User talk:bangerland

Hello, are you changing wiki design to same as Russian one?

I watched some pages a few hours ago, but I have some questions and complaints.

Firsly, is all old data lost or will it be transferred at least in some way? I'm not particularly salty, but remaking pages back/reformatting without some backup data would be extremely frustrating. So far most pages are backed to sept 1 2018... For example, https://wiki.warthunder.com/Hydropneumatic_suspension suspension is backed to jan 2019, but it again says about suspension being on challengers, when it isn't the case. I mean, I can redact it back, but will it be same with every page?... What about enormous pages then? I mean I could recreate striker page just out of spite, lol, but that would take forever.

Secondly, I sincerely hope you realize, that Russian wiki way of depicting and describing vehicles is completely different from EN wiki? As in, they have extremely lean towards history and storytelling type of pages, with minimal usage of statistical spreadsheets and such. Even if they do use them, they follow them up by text most of the time.

To compare: OBJ-120 RU: https://wiki.warthunder.ru/%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%8A%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82_120 Matilda 2 EN: https://wiki.warthunder.com/Matilda_Mk_II BMP-2 RU (formatted more like like EN's matilda): https://wiki.warthunder.ru/%D0%91%D0%9C%D0%9F-2

As you can see, their pages are mostly designed to be a guide told with words, not to have spreadsheets with no words on top. Their sidebar also has less info, than old EN's wiki. (well that's probably fixable, but you get the point)

As in, i'm feeling morbidly annoyed by phrase like:

"Describe the tactics of playing in the vehicle, the features of using vehicles in the team and advice on tactics. Refrain from creating a "guide" - do not impose a single point of view but give the reader food for thought. Describe the most dangerous enemies and give recommendations on fighting them. If necessary, note the specifics of the game in different modes (AB, RB, SB).

I suppose, that means we no longer make longposts like https://wiki.warthunder.com/Tiger_II_(P) ? Or rework it around like obj 120 page, but then where do we put spreadsheets? And I'm aware that many people in EU prefer spreadsheets over anything. Especially in planes mode.

Third question: if we keep pages as in, can we at least have "rating" thing like in tiger 2 (P) page?

The main idea is that people read what this vehicle is and what it can, and, If interested, keep reading.

For example, if nothing changes page would go as:

General info: (picture in hangar)

Brief History and What is class/rank/br of this vehicle anyway:

Rating in specific areas for vehicle's class with quick professional explanation:

(for light tank that would be "mobility"/"flank attack capability"/"general firepower rating"/"sniping", for ATGM would be "long range engagement"/"Close quarter engagement"/"mobility", for heavy tank would be "lighter vehicle suppression"/"overall survival ability"/"3d mobility"/"direct engagement survival" or in such manner. Since rank 5/6 add more classes like "ATGM light tank" or "missile artillery" with additional ratings, just to make a point and diffirentiate, if necessary. For example AMX-13 HOT is great as light tank, but amongst other light ATGM tanks it's a potato. Or RPZ2 would be similiar to IT-1 in battle purpouses, if you just compare them as ATGMs, but barging them in same category with Striker is entirely absurd, as it will just steamroll them both before they can even see it. We could work out a list of classes and their stronger points somewhere for people to relate, idk.)

Technical info (I'd still write in help annotation to ask people to explain in words what things and tables mean, because for most cases those numbers mean nothing ingame):

Mobility:

Armour:

Guns:

Shortened strats (for those who can't think of one themselves using info above):

History: ETC: End.

Please consider, I'm not writing like this out of spite or disrespect, just kind of spooked.

--bangerland (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2019 (MSK)

#1 - All old data is currently still accessible. We are planning to open a "restore" section on the forums to get pages which may not have been updated by the time of the transfer to be prioritized in their restoration.

#2 - All the information currently are transferred from the old wiki format, simply adapted to the RU format. As such, the information would not be exactly as that provided by the RU wiki. However, the phrasing "Refrain from creating a "guide" perhaps is more focused on the emphasis of "do not impose a single point of view but give the reader food for thought." As such, guides created with words are fine, but not a very strict guide that follows directly on-the-book like a standard operating procedure, but one that a player could read and be inspired by.

#3 - Unfortunately, the vehicle page format as is now is set in stone. However, writing with words as stated in #2 is still allowed for flexibility in talking about the vehicle's characteristics. In my opinion, ratings set too hard of a "objective" status compared to a thorough explanation of a vehicle can or cannot do, but a well written page can perhaps relay all these information much better than a set of Pros and Cons and ratings.

Inceptor57 (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2019 (MSK)

I see. I'm just concerned because most of old pages had nothing or just tables at bottom, which is now first thing people see when open pages, and retrofitting those infos to be dijestable by humans(mainly casual players, who kind of see statistics in game anyway and probably opened page for guidelines or explanations, or something along those lines) is going to take a lot of time. Though having to connect both of these in one is kind of interesting in a way. At the very least i'm now sure that i can write it as it would fit, as long as it's reasonable. Thanks. --bangerland (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2019 (MSK)