Jump to content

Recommended Posts

If anyone takes offense to my apparent tendency to go in and eviscerate a page after someone edits it, please understand I mean no offense. I like to keep tabs on the 'recently updated' page, and sometimes the easiest way to pick a page at random is to see what other people are putting on the radar and then go over it myself.

 

I'm sure I'm probably verging on offending somebody because I've been removing pros/cons all over the place, often ones that just got put up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone takes offense to my apparent tendency to go in and eviscerate a page after someone edits it, please understand I mean no offense. I like to keep tabs on the 'recently updated' page, and sometimes the easiest way to pick a page at random is to see what other people are putting on the radar and then go over it myself.

 

I'm sure I'm probably verging on offending somebody because I've been removing pros/cons all over the place, often ones that just got put up.

 

That's the way the wiki crumbles. (I do the same thing).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which raises the even greater question of why T69 wasn't mentioned.

 

I realized it was missing, and I fixed it before I posted but after I quoted. 

 

The same reason you don't donate to a charity which lists a Neo-Nazi on its board of directors.

 

I dislike a lot of politics in the red cross (that I'll omit to keep this on track), but I think it'd be monstrous to say that no one should ever donate blood because of my personal objection. 

 

I've yet to have a single page I've worked on rolled back (Force cleaned up a little of what I did on the e-100 page it seems, was good stuff) so unless dryguntsues or whatever is simply waiting to smash it all down, then I think your protest is getting stale at this juncture. 

 

Also, neverwish, any chance we can get a wiki subsection so we can perhaps make a more concerted effort to fix up the wiki?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a section is a bit much. Im willing to get things a little more organized when I get back, though.

I dunno, I'm just feeling like we'd benefit from something more than a thread with multiple derails and no coherency. 

 

I've been sprucing up http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Tactics:_Scouting and removing shit like 'put a spall liner on your scout tank!' as well as adding some of the detriments of passive scouting. 

 

Also: I added a section on vision control that could probably use a look-over, was going to make it a separate page, but then found out I couldn't:

 

http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Tactics:_Scouting#Vision_Control

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, we need some organization. I highly highly doubt a section would get more than a couple threads. Thats to say, itd be a waste. Instead Id like to see an extra thread here detailing some stuff like editing guidelines and good candidates for editing, while this thread might be a good place to showcase what weve done so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it would be nice to be able to pinpoint "trouble" articles that need fixing (as it is, I'm just trimming stuff I find over the course of casual browsing).  Are we even allowed to have a pinned "hey, these are BS articles on the wiki, get to fixing them, chop-chop!" post here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, we need some organization. I highly highly doubt a section would get more than a couple threads. Thats to say, itd be a waste. Instead Id like to see an extra thread here detailing some stuff like editing guidelines and good candidates for editing, while this thread might be a good place to showcase what weve done so far.

ibwas actually thinking of posting a new thread, grabbing as many of the guidlines to editing/things that need doing/etc from this thread, so people can see it all clearly on the front page. If I get the time I will this afternoon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I touched up http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Battle_Mechanics#Module_and_Crew_Damage

 

put some specifics in table form, corrected a few mistakes. 

and 

 

http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Battle_Mechanics#Automatic_Aiming

 

just noting the changes to autoaim. 

 

Oh and storm, responded on talk page re scouting. 

 

 

Going through the package files and 

 

maps is my next cleanup target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, we need some organization. I highly highly doubt a section would get more than a couple threads. Thats to say, itd be a waste. Instead Id like to see an extra thread here detailing some stuff like editing guidelines and good candidates for editing, while this thread might be a good place to showcase what weve done so far.

 

Like I said, I'm working on the editing guidelines, but since they have to be comprehensive it'll take me a while. As for the good candidates for editing, we have a To-Do List on the wiki that anyone can update, so feel free to use that unless you want it to be WoTLabs-based for some reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reposting from the WoWS page on the wiki in order to highlight a policy change that most probably haven't been planning on running into anyways, but I'd like to make sure it can be noticed:

 

 

Announcement

As of now, until NDA is lifted, WoWS and related pages (ships, gameplay, etc) are under lockdown to all but admins.

This action is being taken to prevent any possible NDA leaks onto the wiki, and to reduce the workload of the editors who would otherwise have to patrol this section before having an established page standard specifically for ships. In the interest for preventing confusion, it is concluded to be best for these pages to not be open for editing until further notice.

Thank you for your cooperation

- ForcestormX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Added Strongholds to the Game Modes. 

 

http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Game_Modes#Upcoming_Game_Modes

 

Also fixed formatting on the Team Battles to match the other modes.  I left placeholders for icons for both TB and Strongholds but have no idea where the icons for the other game modes came from.    

 

I tried to pull most of the info from Hyps Q&A thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Added Strongholds to the Game Modes. 

 

http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Game_Modes#Upcoming_Game_Modes

 

Also fixed formatting on the Team Battles to match the other modes.  I left placeholders for icons for both TB and Strongholds but have no idea where the icons for the other game modes came from.    

 

I tried to pull most of the info from Hyps Q&A thread.

 

 

Really, Sly, read the revision notes or talk page. If I see 'Team battles puts' when I check now, Imma coming for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really, Sly, read the revision notes or talk page. If I see 'Team battles puts' when I check now, Imma coming for you.

 

Just looked at the revision.  Sorry about that.  Silly game mode naming conventions always putting them plural but having to treat as a singular.  I'll double check Strongholds to see if I hiccupped there as well.

 

Thanks for the proofing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've decided to start a crusade.

 

We can easily knock out all the cases of Append that are caused by lack of tank history or historical gallery. It also has the fringe benefit of knocking out 90% of all the Append instances, and leave only the ones that actually matter to most players to fix. It's one of those classic little minor quibbles that need to be cleaned up so we can deal with the real stuff.

 

I don't really expect anyone to join my crusade, but if you do it would make my life easier.

 

It might also help to hit Gallery, as it's also pretty much irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Took a big swing at the IS-3, which had gotten quite cluttered and had some flat-out inaccuracies (the LFP is not a strong point /facepalm).

 

I also wrote in a lot concerning the roof overmatch spot.  The previous version called it mostly-unknown, but by this time that is outdated IMO.

 

You should take a look at it if you have time Forcestorm, see if I'm hitting the mark with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Took a big swing at the IS-3, which had gotten quite cluttered and had some flat-out inaccuracies (the LFP is not a strong point /facepalm)

Do you mean it is or is not? In most reasonable situations, the lfp is the toughest part of the vehicle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Small consensus gathering here; I was thinking of linking or embedding RBS's video review of tanks on the wiki, and I wanted to know what everyone here thought of the idea. I spoke with RBS and he's given permission for usage purposes. They're fairly concise, clean, accurate, and clear description and audio. Obviously, there's going to be a number of tanks that won't have it ("Hey guys, this is rocketbrainsurgeon and today I'm reviewing the AMX 40...") but it'll spruce those that do.

 

Any thoughts on this one way or another?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Small consensus gathering here; I was thinking of linking or embedding RBS's video review of tanks on the wiki, and I wanted to know what everyone here thought of the idea. I spoke with RBS and he's given permission for usage purposes. They're fairly concise, clean, accurate, and clear description and audio. Obviously, there's going to be a number of tanks that won't have it ("Hey guys, this is rocketbrainsurgeon and today I'm reviewing the AMX 40...") but it'll spruce those that do.

 

Any thoughts on this one way or another?

I'll raise it up with WG to check if that's alright first, since that has never been done before. Until someone gives an official go-ahead I would advise against putting up videos in wiki pages. You are however, encouraged to write as much as you want about the tanks' characteristics and recommended playstyles in the player opinion sections of the pages.

 

Regarding soft stats, WG gave me a straight up NO for any chances of automated data inclusion, and from the sound of it they wouldn't really like seeing numbers being published on the pages. Therefore until further notice, only relative characteristics are permitted in the player opinion section. Stuff like "tank A has a shot dispersion factor of 0.12 during hull movement" isn't allowed yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haswell, props to you for sticking with this as long as you had, but if WG isn't allowing soft stat information on their wiki, than what exactly is the point of the wiki? Soft stats make tanks that look good on paper crap, and makes tanks that are mediocre on paper great in practice. If WG is serious about making a proper wiki, this information should be included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haswell, props to you for sticking with this as long as you had, but if WG isn't allowing soft stat information on their wiki, than what exactly is the point of the wiki? Soft stats make tanks that look good on paper crap, and makes tanks that are mediocre on paper great in practice. If WG is serious about making a proper wiki, this information should be included.

While it's discouraged to directly state the values of soft stats, there is nothing wrong with stating the effects of soft stats.

 

Take the Pershing for example, mediocre tank on paper. Go ahead and write about its gun handling characteristics (low dispersion increase during turret and hull movement), mobility and agility (retains respectable mobility across terrain changes), vision and camo strats (low hulldown profile and long view range allows safe long range engagements), etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would a wiki section talking about soft stats (the fact that they exist, what sort of things they effect, and where to get the info) be permitted? That might be a good way to bridge the gap, and could be linked from the tank sections

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding soft stats, WG gave me a straight up NO for any chances of automated data inclusion, and from the sound of it they wouldn't really like seeing numbers being published on the pages. Therefore until further notice, only relative characteristics are permitted in the player opinion section. Stuff like "tank A has a shot dispersion factor of 0.12 during hull movement" isn't allowed yet.

 

I think it's kind of strange that they seem gung ho about simulation style details but always fall back on this being an arcade game. Measurements like hp/ton or dispersion @ 100m don't give a clear indication of actual performance unless you are familiar enough to look at a figure and know whether that's a good value or not. Damage, penetration and armor are about the only straight numbers that make immediate sense as written. If they dont' want soft stats because it's too much detail, they might as well just invent published values called "Handling" or "Agility" and give them an A-F rating with a nice colour scale. Then they can provide something that lets newbies get a rough idea about a tank's strengths and weaknesses without having to do automated data inclusion or publishing actual stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...