Talk:Air Force of the Polish Army

A fact from Air Force of the Polish Army appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 May 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Polish air force combated in the victory of Lublin-Brest Offensive, which cleared the path for the Red Army to recapture Warsaw?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/May.

Wikipedia

Military history: Aviation / European / Polish / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	European military history task force
	Polish military history task force
	World War II task force

Poland Mid‑importance

	Poland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dates

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates containing a month and a day states: "If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should almost always be linked to allow readers' date preferences to work, displaying the reader's chosen format", referring to a compromise of an unexplained nationalistic issue between Englishmen, who write 4 February, and Americans, who write February 4. Art LaPella 19:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've returned "wiki-style" dates Radomil talk 19:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates_and_numbers) gives the following examples:

Month and day

February 17 → February 17
17 February → 17 February

February 17, 1958 → February 17, 1958
17 February 1958 → 17 February 1958

I used the format "February 17, 1958 → February 17, 1958" with the comma after the year for clarity. There was nothing wrong with that particular order of days and the reason I chose it over the second alternative was because of the tremendous amount of all sorts of numbers in the text making it hard to read. --Poeticbent talk 22:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But You mad it "stiff". Using 17 February/February 17 date is displayed on way that You choose in yor preferences (my preferences>Date and time>Date format) Radomil talk 22:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The policy Poeticbent quotes says:

[[February 17]]→February 17

[[17 February]]→17 February

What it means is, if you're an American who writes February 17 and then wikilinks it, it will show as the wikilinked February 17, which on your computer shows as either February 17 or 17 February, depending on your "preferences" - see the "my preferences" link at the top of your screen. If you're an Englishman who writes 17 February and then wikilinks it, the result is exactly the same - it still depends on preferences, so everyone sees what he wants to see, and nobody can complain about U.S. domination or the opposite.

So what the policy describes isn't what Poeticbent wrote. He unlinked the dates, when the policy is saying to link them, and then the policy explains how the results will appear when you do link them. Art LaPella 22:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure but I supose that this is missunderstanding. Probably Poeticbent doesn't have set preferences of dates style so he don't see how it works. Radomil talk 22:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’m afraid it’s not as simple as it sounds. A couple of hours ago I used a Canadian public library computer with no preferences set for English Wikipedia, and the numbers in the article remained “17 February 1945” with no commas anywhere in sight. The numbers do change if you have your preferences set, but if you don’t, the numbers typed into text seem to remain untouched. In other words, it is up to us to decide which is better in this particular instance. --Poeticbent talk 23:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if the commas don't show without a preference, then it couldn't hurt anything to add the commas, leaving the links intact. Art LaPella 23:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather have [[February 17]], [[1945]], but I’m flexible. Call it a personal quirk. --Poeticbent talk 23:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that's what I wanted too. Changing 17 February 1945 to 17 February, 1945 (which shows no change on my computer) is what I think you mean by [[February 17]], [[1945]],. The only difference is 17 February or February 17, which doesn't matter when you link it unless you have no preference set, and I don't care which way. Art LaPella 23:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I shouldn't have linked my examle because of your set preferences. What I meant was: [[February 17]], [[1945]], not the other way around. Thanks. --Poeticbent talk 00:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this means that we can just add a comma to the middle of each date. Art LaPella 00:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, [1] is one of the options I said would be OK. The only remaining problem is with phrases like [[August 16]] and [[August 17|17]]. For an American date preference that shows correctly as August 16 and 17, but for a British date preference it shows incorrectly as 16 August and 17. Art LaPella 04:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you know how to fix it please fire away. We are almost already there anyway. How about putting in the longer [[August 16]] and [[August 17]] instead? Does it sound acceptable to you in terms of style? --Poeticbent talk 16:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's how it was before (except it was [[16 August]] and [[17 August]], which doesn't matter if you use a date preference). I'm changing to [[August 16]] and [[August 17]]. Art LaPella 17:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B-class review failed

Insufficient refs. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion/overlap with plwiki

there is pl:Lotnictwo ludowego Wojska Polskiego (Air Force of the Polish People's Army). It looks like the same subject, but I aint no expert. It appears it is an arbitrary chunk of the 1943-1947 from the period of 1943-1990. Must be harmonized with Polish Air Force and pl:Siły Powietrzne (and of course pl:Lotnictwo ludowego Wojska Polskiego. --Altenmann >talk 00:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]