Talk:2023 World Wushu Championships
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Yinglong999 in topic Why are the navboxes subst'ed?
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Multiple reverts
editInstead of fueling the ongoing editing war, please use this space to discuss the proposed changes as per WP:NAV and WP:NAVBOX. nearlyevil665 18:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Reason of revert? 91.124.116.230 (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@Nearlyevil665: Though the lack of explanation does not help, it doesn't look like they removed any content. Unless I'm mistaken, all they did is replace the expanded navboxes with their equivalent templates. M.Bitton (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- I opened this discussion to stop the violation of the 3RR. Unfortunately, the IP author didn't cease reverts and the page was semi-protected. I do not have a position on the substance of the reverts. There were three or four other users who had reservations about the changes and reverted the IP author's edits prior to the violation of the 3RR occurring. They are free to reach a consensus here. nearlyevil665 20:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Do you know something about navboxes? Or see the button "Revert" only? What is wrong with edit? That users has added the text of navbox repeatedly, instead of the calling of navbox! What should I discuss if there were NO any explanations of the reverts reasons?! The navbox should be called but not copied in the text. Don't agree? Try to read WP:NAV and WP:NAVBOX first. Five users (including you) don't understand nothing about navboxes. I strongly recommend taking your objections, not only fake warnings. "My revert was because other five users reverted"? It's a shame for you. 91.124.116.230 (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- You could have saved everyone a lot of effort if you explained your changes properly. M.Bitton (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Nonsense. Each my edit has a link to WP:NAV or similar words. What else needed?! 91.124.116.230 (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Good luck achieving consensus with that attitude. M.Bitton (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Nonsense. Each my edit has a link to WP:NAV or similar words. What else needed?! 91.124.116.230 (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- You could have saved everyone a lot of effort if you explained your changes properly. M.Bitton (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@EdJohnston, Jusdafax, RacoonyRE, HurricaneEdgar, and Sjö: What do you think? M.Bitton (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Please ignore the question. M.Bitton (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Do you know something about navboxes? Or see the button "Revert" only? What is wrong with edit? That users has added the text of navbox repeatedly, instead of the calling of navbox! What should I discuss if there were NO any explanations of the reverts reasons?! The navbox should be called but not copied in the text. Don't agree? Try to read WP:NAV and WP:NAVBOX first. Five users (including you) don't understand nothing about navboxes. I strongly recommend taking your objections, not only fake warnings. "My revert was because other five users reverted"? It's a shame for you. 91.124.116.230 (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Why are the navboxes subst'ed?
editPinging Yinglong999, who appears to be the one who subst'ed them.
Why are the two navboxes at the bottom of the article expanded instead of using the templates? —C.Fred (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- This was an accident. Sorry for the confusion. Yinglong999 (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)