Talk:Polish Air Force

message: Why there is a E-3 aircraft among an inventory of pictures of Polish Air Force aircrafts?
Maybe this is because Poland is a member of NATO and a participant to AWACS flights, but in this case I think this should be explained. Hermolaus (talk) 09:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: I saw a photo of an Mi24 in a Polish livery. Are these still in service? 69.144.184.76 (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Mi24

message: Why the color reversal in 1993? Strange to put it out there with no explanation. --NameThatWorks (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, someone "wise" decided it's more heraldically appropriate, ignoring 70 years of tradition (except a short period in France 1940, when there was reversed checkboard). Pibwl ←« 08:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Checkerboard 

message: I'm curious about the number of Hip helicopters...the table in the article says poland has 7 Mi-17s and 12 Mi-8s, but just now they are sending 8 Mi-17s to Afghanistan and also have a few in Tchad as part of the EUFOR mission, clearly if they only had so few airframes they would not be able to deploy so many at once. Unless the army has more (as this is the airforce thread)?
Daft, 13 August 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.59.175 (talk) 08:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers of "Hips"??? 

message: This article is flooded with pictures of various aircraft operated by or previously operated by Polish Air Force. While it's its true that most if not all aircraft that were in service with the Polish Air Force over the years should have their pictures here this is definitely too much. Especially since many pictures show the same type of aircraft and some are even repeated twice or more without any reason. This isn't a gallery but an article and since it's an article it's to be read and this amount of pictures simply makes it hard to follow. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many pictures, 

message: Not sure why the tags were placed on this article... For one, I have an big issue with the "neutrality" tag. I went over the page and I don't see what the problem is, it's not the "historical section" or "equipment section" both are pretty general, and don't touch on any hot political or cultural issues. So what is the problem?
As for the other tags, I my opinion they are too excessive. The article might not have been written by an expert, but it is accurate and provides good general information that can be augmented by other sources. So, to put on these tags gives the impression that the article has serious "neutrality" or "data" issues, and it does not. In fact, if given this kind of strict rule interpretation most Wiki pages that deal with secondary or less popular topics, would have these tags added, and they do not. +++Only in extreme cases should such tags be applied.+++ I question the judgment of Dave1185.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.242.146 (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Dear anonymous IP editor, you have been observed using a couple of IP addresses to remove the legitimate maintenance templates without giving any explanations until now. If you are not the same person, please excuse me but if you are, then please explain your position for doing so without giving any explanation whatsoever (it was rather rude of you to be doing that if you think about it). The purpose of me tagging those templates is because of: 1.) the inconsistent tone and style of the article → Sincerely, I think it needs a third party review and copy-editing to correct this; 2.) certain point of view within the article are rather peacocking; 3.) the article lacks sufficient inline citations to back up some of the claims. Lastly, I'm calling for a third party peer review by an expert in this field so as to "make or break" (to coin a term) the article. I hope you'll understand my position when I say this: I can't depend on you, the anonymous IP editor, to do so because it might become a conflict-of-interest issue for you in the long run. Regards. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 06:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree that the article needs some copy-editing, and a lot more citations. I have removed the "essay" and "tone" templates because the overall style of the article does not have those problems.  I have also removed the template suggesting that the article has been nominated for a POV review by a third party - I have done so because this talk page does not give any indication of where such nomination has been made.  If there is a dispute over the neutrality of this article, then the reasons for such dispute should be explained on the talk page first, before adding the template. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags

message: Richard asr (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedited 

message: The Army and Navy have their own pages and lists of aircraft. Should the shorter lists given here be deleted or do these types actually belong to the Air Force? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed them as they are nothing to do with the Air Force. MilborneOne (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Not sure how a rogue image crept back alongside the table, but I have fixed that now. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Land and Naval aircraft 

message: I had added that MoD had agreed he did not eject. You had undid it, calling it unimportant. But you had left the false guess MoD had made earlier that he did. Are false guesses more important than the truth?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.8.6.31 (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Fist off discussion on articles should occur on the article talk page. Secondly this MiG-29 crash landing is overall it is unimportant to the history of the Polish Air Force. Wikipedia:NOTNP Garuda28 (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash in 2010 was also certainly not so important to make the whole section about it...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.8.6.31 (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  That fatal crash of the presidential transport was a landmark event in polish and PAF history. Hardly the same as a non-notable non-fatal crash of a single fighter. It would be like Air Force One crashing in the U.S. and most of the government perishing. Copied from my talk page to proper place. Garuda28 (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah landmark. :) Maybe in some context, but in the history of PAF? Not so much. I did not say it was comparable. I said it was probably overcovered - if this crash does not deserve even mentioning.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.8.6.31 (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  It resulted in a restructuring of the Polish Air Force, which is what most of the paragraph is on. This MiG-29 crash is not only non-notable from a Wikipedia standpoint, but rather has no bearing on the history or organization of the Polish Air Force. Unless it affects the organization of the PAF the only place for it to be mentioned is on the operational history and accidents on the MiG-29 page. Garuda28 (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course it has bearing on the organization and history of the PAF. One of the 31 MiG-29 is gone. The whole base is halted, big investigation is under way. But first of all: does not that paragraph about 2010 crash look strange? For me it certainly does. It should be mentioned and linked in the history but not at the and... Sometime in the future it should get there - the author probably reacted too emotionally when it was a recent event placing it separately.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.8.6.31 (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the MiG-29 crash, the only thing that it will affect on this page is a change to the inventory number on the MiG-29 when the updated statistics come out next year. If we did this every time a plane crashed in the USAF we'd have a dozen little sentences scattered on various F-16 crashes. Wikipedia is not a news source, and this doesn't registers as notable. If you see an issue with the Presidential plane crash paragraph, please feel free to fix it. Garuda28 (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

text: I concur with  this page not the place for a non-notable incidental landing - 06:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  MiG 29 crash landing on Polish Armed Forced page 

message: :FOX, please explain your issues with this edit. You cite WP:NOTNEWS as your rationale for removing this edit. However, I see nothing in that policy which would justify removal of this. It is merely stating (in notes column) that the  SU-22 inventory will be slimmed to 18, and will be upgraded and remain in service till 2024. This a sourced, relevant piece of information.  Thanks. Irondome (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As stated "newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" - The other one I should've included was WP:CBALL "expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" ie:  U.S. presidential election or  Summer Olympics - "Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place", and in the case aircraft induction or removal, there is no guarantee that will happen (in that time frame). As you can see: Singapore delays helicopter buy,  Netherlands Delays Delivery, F-35 delayed, and Slovakia delays decision. - FOX 52 (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: By that logic, FOX, we would have to remove all references to orders from all aircraft articles and all airforce inventories. Irondome (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No because those "orders" have signed contracts behind them and are more than "likely" to occur. The note(s) here in question are regarding, the planned retirement of aircraft with nothing really in writing - FOX 52 (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This decision appears to be a Polish Defence ministry matter, so it probably is not a verbal agreement. It would be in writing, somewhere. so I would suggest it is less vulnerable to outside factors, such as international contracts. It would also seem to be a cost-cutting measure. Govts love to save money! Let's wait a bit and see if other colleagues have any input on this FOX. Irondome (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of sourced material 

message: User:Tbx3571 has added flags to the tables that could be seen as decoration or MPS:FLAGCRUFT. They need to make a case why this article should be exempt from the MOS guidelines rather than edit war, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Already concur per WP:MOSFLAG - I will notify the user of edit warring - Cheers FOX 52 talk! 18:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Flags

message: On 2 February 2022,  began to add "additional aircraft" and put wikilink to other Polish aircraft articles below aircraft inventory table. Then, on 23 February 2022,  disagree with such edit and eventually moved some of those wikilink under "See Also" section. However,  reverted those edits and said on edit summary that "aircraft is spread out through several branches, include in convenient location for general public audience" and basicly started edit warring on this issue.
So, should we include that following addition below aircraft inventory table or moved it into "See Also" section?
Personally, I tend to agree with  since while it's true that articles above are about aircrafts belong to Polish government, this article is mainly about Polish Air Force. per MOS:NAVLIST "See also" lists typically include three types of links, one of them "Links to related topics – topics similar to that discussed in the article". In this case, aircrafts belong to Polish government. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The only one's to include should be the Naval & Land force components (IMO) - FOX 52 talk! 02:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Polish Special Forces is actually branch of Polish Armed Forces, but I get what are you trying to say -> Only Polish armed forces aircraft that should be listed in "See Also" section. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

text: "Additional aircraft" doesn't suggest that these aircraft are part of the Polish Air Force contrary to what Fox52 suggests here, and in his comments for edits to this article. There's no harm including wikilinks to other articles concerning the Polish Armed Forces' air power - as it provides the general public with a comprehensive understanding of Polish air power, how it's structured, and where to find more details about it. Equipment can also be easily transferred between branches - including from the air force to the land forces, and even from the Policja to the air force. This information also caters to aviation enthusiasts, who wish to learn more about aviation in Poland, the air ambulance service in Poland has very little attention and awareness, and it's a service to the general public to let them know it exists. Don't get bogged down in rules - at the expense of providing readers with a rich source of information, that they otherwise wouldn't know exist. You guys provide NO JUSTIFICATION and only say "this should" - and it frankly comes across as bullying and piling onto someone in a personal way. It's not respectful to my country, to make it look as weak as possible by limiting as much information about the topic as possible. These are high end assets and they deserve a notable mention, they're absolutely significant - and readers will be very interested in finding out about Poland's complete aircraft inventory for a full understanding, and even learn something interesting about Poland's other aviation capabilities. If you want to limit information then that's stepping on us - and that's extremely disrespectful.Tbx3571 (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Stating "not respectful to my country, to make it look as weak as possible" could suggest that you want to promote your countries aviation capabilities, which is NOT what Wikipedia is for. The articles needs to maintain a sense  neutrality - Further you should review the warning(s) and not just blank them. The community standards were created by consensus- FOX 52 talk! 05:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

text: Please note that this article is about "Polish Air Force", NOT about "Polish Air Power", so this article can contain anything about "Polish Air Force". Aircraft belong to other branches of armed forces is maybe related to "Polish Air Force" but definitely NOT part of "Polish Air Force". Per MOS:SEEALSO, "See also" section links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article. Therefore, it'll be better to put link to other Polish aircraft on "See also" section.   Ckfasdf (talk) 09:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Polish Aircrafts

message: Alert: the changes made by FOX 52 on May 21, 2022 contain false information without references. The system doesn't allow them to be undone, is there someone experienced with Wikipedia who can undo those edits so the correct information can be displayed again? Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr (talk • contribs) 07:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Please avoid making false claims of content not being sourced, further don't cram non-notable detailed text into table entrie(s), the reader should be able to click a Wiki-link to see detailed article corresponding concise table entry per: WP:WHENTABLE - FOX 52 talk! 14:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @FOX 52 my friend you've removed accurate information and replaced it with false info. You were asked not to make changes but chose to start an edit war - instead of discussing next steps under this talk page. I'm sorry to say that your quest to change the formatting is resulting in tonnes of inaccurate information. Please be more kind when talking to other users as well, and avoid making accusations instead of ignoring constructive criticism and my pointing out of your errors. As for my original point - you entered false information in your table, and as a result - you might have "references" there - but they do not reflect reality, because you've summarily removed all accurate information. You are hereby asked to stop vandalizing this article. Additionally - you chose to ignore the two reasons I gave for undoing your edit - and are behaving combative, ultimately resulting in false information posted to this article by you.  E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  There no combative tone, as new comer to Wikipedia you should understand that we have policies in place created by the community. Your statement "" is an out right lie- as my edit's used the exact same source(s) minus the excessive text. - FOX 52 talk! 01:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @FOX 52 You entered false new information into your new table. The references you provided - do not support the data you entered. Some of those references are in Polish - if you aren't capable of reading Polish, I'm acting as a resource to let you know, the new information you entered - is incorrect. I'm repeating my request to you, to stop vandalizing the article with false new information - which isn't supported by the references you provided. Your edit will now be undone - this comes as a result of you failing to provide accurate references to the false new information you've entered.E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

text: kindly show me where I entered "false" information - I did each edit almost line by line, so it should be easy for you to display my alleged vandalism - FOX 52 talk! 05:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @FOX 52 you've created an entirely new table that doesn't contain the correct amounts of air defense batteries, you continue to force through these changes - without providing supporting references. Table format isn't important to me, but preserving accurate information needs to be the bare minimum standard. Therefore - reverted to original table with correct information. E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Once again show me what is exactly is "false" - FOX 52 talk! 16:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The table version which I restored contains the correct info for the quantities of all batteries. You can compare them to the new table that you've entered twice already. The names and variants were also removed and changed to non-standard names. Additionally, if you wish to remove the notes section, I would advise to create another written section - outside of the table - to preserve the information and to provide explanation. Polish military procurements can be confusing at best (language barriers, inconsistent reporting, sudden announcements by officials), I believe there's great value in preserving the notes section to give brief explanations. E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @FOX 52I haven't heard your reply. I think the Republic_of_Korea_Air_Force#Air_Defence table provides a clear template, preserves the notes column, and also allows us to make a sub-title for command and control & networking - to add in IBCS on its own separate line, as IBCS links multiple platforms together including Patriot, F-35, Propad, HIMARS through networking to achieve the air and missile defense mission. I would add another column to preserve the number of launchers as well, or else we'll lose this information about both the modern and soviet systems, and it'll make the table look more complete. E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  FOX 52 removing information and inserting false information without references 

message: @FOX 52 I noticed that you changed the subtitles twice to the same version which are repetitive and grammatically incorrect. For reference purposes they were inserted by you as part of large edits whose only edit description was "improvements". For this reason I thought it would be a good opportunity to open a discussion about this to collaboratively develop a solution.E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: grammatically incorrect? please explain what that means to you - This article is about the Polish Air force, so to state "Polish F-16C on take off" is a given, so why can't it state "An F-16C on take off"? - FOX 52 talk! 17:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

text: @FOX 52 it's improper to write "a" or "an" three times in a row, there should be variety with sub-titles and they shouldn't be repetitive. I think "Polish F-16C Block 52+" would be ideal - the aircraft only has the Polish Air Force symbol on the tail, so it would provide clarity and "Block 52+" would explain the external conformal fuel tanks when a reader asks "why does this F-16 look different from standard variants?", we can see the aircraft is taking off, but pointing out areas of interest to the reader would be ideal, or you can write "Polish F-16C with external conformal fuel tanks" which points out interesting facts that a reader would otherwise overlook, kind of how a tour guide points out and explains things a casual observer would miss and otherwise never knowE8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: it's improper to write "a" or "an" three times in a row? I'm pretty sure that is not grammatically incorrect - By the way in English we call them captions - FOX 52 talk! 00:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: it's improper to write "a" or "an" three times in a row, there should be variety with sub-titles and they shouldn't be repetitive. That's what I wrote - putting words in my mouth that I said the grammar was wrong isn't my definition of collaborative & constructive discussion. The purpose of this page is to find a solution in a civil manner - it's not meant for non-constructive actions like putting words in other peoples' mouths. E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

text:  See: MOS:OVERLINK FOX 52 talk! 00:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok so you removed a couple wikilinks, it might have been easy to lose track of - especially when you make a 2000kb edit. It could be thought out a little better, it looks quite random. Perhaps wikilink each country once rather than the random linking to origin countries? E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subtitles for pictures under Equipment>Aircraft section 

message: @FOX 52 may I ask what the reason was for removing the wikipedia links to countries under the "Origin" column in the table under the Aircraft section? ie Poland vs Poland  — Preceding unsigned comment added by E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr (talk • contribs) 18:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  See: MOS:OVERLINK FOX 52 talk! 00:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok so you removed a couple wikilinks, it might have been easy to lose track of - especially when you make a 2000kb edit. It could be thought out a little better, it looks quite random. Perhaps wikilink each country once rather than the random linking to origin countries? E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of wikipedia links to "Origin" countries 

message: The purpose of the munitions table is two fold. #1 it demonstrates which munitions Poland has on hand in a convenient location. #2 it demonstrates the compatibility of munitions on hand, with both in service aircraft and aircraft officially on order.
The munitions listed have references showing that Poland officially possesses them. No speculation.
The aircraft listed also have references showing which munitions that they're confirmed to be compatible with.
There's no reason to believe that the signed contracts for the F-35 and the FA-50PL won't be fulfilled.
All in all, the table helps readers quickly realize the benefit of inter-operability of the F-16, F-35, and FA-50PL E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr (talk) 06:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: - An  advertisement from the manufacturer does not state which of any weapons with be included in the deal, that's an assumption on your part. - FOX 52 talk! 16:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Munitions Compatibility Table 

message: needs to stop posting his completely wrong air defense table. It looks like it was intentionally created to look as bad as possible, with as much incorrect information as possible. The table columns are wrong in 3 ways: #1 he didn't even make a column for quantities - yet he's been on this site for over a decade and should know how to do that. #2 quantities for several pieces of equipment are false #3 several items he labeled them as "SHORAD" then you click on the Wikipedia article for a separate air defense article which says VSHORAD - yet FOX 52 claims it's SHORAD without any source. Reverting the new table that corrects all these short comings is very questionable. Drrn2k22 (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air Defense table 

message: Currently, the article designates 12 of 48 as trainer aircraft, based on information included in 2024 World Air Forces report, which is misleading. All 48 of F16 aircraft are combat-ready and conversion trainer planes should not be in the same category as actual trainer like Alenia M-346. The same goes for MIGs and SUs.
This format deviates from standard formatting used elsewhere, including on pl-wiki, and does not follow the official designation of the Polish Air Force. Trainer aircraft are separate from conversion and are operated by the 4th Air Training Wing and include M-346 Bielik, PZL-130 Orlik, M-28 Bryza (see here for their equipment: https://www.wojsko-polskie.pl/4slsz/wyposazenie/). Below are further WP:RS to confirm the distinction.
https://defence24.pl/sily-zbrojne/su-22-po-remoncie-kolejnych-10-lat-w-sluzbie-foto
https://portalmilitarny.pl/wiadomosci/wojsko-polskie/modernizacja-techniczna-wojska-polskiego-w-2022-roku-modernizacja-floty-f-16-jastrzab/
https://defence24.pl/przemysl/orliki-w-komplecie-wyszkolimy-ponad-1000-nowych-pilotow Ppt91talk 01:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood.. what do you think about this format? As it put F16 under combat aircraft. Ckfasdf (talk) 07:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Ckfasdf Sorry about my delay. I think this works great, thank you for proposing! That would distinguish 12 conversion trainers and 36 C fighter aircraft in the same table, while also clarifying the separate "trainer" category. Ppt91talk 18:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:   I've changed the table format as discussed. Just a heads up, this format might be slightly trickier to edit compared to the previous one. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Ckfasdf Thanks so much. Looks great. ps. I made a minor edit to reflect the correct count of 48 total (36 and 12 conversion), which I believe was likely a typo, since we have them now in the same table. Ppt91talk 16:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trainer aircraft designation