User talk:U44629479

Archive: User talk Colok76286/Archive

Creating pages

Sorry to bother you but I have noticed there is no page for the Dover Strait map so I wanted to create one, I was wondering If I was allowed to do this or not. --The_M6A1 (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

There are currently no pages for air maps but you can create one if you want to. You can get inspiration from a ground map page like Sweden (Ground Forces). The wisest would be to start the project on your userpage and create the page later once it is finalised. --Colok76286 (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

This is an air map, right? Britain --The_M6A1 (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you can use the information in it to build your own page but don't copy that structure: it is an older page format no longer used. That's why I linked you the newer format. --Colok76286 (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, you have been a big help. I totally would have copied the Britain map, thanks again. --The_M6A1 (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

What should I do about the different battle modes? --The_M6A1 (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Text

• Citation from 1^st source
• Citation from 2^nd source
• Citation from 3^rd source
• Citation from 4^th source

Map page names

Hi there, I had an inquiry about the standardization of ground forces map pages: some of them (e.g. Port Novorossiysk) are titled as they appear in-game, while others (e.g. Abandoned Factory (Ground Forces) have "Ground Forces" added in parenthesis even though there is no other page with that name. Is there a standard for this? I would think that the parenthetical addition is only necessary for maps whose names are the same as some other element as the game, e.g. Stalingrad (both an air and ground map) or Japan (both a nation and ground map). --kleinerPanzer (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it was used to disambiguate between both maps carrying the same name. There is no defined standard at the moment. --Colok76286 (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

How to add my image to the T-72M2 Moderna's page

Hey, I saw you've been editing the page, even protecting and I believe, implementing some of my historical addition.

I was wondering how I can put this image, https://wiki.warthunder.com/File:T-72M2_Moderna.png, into the page as the flagship image, for the "garage" view? I haven't been able to figure it out. - OfficialMorata (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I did it for you. To add a garage image, You have to name it according to the expected filename (GarageImage_Vehiclename.jpg/png) in the Specs-card. You can read the code when using the "Edit source" button. --Colok76286 (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. I'm new so I wasn't sure what to name it, I tried tinkering with it, the source on the specs-card, to get the image in, but to no avail. I just decided I'd wait for someone to take care of it. I just made my talk page, I used the templates you had on yours, I hope that's alright, but if you'd like to take a look at it and do anything, I'm not sure if there is a norm of if the contents are automatic, please feel free to improve it!

There is no standard to follow for userpages, you can do as you wish. Just don't post personal information for your own safety. --Colok76286 (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Sound files on wiki and RWR

Hello.

There was a request on forum to add some RWR aviation lists to the wiki some months ago (https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/541328-rwr-list-suggestion/), I may or may not actually make one since I have some time to kill, but I wanted to dump it somewhere into https://wiki.warthunder.com/Category:Countermeasures and add some fluff to it if possible.

By fluff I mean a picture of it working and some noise examples. (I know devs rework noises every other month but internal noises stayed the same for the most part (I think so anyway?)

Is that okay and is there a policy on sound files on wiki anyway? --bangerland (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

After deliberation, you can create a page Radar warning receivers about RWR containing the infos you mentioned (name, planes, sound files). There is no specific policy about sound files on the wiki, given how few there are. --Colok76286 (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Fury Mk I article.

When you do not like the article, it is better to write why, but not to delete it! Why didn’t you deserve my addition to the article?

I answered on the forum. Check your private messages. --Colok76286 (talk) 09:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Reverting changes to a page and then making changes with the majority of those changes yourself?

This seems like rather scummy behavior. Yes, you're a moderator, good for you. However, A) leaving template comments on the page after it's no longer a TEMPLATE and is filled out is just against general wiki etiquette, which apparently you seem very fond of. B) Reverting changes rather than simply removing what you dislike or disagree with is okay in EXTREME or cases of obvious abuse or when something is just blatantly and objectively wrong, but even then, it's still bad wiki etiquette to just reverse them whole-cloth and then, even worse, copy someone else's work as your own edit, making it seem as though you yourself have made those changes.

Additionally, just because you are a mod should not mean you have carte blanche to just remove someone's work because you disagree with it. In particular, the portion on the Kh-23M page where it says Effective Damage is far more suitable for "Battle Usage", which is what the paragraph under "Effective Damage" describes. I suppose there is an argument one could make, but even so, it's not clear-cut enough to just unilaterally remove someone's work, move it back, and then effectively plagiarize what they wrote to make yourself look better.

It genuinely seems like you want to control the entire site by yourself. Actions like you've done in this instance seriously discourage people (and based on your talk page alone, this is NOT an isolated incident, either) from wanting to bother spending their time contributing, when one uppity mod might come along and without any discussion in the talk page, not only change it but revert it completely then use the changes that person made as if they were their own, ensuring that YOUR change history far outweighs anyone else's. Frankly, it's disgusting behavior. --Chemputer (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I whole heartedly agree. I am fairly new and sometimes inactive but of my edits which I thought were fairly good were removed with no explanation except… updated since my last vist —-GenericEggGuy (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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)