Talk:List of equipment of the Royal Malaysian Air Force

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Equipment of the Royal Malaysian Air Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141129025138/http://www.malaysiandefence.com/?p=5217 to http://www.malaysiandefence.com/?p=5217
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150322140651/http://www.malaysiandefence.com/?p=5827 to http://www.malaysiandefence.com/?p=5827

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Equipment of the Royal Malaysian Air Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130310013400/http://www.asianmilitaryreview.com/the-amr-regional-airforce-directory-2013/ to http://www.asianmilitaryreview.com/the-amr-regional-airforce-directory-2013/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091223071133/http://www.themalaysianinsider.com:80/index.php/opinion/breaking-views/47311-stolen-engines-case-was-covered-up-from-the-start--the-malaysian-insider to http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/opinion/breaking-views/47311-stolen-engines-case-was-covered-up-from-the-start--the-malaysian-insider
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110621234912/http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/12/22/nation/5345668&sec=nation to http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/12/22/nation/5345668&sec=nation
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110621234920/http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/2/5/nation/20100205204636&sec=nationn to http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/2/5/nation/20100205204636&sec=nationn
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131112025205/http://historico.elpais.com.uy/100203/pciuda-469170/ciudades/el-enigma-de-los-motores-de-f-5-robados/ to http://historico.elpais.com.uy/100203/pciuda-469170/ciudades/el-enigma-de-los-motores-de-f-5-robados/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Equipment of the Royal Malaysian Air Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20170310144440/http://airheadsfly.com/2017/03/09/fourth-and-final-a400m-delivered-to-malaysia/ to http://airheadsfly.com/2017/03/09/fourth-and-final-a400m-delivered-to-malaysia/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/opinion/breaking-views/47311-stolen-engines-case-was-covered-up-from-the-start--the-malaysian-insider
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2009%2F12%2F22%2Fnation%2F5345668&sec=nation
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2010%2F2%2F5%2Fnation%2F20100205204636&sec=nationn

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Add in VIP transport

Hello, anyone can add in the VIP transports? The page is incomplete Dougan law (talk) 07:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Duplication of "current inventory" table with List of aircraft of the Malaysian Armed Forces

@GlobalEditorEx:Refer to your edit summary of removal duplication tag which said No, there is no duplication with page of (List of aircraft of the Malaysian Armed Forces) because in this page there is a section that not includes in the page of (List of aircraft of the Malaysian Armed Forces) such as ammunitions section, development section and incidents section. The another page ONLY consist of the aircraft from all branch of Malaysia Military and not the mentioned sections. So, deleted this page will cause a lot of data missing.

IMO "Current inventory" table of aircraft section on this page is duplication of List of aircraft of the Malaysian Armed Forces#Current aircraft. Please note the duplication is only for aircraft, which you acknowledged on the edit summary above. So, I'm talking about only the aircraft itself not amunitions/development/incident, I don't have issue with those points so they can stay. The issue of duplication is if you want to update the content then you will need to update both pages (there is possibility that we update them differently and create may end up create different table of the exactly same thing).

My proposal are :

1. remove "current inventory" table on this page or on List of aircraft of the Malaysian Armed Forces#Current aircraft. pick one of those pages and refer the existing page to the other page. This is the easiest solution.
2. or make a template page and use that template on this page and the other page. you will only need to change the template if the content needs to be updated. For example see Irish Air Corps and List of aircraft of the Irish Air Corps, both pages use Template:Active Irish Air Corps Aircraft. Ckfasdf (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ckfasdf: Ohhh..I see, I think proposal number 1 is ok. How about we remove "current inventory" and "retired aircraft" in this page (Equipment of the Royal Malaysian Air Force ) since its already covered under (List of aircraft of the Malaysian Armed Forces). So, this page can only focus on ammunition, incident & accident and procurement.

@GlobalEditorEx: Ok, agree with you. "current inventory" and "retired aircraft" in this page will be removed. Note: next time please don't forget to put your signature. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ckfasdf: Looks like there was a vandalism occured in this page that affected our last edit before (about the duplication of aircraft table). Maybe we need to request for page protection or warning the vandalism IPs. GlobalEditorEx (talk)

@CommanderWaterford:, :@Klueng: : Here the discussion.

GlobalEditorEx (talk)

No...Why cannot put it??..all that I see from another country air Force, they put their list of their Aircraft in their equipment of their air Force. Klueng (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Another country also do 2 type of page...first equipment of their air Force..second is their list of their armed forces Aircraft..they also put the list in both page Klueng (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@CKfasdf why we need to put the accident and incident in equipment page? Why? The title is the equipment but you want put incident and accident Klueng (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Klueng: If you want to put that table make sure we follow the international standard for air foce page where there is no image in the table. Just copy it from existing page or follow the table format in this page which is no image. GlobalEditorEx (talk)

Ok. But I also see many page of equipment of air force with their table have pictures. Why? Klueng (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Klueng: IMHO follow the page format that you want to edit, in this case this page from the beginning used the table without the image inside it. But you still need to discuss with other editor about this until the concensus reach. GlobalEditorEx (talk)

Revision as June 2022 for duplication issue : It is better to SWAP?

It seems like the page of List of equipment of the Royal Malaysian Air Force is more MAIN rather than the page of List of aircraft of the Malaysian Armed Forces because the List of equipment of the Royal Malaysian Air Force talk mostly about the air force while the List of aircraft of the Malaysian Armed Forces talk all about the three branch of the army, navy and air force. In addition, in the main page of Royal Malaysian Air Force, the wikilink of List of equipment of the Royal Malaysian Air Force placed first followed by the wikilink of List of aircraft of the Malaysian Armed Forces. In addition, if reader want to search about the aircraft inventory they will need to click more to reach the table inventory. In example if reader click wikilink in the main page of Royal Malaysian Air Force they will reached the page of List of equipment of the Royal Malaysian Air Force then they need to click once more wikilink to reach the table inventory in the next page. Due to this, I suggested that the full inventory table we place in the List of equipment of the Royal Malaysian Air Force page while the wikilink we place in the List of aircraft of the Malaysian Armed Forces page. This actions/edits still not broke the rule of the duplication issue because I just SWAP the table and wikilink between this two page only.

What say you? @Ckfasdf:, @FOX 52:, @MilborneOne:, @CommanderWaterford:, @Nick-D:, @Klueng:

Kistara (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Since there is no responses since my first comment (after 10 days) so I'll implement the change that I've said before. If there any thought from anyone feel glad to discuss it here. Kistara (talk) 09:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Minor correction

Hi FOX 52 (@FOX 52:), based on your recent edit, I want to address some minor correction here.

1) CN-235 quantity

Currently, as I wrote this, RMAF has a total of seven (7) CN-235 in service (acctually eight (8) but one (1) crashed in 2016). World Air Forces false reported this quantity at the beginning of it release until now so it is not fair to uses World Air Forces reference anymore for the CN-235 quantity. If this happened it is better to find other reliable source as the backup. Here some of the sources you can refer. There are also sources that just newly released in 2020 by Janes and other reliable source.

Janes Defence News NST Malaysian Defence

2) C-130 quantity

RMAF has a total of fourteen (14) C-130 in service where 10 transport and 4 tanker. Again, World Air Forces false reported this quantity at the beginning of it release until now so it is not fair to uses World Air Forces reference anymore for the C-130 quantity. If this happened it is better to find other reliable source as the backup. Here some of the sources you can refer.

FlightGlobal The Star NST Malaysian Defence

3) Wikilink for Sikorsky UH-60 / S-70

Fot this helicopter I think its better to put main design (Sikorsky UH-60) in aircraft column and its variant (S70A) in variant column same like other aircraft; Sukhoi, Hornet, Hawk, C-130 and CN-235 and other. For example of Sukhoi: Sukhoi Su-30 in aircraft column and its variant Sukhoi Su-30MKM in variant column.

Example:

Aircraft	Origin	Type	Variant	In service	Notes
Helicopters
Sikorsky UH-60	United States	VIP / utility	S-70A	4

BTW thanks for your edits and persistent guard of the World Air Force page. Waiting for your reply to reach consensus here.Kistara (talk) 03:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kistara: No need for such a long explanation over minute issues, like the difference between 13 or 14 C-130's. - Your sources from 2018, could very well differ from a source in 2021- Maintenance, and/or parts shortage for the C-130 could cause the numbers change (aircraft removed from service). In any case flightglobal has been in the military news business for over a 100 years, and neither of us can discredit a media outlet like theirs. Now if you wish the make a numbers change, go ahead, just have a reliable source to back it up, and same for a variants. Cheers - FOX 52 ^talk! 05:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

(@FOX 52: Alright then..thanks for your response..and another thing..like I said before...just because World Air Force release its report annualy doesnt mean it can be uses as reference IF its report already false from the beginning. Even in 2019 and previous years also, World Air Forces still reported false quantity of the said aircraft. To add more, from that timeline, other reliable source like Janes and FlightGlobal itself (here) said 14 C-130 in service, contradicted with the World Air Force reported.Kistara (talk) 06:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Procurement table mess

Klueng has taken this paragraph, and turn it into this, which I see is a bit of a mess. And it is an exact duplicate of this section on the RMAF page. Pretty sure this table goes against points raised in WP:WHENTABLE, WP:EXCESSDETAIL, WP:CRYSTALBALL, and IMHO lacks some notability - thoughts on any corrective solutions -@MilborneOne:, @Neovu79: @Garuda28: -Cheers FOX 52 ^talk! 05:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Clearly not the right format for this sort of informationm I would also question if this is the right place for such information which should either be in a separate article or in the RMAF article (where a lot of this is already covered. MilborneOne (talk) 11:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Exactly all the content seems to be speculation of a few programs, that may or may be materialize. - FOX 52 ^talk! 23:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree to remove the Procurement Table. Beside that information is better written as prose than table per WP:NO-TABLES, It is also unnecessary and unjustified content forking per WP:REDUNDANTFORK as it's pretty much duplication of Royal Malaysian Air Force#Present development. Ckfasdf (talk) 09:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

No offence but i dissagre on this, What's the point Putting on Present Development without the table. Klueng putting back the Procurement table to easy understand the readers rather reading the present development list. We don't know what's the real canidates.115.135.198.174 (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@115.135.198.174: In WP, we have a guideline on the usage of table, which is MOS:TABLE, you may want to look it up first. WP:WHENTABLE provide examples what kind information that can use table. It also stated that If the information you are editing is not tabular in nature, it probably does not belong in a table and Avoid cramming too much detailed information into individual table entries. Furthermore, WP:NO-TABLES states that Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a table may not. Royal Malaysian Air Force#Present development put procurement information in prose format, which is preferred by WP. I hope you can understand the rationale to remove that table. Ckfasdf (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

We can't use WP as an Excuse. I actually not trying to revent back but i don't want user Klueng to start this mess again. It dosen't make sense why No Table policy really confused everyone. 115.135.198.174 (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it's a common sense that if you're editing Wikipedia/WP, you should also follows its policies and guidelines, otherwise your edit maybe reverted, removed or you may even be blocked Ckfasdf (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)