Welcome to Wargaming.net Wiki!
Wiki Discussion/Archive (2015AprJun)

Wiki Discussion/Archive (2015AprJun)

Jump to: navigation, search

Pro/Con Character Limits - 10 March 2015

I´m completely against it. The 125 limit is even less than twitter. I never had any problem with the wiki page, reading it on my 4 inch mobile device. Before commiting such changes I would prefer the staff to try in advance to shorten the Pro/Con lists manually. I was wondering the last days, why so many lists where cut off in at the end. Now I noticed the announcement. Please reverse this. Oh and please, don´t argue again over a whole page. Please keep it short and simple, why you needed to commit this automatic censorship. --warfair4:eu (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Because we are sick and tired of people not being able keep the pros/cons short and simple, quite literally in every sense of that phrase. Limiting pros and cons to 5 points each obviously isn't enough as people started stacking multiple arguments into single points, so here's a fool-proof measure that would be enough to cover most cases describing the good and bad parts of any tank. If you wish to elaborate on the strengths and weaknesses please do so in the "Performance" section. --Haswell:na (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, so the people are the problem? Come on... So, actually the people want more characters. I don´t want to elaborate about the strenghts/weaknesses. I just want to bring into focus, that there might be a good reason, why the people want to write so much about the tanks. Personally I find this a good idea. I care less about e.g. historical stuff. But this is only my opinion, this will differ for others extremly. But please, stop this shortening in any way. There can be other ways to deal with this. The pro/con section is for me the most valuable section --> its from the people! Personal experience! *sigh* --warfair4:eu (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Haswell was not very diplomatic about this. As this was my decision, and was taken on my initiative, I suppose really in the end it falls on me to try and justify this action, even though it was ultimately done with the tacit approval of the entire admin group.
You'll remember that at one point, we had part of this discussion previously. When I decided to limit pros/cons to 5 bullets each, it was done with the clear understanding that pros/cons were becoming ponderous, and were collapsing under their weight. They no longer succeeded in serving as summaries to a given vehicle, as often more words would be written in pros/cons than in the rest of player opinion combined. This was not an ideal state of affairs, and I decided that it was necessary to begin enforcing the actual 'highlight' nature of pros/cons.
You'll also recall that, in the course of that discussion, I showed that it was possible for pros/cons to work successfully while restricted to 5 bullets each. While I'm not sure if you accepted my reasoning, or simply gave up in exhaustion reading my wall of text, I hoped you had understood why I enacted that policy at the time. I had hoped that pros/cons would begin to finally serve their intended purpose (or intended as it is in the interpretation applied by the current wiki staff), only to find that people would still write incredibly long bullet points, even if only 5 of them would be displayed.
So, while I had limited pros/cons in one dimension, it has become clear to me that if I truly wished to enforce the nature of pros/cons, I had to also limit the length of each bullet. This is what I have now done.
You have stated: "There can be other ways to deal with this. The pro/con section is for me the most valuable section --> its from the people! Personal experience!"
However, I do not agree. That was never the purpose of pros/cons. That is, as Haswell has stated, the intended purpose of the performance and research sections, which lie directly below it. The irony of your statement is that, of course, all three sections are from the people, not just pros/cons.
To me, restricting pros/cons is a necessary evil required to not only reduce drive-by editing that requires subsequent moderation, but to also encourage players to actually go to performance to elaborate properly on the nature of a vehicle.
I hope that this has helped to enlighten you as to the purpose of my choice.
ForcestormX:na (talk) 04:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Without getting into the pros/cons of limiting the pros/cons and their length this had led to broken sentences. Currently the Tiger P article says "Frontal armor is tough, but relies on thickness rather than slope, making it very vulnerable to gold shells. Furthermore, it" & "Great frontal hull armor, hard to penetrate even for higher tiers at a distance and often a nightmare for lower tiers even at". Suggest you undo this change until the actual sections are correctly formatted so they don't break when this is applied. djbrianuk:eu (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd prefer if you'd simply truncate the bullet points, they're already rambly and hence violate our standards. I would rather we bring old bullets into compliance, than say 'oh look we broke old bullets, clearly we should undo the new limit.' Without the limit and the broken bullets, there'd be no incentive to fix them.ForcestormX:na (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

WOT XBOX Packages

The packages for each tank is labeled just that, packages. On the 360 each package actually has a specific name. I do see in the description it tries to show the package name but it represents that as a number and not the actual package name. --xXMansini2069Xx:xbox (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

All they give me in the database is 'Stock, Speed, Attack' and such, which is listed above the numerical ID of each package. If they have more proper names than that, those names have not been entered into the database which I'm using for this information.
ForcestormX:na (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)