User talk:U44629479

Archive: User talk Colok76286/Archive

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)

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)

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)

Ho-Ro

Hey Colok76286,

foremost, let me thank you for helping me get used to the literally unwritten rules of this wiki through your edits.

Speaking of edits, I just became aware of your "conditional approval" of the edit of the Ho-Ro article. Let's start from the bottom: I got the spelling version from The Oxford Essential Dictionary of the US Military. Wiktionary.com also has "breech-loader" as a secondary spelling. According to Collins, "breech-loader" is British English, and "breechloader" American. In the end, however, it is about the presence of a hyphen, I think regardless of the spelling, this does not cause misunderstandings among wiki users.

You also changed "The howitzer's high trajectory" to "The howitzer's curved trajectory".

For users unfamiliar with ballistics, however, this expression may seem confusing, since the trajectory of any projectile subject to the influence of gravity is by definition curved. Artillery projectiles differ in their parabolic trajectory, depending on whether the apex is rather high or rather low --Disabled#1 (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead for both topics. --Colok76286 (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I see you merged it, which expedited the process further, I guess. I will stop thanking you for acting quickly in the future, I suppose this just part of your commendable work ethic.

I'm still working on a list of questions regarding the "unspoken rules" of this wiki, which I will, after some extra work to make it less of a hassle for you guys to provide me with answers, send to one of your co-mods.

We don't have a list of rules to provide unfortunately.

But since you are so prolific, I would like to go ahead and ask two questions ahead of time to maybe save you some time:

You guys seem to really dislike Em-dashes a lot. ;) I'll substitute them with (semi-) colons whenever possible—I remember hyphens being used instead, but didn't find a single one now. If I that wasn't a hallucination on my part, I would like to follow up on that.

I keep it simple by using a single type of dash. Using semi-colons, colons, or commas should be fine.

I use the visual editor. With every word processor I ever worked with, Shift+Enter would do a line break, just not here. Do you know the shortcut? --Disabled#1 (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I can't help on that since I don't use the Visual Editor. --Colok76286 (talk) 07:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

KV-1 (L-11)

Hey Colok,

I just wanted to write to you about the old "General info" formatting issue, but got ninja'd apparently, great job!

My second question would've been if I corrected the ammo rack template the right way, but that question is obsolete now, I guess.
But since you reverted my text edit, but just edited the values in the template back to the old ones: Did I make a mistake or does the KV-1 (L-11) just doesn't come with a shell in the breech? --Disabled#1 (talk) 07:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Some vehicles have unusual depletion routines (where the first shell is not considered, or with discrepancies in the depletion scheme). That's why you must not fill ammo racks table based on a supposition but on real observed behaviour (by using the test drive). --Colok76286 (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for explaining that! To make the more important things regarding ammunition easier for the player, the concept of ammo rack depletion was designed very counterintuitively. Especially in the case of the KV-1, since there is a KV-1E, too, which I used to countercheck the data. This tank can load the same amount of ammunition, uses the same layout for the ammo racks, starts with a shell in the breech at the start of the game like any other tank and "The ammo stowage is empty" not when the ammo stowage is actually empty, but when the last shot is fired.
But I take on your recommendation and put on a lead apron whenever I change anything ammo racks. ;) --Disabled#1 (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

"Abbreviations"

Hi Colok76286,

Firstly, thank you for your bolder edit of the abbreviation article. Back home, I'm going to stick Post-Its on my desk with "No typographical quotation marks!". Just to make it clearer for me: Did you use "aircraft" instead of "aeroplane", as the term is more commonly used in a military context? According to my cursory review of several corpora, even the term "military aircraft" includes rotorcraft and lighter-than-air vehicles.

Aircraft is the correct word to translate Flugzeug.

Well, a "Flugzeug" is an aircraft. But so is a "Ballon", "Hubschrauber", or "Lastensegler". I guess you could translate it that way, but don't you think that's a bit sloppy of a diction for someone who reverts "hunting tank" as a possible literal translation for "Jagdpanzer"? --Disabled#1 (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Is there a real question here? Or is it just you using an ad hominem obnoxiously because things didn't get your way?

Moreover, do you think my suggestion in "Discussion" makes sense? --Disabled#1 (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I have no way of controlling a user's proficiency in a given language. --Colok76286 (talk) 03:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's true in more than one way, and not what I suggested, but I'm starting to see how "editor" could be misinterpreted this way. --Disabled#1 (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

How did you mean it then? --Colok76286 (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The T-34-57 and editing this wiki in general

Hi Colok,

You reviewed my changes to the T-34-57 article, and I'd like to start by thanking you for the second pair of eyes. I think it was you who said this, in any case, it's obvious: there are no detailed written rules on how articles should be drafted and edited. I hope it's okay if I treat you (and all the other moderators) like a member of the Académie Française in this respect.

What is it supposed to mean?

There is no written set of rules here like on Wikipedia. At that time, I thought this was informal knowledge long-time users and moderators had, and I could just copy what they did because they surely would adhere to some ruleset, right?

What is the relation to the Académie Française?

That being said, a few questions have arisen in going through your review.

You changed "lower rank battles" to "lower tier battles". Did I use the wrong term, or can both terms be used synonymously?

The terms low-tier and top-tier are regularly used throughout the wiki. I don't want you to go around correcting every occurrence of the term out of pedantry.

Did you, Colok, just accuse me of pedantry?

Is there a vehicle page where you added content other than rewording what was already on the page, or correcting the punctuation and grammar?

I try to add or correct information on articles. On Wikipedia, that's called "editing". It sounds like you think that's a bad thing, at least when other people do it.

Knowing your aversion to dashes, I used colons where possible. You have reverted (?) them to hyphens. They are not used like that in any language I know, including English, of course. Could you explain this briefly?

You can't use a capital letter after a colon. Therefore the use of the dash as a separator since a new sentence starts after the colon.

I'm unsure if the second sentence could make any sense to me, but it doesn't. Also: you didn't use dashes, you used hyphens. I used Em-Dashes at the beginning of my time here, and they were always reverted. [I was told by a mod that using colons [... would be fine]] Also, yes, according to at least two style guides, you would capitalize after the colon in these cases. I could go on and ask you why you would revert "defence" back to "defense", but I have already wasted enough time here, and this talk page and your general behaviour tells me I would just waste more. I'm tired.--Disabled#1 (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

An hyphen is a type of dash... But here comes the real point: why do you become belligerent when your edits are corrected? It happens to other users, I don't see all of them lashing out like you do.

Belligerence is what I would call calling people names, for example. I'm actually I bit sad, rather, that this Wiki (and its contributors) are treated like this.

Humans err, and people handle it differently when other people make them aware of an error they made. Some people are a bit angry at themselves and try to do better in the future (and say, e.g., "thank you for the effort of reviewing"). Some are more angry at the people who notice them of what could be a mistake, because firstly, they feel like they don't make any errors, and if they do, the other people were at fault for not correcting them. There are personality profiles that are more susceptible to this behaviour.

Furthermore, no, a hyphen is as much a dash as a colon is a semicolon (maybe Cockney has different rules, I don't know). "Mother-in-law" is an example of a hyphen correctly used. "It's not that hard—is it?" That's a dash. "..." are not ellipses, either. If we both agree that these typographical details are not super important, why do you revert them all the time? I once again agree with you, pedants are exhausting, but even more exhausting are pedants who get their pedantry wrong all the time.

You changed a link from https://wiki.warthunder.com/Pz.IV_(Family) to https://wiki.warthunder.com/Panzer_IV_(Family). This page is currently empty. Why this change?

Nobody's perfect. But it's a wiki: you can correct any wrong link you see.

Colok, with this action "you" have already corrected "me", the pedant. At this point, I consider this a character flaw of mine: If someone corrects something I did, I always assume there was some thinking going on.

What was the need to point this out the way you did when you could correct it directly instead, except for being pedantic? --Colok76286 (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

What gave you the idea to change a perfectly fine link in the first place? I thought, maybe the dead page was already a work in progress nearly done, so I thought I'd ask first. Wouldn't you have just reverted my correction anyway?

You changed "Panzer IV variants armed with the KwK 40 gun:" to "Panzer IV variants armed with the 75 mm KwK40 L43 or L48 guns -". If I recall correctly, the wrong spelling "KwK40" is used in the wiki as this is also the in-game designation. Further, the "75 mm KwK40 L43 or L48 guns" are the only KwK 40s used in Panzer IVs (and at all), at least to my knowledge. This would be tautological; the reader would read a longer text without getting additional information, something that is generally avoided. I would be genuinely interested in the rationale behind this change, as it is quite incomprehensible to me, from a third-party perspective.

Terms used in the game are our starting point. If you think the game references a name incorrectly, please submit a bug report. Historically, the term KwK40 referred to both guns on the wiki, before they were split in 2 separate pages. Nowadays, when searched on the wiki, it only redirects to the L43 version.

In retrospect, my change in "pros and cons" was not outstandingly well-thought-out, to say the least. There wasn't really any added value in terms of information (I ran out of time a bit after working on "History", a Tower of Babel). The de facto revert did not improve this, of course. Do you think we can highlight the qualities of the armament even better? I think the current version is not ideal, at least in terms of "good […] rate of fire" and "fast reload rate" (please don't lecture me about first-stage ammo racks and autoloaders now 😉).

IMHO, the qualities for a good follow-up shot are the rate of fire and the accuracy/recoil of the gun. You dumbed it down to just the rate of fire, hence the revert.

"Dumb down" sounds rather unfriendly, doesn't it? You seem to disagree, but I think accuracy is important for the first shot, too, so I moved it to the other general qualities of the gun.

By the way, are you a volunteer or do you get paid in some way? Because being unfriendly to people who volunteer for a for-profit company is a good way to drive them off. So I guess this wiki has an over-abundance of contributors. --Disabled#1 (talk) 11:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Last question: Why did you remove the addition "Jumbo" from the hyperlink?

Keeping the links simple.--Colok76286 (talk) 03:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Once again, thank you for the effort of reviewing, maybe you will find time to answer these question as well (not just for me).

Cheers

--Disabled#1 (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Pr.122A and Pr.122bis

Hello,

First of all, I appreciate that you have reviewed my edit and accepted the edit on the manufacturer template, but I wonder why did you reject the edit on the About template?

I would like to argue that the Pr.122A and Pr.122bis belongs to different class/subclass and also has striking visual difference, while on the other hand the MPK-163 and the premium MPK Pr.122bis are of the same class/subclass and is visually similar. On top of that, the MPK-163 also has Pr.122bis in its name so I'd say it would confuse some people.--Indo_Pilot (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The template is for disambiguation of different vehicles carrying a very similar name. It is not there to list vehicles of a same family or anyhow related. If a user searches for the Pr.122A but clicks on the Pr.122bis instead, they have a quick way to go to the other page, either with a direct link or through a family page or a disambiguation page. --Colok76286 (talk) 10:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for your explanation.--Indo_Pilot (talk) 10:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

T26E1-1 History

What exactly are you looking for to omit the King Tiger story from the history section? The 3ad link cited as a source has no sources of its own to verify the claim, and the story is extremely far-fetched. It feels like bad practice to include such a highly debatable event.

Later Edit: I have found the book that this claim originates from, as the 3ad website cites John P. Irwin's memoir Another River, Another Town. Having found the section about this duel, it states in full:

Hopefully inserting that image works as intended. Anyways, it very clearly says Tiger and not anything about a King Tiger. This account is also only eye-witness testimony, so I don't even think that works as something to have in the wiki article. WW2 Tank crews are notorious for not knowing what the hell they are looking at, and it very easily could've just been a Panzer IV or something. I'm going to edit that section of the article again, and if you want to change it I would just ask you give me a reason why we should be offering such an unsubstantiated story in the history section...

Template:TorpedoTravelTime‎

Hi,

I was wondering if you could review TorpedoTravelTime‎ template? I was trying to make it as readable as possible. It should give a nice option to reflect how long it takes for torpedoes to travel within the articles and how it compares with the competitors. Jareel_Skaj (talk) 10:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)