Talk:Flying Tigers/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I'm curious, have any movies/films ever been made of this squadron? I have to confess that I'm rather surprised that there haven't been any made if not. 10:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Gee whiz, how about Flying Tigers (1942) with John Wayne? Does that count? ;^) Binksternet 11:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


Someone keeps putting one instance of 1st American Volunteer Group in superscript. Could we belay that, please? Wiki gravely informs us: 'Sometimes, ordinal endings for numbers are written as superscripts (1st, 2nd, 3rd rather than 1st, 2nd, 3rd), although many style guides recommend against this use.' Indeed. The Chicago Manual (14th edition) nowhere allows it. Further, the usage isn't consistent in this article or in the main American Volunteer Group article, nor are superscripts used elsewhere e.g. 23d Fighter Group. AVGbuff (talk)

The Buck Danny comic strip

I think that this comic strip covers the period after the absorption in the USAAF. I read them as a child and I remember that the first two Buck Danny books cover the aftermath of pearl harbour in the pacific up to the battle of midway. After that the main characters are sent back home for a rest. In the third album they are then sent to China to a unit that is called "the flying tigers". Thus the comic strip is set definitely after pearl harbour and the "flying tigers" in it must be either the 23rd fighter group, the china task force or the 14th air force.

Though no doubt interesting to a very few who read the comic strip in their youth, this is really the most trivial of trivia. I think the "Legacy" reference to Buck Danny ought to be removed. Any objections? AVGbuff (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Wait a second, you posted here days after you already removed the item? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC).
I know the comic strip - great novels, one of the best comics in the French-speaking world IMO.
Have the Flying Tigers been portrayed in other fiction before - films, TV shows, war novels? If so, why don't we just add a "Flying Tigers in fiction" section as already exists on other wikipedia pages. Buck Danny's reference can go in there, but I hesitate to create an entire section to reference only one comic book. (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Requesting consensus on addition of Republic of China flag on Flying Tigers

The Flag of the Republic of China

Discussion welcome here on the possibility of showing this flag on the main page.Arilang1234 (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Since there is no objection to my proposal, I shall go ahead with the additionArilang1234 (talk) 09:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Invite user Monkeyzpop for discussion

Please explain the removal of ROC flag, especially no explanation given.Arilang1234 (talk) 07:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


I've removed the USAF Seal as anachronistic, as the USAF wasn't even formed until 1947. Also, such images need to go below the infobox and Lead, as both are to be at the top of the main section (below hatnotes and headers). I also reverted and warned User:Monkeyzpop, who has been around long enough to know better than to make unexplained reverts. I don't think we really need two flags of China in the article, but I'll bow to consensus, if there is one. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 07:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I should have posted a reason for my reversions of irrelevant material from the article. It was simpler to do a rollback of the numerous consecutive edits that I disagreed with, and the rollback function doesn't allow for summarizing the edit. It was lazy of me. In every instance, I found the reverted edits to be justified because they seem to have been placed in the article in prominent positions despite the most tenuous connection or relevance to the specificity of the article. The Chinese flag placed immediately above the image of the same flag on the blood chit seemed redundant. The emblem of the U.S. Air Force in an article dealing with a subject that took place years before the existence of the U.S. Air Force, the same usage of the roundel, all seemed anachronistic. The picture of soldiers and M-3 Stuart tanks seemed wildly trivially connected to the article, connecting only by virtue of having something to do with the war in Burma. The article seemed in great danger of being cluttered with things that were either misleading or completely out of balance with the point of the article. So I reverted them. I should have taken the time to say why.Monkeyzpop (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The Star-Spangled Banner

Since that war was a joint effort of both nations(USA and ROC), it is only appropiate to put The Star-Spangled Banner alongside the ROC flag.Arilang1234 (talk) 08:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

There were three Canadians in the unit, so there should be a Canadian flag, too. Perhaps a Japanese flag, as well, since the Japanese had a heavy involvement in the war as I understand. (Sorry for the sarcasm, I don't mean it harshly. But this article seems particularly at risk for being over-illustrated with peripheral items.) Monkeyzpop (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with 'over-illustrated' remarks. Many web 2.0 websites have audio and video facilities. Wouldn't Wikipedia moving towards that direction?Arilang1234 (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
According to our Manual of Style, flags are not to be used to "decorate" an article. Moreover, if there's a controversy about which national flag icons should appear in the Infobox, it is preferable not to have any at all. See MOS:FLAG  JGHowes  talk 00:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks JGHowes, I understand now. I wouldn't do it again. I have put 12 photos of warplanes on the article, do you think it is excessive ? [unsigned comment by User:Arilang1234]
I'd say it's at the max now, given the present amount of text; any more should go in a Gallery section.  JGHowes  talk 07:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Can you show me what template do you use to get the signature effect?Arilang1234 (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page, since it's off-topic.  JGHowes  talk 10:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)