This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
This
edit request to
Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request to update the infobox with these images added.
Indo–Pakistani War of 1965 | |||
---|---|---|---|
Part of the Indo–Pakistani wars and conflicts | |||
Top to bottom, left to right:
| |||
|
2400:ADC1:477:8500:CEE:2530:EA7:F33B ( talk) 12:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
On 30 December, a large chunk of this Article was wiped to revert an edit from 4 days prior which cancelled out all contributions by the other 2 users. The Revert was done in favour of a a singular link reference that was previously removed by Gedrose.
Capitals00 has informed us that there is nothing wrong with what happened, any prior page revision can be restored to fix a mistake, it is the responsibility of all who have contributed in between the edit and revert to manually add everything back all over again. Just for understanding, this is allowed and like in a legal court a consistent logic is present throughout wikipedia yes?
This should also mean there is nothing wrong with me restoring the article back
to this if i had the Justification, maybe a link was unjustly removed back then? Who knows.
PreserveOurHistory (
talk) 17:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
As Pakistan completely failed in its Operation to capture Kashmir then how did it he a stalemate. Second thing is that Pakistan Ended up losing 3 times more area including strategic points to India. Meanwhile India not only defended its borders but also captured large territories. 2402:8100:308E:A550:1:0:5B8E:48FA ( talk) 13:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Thepdawala ( talk) 09:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
defeat for India,
This
edit request to
Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Pakistan Won That War After Successfully Defeating Lahore, Sialkot, and a Few Cities in Sindh. Thepdawala ( talk) 09:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
@ Cinderella157 Which of my additions to the infobox were not found in the article? >>> Extorc. talk 16:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It was a decisive indian victory. I have proofs of it also. Please change it or let me do it. I will edit it with sources. Thank you SwAGgy79 ( talk) 08:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Titan2456, your addition of a montage to the infobox was reverted because it appears to be inconsistent with WP:MONTAGE. Per WP:ONUS, if an edit is challenged, there is an onus to gain consensus for its inclusion before reinstating it. See also WP:BRD. Cinderella157 ( talk) 23:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Collages and montages are single images that illustrate multiple closely related concepts, where overlapping or similar careful placement of component images is necessary to illustrate a point in an encyclopedic way[emphasis added]. There is no point to illustrate that would make a montage necessary. A montage in this case is decorative and against image use policy generally and guidance on the lead image. It also bloats the infobox, making it contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Indo-pak war was a decisive victory for India as pakistan triggered war and failed to capture kashmir. On the other hand, India successfully defended its line SwAGgy797 ( talk) 05:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I am concerned that the dispute over the infobox may cause an edit war. I have stated that before you remove the collage please reach a consensus as according to WP:CONSENSUS, The collage changes are a massive change to the article, so I would recommend nobody change the collage by removal, achieving a proper consensus is necessary, you have stated that it is not neutral, but I do not understand how? It is a neutral collage with no biases. If we are able to reach consensus and you provide good reason to prove the collage is biased, I will be more than happy to remove the collage myself. Titan2456 ( talk) 02:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
I think it’s in the best interests of the article to keep the collage until a reason is provided on how it is biased. Titan2456 ( talk) 02:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC) If you think the images are biased, then we can change the images with an equal number of Indian and Pakistani images, but removing the collage entirely is not the way to go about it. Titan2456 ( talk) 02:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Collages and montages are single images that illustrate multiple closely related concepts, where overlapping or similar careful placement of component images is necessary to illustrate a point in an encyclopedic way[emphasis added]. There is no point to illustrate that would make a montage necessary. A montage in this case is decorative and against image use policy generally and guidance on the lead image. It also bloats the infobox, making it contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. I do not see this as an improvement or one that is supported by WP:P&G. Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page.Yes, it should be representative of the subject but that does not mean it should represent every aspect of the subject. Tank warfare, arial warfare and infantry combat are characteristic of most of the conventional wars that have occurred in the 20th century. They are not unique aspects of this war. The prevailing WP:P&G tells us to use collages sparingly and particularly where it is necessary to directly compare images. This is not the case here. Bombarding the reader with too much [visual] information at one time is counterproductive. The information just becomes noise. All of the captions are just more noise that bloats the infobox and are a distraction. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us that less is usually better. This also applies to the lead image being collages. Citing WP:OTHERCONTENT is not of itself a cogent argument unless one establishes that these other examples represent best practice - eg these other examples are GA or FA articles. They are not. I do not defend the present map as being the best lead image but a collage is not supported by P&G and is not a better alternative. Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Alot of Information has been wiped out, so are the distinctive Executive, Navy and Army flag icons. Also there's no label, not sure how the reader gets anything they need from it.
Please take a look at the infobox. There's 4 names listed for Pakistan and then 3 names for India. There's no credential or role listed or anything, it's just 7 names written and their articles linked. What is that? Why are the names selected so random too? The person behind this logic is now going to have to explain why they chose these names. This is ridiculous. Readers should keep in mind that the infobox did not include the Army Chief of India up until 3 edits ago. Very laughable job done here by this person with their thinking. Writing to let everyone know about it.
Can we not degrade the article? RevolutionaryPatriot ( talk) 10:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
RM commanders not supported by body of article per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. RM positions/ranks per template documentation. RM flags that serve no useful purpose per MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE information in the infobox must be supported by the body of the articles. Per MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS, flags in the infobox only serve a useful purpose when there are three or more belligerents and the flags used are those of the belligerents to indicate the allegiance of the commanders etc. The version you would be referring to did not comply with the prevailing WP:P&G. Cinderella157 ( talk) 23:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
This
edit request to
Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request to update the infobox with these images added.
Indo–Pakistani War of 1965 | |||
---|---|---|---|
Part of the Indo–Pakistani wars and conflicts | |||
Top to bottom, left to right:
| |||
|
2400:ADC1:477:8500:CEE:2530:EA7:F33B ( talk) 12:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
On 30 December, a large chunk of this Article was wiped to revert an edit from 4 days prior which cancelled out all contributions by the other 2 users. The Revert was done in favour of a a singular link reference that was previously removed by Gedrose.
Capitals00 has informed us that there is nothing wrong with what happened, any prior page revision can be restored to fix a mistake, it is the responsibility of all who have contributed in between the edit and revert to manually add everything back all over again. Just for understanding, this is allowed and like in a legal court a consistent logic is present throughout wikipedia yes?
This should also mean there is nothing wrong with me restoring the article back
to this if i had the Justification, maybe a link was unjustly removed back then? Who knows.
PreserveOurHistory (
talk) 17:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
As Pakistan completely failed in its Operation to capture Kashmir then how did it he a stalemate. Second thing is that Pakistan Ended up losing 3 times more area including strategic points to India. Meanwhile India not only defended its borders but also captured large territories. 2402:8100:308E:A550:1:0:5B8E:48FA ( talk) 13:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Thepdawala ( talk) 09:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
defeat for India,
This
edit request to
Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Pakistan Won That War After Successfully Defeating Lahore, Sialkot, and a Few Cities in Sindh. Thepdawala ( talk) 09:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
@ Cinderella157 Which of my additions to the infobox were not found in the article? >>> Extorc. talk 16:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It was a decisive indian victory. I have proofs of it also. Please change it or let me do it. I will edit it with sources. Thank you SwAGgy79 ( talk) 08:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Titan2456, your addition of a montage to the infobox was reverted because it appears to be inconsistent with WP:MONTAGE. Per WP:ONUS, if an edit is challenged, there is an onus to gain consensus for its inclusion before reinstating it. See also WP:BRD. Cinderella157 ( talk) 23:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Collages and montages are single images that illustrate multiple closely related concepts, where overlapping or similar careful placement of component images is necessary to illustrate a point in an encyclopedic way[emphasis added]. There is no point to illustrate that would make a montage necessary. A montage in this case is decorative and against image use policy generally and guidance on the lead image. It also bloats the infobox, making it contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Indo-pak war was a decisive victory for India as pakistan triggered war and failed to capture kashmir. On the other hand, India successfully defended its line SwAGgy797 ( talk) 05:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I am concerned that the dispute over the infobox may cause an edit war. I have stated that before you remove the collage please reach a consensus as according to WP:CONSENSUS, The collage changes are a massive change to the article, so I would recommend nobody change the collage by removal, achieving a proper consensus is necessary, you have stated that it is not neutral, but I do not understand how? It is a neutral collage with no biases. If we are able to reach consensus and you provide good reason to prove the collage is biased, I will be more than happy to remove the collage myself. Titan2456 ( talk) 02:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
I think it’s in the best interests of the article to keep the collage until a reason is provided on how it is biased. Titan2456 ( talk) 02:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC) If you think the images are biased, then we can change the images with an equal number of Indian and Pakistani images, but removing the collage entirely is not the way to go about it. Titan2456 ( talk) 02:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Collages and montages are single images that illustrate multiple closely related concepts, where overlapping or similar careful placement of component images is necessary to illustrate a point in an encyclopedic way[emphasis added]. There is no point to illustrate that would make a montage necessary. A montage in this case is decorative and against image use policy generally and guidance on the lead image. It also bloats the infobox, making it contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. I do not see this as an improvement or one that is supported by WP:P&G. Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page.Yes, it should be representative of the subject but that does not mean it should represent every aspect of the subject. Tank warfare, arial warfare and infantry combat are characteristic of most of the conventional wars that have occurred in the 20th century. They are not unique aspects of this war. The prevailing WP:P&G tells us to use collages sparingly and particularly where it is necessary to directly compare images. This is not the case here. Bombarding the reader with too much [visual] information at one time is counterproductive. The information just becomes noise. All of the captions are just more noise that bloats the infobox and are a distraction. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us that less is usually better. This also applies to the lead image being collages. Citing WP:OTHERCONTENT is not of itself a cogent argument unless one establishes that these other examples represent best practice - eg these other examples are GA or FA articles. They are not. I do not defend the present map as being the best lead image but a collage is not supported by P&G and is not a better alternative. Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Alot of Information has been wiped out, so are the distinctive Executive, Navy and Army flag icons. Also there's no label, not sure how the reader gets anything they need from it.
Please take a look at the infobox. There's 4 names listed for Pakistan and then 3 names for India. There's no credential or role listed or anything, it's just 7 names written and their articles linked. What is that? Why are the names selected so random too? The person behind this logic is now going to have to explain why they chose these names. This is ridiculous. Readers should keep in mind that the infobox did not include the Army Chief of India up until 3 edits ago. Very laughable job done here by this person with their thinking. Writing to let everyone know about it.
Can we not degrade the article? RevolutionaryPatriot ( talk) 10:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
RM commanders not supported by body of article per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. RM positions/ranks per template documentation. RM flags that serve no useful purpose per MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE information in the infobox must be supported by the body of the articles. Per MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS, flags in the infobox only serve a useful purpose when there are three or more belligerents and the flags used are those of the belligerents to indicate the allegiance of the commanders etc. The version you would be referring to did not comply with the prevailing WP:P&G. Cinderella157 ( talk) 23:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)