User talk:AN_TRN_26/Archive/2019

From War Thunder Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

  • Hello, I'd just like to ask why you reverted my edits on the Yak-3U. I can't seem to tell where I went wrong so, for future reference, I was hoping you'd be able to shed some light on the situation. DnaGonite (talk) 08:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello, You did not do anything wrong, I didn't realize that there were two changes (yours and TM_06). I usually work from the bottom up when approving pages and sometimes don't see a second-page edit until after fixing and approving the first. I have reverted the page to your edits, please check it and make any necessary changes and I can reapprove it. I usually don't have to make any changes to your edits, they are usually spot on! Thanks. - AN_TRN_26 (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the clarification! If this happens again, should I just go ahead and readd anything that gets mistakenly reverted? I'll probably only do this once, in case it was purposeful and I end up starting an edit war... DnaGonite (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
No worries. You can readd, I don't think it will start an edit war. If there is something that we revert again, I am sure we will put a reason in the comments as to why. You can also message us like this too, both ways work. - AN_TRN_26 (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I never saw edit wars here. In .ru wiki moderator straight up reverts entire pages unless you fill it up completely like a historical encyclopedia article, which i found hysterical. It's also a reason why i hang out here instead, lol. --bangerland (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Cheers. Been out for a while, so i have two things to check up with moderators: 1 - basically, while i was out i was also waiting for support to answer me about hull break issues on british light tanks, but it seems i made it in a bit too "explanatory" way, so they deleted the report for it being "too broad with similiar issues". While i am patient enough to write and make screenshots, i kind of don't have the spirit to write it all again (as it's deleted), so i'd like to at least clarify these changes to vehicles in certain pages (in neutral tone, of course). Should i do that? 2 - Burn aside, i'd like to try and make an article about "how to flank/sneak up to tanks in arcade mode" as it seems to be a common problem in this game for many people. Is it worth it and where should i put it, if so? --bangerland (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Welcome back! Unfortunately, that can happen when working on a group effort project like the wiki, I have had my fair share of write-ups, edited, expanded, shortened, reverted and even pages deleted (yikes, was not expecting that), but it happens with these types of projects. I know you have put a lot of effort in your writings and the breakdown of how things work with the tanks and their artillery. In regards to the clarification of recent changes to certain vehicles, I would recommend writing up one or two and then sharing them with Inceptor57, I consider him a tank expert and he would better provide feedback on that on how to proceed. In regards to your second question, there is potential for creating an article in the [[Category:Custom_articles|Custom Articles]] section. I would recommend before creating a page there, go ahead and build it on your name page, when you have it the way you like it, we can have Patrioticalien and Inceptor57 (I will look at it too) and we can provide feedback if we feel something is missing or something might need to be explained better (you know this stuff really well, but will what is written be understandable to a non-tank person like me :D). If it gets approved we can go ahead and create a custom article page and place it there with the other custom articles. I hope this helps. - AN_TRN_26 (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • About the article formatting - I'm not a hard fan of floating text screenshots either in the context of newbie page, since it's not an obvious way to convey the idea. Mostly done this to break up text a bit, so it's compact, though kind of sketchy. I guess the gallery could be made as an "example" after the "plan", with explanations being made before it?... theory->plan->example->pictures_as_proof , Or something like that. It would also make space for one more screenshot which I wanted to plant in the middle of text anyway, I'm just unsure if it would look better or be easier to read. People are, in fact, different. --bangerland (talk) 07:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Go ahead and add the rest of your images you are wanting to load. From there we can see what all there is to work with and make any adjustments to formatting which will help the flow of the article. Due to the amount of information (detail) and associated images we will have to play with it. We don't want it so compact that it turns off people from reading it and gleaning information which will be helpful to them (or just melting newbies minds with information overflow!). I think once you get all of your images in, we can shuffle around the formatting to improve the readability flow. - AN_TRN_26 (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Alright, but it will take me some time (probably days), since replay footage is a bit finicky in terms of displaying who saw what, so most of those will have to be made during live game. I only have that much time to make them in the evening, unfortunately. --bangerland (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No worries, take your time, we are not in a hurry with this. I totally understand the limited time aspect. Definitely, want quality vs. quantity here (quantity if fine if the quality is up to par :D ). - AN_TRN_26 (talk) 11:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I think i did all i could to make screenshots there. There are some places i'd wish i could get a better screenshot for, but it requires specific map for them, and something lately forces one-cap maps almost every second time. Could try to polish text better, but as a base it's pretty much done, i think? I mean, the sections are inconsistent in between eachother, but that's just how it went, i guess. --bangerland (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Done with the base text and pictures. Tried to offload text off screenshots, but sometimes i still felt like a comment would be necessary to a picture specifically. Some of them are too long, though. I think, all is left is stylizing it all with indifferent style and making it all easier to visually comprehend (For example, the punctuality in "general vision rules" is very messy, IDK how to fix it better). If more or better examples will be required, i still got some, but they're mostly arguably worse. Either way, feel free to shift text and pics all around as you like. If it's fine as is, then i'm mostly done, i guess. --bangerland (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Sounds good, I will look it over and get with Inceptor57. - AN_TRN_26 (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Any news on the matter? Just wondering how it looks in your version, curiosity gets the best of me, lol.--bangerland (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I am currently out of the country right now and have the version I was working on saved to my home computer, I should be able to pick back up on it next week. There was quite a bit to go through, I may post chunks as I finish them for review. AN_TRN_26 (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I see. No hurry here, just wondering. :) --bangerland (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I gotta edit the text though, if you don't mind, since there are many things I temporarily forget. Though if you did review it you may just drop it next to mine, so I can merge it? --bangerland (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks, your version really does look better! Though check the edits i made to the changed version, as some points were misunderstood. It's really important that people understand how radio communication really works, as they autosuggest it's fuction by name, and name suggests the opposite to what it actaully does. --bangerland (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • No worries, it's a work in progress. I've asked Inceptor57 to take a look at it, he might be able to restate some of what I misunderstood, but it is getting closer. AN_TRN_26 (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Problem is though, as you said, you aren't really a tank mode player, so you have to understand it from common sense basis, or something. So if it did not work for you at first time, then i failed to explain it in a way that does not leave a room for a doubt. If new version makes sense for you, then it's alright, if not, then there is a room for improvement. (who or how will improve it is secondary, as this is wiki) Either way, let me know if there is anything else worth to add/adjust, if you have something in mind. --bangerland (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Bangerland, you wrote a huge article, to expect a person new to tanks to absorb it all in one shot and get it is unrealistic, it takes putting what is learned into play and come back for more and build upon what you learn. If anything, it caused me to roll out on two maps with my reserve British tanks and give some stuff a try, looking for sniper spots instead of just rolling out into the middle of the map and shooting @ 500 m with a bouncing cannon and then rage quitting because I got one-shot. I think having Inceptor57 give the article a look over will be helpful as he has a good way of rewording stuff to be easier. He is a bit busy right now but said he would take a look at it. Let it sit right now until Inceptor57 has had a look at it. --AN_TRN_26 (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of people who have rank V tanks but act like they just installed the game, which is why i'm being difficult about this. But i get you, so sorry if i'm being annoying. Let's wait then. --bangerland (talk) 09:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Devs did announce the Germany tree changes through news, but did 1.91 actually drop overnight, and are the news to be trusted 100%? I am not that familiar with the admin practices here. --bangerland (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
The News was announced, but Update 1.91 did not launch yet. According to the news announcement, Update 1.91 is expected to come within the next two weeks. --Inceptor57 (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, but people make comments on german tanks, as if they are already K.O.'d. Although in .ru comments keofox says about 100% surely that they will remove those. Just kind of weird to see such instant mortification before patch even landed. --bangerland (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Hello, on 13 August you unset approval for the Chi-Ri II page, and never selected a new approved version. Would you be able to check whether or not this change was intentional? --DnaGonite (talk) 13:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks for catching that, not sure why I unset that approval, but it has been fixed, should be set now. --AN_TRN_26 (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, AN_TRN_26. Thanks for reaching out to me. I wanted to know where I can find information on the "Details" ("Features", "Limits" "Optimal Velocities", and "Compressor") of planes. So far, I can't find the info for any of these via the in-game UI. Could you point me to where they are? Sincerely, ~KN_940 23:09, 25 February 2019

Hello. I've got a question about categories. Earlier each faction and category had at least brief explanation "what are those" in general, or what's their specialty on top of their page. Were those removed on purpose, or it's just an accident? Also, is it okay to translate mechanics guides from .ru wiki to transfer to here? If so, should I shortcut the screenshots and so on from there directly, or re-upload those here? Also, if I was to make ground-based radar page, is there any tooltip, that can show, that page is unfinished or something? (since there I can only provide info for 1 type of those, and there is 2 or 3 as far as I know.) --bangerland (talk) 07:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Bangerland, 1) With the change to the new wiki, there really isn't the same place to have brief explanations of the different categories and so they were not migrated. If you feel there is a place to have it, let me know and we can consider it. 2) It is fine to go ahead and translate any mechanic pages from the Russian Wiki which we don't have yet. If you understand Russian that will make it easier, if not Google Translate will get you in the ballpark and you can tweak it from there ( is a page I did that with just to do it, it was a fun exercise). Go ahead and upload the screenshots to our wiki, if possible, replace any screenshots with Russian (or in Russian) with ones in English. If you cannot get an English equivalent, make sure in the caption you briefly explain what is stated in Russian. 3)As far as a page for the ground-based radar, if it is in the game (like the airborne radars) we should be able to add them. Use the airborne radar page ( as an example to go by. If it is not in the game and you are wanting to write up a historical page about them, we should be able to find/create a category for them so people will know not to expect to find it in the game, but can read up on it for historical facts (sneaky way to educate people!). As you are working on the pages, if you want us to evaluate what you have as you go, just leave a note in the summary line for any of the moderators to take a look and make suggestions. Good luck! AN_TRN_26 (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Categories: Well, I'm not thinking that every category needs brief tellings, but faction explanations were nice (at least on base level, like, which types of shells they generally use and what does it mean.), though on different ranks situation changed drastically, so idk. On other hand, something like helicopters page may need short explanation. As in, many players do not understand why support helis even exist in the game. I clearly can tell now, that support helicopters can dodge radar SPAA fire by doing maneuvers, dropping altitude, etc., so they have a purpose now. Plus I feel like the stat cards of helis don't really explain their strong and weak sides, and they're generally all same per faction. As in: USA - powerful main turret, but can carry only 4/2 pilons with weapons. USSR - slow, and main turret is lacking, but attack helicopters can carry 4 pilons of "main" payload and 2 pilons of "sub" payload, resulting in ability to carpet bomb enemy SPAA with rockets while doing your job, and support helicopters can add bombs (they work, lol). German - More 3d mobility, than the rest support helicopters. French - Faster turn rate (Q\E), I think?... I mean, I may be wrong about those, but it still took me weeks to understand it all. \\ Page transerfs: Well, I can read Russian, so it wont be an issue. I guess i'll try when I have time. \\ radar page: I guess I just make one then and then put comments in place of things I do not have, right? --bangerland (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I see where you are coming from with the explanations, just not sure at this time where they would fit. I believe that is part of the direction we are trying to go with the individual vehicle page, description section and usages in battle could reflect much of what you are talking about, but more specifically for each helicopter (aircraft, tank, ship...etc...) because while some variations aren't much different, others are. A TL;DR paragraph could be added with all of the necessary goodies to get started without having to read the entire article and then someone can come back and read the whole thing when they are ready. Right now many articles are lacking, but that is why we are all here for, we can write them and then they can be updated as people gain experience with them and use them. I've been hopping around working on articles ( and, but there are still a lot to do. Go ahead with the radar page, we can look at it and go from there. AN_TRN_26 (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Another question - how does one add vehicles into "faction class tank" categories? Can't pinpoint USA medium tank page, to add Merkava MK1 to "Israeli" tab. It also seem to have weird space, perhaps a bugged link? Also, all new vehicles from event so far have broken spec-cards and icons. IDK what to do with that. --bangerland (talk) 08:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

In regards to the icons for the new vehicles, those will need to be created on the Russian wiki side and then copied to our wiki (uniformity), they have not made the icons yet so that is why the image is broken on the button. The new pages for the event vehicles will be created either by Volgaigor or Inceptor57, once they are in, we can start working on them. To edit vehicles on the USA medium tank page (or expandable menu), you will need to edit the template. In the search bar, type in "Template:USA medium tanks" and as you type it you should see it auto fill, select it and then just edit the template directly (adding the new vehicle). It is pretty straight forward in the template layout. AN_TRN_26 (talk) 10:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
So, basically, until they added spec-cards I can't do anything about either of these things. Template feeds from spec-card link as well, as I see. By the way, Magach 3 link from card specs has blank spaces in front of it, which caused the visual bug I mentioned. Uh well, later then. --bangerland (talk) 10:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

About Centering Text in a Table

Hi! Is this the place to ask any editing-related questions? If so, I'm trying to figure out how to center stuff in tables and make it full-width. I tried source-editing, but I can't figure it out. I went to google, but it gives the same answer: style="text-align:center" and width:"100%", but it doesn't seem to work. If anybody can redirect me somewhere, or just explain this, I would appreciate that. --CriminaI

Hello Criminal, yes you can ask editing questions here. The answer you posted should work, depending on how you format it in the table, here is an example:
  • |style="text-align:right;"| 52
  • There are a couple of tables on the page which left, right and center justify, you can look at the coding to see how its set up. If you run into issues, create the table in your name page and I can look at it (others might too) and offer suggestions on how to get you where you want the table to be. --AN_TRN_26 (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Ah, that's such a face-palm for me. To make it work I needed to add the semi-colon inside of the quote marks, like so: style="text-align:right;". That reference article definitely helped, thanks! On a side-note, how do you have that signature after your answer? I can only hand-write it, is that it?: --CriminaI (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Not a /facepalm but a learning moment, learning has occurred and that is good!! See your page for more information. AN_TRN_26 (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

About "So-ki" Type 2 20mm gun


You wrote to me:

"Secondly, in the historical section for the So-Ki you mentioned the Type 98 20 mm cannons and also mentioned the Type 2 20 mm cannons. At this time, War Thunder has the vehicle listed as using the Type 98 cannons and that is what we need to reference in the writing. I looked at the Wikipedia page and several other linked references (including Sensha's page - unfortunately, he did not cite his work to look at further) and the references I looked at all seemed to circle back on themselves with no real credible primary or secondary sources cited. I do not doubt that Type 2 20 mm cannons were the final choice as they were newer (1942 as opposed to the Type 98 - 1938), lighter and had faster muzzle velocity. My recommendation is to try to find at least one primary source (a technical manual, repair manual or other such original documents) or two or more secondary sources such as a book covering the history of Japanese military vehicles or other published book/document which cites sources the information was pulled from. If you can find either the primary or secondary sources which document the So-Ki actually would have gone into production with the Type 2 20 mm cannons, then you can submit a bug report War Thunder Forum (follow the instructions there) and the information may be forwarded to the developers for consideration to change the gun type listed in the game. If you should have any questions, please let me know. - AN_TRN_26 (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)"

I found a primary source!

I posted a question on here:

As Akira Takizawa states "The main gun of that tank is not Type 98, but Type 2 20mm AA gun. There is no manual about that tank, because it was only experimental. Note that So-Ki is the designation of AA gun, not of tank. Type 2 20mm Twin AA gun was called So-Ki. So-Ki mounted on tank was called So-Ki II. So-Ki is stated in the development plan 1943 of IJA 1st Technical Laboratory as below."

Theregore can I post a bug report on War Thunder Forum to change the Type 98 mm gun to Type 2 20mm gun?

Additionnally the tank was called "So-Ki II" and not "So-Ki"



Hello. I’m not AN_TRN_26, but I can offer my perspective. Bug reports are not handled by the wiki so we don’t have first-hand influence on it. However, please make sure you have enough information as per bug report guidelines to make the report, as detailed here on the forums. I wish you the best of luck! --Inceptor57 (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
FYI, I am working with Theoask79 to find enough primary/secondary resources surrounding the So-Ki (or So-Ki II as the new document notes) and if they pan out have him submit a bug report. I am working on getting an OCR setup to try and translate the documents available to see if I can get a decent translation before going forward as I don't read Japanese beyond a few characters (and definitely don't want to have a bug report submitted with erroneous information - trust, but verify!). AN_TRN_26 (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Regarding border line in Italy section: Well, you see, the white line next to rank 6 "otomatic", which separates normal and premium vehicles, is absent. This is what i've tried to do there. Not sure what your revert did there. (the browser is IE9, which displays no line there.) PS: it is gone again. --bangerland (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
It appears to be a browser issue as with using Chrome, all vertical and horizontal lines are white (and there, none missing), however with Firefox, all vertical lines are there and are white, while all horizontal lines are black. I don't have IE so I can't test that. I wonder if there were browsers updates which broke the viewing mechanic? AN_TRN_26 (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
hell if i know. IE9 didn't update for ages already, as you know it was stopped renewing after Win7 release or so. I don't have any visual discrepancy in any other section, so i just figured i could fix the hole in a fence, you know. SIGH. Here is what it looks like on my screen, just to confirm that i'm not insane or doing it for kek's: --bangerland (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
A visual bug in italian section.png
I believe you, for a while, I primarily used Firefox but ran into similar problems, Chrome seems to be the most stable of the browsers I have used. I will forward this up and see if any of the other Mods or Devs have run into this and if so, is there a fix. AN_TRN_26 (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I usually use firefox at home, its just that I don't really stare onto pages this meticulously when I have something else to do, so I usually don't notice this. BY THE WAY, now that I look at it, the 7-th rank number is in reverse compared to the rest, and it's like this in most if not all sections. Should the number be in front of "rank" or after? --bangerland (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the 7th rank number is backwards, should be the same as other ranks with "#" then "Rank". AN_TRN_26 (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Ok, pushed them in proper place where noticed. Also, while I looked through those pages I found out that Germany plane page has same border issue for me, as in there is no separation line in rank 5 section. --bangerland (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Welp, that's one way to solve a problem, lol. The border is now in place as it should be, with absence of rank 7. Didn't even notice that Ariete was rank 6. Also, if I'd apply the | symbol to german plane section of rank 5, the border would return and it looks normal. Does it cause any collision in other browsers, just so I know later on? --bangerland (talk) 13:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I am not seeing any problems with the German aircraft rank 5 section. Looks fine in both Firefox and Chrome. AN_TRN_26 (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Hello. How does one rename page without damaging all the links that lead to it? Do we use "move" function with redirect or something like that? --bangerland (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, it would use the move function with a redirect. Here is what a redirected page looks like - hit edit source to see the code ( Is there a specific page you are looking at redirecting? We typically avoid making these unless absolutely necessary or we end up with a bunch of pages and potentially double and broken redirects which can be an issue to ferret out and repair. AN_TRN_26 (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Just calculating if it's worth doing something without a straight plan or not. Previous time I made merkava page, but it had different name in reality, so i had to ask people to move it to proper one, and DNAGonite moved it for me. Not like I didn't find the move button, but it seemed as dangerous as useful. Actually, I was curious because I made a typo in screenshot name here (vehicle name) - --bangerland (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • You are correct the move button is both dangerous and useful, mostly dangerous if something gets messed up and it has to be untangled. If you have added an image and need to rename it, I think that would be fine. If the old image name has not been linked to a page, then you can rename it and request the improper name to be deleted (Patrioticalien or Inceptor57 can do that), if it has been linked, then you are best off to redirect to the new page. Vehicle pages which have been around for a while, you might just let us know or ask to do the change that way if there was a reason it hasn't been changed yet, we can let you know. AN_TRN_26 (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

where are my tables in i-go ko?