This page 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.
Hello, I'm
Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that
this edit performed by you, on the page
All Nippon Airways, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "
bare URL and
missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (
Fix |
Ask for help)
Looks like you've got a problem with me, shamelessly reverting other person edit with the weakest argument. You've attacked my edit three times for the weakest reason.
now look at this page
Central Java,
East Java,
West Java. All of them are major provinces. Using your own word "Per MOS:SMALLFONT; minor ce on infobox to make it consistent with other provinces". All of those that i mentioned, as of 20 April are using small motto. I'm the one being consistent here
Outside of Indonesia.
Kuala Lumpur and
Paris are using small motto. Your argument to revert my edit on Central Papua is weak.
@
Afif Brika1: I have no issue with you... But I do have issue with your edit. Indonesian-related topics are on my watchlist, if anyone makes I'll be notified. Regarding your edit on
Central Papua, the issues are as follows:
1. You applied {{small}} on |motto= parameter. Whereas
MOS:SMALLFONT, explicitly mentions Avoid using smaller font sizes within page elements that already use a smaller font size, such as most text within infoboxes, navboxes, and references sections.. It doesnt matter if it used elsewhere, it still didn't comply with the guidelines.
2. You only put italics on |motto= parameter,
MOS:LANG explicitly mentions Non-English words or phrases should be encased in {{lang}}, which uses ISO 639 language codes. Note that
Template:Native name is alternative of
Template:Lang, and I used that template since already put "Indonesian" on the end of sentence and I think it'll be better that way.
3. You also put curly apostrophe on |motto= parameter,
MOS:APOSTROPHE mentions Use straight apostrophes ('), not curly apostrophes (’)
Based on my arguments above, I don't think my edit is "weak reversion" as they refer to guidelines/generally accepted consensus.
Ckfasdf (
talk)
After I saw your blunder when you revert your own edit "PeRdA iS NoT RaTiFieD" on Central Papua. I can safely say that you have no idea what your talking about. I'm being consistent here, I will follow style from major pages like
Kuala Lumpur,
Paris,
East Java,
Central Java. Use your energy anywhere else, I'm a major contributor of new provinces page in wikipedia Indonesia which are translated directly into wikipedia english, your only contribution is reversion.
Afif Brika1 (
talk)
05:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
@
Afif Brika1: Does it means you will intentionally ignore the
MOS:SMALLFONT (a WP Guidelines)? Please note that
MOS:SMALLFONT also explicitly state Note that the HTML <small>...</small> tag has a semantic meaning of fine print or side comments; do not use it for stylistic changes.
regarding the issue on Pergub for Central Papua Emblem, there is only one source that explicitly state is which is
https://www.ceposonline.com/2023/04/17/papua-tengah-dob-pertama-yang-resmikan-logo-daerah (pretty much an obscure media outlet, which you didn't mention on your edit or edit summary), and no other mentions in mainstream media. Also you can't find that Pergub in government JDIH website yet.. Even reference in
Commons still shows the draft of Pergub (not ratified version). So, it is reasonable if mistakes happen.
Ckfasdf (
talk)
05:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, i'm following consistency with
Kuala Lumpur and
Paris. The topmost sentence in
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style - "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."
Ceposonline is another name for Cenderawasih Pos, one the largest media in Papua. It's part of
Jawa Pos Group, major newspaper in Indonesia. By saying that ceposonline is obscure means that you have no idea about Papua. And you shouldn't hinder other editor from making edits on Papuan page because clearly you don't know what you're talking about.
@
Afif Brika1: It's true that there may be an exception for Guidelines, but you need shows where such exception exist. And small font on infobox is an accessibility issue as it was mentioned not only on
MOS:SMALLFONT, but also on
Template:Small documentation Using this template within an infobox would produce a font size 75% of the page default, well below the 85% minimum specified in the linked guidelines.
OTHERSTUFFEXIST is strawman argument, we're talking about styles within an article, not a NOTABILITY of an article, your link is about whether an article should EXIST OR NOT. Small motto is a matter of consistency of style, considering that major pages like
Paris and
Kuala Lumpur have small motto, then smaller pages should follow it. Again, you're using fallacious argument
Burden is on you, every provinces, city, and regency of Indonesia have a logo. Removing a good-sourced logo from an article like what you just did means that responsibility to provide explanation is on you. Just admit that you're clearly wrong for reverting my edit.
There is no wikipedia rules that said "a law should be ratified", as long that our sources comes directly from the government, then we should follow them. And also, JDIH is a bad source to find local law, because local government rarely upload their law on the internet.
Afif Brika1 (
talk)
07:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
@
Afif Brika1: Since discussion on small font in the infobox is not going anywhere, I'll try to reconfirm this with other editors.
Hi,dude.Can i ask you to stop changing the F-16 number from 16 to 8 because we have signed a contract. In Bulgaria before a contract is signed it has to go through parliament a then the minister of defence can go a sign a contract. A contract has been signed it just isn't the most important part . the most important part is for the MPs to approve it. We are expecting the second batch of F-16s in 2027 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
STURMMANN16 (
talk •
contribs)
19:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
@
STURMMANN16: For aircraft inventory in air force page, the consensus is to include as "on order" only after the purchase contract is signed by the manufacturer and customer, since
signed contract" is more likely to happen in the future than approval to purchase by parliament, approval for sales by manufacturing country's government,
MoU,
LoI or any other form of "potential order" as contract is
legally binding to manufacturer and customers, unlike other form of "potential order". In regards to additional 8 F-16s that recently obtained approval to purchase by Bulgarian parliament, that information is already included in the article (specifically on
Bulgarian Air Force#Twenty-first century), but NOT on the aircraft inventory table.
Ckfasdf (
talk)
22:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Regarding our recent comments there, I discovered a problem. For some strange reason I can click the Edit option but, I'm prevented from editing. I don't know why. Would you please replace the photographs of Spanish and Finnish marines in the introduction with the image that you preferred? It was this
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:USS_Wasp_Vs_HMS_Reindeer_Engaged_In_Combat.jpg
I have seen your edit there. I think article has improved. Thanks very much and if you need help editing another article you can let me know. --
Dreddmoto (
talk)
02:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
It seems an agreement has been made, and no further discussions were done for over a week, suffice to say a consensus has been formed. Can you move the page? I've tried but it won't let me. Thanks. -
EvoSwatch (
talk)
06:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)