Template talk:Air Forces of the Commonwealth of Independent States

This template was considered for deletion on 2008 July 26. The result of the discussion was "keep".

Baltic states

What about the Baltic states, weren't they apart of the former Soviet Union?--EZ1234 (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep they were. I think they should be added. Gary King (talk) 07:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Baltic states AFs added. --Yuriy Lapitskiy ~ 08:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's strange, the Soviet era is officially considered an occupation in the Baltics, and here we are, adding them to the Air Forces of the countries former Soviet Union. Bogdan ^що? 08:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, good point. Gary King (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, officially by whom? Officially they were part of the USSR. --Yuriy Lapitskiy ~ 16:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Officially, by their respective governments. Don't you see the news Yuriy? Almost every day you hear about war cemeteries being wiped out, Soviet monuments being taken down, and so on. Just a few days ago Lithuania joined Estonia and passed a ban on anything resembling Soviet imagery, effectively merging the swastika and red star into one. Bogdan ^що? 17:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the purpose of this template at all. One needs to be provided, as the Baltic States were occupied by the USSR. The military of the individual states is their own and was never part of that of the USSR (actually they didn't exist during the USSR). The USSR military was considered an occupying force. Artlondon (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the template is to bring similar air forces into one group. In other words, the only difference between a Belarusian air base and a Kazah one is the sign on the HQ building. As per above, it was easy to predict that our Baltic friends would start crying "occupation", and you have my full support in removing the pages from the template, and vice versa. --Bogdan ^що? 16:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one is 'crying' occupation (and for transparency, I'm not from any of these states). That is historical fact.

There are former Soviet bases in Latvia - both used and disused - which have been incorporated into the Soviet project. With these, the logical is clear and rationale understandable. The inclusion of the Baltic States seems to have been done without real consideration for why, little clear reasoned discussion; considering they, and their military controlled by, independent republics. Artlondon (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, I profess a deep interest in the Coldwar esp from the Soviet side, and the history of Europe, but I am simply unconvinced there is currently a justifiable reason to include the Baltic States in this specific template. Artlondon (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Baltic states from this template and template from corresponsing articles. Artlondon (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets not remove the Baltic states, they were apart of the Soviet Union even though they were independent. If we remove the Baltic States why don't we remove Georgia since it was invaded by the Soviet Union in 1921 and before that was an independent country.--EZ1234 (talk) 11:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template makes an erroneous classification. The air forces where never part of the USSR, indeed as already mentioned, most of the equipment is not even from the USSR or Russia. No one has make a logical reason for this template or the inclusion of the Baltic States Artlondon (talk) 10:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should vote whether wer keep the Baltic states or not. --EZ1234 (talk) 12:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latvian Air Force

removed USSR template from Latvian Air Force as no explanation of it's purpose is given on the template's talk page. Artlondon (talk) 11:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I can give a reason - it's pretty simple. The articles Estonian Air Force, Lithuanian Air Force and Latvian Air Force stated that most aircrafts they have are of Soviet origin. NATO air forces of this countries are explained in the Baltic Air Policing article. --Yuriy Lapitskiy ~ 22:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the article states most are Polish not soviet. less than a quarter are Soviet. Artlondon (talk) 02:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose

What is the purpose of such templates other than giving a chance to add Soviet imagery (which is quite correctly equalled to Nazi one) to articles? And, Bogdan, kindly please stop making inflammatory and false claims, unless you are talking about 4 cemeteries the magnificient Red Army flattened from 40s and 60s. Oth (talk) 08:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Equaling Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union is a biased statement, you know... Occupation or not, Baltic states were part of the USSR. I really don't understand the purpose of this discussion. --Yuriy Lapitskiy ~ 21:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand this either - the main discussion is above. Artlondon (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Air Forces of the countries former Soviet Union

Template:Air Forces of the countries former Soviet Union has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Artlondon (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

I think we should we name it to Air Forces of the Commonwealth of Independent States, since it is the only way the Baltic States cannot be included--EZ1234 (talk) 05:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naval Air Arms?

Will remove naval air arms in a few days unless anyone has any objections (as they are not air forces) Garuda28 (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the navboxes from the naval aviation articles per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, as they are no longer listed in the navbox. BilCat (talk) 06:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]