Talk:Politechnika Warszawska PW-5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

I suggested the page title for this and the PW-6 be changed to "Politechniki Warszawskiej PW-5" and "Politechniki Warszawskiej PW-6". PZL is not the design originator, only manufactures the type under license. Please have also a look at the PZL Wiki article to appreciate how the designation PZL PW-5 would look out of context there. They make a lot of other designs under license, too, keeping the originators type designator.Francisco de Almeida 12:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello! The name of the article is incorrect, because "Politechniki Warszawskiej" is genitive case from "Politechnika Warszawska", so the correct name should be maybe "Politechnika Warszawska PW-5". I'm a polish native speaker and "Politechniki Warszawskiej PW-6" sounds for me really strange. Amstell.

The several edits made in 2008.03.18 by 202.161.43.233 are in my opinion detrimental to the article: - they violate the NPOV (neutral point of view) policy of Wikipedia and constitute, in fact, advertising. - they delete all negative comment about the performance and handling of the aircraft and about the decline of interest in the type and class. - the level of detail given to the proceedings of the IGC design competition is out of place in this article (could merit a separate, well written article). - several statements introduced are debateable. - the comparison between the PW-6 and other two seaters is out of place (this article is about the PW-5), cronologically incorrect (uses the future tense for developments that have already occurred), and has unreasonable or false statements.

In view of these failings, I will revert sections of these edits within a few days if no improvement to the above points is forthcoming. Regards, Francisco de Almeida (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC).