|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | This page seems like a guideline for new articles. I do see that this is a work in progress, but can I suggest or question some points, if it's not too daring? If specific examples would be necessary to prove my point, I can apply them here as well, maybe they will be useful in work.
| + | suggestions have been noted - have a great day. |
| − | | + | Kindest Regards |
| − | In short:
| + | War Thunder wiki team. |
| − | | |
| − | 1) I don't think ignoring BR and bashing on it in "bad" example is reasonable, at least not when it is also required to compare vehicles "competitive". It is a contradiction - if BR is an unwanted variable, then so is the list of vehicles that you can face and everything else, as they can change as well.
| |
| − | | |
| − | BR, even by itself, dictates what most nations do or don't have, giving writer something to reflect upon. Even if BR or vehicle stats are variable, it is still a thing. Thus writer can be encourage to look at vehicles they are forced to fight and to link their knowledge and vehicles pro/con to the stats of vehicles they are supposed to meet, to make guide somewhat futureproof.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The other way around this is to link vehicle text to progress in their tech tree, which is also a possibility, but it's also not the most static thing in the game. [[M3 Bradley|Bradley]] is unlocked after [[M551|Sheridan]], but it is now 8.0 compared to Sheridan's 8.3 which is hilarious, but that's a talk for other day.
| |
| − | | |
| − | What is also important, is that people like to play with lineups (Particularly, ground Arcade players have to use at least 2-3 tanks to not being called out as cowards and elitists), so at best we can stretch requirements to the combined expected enemy list of that vehicle and the top vehicle in the lineup.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Thus, In my opinion, it is much more reasonable to ask people to focus on what exactly makes the BR placement so important after stating it, rather than avoiding the fact itself at all costs, to make text easier to fix by later generations of players.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Same goes for comparing tank to a more vague generalization of tanks by class or nation, rather than specific ones (mostly relatable at 8.0+)
| |
| − | | |
| − | 2) How do we competitively compare tanks that are way too apart in power level, if their power level purely relies on player skill and is entirely subjective, or vehicle is simply unique and incomparable to others?
| |
| − | | |
| − | In planes world we do have nice graphs that can be analyzed and compared, I get that. Ground is a bit more finicky in that regard and sometimes a wall of text is required, since some tanks are basically their own thing and named "SPG" or "medium tank" in-game just to categorize them. Rocket tanks for example.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Also, how do we avoid a problem of every single tank being compared to [[Leopard I|leopard 1]], as it is already a problem here on wiki?
| |
| − | | |
| − | 3) Fluidity of text seems to be required for perfect score, but do we make entire vehicle page go as a solid text, or specifically the in-chapter text? Current page layout is kind of limiting in that regard, so many decide to just ignore it and write most of text in "tactics" part.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Example from IS-7 page just shows that the text in single paragraph needs to be very detailed and sensible, with concrete examples involved. But I don't see the tactics and counter-tactics topics interconnect. (Tank destruction part was written by a different player to reflect on original text, not to supplement it.)
| |
| − | | |
| − | 4) I see that you are building page as a "perfect example devolves into a jumbled mess".
| |
| − | | |
| − | I think current "good" helicopter pro/con example can be used rather as a bad or okay example instead. Obviously, bad example is bad, but we need something more realistic as a layer of "bad", not just "garbage bad".
| |
| − | | |
| − | Armour being mentioned 3 times all over the place is "okay" at best, and by shrinking the unnecessary text we could use it as sort of "good" example. But what is more important - the con also contradicts the pro - pro says "one of the fastest helicopters", when the con says "very slow and thus a cannon fodder for SPAA and planes". Again, it is not a secret that helicopter isn't a subsonic jet,(isn't that a page for a third or fourth heli in research tree? it's obvious by that point and is honestly insulting.) but this is very weird to read even with the context.
| |
| − | | |
| − | I'd use it as "bad" example in contrast to complete garbage "bad" example that already exist(move it even deeper below), to point out that being unclear is as bad. Point out that "speed" and "3d mobility" or "agility" is not the same thing, thus reinforcing your recommendation for writer to pay more attention to what they even write, and, if it's not a slip of the mind, to use more specific words and "consult a dictionary", making your explanation in "bad" section more solid.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Fixed variant can be used to show, how the writer could make it more specific and readable by decreasing amount of pointless sentences, or by at least grouping them properly, and fixing the contradiction, then it finally becomes the "good" example as it stands.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Hope this helps. --[[User:U42773747|U42773747]] ([[User talk:U42773747|talk]]) 14:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
| |
