Talk:Miguel Malvar-class frigate

Do NOT remove "notes" on FFBNW & like items at the "cost infobox"

(1). When the ffbnw items are finally installed, the ffbnw label at other infoboxes will also be removed, and so "numerous" readers will misperceive those ffbnw items as originally part of the original price. They will WRONGLY THINK "oh! It has TASS etc despite its original platform price is only ₱12.5B ($250M)". Sure the ffbnw items are expected to be included in the history section or other sections but NOT all readers will bother reading it. (How much more if vandalizers remove such part; at times it's not immediately restored by other editors). "Numerous" readers are just casual defense followers, others are just common people who happens to inform themselves a BIT and thus will NOT dig deeper, resulting to "disinformation" because the page is NOT inclusive to diverse types of readers. Plus Wikipedia is one of the "go to" sources for general knowledge, thus Wikipedia editors have to be mindful of such subtleties. Thus the note simplifies it; readers simply tap, and a crucial shortcut appears. It also optimizes use of the note function. This alone is more than enough reason, but let's add more. (2). To start, even for hardcore defense followers, NOT all of them will even bother digging the details as NO person has the time to do it; in short, impractical, impossible. That's where the handy note function comes in. One fine example: how many hardcore defense followers misunderstood (up until today) the mere $325M pricetag of Danish Iver-class aircraft destroyers? (3). How much more if/when other items are added beyond the official FFBNW design? Causes more disinformation about costs. (4). As for secondary RWS guns, the de facto config of contemporary warships usually includes them (even on many civilian armed ships), thus causing the tendency for many readers (esp the ones mentioned earlier) misperceiving MMCF as having RWS guns by default. (5). RWS guns are relatively cheap, small, light, etc. Unsurprising if added later, and if so, lots of those abovementioned readers will assume RWS guns are already part of the original contract, partly because the handy note function was removed. (6). Even reading thru the details, obviously not all people will remember them, not even the hardcore defense followers, not even the ones having very-sharp memories. That's why making use of whatever handy tool available as quick memory refresh is very crucial such as this Wiki note function at infobox. (7). Even numerous hardcore defense followers will inform themselves ONLY A BIT on various defense topics, rendering themselves NO different to common people on such various defense topics. (8). Defense followers or not, lots of them are interested on the cost of arms as accurate as possible, and for various reasons. If people intently deny such info, then it's obviously intentional disinformation (hiding the true costs) for nasty reasons. (9). Just to add, IF EVER there are editors who still remove "that cost note" despite reading this post without providing apt rebuttals, then safe to assume they want people to misperceive "Sokor can offer these items package despite the cost is only this low" -- so they're Either from Sokor promoting their country Or non-Sokor but fanatic on Sokor. Not meant to offend or accuse, it's just such people do exist and NOT limited to Sokor; it's just a shot in the dark. Anyway, while it's currently common knowledge that Sokor can offer low prices, there's still a limit of what that low is. WaterMirror17 (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Please take note that Wikipedia entries are not suppose to be venues for speculation or original anaylsis.

Please refer to the Wikipedia reference page on what is not supposed to be:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought

Adding notes detailing personal analysis speculation breaks this principle and clutters what is supposed to be a straightforward encyclopedic entry.

As per the above cited reference:

"Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful. An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." Girder2139 (talk) 09:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

please also take note that when claiming that such is a speculation, the claimer must provide explanation and proof that it is indeed a speculation. Obviously, calling something a speculation doesn't automatically mean it is speculation and then unilaterally edit or delete something. WaterMirror17 (talk) 08:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

In addition, on principle Infoboxes should be 'concise', as per the reference entry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Infobox

Adding extraneous information that is not justifiably inserted in the article body does not hold to his principle and clutters the infobox. Girder2139 (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

yes, but what is "concise" is debatable at times, that's why the need of explanation and proof first. WaterMirror17 (talk) 08:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Your additions are not even properly cited. Information added to entries NEEDs to be cited from credible sources. This is to ensure that any information that is added is verifiable.

This is a basic requirement of Wikipedia.

Thus the entries you add to the article are not only extraneous, break common practice and format used in other article pages, but are also not verifiable.

Please stop adding these edits. Girder2139 (talk) 06:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

So then, 1.) where's your proof that VDS, Links 16 & 22 are NOT ffbnw? 2.) where's your proof that MMCFs have 2 RWS guns? WaterMirror17 (talk) 09:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)