Would you please be willing to update your ForceAutoRoF template to say "Autoloader" or "Autocannon" instead of "Automatic Gun"? You could have it look at the burst count to identify which one to list. Ideally it would identify Semi-Autos as well, but I don't see a way to do that without doing it manually. The old wiki identified all three, but I believe it was set manually for each weapon. Just having Autoloader or Autocannon would be a vast improvement though. --Trifler:na (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- ForceAutoRoF is an experimental page template designed only for me to better understand the nature of the wiki code and is neither intended for public consumption or as an indicator of future changes to the wiki. Suggestions regarding any template, tank, or other page in the format 'pagetype':Force'pagename' will not be considered valid.
- That said, I will consider updating Autofire, which is the current template governing the content in question, to match your suggestion or otherwise take into account your valid point.
- ForcestormX:na (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- I just did a search for the "Autofire" template after reading your reply, but the search didn't find it. In any case, thank you for your consideration for whichever template controls the information displayed when hovering the mouse icon over the upside-down triangle icon on the tank sidebars. --Trifler:na (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- I managed to find 10 minutes and the right expression, so I added a statement to make it 'autoloaded gun' when 10 rounds or less mag size, and 'clip-fed gun' if more. Not the same names, but definitely inspired by Trifler. If you think it needs some refining, let me know. ForcestormX:na (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Very good. I see a problem though. Since you used mag size instead of burst length, and many autocannons have mag sizes lower than 10 rounds, it doesn't really work. I finally managed to find the template ("AutoRoF" rather than "Autofire") so I tried changing it to use the burstLength variable instead and changed the 10 to 1. Having your code there was extremely helpful. Unfortunately when I tested it, it said "Unexpected > operator." I don't know why it works with magSize but not burstLength. Do you know why? --Trifler:na (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- It's because unlike Magsize, Burst Length doesn't always have a value, if it's 1, it defaults as blank - this is why the logic gave you a bad output when you tried it. That said, you're right that BurstLength is the correct variable to check, and I'll fix the script soon. ForcestormX:na (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
'good' do not meet the criteria for pros/cons (seek more superlative characteristics
"BULLSH*T" 'good' is used in the pros of several tanks here. Just stop hating on tanks or users you just dont like.
- Or instead of imagining a conspiracy you can simply remember that we have limited resources and the *other* pages you are using for examples are the ones that we have not yet brought up to the same standard. Yes this means that the use and enforcement of regulations is hypocritical, but I patrol recent changes because they can be highlighted while 'ancient changes' can not. By the law of averages, over time the number of allowed instances of 'good' 'mediocre' or 'average' will continue to reduce on pages, while no new instances will be allowed to remain in new edits to speed that process.
- If you further question the foundation for this action, I invite you to await the release of the style guide, which is the document I am acting to enforce preemptively.
ForcestormX:na (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I have an even better Idea. I just stop bothering with my obviously unappreciated attempts to help and bring some of my experience to the community and leave you alone with this stuff so you can continue picking on possible contributors.
- That, of course, is your decision to make. But perhaps if you were to try a different article, and not make 2 of your so far 3 edits, and I should note the only 2 edits by you which have been overthrown, revolve around listing pen and damage on the Churchill I as pros (they're average, not standout), it's quite likely you'd see different results. Please do not blame me with such certainty if the evidence for your case is worth questioning. ForcestormX:na (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
First for the penetration of the gun, its the second highest of the Tier 5 heavy's. Calling that average is just a sign of utter lack of knowledge. From your stats, I saw on the homepage, I saw that you have likely just skipped the entire tank and did not played a single Game in it. So it looks like even more likely you just want to remove pros on a tank you dont like. One should have at least driven a tank for serveral Games to be allowed to edits its files, which would render you "unqualified" to do so. And I made only 2 edits because the first time I came and tried, some hypocrite came along and removed what I wrote, for nothing but flimsy, inappropriate reasons.
- "Good" is a relative term. It is perfectly acceptable to state the gun has the second highest penetration value of all tier 5 heavies. It is however, not acceptable to simply say the gun has "good" penetration, since you did not provide any comparisons between vehicles and modules.
- Before you start accusing the wiki staff of general incompetence, please consider that your attitude is detrimental to your argument as the basis to your accusations are barely more sophisticated than ad hominem. You are welcomed to engage in mindful and critical debates and discussions as well as constructive page contributions, but if you desire to continue this childish and pointless argument I will personally see to the removal of your editing privileges.
- Haswell:na (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
My statement about the lack of competence stays ! And removing my editing rights after I've said I'm not going to contribute anything / anymore to hypocrite-wiki is completly irrelevant. Do what ever pleases you...
- User "therealVanquisher:eu" is stripped of all editing powers for 2 weeks, for harassment of wiki staff. Have a nice day. Haswell:na (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
You may have locked most of the warship wiki pages, but you failed to find the American ships which are not included in the "American Ships" page. Misfire42 refused to let me edit the American ships page, so, six days before you locked unprivileged folks like myself from editing most of the wiki, I added the following ships to their respective class pages.
Destroyers: USS Clemson
Since I could still edit these pages until someone added the [Edit=Allow only administrators] thing, I decided to create pages for these ships today. I was torn between loyalty to the community and loyalty to WarGaming. I decided to compromise by creating content, yet risking its deletion by informing an administrator (in this case, ForcestormX). This wiki is the property of WarGaming, and ForcestormX seems to be a trusted WarGaming official, so I suppose I have no right to argue. Still, I am bothered by the idea that a wiki is locked from the community which will need to provide content sometime in the next several months. I know "several months" seems like a long time to some people, but these things require plenty of time. Of course, most of the content I provide is copied from Wikipedia. But still, we saw what World of Tanks was like; we saw what World of WarPlanes was like; I think we know what can(not) be expected from World of WarShips, what we can(not) be sure about.
Another thing I should note about the World of WarShips wiki, the aircraft carrier class image and the aircraft carrier text on the wiki mainpage somehow point to two different pages. Clicking on the image takes me to a blank page which has been locked by someone named ForcestormX. What a control freak! ;) Clicking on the text takes me to a page with some good content and no restrictions! :D Do you want to fix that bug, or should I ask someone else to fix it?
Why am I so bothered about these things? I suppose I do not have a life. I am sorry for taking my boredom out on you. Maybe I should get a job.
- Since WoWS is currently in alpha, most pages pertaining to the subject on the wiki are likely to tread on sensitive toes. As such, the wiki staff decided to lock these pages until sufficient info is publicized to uphold the quality of the pages' contents.
- Oh, none of us are actually employed by WG.
I thought perhaps the noted historical inaccuracies can help players who are interested in a tank's history. I mean, for example, I never knew that the KV-1 has unhistorical guns until I read it here. But since you say that such info is not allowed here, I'll have to look elsewhere then. Cheers. Wolcott:na (talk) 10:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- You've somehow managed to misinterpret my actions of the past 72 hours. Since the weekend, what I've done is:
- Remove a series of historical inaccuracy statements, which contained editorial content (the accusation of lazy research was not necessary to driving home the point of the section)
- Design and implement a new section for PC tank pages designed specifically for the listing of historical accuracy instead of having it be buried at the bottom of a freaking history section which may be something along the line of many, many pages worth of content, allowing it to be more visible
- Although I didn't do it, Haswell designed and launched a wiki announcement section, in which the only announcement is the announcement of said historical inaccuracy section
- So, at what point is it just to say that, we aren't accommodating to inaccuracies in tank history? We just, confronted with the sheer number which have been written of late, made the decision to shift where and how they should be located on a page.
- The only thing, which could possibly stand as a justification for your apparent belief in our opposition to these inaccuracies, is that since the removal of the previous inaccuracy statements they have not yet been migrated to their new homes. This is my fault. I didn't really have time to make the new section or do the pulls, but I did them. I haven't had the chance yet to make most of the inaccuracies get written in elsewhere. It's now next in the queue.
- If you want to add inaccuracies, feel free. We have a brand shiny new section for it now, and a lot of pages that need updating.
- ForcestormX:na (talk) 11:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey I've been trying to add Historical Pictures to the Historical Gallery of Warships but everytime I enter a URL or a Wiki file, I only get Text and no image. I managed to get the Montana and Iowa Battleships to have pictures but no others. Any idea what im doing wrong or what I should be doing to put them in?--Scinfaxi:na (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)