Difference between revisions of "User talk:Colok76286"
(→T-80UM2) |
Colok76286 (talk | contribs) (Formatting) |
||
Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
== T-80UM2 == | == T-80UM2 == | ||
− | Hey, I was just wondering why you reverted the newer info on the only T-80UM2 being destroyed last year, and I was curious if talking about more recent wars is taboo on the wiki, as I was unsure of that. | + | Hey, I was just wondering why you reverted the newer info on the only T-80UM2 being destroyed last year, and I was curious if talking about more recent wars is taboo on the wiki, as I was unsure of that. --[[User:U21817146|U21817146]] ([[User talk:U21817146|talk]]) 17:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC) |
:We do not add historical material for ongoing conflicts. --[[User:U44629479|U44629479]] ([[User talk:U44629479|talk]]) 17:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC) | :We do not add historical material for ongoing conflicts. --[[User:U44629479|U44629479]] ([[User talk:U44629479|talk]]) 17:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC) | ||
− | Thank you for the clarification, I will keep it in mind | + | ::Thank you for the clarification, I will keep it in mind --[[User:U21817146|U21817146]] ([[User talk:U21817146|talk]]) 17:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:52, 1 July 2023
Archive: User talk Colok76286/Archive
Contents
100 mm/47 O.T.O. Mod. 1928 (100 mm)
Hey, As always - thank you for all the edits you do improving the quality of the articles, really appreciate them. I just have a 2 questions regarding the recent edits on 100 mm/47 O.T.O. Mod. 1928 (100 mm): Why change the order of ships in "Vehicles equipped with this weapon"? I sorted it more-or-less by what appears in the research tree (light cruisers first, heavy cruisers second), while the old order you restored seems to be random - e.g. Zara-class isn't even next to each-other, the new, top light cruiser, Duca degli Abruzzi, is second on the list. Can you tell me what's the key for the sorting order here?
- They're listed in alphabetical order. When searching for a vehicle in that particular section of a weapon page, the order in the tree has little relevance.
I was wondering what was the reason of removal of the "Sample Ship" from the "Comparison with analogues" tables? I added it specifically because guns on a different mounts can have a different Rate of Fire and Targeting speed, so it'd be good to see which specific example was taken into account for this comparison. Kind Regards Jareel_Skaj (talk) 11:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- To make the table less crowded, this info can added back using the annotation template for example so as not to overload the table.
--Colok76286 (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Cheers, thank you for the answers :) That explains it :) Jareel_Skaj (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Ground attack/strike vs Close Air support
Hey, sorry if my edits break standards on the wiki. I figured I'd ask here since it seems I must be confusing them. The military term is close air support for aerial attack on enemy vehicles in a battle, which is what air realistic mostly simulates. Does this wiki use a different definition of that term that functinally means CAS? I'd love your input so I don't mess up as much in the future!--Lord_of_the_Lemm (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- We define attacking ground targets in air battles as ground attack. We reserve the term Close Air Support for the role of planes in ground battles. --Colok76286 (talk) 09:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Revision approval
Hi, sorry, I know it's not a standard practice, but could you approve User:Jareel_Skaj/DPSGraph and User:Jareel_Skaj/DPS? While new templates do not need revision approval, any changes made must have them approved, or else the base version is taken. This will help with getting a correct numbers for the DPS calculation in ships that have a flanked turrets. Jareel_Skaj (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, I have unapproved both pages, so any changes you make should now be reflected immediately. As long as you continue to only use the templates on your user page, this will be an adequate solution. DnaGonite (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Reverting constructive edits?
Hello, I'm more or less new to the wiki in itself, and I have noticed that you have reverted a few of my edits on the V-990 and H.C Mk.I (12,000 lb), even though in my opinion I thought they were constructive. I do not want to blow myself up over a few mere reverts, but I realised that this was not an isolated case. Yes, you are a mod and I respect your position as such, but why do you have to revert some constructive edits made by some mere editor of the wiki like myself? Other than "Undo revision ___ by _" you provide no reason at all for reverting these edits, and I would like some answers onto them, at least on the forum's private messages. (yes, I do have a forum user page)
Thanks,
light165neptune@psn (talk) 06:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
M728
+1 to this. You removed my revision where I linked the M728 CEV to the M60 family of vehicles, but didn’t indicate why. Like light165neptune@psn (talk), I’m not upset by this or anything, but I do want to continue making contributions and do so in a way that follows the guidelines for this Wiki. Something as simple as a short description on the edit would have been enough; without that, I’m left scratching my head and wondering why. The tank is just a modified M60A1. --BurningNephilim (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- The About template is used for disambiguation purposes, when vehicles carry a name close to one another like for example M60A1, M60A2, and M60A3. When the vehicle has a unique name (M728), this template should not be used to link a vehicle to a family page, that is the role of the See also section. --Colok76286 (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding so quickly, I was in the process of sending you a forum message!
- That makes sense. Is there a listing of the role of each section - or better yet, a listing of all pages describing the guidelines for contributing? My goal is to make valuable and meaningful contributions, but that’s difficult without knowing the culture of our active users and moderators.
- No, there isn't really.
- Hmm. Well, maybe that’s something we should add.
- I discovered the rewards program through your user page; maybe I’ll end up spearheading a formalization of wiki rules and guidelines in their own section at some point. —-BurningNephilim (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- No, there isn't really.
- I’m not sure I 100% agree with the assertion that this belongs in the “See Also” section, but I can’t really argue my position until I get a firmer grasp on the process here. Don’t be offended if I came back at some point and challenge this :)
- Don't be offended either if I revert it since the rule won't have changed. --Colok76286 (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Don’t worry, I won’t be :). FWIW, I’ve been reading other pages and think I’m coming to the conclusion that the best solution here might be to add a short mention in the Description that it’s based on the M60A1, then spend the time to write a full explanation in the History section.—BurningNephilim (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Don't be offended either if I revert it since the rule won't have changed. --Colok76286 (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks again, and I hope we end up building a productive relationship here. —-BurningNephilim (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
T-80UM2
Hey, I was just wondering why you reverted the newer info on the only T-80UM2 being destroyed last year, and I was curious if talking about more recent wars is taboo on the wiki, as I was unsure of that. --sky_serpent1423 (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- We do not add historical material for ongoing conflicts. --Colok76286 (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification, I will keep it in mind --sky_serpent1423 (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)