that it's the most common name), but definitely capitalised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 September 2017[edit]

This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 11 October 2017. The result of the move review was Closure endorsed.The key-word procedural close is altered to No Concensus.

The result of the move request was: procedural close: BilCat and AjaxSmack have discussed below that this nomination could do with being bundled or at least be renominated with a more detailed rationale, especially considering the effects the move could have on similar page naming conventions. No prejudice to renomination but the relevant WikiProjects should be informed too. Perhaps even an RfC may be in order to determine how South Vietnam / Republic of Vietnam should be referred to in all article titles. DrStrauss talk 20:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

South Vietnam Air Force → Republic of Vietnam Air Force – Per MOS:MILTERMS. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 05:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 14:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Are we going to do this every year? Drop the stick. - BilCat (talk) 05:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any substantive arguments in opposition? Similar cases use the official names of such forces. — AjaxSmack 01:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? He didn't even bother to give a rationale, which shows he isn't really taking this seriously. My argument hasn't changed since the previous discussion, which closed in my favor. Plus Wikipedia favors the common names over official ones. - BilCat (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this former state is at South Vietnam, not Republic of Vietnam. It's not a question of ideology, it's a question of common name, which is e.g. why we have an article on North Korea, not its official title. PatGallacher (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't show that much difference in Google Books results (3260 hits SVNAF vs 2630 hits for RVNAF) and recent sources seem to prefer the proposed title according to this Google Ngram. Additionally, the proposed title is consistent (WP:CONSISTENCY) with other such articles. — AjaxSmack 01:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Querying other participants: Other related South Vietnam articles are titled Republic of Vietnam Military Forces, Army of the Republic of Vietnam, Republic of Vietnam Navy and Republic of Vietnam National Police. Why should the air force be different? As far as North Korea goes, their air force article is at Korean People's Army Air Force. Ditto for the Republic of Korea Air Force of South Korea and the Air Forces of the National People's Army for East Germany. — AjaxSmack 01:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. Once this discussion closes as "no move" or "no consensus", I'll propose that those pages be moved to the more common names to match this one, and to match the country article, South Vietnam. In fact, the other countries' forces that you listed should be at their common names also, so I'll probably propose moving them too, if they haven't had proposals recently. - BilCat (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. However, such a series of moves would disrupt long-standing titles with questionable benefit. Therefore...

...Support per WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:PRECISION. The current title is an anomaly at Wikipedia among Vietnam armed forces articles and among air force articles. The proposed title is nearly as common as the current title and is more precise than the current title which is a description masquerading as a proper name (NB the caps in "Air Force"). — AjaxSmack 23:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Per AjaxSmack. If there is consensus to move all pages to a different title, that process should happen first. It's strange to have the air force page being the sole exception. The proposed title is also the longstanding common practice among other similar East Asian articles. Alex Shih ^Talk 01:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Per AjaxSmack and consistency with pages for other branches of the South Vietnamese military. While the formal name of South Vietnam was the Republic of Vietnam, the common name was South Vietnam which explains the anomaly. My only reservation to this change is that the acronym RVNAF was also used as an abbreviation for Republic of Vietnam Armed Forces and so could create some confusion and may explain why SVNAF was used at the time. Mztourist (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - purely for WP:CONSISTENCY. It might be worthwhile to run a wider RFC (if there hasn't been one) on the naming of all of these - but we should treat South Vietnam (which frankly I believe is more widely used colloquially at least) vs. Republic of Vietnam in a consistent manner.Icewhiz (talk) 05:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose clearly not a good reason to move it because the other vietnam article are wrong but as per previous discussions the SVAF is the common name used in English for the organsation. MilborneOne (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know about the assertion that SVAF is commonly used. VNAF is undoubtedly the most common usage (although Viet Nam Air Force is not an appropriate name for the article IMO), while for the ground forces ARVN (which matches the full title of the current aricle) was the most common usage. --Lineagegeek (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If I am reading this right, a third request to move to the same new target in just over 12 months strikes me as verging on disruptive, particularly when there is no real case being made by the proposer in making this RfC except an unexplained reference to MOS:MILTERMS? Einstein said (or may not) something about doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different outcome. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Does appear to be the commonest name. It doesn't have to match the name of the country (otherwise we'd have United Kingdom Army, not British Army!). Common name trumps slavish consistency. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Per AjaxSmack; as the other military related articles use the proposed name. Kierzek (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The main article is at South Vietnam, so for WP:CONSISTENCY this article should be there too. The fact that other Vietnam military articles may be inconsistently named with their parent articles is irrelevant. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. — Amakuru (talk) 10:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not how we title articles. We use the commonest name. South Vietnam is the commonest name for the country; South Vietnam Air Force is not the commonest name for the air force. Any more than South Vietnamese Army is for the ARVN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and AjaxSmack. EricSerge (talk) 01:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Close of move request.[edit]

Despite what the closer said, perhaps it is time to WP:drop the stick? Cinderella157 (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Logos/insignias[edit]

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)[reply]

Emperofvietilia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Emperofvietilia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Its not a very high quality or informative photo so it shouldn't be added.Mztourist (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 August 2019[edit]

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

South Vietnam Air Force → Republic of Vietnam Air Force – Renaming page to official name of organization, keeping in-line with similar pages on branches of the Republic of Vietnam Military Forces Itgotworse 26 (talk) 08:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Declined technical move because this seeks to reverse a full RM discussion. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:CONSISTENCY as the main article is located at South Vietnam. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The reason why I requested the move in the first place is for consistency with the naming conventions used on the pages of the other branches of the South Vietnamese Armed Forces (itself officially the Republic of Vietnam Military Forces. The other branches' pages are named after the official names of the organizations (Army of the Republic of Vietnam, Republic of Vietnam Navy, and Republic of Vietnam Marine Division). I found it inexplicable why the page for the air force was named South Vietnam Air Force. Itgotworse 26 (Talk) 14:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support: WP:CONSISTENCY with Army of the Republic of Vietnam and Republic of Vietnam Navy etc. as noted. South Vietnam was the informal name of the Republic of Vietnam which we use because of WP:COMMONNAME, but that doesn't mean that we should then apply it only to the air force as that is inconsistent. Mztourist (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - "Republic of Vietnam" is not a commonly-used or easily-recognized name for the country, so it is far better placed at the present name. It might be sensible to move to South Vietnam air force though, as it is not a proper name as such. — Amakuru (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inventory Table[edit]

Mztourist - 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)[reply]

FOX 52 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Map of air bases, November 2021[edit]

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)[reply]

@Mztourist: So could you please add them into map with appreciate coordinates? Thanks. -- Great Brightstar (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, have no idea how to do it, you added the map...Mztourist (talk) 04:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done 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)[reply]