User talk:U11670196

Cheers. I see that you are using Visual edit to change text a lot, please, do note that it has a tendency to damage walls of text and randomly delete sentences and tank links when you click away from text boxes. This happens more often when page is above 30000 bytes, but can happen anywhere really. (could be seen on the latter FV4005 edit where the is-7 link just got randomly vaporized, unless you deleted it yourself without a replacement for some reason?) Either way, have fun editing. --bangerland (talk) 07:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't spot that disappearing, cheers for picking it up - I had the intention of somewhat rewriting that section but ran out of time yesterday afternoon - having said that I've got no clue why the link would have disappeared, I never ended up touching it as far as I remember. Is there a specific preference for source editing over visual editing? Or is that just down to personal preference, and people just needa be careful when using visual editing? --_artek (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's just preference. I also like to use visual editor and nobody will bash you for doing it, but after a while of editing on Striker page i just noticed how it deleted like 1000 bytes of text into oblivion on random. I mean, alright, but then after that on Churchill Mk VII page the disappearing text started to appear again after a while. Had much fun purging this thing and after that i just stopped using it on big pages unless i'm just editing tables or something. I just recommend to check what the "show changes" says after you did the change, it usually displays if something is amiss. I mean, it just killed the links on BMP-2 page as well, lol. --bangerland (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

That's really odd. I'll keep an eye on it - I do notice sometimes visual editor adds in random page breaks, but this is the first I've noticed of other stuff being affected. Hope that's something that will be fixed with future wikimedia updates, as visual editor is MUCH easier to use. --_artek (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Visual editor may be easier to use, but I seem to have more control with the regular editor, granted, it has taken some time to understand how the code works together (still learning, I can thank several wiki editors for their help in understanding it better!).--AN_TRN_26 (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Tank ammunition Icons

Hello. From what I see, you are starting a project to update the tank ammunition page with the new information, following your updates on the existing shells on the page currently. I've got a few pointers I would like to note:

• If possible, you can update the currently existing icons with your new images rather than upload them anew so that we can try and reduce the number of images hosted on the site.
• Another point I would like to mention is that the new images right now seem to be less sharp and blurrier compared to some of the icons currently on the Wiki. I remember the discussion we had on your images a while ago for the wiki, but didn't notice too big of a difference between the new ones and the current ones on the Wiki until they were on the site and I was able to compare them closely.

Examples:

• 

  Wiki - AP Shot

• 

  New - AP Shot

• 

  Wiki - HEAT-FS

• 

  New - HEAT-FS

• 

  Wiki - HEAT-FS

• 

  New - HEAT-FS

It would be appreciated if the new images were a little bit clearer to closer match the ones currently on the Wiki. If I may offer some help, the way I recall the wiki icons were produced was by screen-shotting and cropping the shell icons from the vehicle's modification tables in the game. If this method is replicated, perhaps a icon matching, if not surpassing, the Wiki's current icons can be produced. You can try this and see if it does produce more crisper tank shell images.

Regards, --Inceptor57 (talk) 09:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey mate; to address your points (although AN_TRN_26 has already sent you a message with some stuff we discussed this morning).

• The wiki actually wouldn't accept these files as updated versions of the old ones. While I'm not sure why (it was complaining about incorrect MIME type but I tried a variety of filetype/compression settings) it was consistent across all of the old icon files. If we can find a solution or a fix for this issue, that would be good.
• The reason they appear slightly more blurry there is that the 'contents' of the image is actually stretched further in the 'new' images. The old screenshots - which I did actually try initially - include a larger border, and the new images are pulled directly from the gamefile, but have a smaller border (at normal size, 1px instead of 3px). In the images you've linked above, you'd need to scale the 'new' images down a little to match the actual content size - and the images should be the same 'sharpness' after that. I will spend some time seeing if I can make them look a little better though.

_artek (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I heard from AN_TRN_26. The newer images you had uploaded are a good improvement from its previous versions, and are comparable to the ones on the Wiki. Seems the fix was making the older image scale back to a 1:1 aspect ratio of 54 px. I would approve for further implementation. I think the main problem with the "updated" step with the wiki versions is because the wiki versions are jpeg format while your versions are png. As I understand, this type of update is not compatible unless the file types are the same. Perhaps this would make a good test on whether a JPG or PNG image would have better resolution for this project. If PNG does produce a better image, I would not object to its continual usage for the project. --Inceptor57 (talk) 07:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)