KrebsLovesFiesh

MPs

Hello, I think the article I edited looks better. and most modern And I got this pattern from the Japanese House of Representatives. อย่ามาตบะ (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

And another thing is the inclusion of the word logo in parliamentary articles. This is very stupid. อย่ามาตบะ (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

On the first point. Getting your inspiration or even copying (which in both our cases we copied) templates from different articles and then asserting it as the "better" one by virtue of purely having copied from an article you've thought on first sight is the authoritative and correct version of everything and take input from nowhere else is a very inadvisable and weak line of argument. Second point, it's good practice to describe the logo or the seal of what has been put in the infobox for clarity. So for example in the House of Representatives article it would be imperative to explain to the reader that the round blob being used is indeed the seal which represents the subject of the article, thus "Seal which represents the House of Representatives" would be the rational and simple thing to do. You may think it's stupid but it's common practice across a wide variety of articles which utilises seals. Please understand this.

Now I am willing to compromise by letting you fill in the old information which I've removed, but I implore you at the very least to retain the size of the seating arrangement graphic and the way I've arranged the list of parties. I do realise that you've been making edits from your phone so you may not be able to observe the full context of my edit. But if you look through desktop view (available on mobile by scrolling to the bottom and clicking the hyperlink which redirects to desktop) you will see that instead of the parties breaking up into several lines, each party have their own line which makes it much more readable and easier on the eyes. Additionally, there are no pesky dots leading the party names which are redundant. Which brings me to the third point; the formatting I've deliberately chosen does the same thing but with less characters, namely the party index link template. It automatically shows the colour of the political party, puts its name without the "Party" behind, and hyperlinks it to an existing article if one exists. I'm a firm believer of minimising the amount of templating used if it displays the same result at the end of the day. This has several benefits in that it makes edits down the line much easier to execute, for example in the case of the party index link in particular it allows the name of the party to be changed in an instant, and without the need to fish around for extra stuff. I'd like to hear what you think on this, and again; I'll happily and civilly respond to the best of my ability. KrebsLovesFiesh (talk) 15:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd say your edit doesn't fit. Thai House of Representatives But the Japanese House of Representatives model looks better. Please please understand. อย่ามาตบะ (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Give actual reasons as to why you think it's "better" as opposed to just asserting with no reason whatsoever that you think it's better and I'm simply wrong. How does my edit not fit? How is the Japanese HoR template so much better that my edit had to be reverted in whole? Objective reasons please. I explained my rationale, so where is yours? If we don't start to make progress I will be forced to asked for a 3rd opinion per WP:3O. KrebsLovesFiesh (talk) 06:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the article I edited has more details. and more clearly As for specifying words under the logo, it's unnecessary and stupid at best. Because the parliamentary articles of each country do not specify words under the logo because it is not necessary. อย่ามาตบะ (talk) 11:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I understand what you have a problem with now. So here's my solution: with the current template I will retain all information but modify just the party list so that it's more readable. As to your comment that specifying words under the logo is "unnecessary and stupid" at best, please refer to House of Commons of the United Kingdom, United States House of Representatives, House of Representatives of the Philippines, French Parliament and many articles which adopts this practice. As you can see, there isn't a universal guideline against it and I don't think the opinion of ONE person should count in this case as it is a purely subjective matter. I feel that would be unfair to anyone coming to edit the article and seeing that someone is treating an article or a part of it as their own and that their edits are reverted simply because a prior editor thinks it doesn't wholly fit their image of what the article should look like, whether partially or fully constructive or destructive. Some of the information in the infobox could be said to be unnecessary (although I wouldn't call it "stupid" because that's inflammatory and not constructive criticism; I would invite you to stop such behaviour) such as salary where the information could be written as part of the article's body as opposed to listing it in the infobox, lest it gets too long. But here's the thing: we can compromise. After all to a certain point more information in the infobox shouldn't hurt, so I won't delete it and will let the information stand. However, I will rearrange the list of parties so that it is more readable, and put the description for the seal of the house. I also advise you that in the future should you be editing the article, I highly encourage you to help with filling it out with the information that exists in the infobox so that references can be inserted, because the infobox should stand by itself without references as a general point of observation, and the article body should do the job of holding the references and the more fleshed out story. This will be the compromise edit and I hope we can conclude this for the final time. KrebsLovesFiesh (Talk) 12:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

House of Representatives (Japan) อย่ามาตบะ (talk) 04:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Deputy minister

Hello, I would like to consult with you. Should the position of deputy minister be filled? Because in Malaysia also has the position of deputy minister And it is listed under the position in the article of the person holding the position, such as Anwar Ibrahim. อย่ามาตบะ (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be okay to list deputy ministers in the infoboxes of ministers as they serve along side them. Although if I'm misunderstanding what you'd like to have a clearer understanding on or want my opinion on, can you elaborate? If you feel the need to explain in Thai you can also do that as well. เราคนไทยด้วยกัน KrebsLovesFiesh (Talk) 14:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Infobox images

Hi, am I right in thinking that you are replacing infobox images because you think they need to be in a 3x4 size format? (eg at Tony Radakin) Or what is your reasoning? Your replacements are worse. 01:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC) Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 01:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gaia Octavia Agrippa Yeah, you're right in thinking that that is indeed my rationale. Although there is an additional point which is that I was trying to get some sense of consistency between the service chiefs? You can revert the edits if you'd like. Just good faith edits that I thought were for the sake of exactly that, consistency. As for the 3:4 cropping, there's no real reason behind that. I just picked a common ratio for portraits. I haven't had experience in editing articles of this nature before so I'm not aware of how people deal with the cropping of images and so on. I would be very grateful if you could tell me what's the convention over there. KrebsLovesFiesh (Talk) 02:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)