Talk:Military

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 4 February by Nubia86 in topic Lead improvement effort
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:WikiProject banner shell Template:Copied Template:Copied User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis

Lead improvement effort

I think this article's current lead section can be improved in many ways. I have attempted to do so and my good faith efforts can be seen in this revision. I do not quite agree with the rationale given by the user who reverted almost if not all the modifications I made. - Zaheen (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

The lead is totally ok for one general overview article that cover all militaries, and describe the most common aspects for them in clear and understandable way. This is not a blog and not a place for OR. Nubia86 (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your perspective. I certainly did not write a blog, nor did I engage in OR. It was intended to be a lead of this article with key points to be found eventually with details inside the article. It was supposed to give the reader a more accessible overview of the article. While the current lead is ok at best, it can be improved content-wise and language-wise in my opinion. Let's take my first paragraph, could you please tell me where it is OR or blog-like in this purely definitional paragraph that I wrote? I genuinely don't see it. --Zaheen (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
The current long-standing content (incl. the first paragraph) seems clear, understandable for readers, and concise for general overview article. Nubia86 (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I take it that you mean to say that my modified first paragraph was not OR, nor a blog, but also not clear and not understandable for readers? How so? Which parts of the first paragraph are unclear or not understandable? --Zaheen (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Clear, understandable, readable and especially as it is very important concise, as it is now. Nubia86 (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply