User talk:U64962917

Visual Editing - Some mistakes to avoid

Visual editing brings an alternative way to edit a wiki which does not require you to wade through wiki code. A few things to remember:

• Do not remove instructions from the different sections of a page (typically identified by an exclamation mark in a circle), a simple mouseover will expand on the entire instruction set.

Instruction block as viewed through the Visual Editor, note the exclamation mark in the circle.

How to convert text to hidden on the final version

• Using the visual editor, I notice wiki paragraph instructions tend to get deleted, which they should not. These serve as reminders especially for future new editors which may make updates, edits or changes and will need those instructions as to what needs to go where. If information has been added, we don't want the instructions to show, however, we don't want them deleted either. To render the instructions invisible we use the comment brackets <!-- and -->, anything between those will show up on the editing page, but not on the final page, allowing the instructions to remain intact, but not show on the final product. Utilizing the visual editor, what you do is highlight the instruction set, right-click and select "cut". Next, in the toolbar, click on the "Insert" drop-down and select "! Comment". A popup box should show up where you "cut" the instructions from and here go ahead and right-click in the box and select "Paste" which should paste the instructions within the box. Click the "Insert" button and you should now have a new comment with the instructions which will be available for future users, but not show up on the final page.

• Do not remove parser and template functions, these will show up as a puzzle piece with a name afterwards (such as "Specs", "Break", "Battle-rating" or such).

For parsers and templates, not the existing puzzle piece and name following. These will now show the actual output during usage of the Visual Editor.

Editing Questions Here

(post your questions here)

• 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)

Question Archive

(go into edit mode to view)