Talk:Polish Air Force
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Previous talk page was at Talk:Polish Air Forces (not moved)
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)
- 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)
Numbers of "Hips"???
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 220.127.116.11 (talk) 08:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Not all Polish Mi-8/Mi-17's are in Polish Air Force. According to oficial data in 2006 PAF had 12 Mi-8's and 2 Mi-17's. Aviation of Polish Land Forces had 24 Mi-8's and 13 Mi-17's. In Iraq and Tshad are used crafts from Aviation of Land Forces. Radomil talk 20:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Too many pictures,
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)
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 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Richard asr (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)