Talk:Polish Armed Forces

message: Right, well it's gone on for over a month and it really needs deciding.  Please choose which of the following you would find acceptable (you can have more than one).  Voting closes towards the end of the 9 July 2005. violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 20:11 (UTC)
:Well it had to happen - a tie.  I'll give it another two days to see which way it goes.  If you haven't voted for either of the two leading choices I suggest you choose which is the lesser evil as it's not really likely that the other ones will win.  violet/riga (t) 23:21, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, if you count it "STVishly", or by any other method that takes multiple preferences into account, "Polish Armed Forces" is leading 10-8, as Pkmink and I both voted for both #2 and #3, and both of us indicated a preference for #3, so it's not right to simply count us having voted for both without distinction.  Alai 03:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That may be a factor at some point, but it is currently just an approval vote and I'm not going to change that - it'd just be shouted down as bias.  violet/riga (t) 10:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, subsidiary question:  why on earth would anyone choose to use approval voting?  Sequential preferences have been expressed in all manner of Wikipedia votes, and this is the first time I've heard anyone say they can't be counted as such.  However, I shall adjust my 'threshold' to suit, and remove my third choice.  Alai 03:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Final vote

message: The Wojsko Polskie name was clearly unfavoured in the final approval vote, so the article was going to be moved to one of the other name proposals.  As Polish Armed Forces has a small lead it has therefore been moved there.  violet/riga (t) 10:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Decision

message: Zapraszam do wypelniania Timeline of the Polish Army--Witkacy 11:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline of the Polish Army

message: The pictures dont work 130.111.98.131 18:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What pictures?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: The 2003 figure is blown way high (demographic surge), any newer and more accurate ones? Ksenon 01:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military age annually 

message: I'm currently working on a project to create graphics of the structure of the most important Armies. i.e. French Army; German Army; Italian Army I also want to make a graphic of the structure of the Polish Land Forces, but the information at this point is not sufficient, as there is no information how the units are structured (i.e. What Regiments/Batallions belong to which Divisions/Brigades, what type the units are; and so on) Does anyone have this information- and also the Regiments/Battalions names and/or numbers and where they are based?
Thanks
noclador
there's basic information on this page: http://www.army.mil.pl/eng/eng.html. Maybe you could try emailing them for details.87.207.175.246 18:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please consider registering, and also posting a request for information on WP:PWNB and WP:MILHIST.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the links to 4 Polish Divisions on the Polish Wikipedia. I had a look and made a quick sketch for myself of the data I found there, but I do not understand Polish and so 80% of the unit designations are undecipherable for me. Therefore I left a note on each of the 4 division’s talkpages asking for help in translating the already known data and also help in looking for the little bits that are still missing (i.e. the units of the "1 Warszawska" Tank Brigade). I also joined some of the Military History workgroups. Thanks for all your help. noclador 09:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The requests for assistance I left on the talkpages of the 4 Polish division have been blanked by pl:Wikipedysta:Lajsikonik. This is an extremely rude and counterproductive behaviour. As he seems to speak only rudimentary English, could a Polish speaker try to explain to him what my request was and that his behaviour is unacceptable and destructive? thanks, noclador 10:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Problem has been solved- user pl:Wikipedysta:Lajsikonik has restored the requests and excused himself noclador 10:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Graphic of the Army Structure

message: :Image:PZA Loara.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:PZA Loara.jpg

message: Feel free to expand the Nangar Khel incident article. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nangar Khel 

message: The image :File:Poland First To Fight.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Poland First To Fight.jpg

message: this article needs fixing and i shall be conducting this in the near future with accordance to MoD websites and NATO.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barciur (talk • contribs) 17:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  fixing 

message: Issues with the latest edit.
The new edits done on 11:34, 22 October 2010 are creating an impression as if the wiki page on the Polish Armed Forces was an advertisement. If I'm correct this "WP" logo is used more for public relations than to represent the actual armed forces. Also, regarding the new photo that was added... to follow the template of other wiki pages on polish military branches we try to avoid adding pictures in the "Infobox".
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.242.110 (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New edit. 

message: Please note that the reason for the clean-up edit was due to a number of new entries on the page that are not up to Wiki standards. 
These edits have cluttered the page, and created duplicate entries such as the "History" section which in detail describes the history of the Polish Armed Forces, and in the process totally disregards the fact that there is an entire wiki page devoted to this subject (History of the Polish Army, and Polish contribution to World War II). (On a page such as Polish Armed Forces only short general sections should be created that in turn link with other pages that cover a specific subject in greater detail.)
Also, not only is the page full of duplicate material it is also poorly edited, and has numerous factual errors. This in turn has created an unfriendly overall impression of the subject matter making it difficult for the reader to get a clear understanding of the material covered. In the "Modernization" section military equipment that has not even been purchased by the military is now listed as being part of the new inventory. Also, the poor choice of pictures included in the new section does not depict the Polish military in a proper light, and only invites negative perceptions. 
In the end, the recent edits seem very amateurish and lack clear structure. As one of the original contributors to the page I ask that the recent editors reconsider their entries and refocus their contributions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.227.161 (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop blind reverting. Surely you realise that, despite what views you have on the proper structure of the page, a great amount of additional information has been added. Would you kindly please lay out how you think the page should be structured, and we can negotiate a way forward from there. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

text: A couple of comments need to be made.  First, this article does not belong to anyone -- being one of the "original contributors" does not carry any special weight in determining an article's structure over the life of the article.  Once established, the content of an article may change very much, and if an editor does not agree with changes that are made, then the issues should be worked out on the talk page.  Second, removing photographs because one believes they may invite "negative perceptions" is just a way of pushing propaganda, that is, it is to say "we only want to look GOOD on Wikipedia!" The purpose of this article is to present a balanced look at the Polish Armed Forces and not simply a view that certain people can feel comfortable with; and, frankly, there were no photographs that mocked or otherwise made the Polish Armed Forces look bad -- that was a perception the IP editor had that could certainly stand some discussion on the talk page before any deletion of material is made.  As to the overall set of articles for the Polish military on this Wikipedia, it is a mess -- there are too many articles, and some of them present strong biases.  Contributors to these articles would do far better to work on removing bias from the articles than to delete material without discussing the changes first : in other words, try working in a spirit of partnership and cooperation rather than assuming the role of a schoolmaster who is lecturing an errant student. W. B. Wilson (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up edit 

message: June 1974, Oath taking ceremony of junior medical officers . noclador (talk) 09:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: better image

message: I'm not sure why user SojerPL, hid a couple of the equipment images on this page... so, the file text still showed-up on the edit page, but the pictures themselves were not displaying on the actual article page. In the future please refrain from hiding images, or article text. --192.250.112.200 (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I wondered if i used <!- -, but now i see  - it's vandalism IP... --SojerPL (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hiding images 

message: This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: B-class review

message: something went wrong.
These topics are about the POLICE of poland, not the ARMED FORCES.
# Terminology
# History
# Transportation and Equipment
# General commandant of the Policja
# Rank structure
# Structure and branches of the Policja
# Anti-terrorist forces (BOA/SPAP)
# Peacekeeping and international cooperation
# Organisation
# Cricitism of the Policja
# Representative Band of the Policja
# Gallery
# See also
# References
# External links
# Further reading
89.247.233.26 (talk) 13:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  wrong content 

message: I would recommend that we remove the various galleries on this page, and replace them with and individual images for each of the sections. This article is not the place to showcase the equipment of the military, infact there are already two pages devoted to this topic Equipment of the Polish Army and List of equipment of the Polish Land Forces. So, we don't need another page that has pictures of the hardware it's just too much. --Factor01 (talk) 10:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove image galleries 

message: I don't see any mention of the re-organisation - which saw the CNAVY et al being dismissed - see http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131219/DEFREG01/312190024/Polish-President-Names-Top-Military-Chief Gbawden (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-organisation 

message: I've been checking cited sources, and it seems like every single number in this wiki page, for troops, equipment, money spent, etc... didn't match the cited source.  I've fixed a couple of things, but there's still plenty left that needs fixing.  It looks like some people have also been just changing numbers at random.  Needs some major fixing.  Hammerfrog (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Every number I've compared against the cited source, doesn't match 

message: The article incorrectly lists the Territorial Defence Force as reserve personnel, while at the same time counting them as active personnel. The TDF is a full fledged service branch. Poland doesn't maintain an active reserve force as evidenced by the provided source. Reserve personnel should be removed from the infobox or set to 0 Cuteandfunny (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reserve personnel