![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
2014-2022 and 2022-present are shown as one and the same, which is not so as per international standards. No idea about the standards used here. Kpbolumbu ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
The first message below by Kishore Editing was copied from User talk:The Discoverer.
Hi "The Discoverer". I've seen you've erased my edits on the most recent alteration of the Indian Naval Ensign, in favor of an edit made by you. Yet, when I re-edit that sub-section, you repeal that alteration, saying that it has to be concise. I'd like to make a clarification here.
{1}. You've reverted the sentence referring to the PMO's announcement of the ensign's upcoming alteration, saying there is no use. I disagree, since mentioning the ensign's revision, without stating the proper reason why, would not be nice. For example, the reason for the change back to the 2004-2022 ensign is mentioned - Indian sailors had a hard time distinguishing the old ensign from the sky and the ocean, from afar. Likewise, the current change to the present design (2022-present) also has a reason - the Indian Navy and the Government of India wanted a new design that "would dispose of the colonial past" and would "befit India's rich maritime heritage". That is a valid reason. Mentioning a change without a reason wouldn't exactly be appealing to readers. The decision to change the ensign has to be mentioned, since it is an event which is related to the ensign's history.
{2}. You said that you've re-edited the entire section just to make it concise, but the use of the word "concise" doesn't exactly apply here. The paragraph is neither convoluted nor long, and it is not difficult for readers to comprehend. The word "concise" would have been meaningful had the paragraph been too long too read, but it is not. There was no need to make that edit.
For good reason, please stop stop making these edits, which solicits neither any necessity nor urgency. Please leave the paragraph as it is. It already is good, has no pressing necessity for change and is already sufficient in information. Any further reverting of the paragraph in favor a version of yours would spark an edit conflict, which is profoundly unnecessary. Kindly understand. Thanks. Kishore Editing ( talk) 09:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
2014-2022 and 2022-present are shown as one and the same, which is not so as per international standards. No idea about the standards used here. Kpbolumbu ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
The first message below by Kishore Editing was copied from User talk:The Discoverer.
Hi "The Discoverer". I've seen you've erased my edits on the most recent alteration of the Indian Naval Ensign, in favor of an edit made by you. Yet, when I re-edit that sub-section, you repeal that alteration, saying that it has to be concise. I'd like to make a clarification here.
{1}. You've reverted the sentence referring to the PMO's announcement of the ensign's upcoming alteration, saying there is no use. I disagree, since mentioning the ensign's revision, without stating the proper reason why, would not be nice. For example, the reason for the change back to the 2004-2022 ensign is mentioned - Indian sailors had a hard time distinguishing the old ensign from the sky and the ocean, from afar. Likewise, the current change to the present design (2022-present) also has a reason - the Indian Navy and the Government of India wanted a new design that "would dispose of the colonial past" and would "befit India's rich maritime heritage". That is a valid reason. Mentioning a change without a reason wouldn't exactly be appealing to readers. The decision to change the ensign has to be mentioned, since it is an event which is related to the ensign's history.
{2}. You said that you've re-edited the entire section just to make it concise, but the use of the word "concise" doesn't exactly apply here. The paragraph is neither convoluted nor long, and it is not difficult for readers to comprehend. The word "concise" would have been meaningful had the paragraph been too long too read, but it is not. There was no need to make that edit.
For good reason, please stop stop making these edits, which solicits neither any necessity nor urgency. Please leave the paragraph as it is. It already is good, has no pressing necessity for change and is already sufficient in information. Any further reverting of the paragraph in favor a version of yours would spark an edit conflict, which is profoundly unnecessary. Kindly understand. Thanks. Kishore Editing ( talk) 09:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)