User talk:MiniMe943

Archived

17.01.2019

In regard to the naval sort template, Inceptor57 came up with one, and we discussed with each other if its the way it should be. It's only a prototype. As of now, it is still under deliberation. here is the link to said prototype template http://wiki.warthunder.com/index.php?title=Template:USA_fleet_sort --*JonCS29 (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's looking pretty good. I'm not really sure how much better that could be done. Here's hoping it gets approved and rolled out soon. MiniMe943 (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I also had the suggestion of doing it the usual way, but using the in-game vehicle type icons (the symbol next to the BR) as the different types--*JonCS29 (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea, but it would make it inconsistent with the other templates, no? I think if you're going to do that, you'd have to do that for all the other templates too (i.e. Adding the symbols for Light Tank, Medium Tank, etc. to Ground Sorts). But then it also wouldn't really work as easily for some templates, like the USA air sort, so... I'm not really sure how you'd go about all that.

Upon multiple readings, I might also just be missing your exact meaning, so I could just be wrong about this. MiniMe943 (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

That was a typo on my part. I meant INSTEAD of the usual way. They (the navy icon things) would be used in lieu of the normal class types of the other sort trees. As current, there would be about 5 different classes based on the icons: Motor Gun/Torpedo Boats [Turquoise hollow triangle], Gunboats/Sub Chasers/Minesweepers [Light Blue Triangle], Ferries/Barges [Light Orange Hollow Rectangle], Destroyers [Orange hollow Bullet Shape], and Crusiers [Light Red hollow Bullet shape with line at bottom]. I forget the technical term for the bullet shape. --*JonCS29 (talk) 02:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you use the forums, by the way? --*JonCS29 (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I have used the forums, but I wouldn't say I use the forums. MiniMe943 (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I just want to say that a sorting table for navies per nation has already been made. I think. Im pretty sure. Trust me, there has been a lot of work on the wiki these past few months despite seeming like nothing is changing. It's almost done. If you want a hint about what it may look like, take a look at the Russian Wiki: https://wiki.warthunder.ru/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0 Kmsxkuse (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

That's the first time I've seen the RU Wiki, and holy cow... some aspects of that site are really slick. I'd love to see some of those design cues transferred over. MiniMe943 (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

24.08.2019

Hey, question. I was looking through your list of vehicles you want added, and in particular the Swedish warships. Have you ever heard of the HSwMS Gustaf V? If so, would you consider her a Battleship or an Armored Cruiser? She was a coastal defense ship, so sort of in-between both. Regards--JonCS29@psn (talk) 05:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Coastal defense ships are a very interesting proposition for War Thunder that I hadn't considered. They're kind of weird, and I don't know how they would fit into the existing naval trees. Sweden seemed to be the only real nation to even use these kinds of ships by WWII (if you exclude a couple German captured ones), so other nations would likely get much older versions of these ships. If it was balanced, I don't see any real issues with it being added, but Gaijin hasn't set any real precedents with these type of craft, so we'll just have to wait and see. I think if it were added, it would likely just receive the unique classification of "coastal defense ship", similarly to the "naval ferry barges" or "anti-air ferrys". MiniMe943 (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I think they could be added as premiums, mainly because of their speed and not fitting specifically into the trees, because, as you stated, they are in their own weird zones. I think another good one would be the Väinämöinen of Finland, and that could be put into Germany (they already have Finnish tanks and planes, so why not ships as well.--JonCS29@psn (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

14.09.2020

What is the correct wording for this?

This page is about the Country's vehicle. For other ________, see [[]].

Because some pages use,

This page is about the Country's vehicle. For other uses, see [[]].

or,

This page is about the Country's vehicle. For other versions, see [[]].

or

This page is about the Country's vehicle. For other variants, see [[]].

Is there one consistent word that should be used across the entire Wiki for this? If so, I would be happy to start modifying pages that have these to be more consistent across the Wiki. MiniMe943 (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

"uses" should be used when linking to pages that have similar titles but aren't related (ie disambiguation pages). "versions" and "variants" are reasonably interchangeable, but I would suggest using "variants" for vehicles that are related but different (eg family pages), while "versions" should be kept solely for vehicles that are the exact same but in different trees. You could also consider elaborating further on how they are related, for example "For other vehicles of the family, see [[]]". - DnaGonite (talk) 09:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)