Talk:Polish Air Force

Untitled

Previous talk page was at Talk:Polish Air Forces (not moved)

Pictures

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)

Mi24

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)

Most of the helicopters (over 100 including two dozens of Mi-24) are operated by Land Forces. Corran.pl (talk) 07:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Checkerboard

Why the color reversal in 1993? Strange to put it out there with no explanation. --NameThatWorks (talk) 22:04, 17 January 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 81.245.59.175 (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)

Tags

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)

• 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)

Copyedited

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

Land and Naval aircraft

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)

I have removed them as they are nothing to do with the Air Force. MilborneOne (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

MiG 29 crash landing on Polish Armed Forced page

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I concur with Garuda28 this page not the place for a non-notable incidental landing - 06:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material

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)

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: 2028 U.S. presidential election or 2032 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)

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)

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)

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)

Looks like a case of maybe, maybe not. I would say remove it, probably not worthy of encyclopedia info. TomSwansen (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Flags

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)

Already concur per WP:MOSFLAG - I will notify the user of edit warring - Cheers FOX 52 ^talk! 18:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Polish Aircrafts

On 2 February 2022, Tbx3571 began to add "additional aircraft" and put wikilink to other Polish aircraft articles below aircraft inventory table. Then, on 23 February 2022, FOX 52 disagree with such edit and eventually moved some of those wikilink under "See Also" section. However, Tbx3571 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?

Additional aircraft:

• Polish Land Forces Aircraft
• Polish Navy Aircraft
• Polish Special Forces Aircraft
• Polish Border Guard Aircraft
• Policja Aircraft
• Air ambulances in Poland

Personally, I tend to agree with FOX 52 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)

The only one's to include should be the Naval & Land force components (IMO) - FOX 52 ^talk! 02:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

FOX 52 removing information and inserting false information without references

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)

@E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr: 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)

@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)

@E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr: There no combative tone, as new comer to Wikipedia you should understand that we have policies in place created by the community. Your statement "FOX 52 on May 21, 2022 contain false information without references" 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)

@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)

@E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr: 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)

@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)

@E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr: Once again show me what is exactly is "false" - FOX 52 ^talk! 16:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@FOX 52: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)

@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)

Subtitles for pictures under Equipment>Aircraft section

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

Removal of wikipedia links to "Origin" countries

@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)

See: MOS:OVERLINK FOX 52 ^talk! 00:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

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)

Munitions Compatibility Table

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)

@E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr: - 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)

Air Defense table

FOX 52 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)

table

I'd like to comment on table format, MOS:DTAB explicitly states Avoid using <br /> or <hr /> tags in adjacent cells to emulate a visual row that isn't reflected in the HTML table structure. So, we shouldn't push for using <hr /> when the WP:Guideline discourage its usage. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Concern Regarding Inaccurate Data and Source Deletion

Thank you for pointing out the guidelines on table formatting. While it’s important to adhere to MOS:DTAB, there is a pressing issue that needs to be addressed regarding the content within the tables themselves, specifically the number of in-service aircraft for the Polish Air Force.

Recent edits made by FOX 52 have significantly altered the reported numbers of in-service aircraft, reducing them without citing any reliable sources for these changes. This directly conflicts with Wikipedia’s core content policies, WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR, which emphasize the importance of verifiability and not publishing original research.

Moreover, I have provided updated sources and accurate data that were subsequently deleted without explanation. This action not only disregards the principle of WP:PRESERVE, which encourages editing over deletion when possible, but also impacts the article’s accuracy and reliability.

Instead of removing entire edits that improve the article’s content and accuracy, I suggest we focus on adjusting the table format to comply with Wikipedia’s guidelines, as you rightly mentioned. This approach allows us to maintain both the integrity of the information and the structural standards set by Wikipedia. Damianwroc (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Please show us what numbers were changed? yours vs. current - FOX 52 ^talk! 18:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

In response to your query, FOX 52, the issue at hand involves the reduction of the in-service aircraft numbers for the Polish Air Force, notably the change you made, reducing the count of MiG aircraft from their previously listed number to 13. This adjustment was made without citing new or updated sources to justify the reduction.

The significance of these numbers is not just in their accuracy but in their reflection of current capabilities as documented by reliable sources. The original figures, before your edits, were supported by sources that are both current and verifiable. The unilateral decision to alter these numbers to 13 for MiGs, among adjustments to other aircraft types, directly conflicts with Wikipedia’s policies on verifiability (WP:VERIFY) and no original research (WP:NOR).

The transparency of Wikipedia’s edit history does indeed allow us to track these changes. However, the point of contention is not merely the act of editing but the removal or alteration of sourced content without providing equivalent or more accurate sources in return. This practice undermines the essence of Wikipedia as a platform for collaboratively building a reliable encyclopedia.

I urge a return to the practice of constructive editing, where changes, especially those that significantly alter factual content, are substantiated by reliable sources. It’s crucial for maintaining the integrity of the article and the trust of its readership. Let’s focus our efforts on enhancing the article’s accuracy, guided by the principles that underpin Wikipedia. Damianwroc (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm failing to identify any difference between Damianwroc's edit and previous edit in terms of the number of in-service aircraft. Both indicate that there are 13 in-service Mig-29s. This figure is derived from the initial number of Mig-29s obtained in the World Air Force 2024 report, which was 23. Subtracting the number of MIG-29s donated to Ukraine, which is 10, results in a total of 13 remaining in-service aircraft. Please note that the calculation "23 - 10 = 13" is a simple computation as per WP:CALC, and it does not violate WP:NOR. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I must address a recurring issue that has significant implications for the accuracy of the Polish Air Force entry, specifically relating to the number of MiG-29 and Su-22 aircraft. It has become evident that there is a profound misunderstanding or oversight regarding the interpretation of our shared source, the World Air Force 2024 report, by FOX 52.

The report clearly delineates 23 MiG-29A aircraft within the combat section and an additional 6 MiG-29UB aircraft under training, totaling 29. With the well-documented donation of 10 MiG-29s to Ukraine, the accurate, current total of MiG-29s in service should be adjusted to 19. This figure was meticulously presented in my edits, with a breakdown between trainer and combat roles for both the MiG-29 and Su-22 aircraft, aiming for clarity and precision in our article.

However, it appears that these detailed contributions, grounded in the very source cited for edits, have been overlooked or disregarded. The assertion that only 13 MiG-29s remain in service, without acknowledging the training aircraft or providing any new sources to substantiate such a claim, raises concerns about the diligence applied in reviewing the provided references.

It is crucial for the integrity of Wikipedia and the trustworthiness of its content that we, as contributors, undertake a thorough review of our sources and ensure that our edits reflect an accurate interpretation of these materials. Ignoring parts of a source that contribute to a full understanding of the subject, or selectively editing information without thorough verification, undermines the collaborative effort to maintain an accurate and reliable encyclopedia.

The issue at hand transcends mere numbers; it touches upon the fundamental principles of responsible editing and respect for the verifiable truth. I urge FOX 52 and all contributors to revisit the source material with a comprehensive lens, acknowledging all relevant data to correct the record.

Our shared goal is to present an accurate, complete, and reliable account of the Polish Air Force’s capabilities. Let us move forward with a renewed commitment to this objective, ensuring our edits are not only well-sourced but also faithfully represent the information those sources convey. Damianwroc (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

If the concern is specifically differentiating between the Mig-29A and Mig-29UB variants, we can revert to the previous format. This involves labeling the variant column as "A/UB" and indicating "13/6" in the in-service column. This format is consistent with other air force pages. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Ckfasdf, for your suggestion aimed at clarifying the distinction between the MiG-29A and MiG-29UB variants. I understand the intent to align with the formatting conventions seen in other air force pages. However, upon encountering the “A/UB” and “13/6” format, my initial impression was that it appeared akin to a typographical error, closely mirroring the “0/36” format commonly used to indicate equipment orders. This similarity could potentially lead to confusion, making it challenging for readers to immediately grasp the intended meaning.

The format wasn’t as clear as it could be, particularly for those less familiar with military equipment or the specific context of these numbers. My objective with proposing the {hr} format was to distinctly and transparently differentiate between trainer and combat aircraft, facilitating a straightforward understanding for readers at a glance. This approach was chosen with the readers’ comprehension in mind, ensuring they could easily appreciate the breakdown without ambiguity.

I fully acknowledge Wikipedia’s guidelines and the importance of consistency across articles. However, given the potential for confusion with the “A/UB” and “13/6” format, I believe there’s value in exploring alternatives that achieve both our goals of clarity and adherence to established conventions. Wikipedia’s guidelines encourage us to present information in a manner that is both accurate and easy for the reader to understand, aligning with principles such as WP:CRYSTALCLEAR.

Could we consider a format that maintains the clear distinction between variants while avoiding formats that might be misinterpreted as equipment orders? I’m open to collaborative discussions to find a mutually agreeable solution that prioritizes reader comprehension and aligns with Wikipedia’s formatting standards. Damianwroc (talk) 02:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could list "A/UB" in the variant column, indicate 19 aircraft in the in-service column, and specify in the notes column that 6 of them are UB variants. This option stays concise while removing any chance of multiple interpretations. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Ckfasdf, I value your proposal for clarifying the distinction between trainer and combat variants of fighter jets, such as the MiG-29 and Su-22, within our article. Indeed, specifying “A/UB” in the variant column does help in delineating these differences clearly for the reader, and I acknowledge the steps taken towards enhancing the article’s clarity in this regard.

However, I’d like to highlight a crucial aspect of our ongoing discussion about formatting consistency and its application across the entire article. While the suggested format may improve clarity for fighter jet variants, specifically by noting “A/UB” and differentiating the in-service numbers of the F-16 variants which I introduced, this approach encounters limitations when applied to the sections detailing the C-130 and B-737 aircraft.

Your concerns about consistency are well-founded and deserve attention. Yet, the approach to variant information and equipment orders exhibits a significant shift in formatting style as we move to aircraft like the C-130 and B-737, where a different method is employed. This inconsistency challenges the very principle of uniformity that we both aim to uphold, as per Wikipedia’s guidelines on consistent formatting (WP:MOSFORMAT) and clear, accessible content (WP:ACCESSIBLE).

The essence of our task is to ensure that information about all aircraft types, whether fighter jets, transport planes, or others, is presented in a manner that is both accurate and easily comprehensible to our readers. To achieve this, it’s essential to employ a formatting style that not only accommodates the unique aspects of each aircraft type but also maintains a consistent approach throughout the table. This consistency is crucial for enhancing reader understanding and ensuring the article adheres to Wikipedia’s standards.

Given these considerations, I propose we explore a unified formatting strategy that addresses the presentation of variants and equipment orders in a coherent and consistent manner across all sections of the article. Such a strategy would not only resolve the current inconsistencies but also significantly improve the article’s overall quality and reliability. Damianwroc (talk) 05:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe the previous format works perfectly well. For example, in the case of the C-130, where there are 5 Es and 3 Hs in service, with an additional 2 Hs on order, we can list "E/H" in the variant column, indicate "5/3" in the in-service column to represent the number of each variant, and note the 2 Hs on order in the "Notes" column. Alternatively, we can list "E/H" in the variant column and input "8" in the in-service column. Then, in the "Notes" column, we can specify that 5 are Es and indicate 2 Hs are on order. The same approach can be applied to the B-737, Mig-29, F-16 or any other aircraft variant. Ckfasdf (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I just don't find a compelling reason to use a horizontal line inside table ({{hr}}), which justifies ignoring the Wikipedia guideline. Ckfasdf (talk) 07:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

PS: Please refrain from inventing policies or guidelines during discussion such as 'WP:CRYSTALCLEAR'. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Another alternative is to create a separate row for specifically for the training aircraft variant, rather than relying solely on {{hr}}. After all, World Air Forces 2024 lists the Mig-29UB under trainer aircraft. This approach also maintains conciseness. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I also disagree to put 0/36 on in-service column of FA-50PL aircraft, as it deviate from the standard format use in Air Force articles and could lead to confusion (please see WP:ASTONISH). I strongly suggesting reverting to the previous format, where "0" is entered in the in-service column, accompanied by statement on note column stating that an additional 36 aircraft are on order. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the opportunity to further explain the specific formatting choice of “0/36” for the FA-50PL aircraft within our article. This decision not only aligns with Wikipedia’s guidelines for clarity and precision (WP:PRECISE) but also serves a critical function in distinguishing between the completed orders of the FA-50GF and the pending delivery status of the FA-50PL aircraft.

The “0/36” notation is instrumental in immediately conveying that, as of now, no FA-50PL aircraft are in service, yet 36 units are on order. This contrasts with the FA-50GF, where the orders are complete, and the aircraft are operational. Such a distinction is crucial for readers seeking to understand the current composition and future developments of the Polish Air Force’s capabilities without delving into lengthy notes or separate sections for clarification.

This formatting method directly supports the goal of providing readers with a clear, at-a-glance understanding of both the present situation and anticipated changes. It emphasizes the importance of indicating not only what assets are currently in service but also what commitments have been made for future enhancements to the fleet. This approach is particularly pertinent for military and defense articles, where the status of equipment orders can significantly impact readers’ understanding of national defense capabilities and planning.

By adopting this clear and concise method of presentation, we ensure that the article accurately reflects the dynamic nature of military assets and procurement, offering readers a comprehensive snapshot of both current and future capabilities. This method, therefore, represents a thoughtful balance between avoiding potential confusion (WP:ASTONISH) and striving for the utmost clarity and informative value (WP:PRECISE). Damianwroc (talk) 02:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The concern with "0/36" notation format is that general readers may not easily understand that 36 aircraft are on order, especially when this information is included in the in-service column. It would be more straightforward to explicitly mention in the notes section that 36 aircraft are on order. Hence, I propose to revert back to previous format by entering "0" in the in-service column to signify that no aircraft of this type are currently in service, and providing clarification in the notes column that 36 aircraft are on order. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, to make the "0/36" format functional without causing confusion, we could modify the header to read "In-Service / On Order." However, I oppose this suggestion as it would further differentiate this table from the standard format used in other contexts. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Exactly its a moot point because it creates massive confusion on the reader. - This page should not be exempt. - FOX 52 ^talk! 03:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The debate surrounding the “0/36” notation for the FA-50PL aircraft highlights a critical aspect of information presentation on Wikipedia: the balance between clarity, precision, and consistency across articles. The concerns raised by Ckfasdf and FOX 52 regarding potential confusion for general readers merit consideration. However, these concerns may overlook the comprehensive nature of the table’s design, particularly the integration of the notes column which explicitly states that “36 FA-50PL are on order,” directly beside the “0/36” notation.

This integrated approach ensures that readers are immediately aware of both the current in-service status and the future commitments in a single glance, without the need to navigate away from the table or search through lengthy text for clarification. It is essential to recognize the capacity of our readers to engage with the table’s content meaningfully when provided with clear, contextual cues.

The claim that the “0/36” format inherently causes confusion assumes a lack of engagement with the accompanying notes, which are explicitly designed to mitigate such misunderstandings. This method of presentation, aiming for clarity and precision, ensures a nuanced snapshot of the FA-50PL’s status, catering to the diverse needs of our readership—from casual browsers to defense enthusiasts and researchers.

Additionally, the insistence on a uniform standard format across all articles, while aimed at consistency, should not prevent us from adapting presentation methods to suit the specific informational context of an article. The Wikipedia Manual of Style (WP:MOS) provides extensive guidance on formatting issues, suggesting that while consistency is crucial, there is room for editorial judgment to best serve the article’s clarity and the readers’ understanding.

To address concerns about deviation from standard formats, I propose a compromise that retains the informative value of the “0/36” notation while ensuring it is accessible and understandable to all readers. This could involve a brief explanatory note or legend within the article, clarifying the notation used in the table. Such an approach aligns with the principles outlined in the Manual of Style, ensuring that content is both clear and consistent with Wikipedia’s standards.

In conclusion, the use of the “0/36” format, supported by clear explanations in the notes column and potentially augmented by additional guidance within the article, represents a balanced approach to presenting complex military procurement information. It reflects a commitment to providing precise, accessible, and comprehensive information, meeting the diverse needs and expectations of our readership. Damianwroc (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

If additional clarification is needed in the "Notes" column to explain the "0/36" format, it might lead to redundant information for each of the 36 aircraft listed in the table. Wikipedia discourages unnecessary content duplication, hence the existence of various Manual of Style, guidelines, essays and templates to mitigate such instances. Generally, we aim to avoid duplicating content, keep it short and concise. Therefore, if we still include "36 on order" in the "Notes" column, it's preferable to simply put "0" in the "In-service" column rather than put it as "0/36". Ckfasdf (talk) 07:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Why are we trying to fix something that is not broken- FOX 52 ^talk! 07:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@FOX 52: To be honest, my initial thought was similar to yours – why fix something that is not broken? However, after discussing with Damianwroc, I've come to see the issue more clearly. And, refer to your latest edit, it seems that you've put back the issue raised by Damianwroc. If we indicate "Mig-29A/UB" in the "variants" column, enter "13" in the "in service" column, and specify "6 UB variants used for conversion training" in the "Notes" column, it may lead the average reader to believe that the total number of Mig-29 aircraft operated is 13, including 6 UB variants. As a result, they might assume that the number of A variants is 7 aircraft (total 13 - 6 UB). Similar issue may arises with the F-16. In my previous edit, I chose to use "13 / 6" for the Mig-29 and "36 / 12" for the F-16 to ensure consistency throughout the inventory table, as this format aligns with how B-737 and C-130 are presented. Ckfasdf (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

We could resolve this issue by simply put "19" in the "in service" column for Mig-29. However, this approach would omit easily accessible information about the total number of A variants, requiring readers to calculate it themselves if they wish to know. Additionally, this format would deviate from how the B-737 and C-130 entries are presented, resulting in inconsistency. Ckfasdf (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I have tweaked the tables to use the more usual styles for these tables. MilborneOne (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Nice.. I may adopt that table format into other inventory table. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Trainer aircraft designation

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 Ppt91^talk 01:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Understood.. what do you think about this format? As it put F16 under combat aircraft. Ckfasdf (talk) 07:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@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. Ppt91^talk 18:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ppt91: 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)

@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. Ppt91^talk 16:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)