Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
ObnoxiousPotato

How to get the Wiki updated?

10 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
435 posts
20,136 battles

Another topic touched upon this "issue", but wanted to see how one actually goes about getting the Wiki updated (i.e., I just don't think anyone can 'edit' it... correct?)

The specific changes I would like to see are:

CHANGE #1:

The page "http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Ammo" contains:

Example

Using our two previous examples and multiplying the penetration by 1.3:

  • Mogami: 25.83 * 1.3 = 33.58 = 34mm

  • Admiral Hipper: 50.75 * 1.3 = 65.975 = 66mm

which appears to be inconsistent with the information given on wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Gunnery_%26_Armor_Penetration" in that it is is applying the 1.3 IFHE multiplier before rounding the result of dividing the shell caliber by 4 or 6.  Suggest removing the example and simply refer the reader to the 'Armor Penetration' page.

CHANGE #2:

The 'HE Penetration' section on "http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Gunnery_%26_Armor_Penetration" contains the sentence "Round to the nearest integer, with X.5 usually rounding down (contrary to common convention), though even this is not consistent.".  

I would like to see the ambiguity eliminated.  i.e., Is x.5 rounded down or not?  Perhaps not x.500000001, but certainly x.49999999.

CHANGE #3:

Expand upon the 'HE Penetration' section to include the recent IJN HE penetration change.

 

Thanks!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
789
Supertester
2,179 posts
9,480 battles

IIRC, anybody with 100+ games can edit the wiki, but the changes made are reviewed by the wiki editors 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
435 posts
20,136 battles
1 minute ago, ApexShimakaze said:

IIRC, anybody with 100+ games can edit the wiki, but the changes made are reviewed by the wiki editors

I guess it could be more of a matter of getting access to those who know how the game software is intended to function, and then take the time to add that information to the Wiki.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
795
[JKSDF]
Privateers, Supertester
928 posts
2,988 battles
13 minutes ago, Hiroe said:

You need more "Wiki Editors" who actually edit I suppose.

Generally, us wiki editors have our own individual roles and such and we try to cover as many bases as possible despite our low number of 'official' wiki editors. I, for example, am usually the one behind the service histories of ships, from barely three sentences on De Grasse, to the several-thousand-word epics of ships such as Enterprise. I'd welcome other historical writers with open arms, as most of my work goes towards new premiums and such, while a lot of older ships I simply don't have the time to write for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
1 minute ago, Destroyer_Fuyuzuki said:

Generally, us wiki editors have our own individual roles and such and we try to cover as many bases as possible despite our low number of 'official' wiki editors. I, for example, am usually the one behind the service histories of ships, from barely three sentences on De Grasse, to the several-thousand-word epics of ships such as Enterprise. I'd welcome other historical writers with open arms, as most of my work goes towards new premiums and such, while a lot of older ships I simply don't have the time to write for. 

Supremely excellent, my good man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
795
[JKSDF]
Privateers, Supertester
928 posts
2,988 battles
1 minute ago, Hiroe said:

Supremely excellent, my good man.

... err, wo-man, surprisingly. 

  • Funny 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
Just now, Destroyer_Fuyuzuki said:

... err, wo-man, surprisingly. 

That's pretty interesting.

WJzXFPZ.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,883
[HINON]
Privateers, Privateers
6,798 posts
4,853 battles
53 minutes ago, ObnoxiousPotato said:

Another topic touched upon this "issue", but wanted to see how one actually goes about getting the Wiki updated (i.e., I just don't think anyone can 'edit' it... correct?)

The specific changes I would like to see are:

CHANGE #1:

The page "http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Ammo" contains:

Example

Using our two previous examples and multiplying the penetration by 1.3:

  • Mogami: 25.83 * 1.3 = 33.58 = 34mm

  • Admiral Hipper: 50.75 * 1.3 = 65.975 = 66mm

which appears to be inconsistent with the information given on wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Gunnery_%26_Armor_Penetration" in that it is is applying the 1.3 IFHE multiplier before rounding the result of dividing the shell caliber by 4 or 6.  Suggest removing the example and simply refer the reader to the 'Armor Penetration' page.

CHANGE #2:

The 'HE Penetration' section on "http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Gunnery_%26_Armor_Penetration" contains the sentence "Round to the nearest integer, with X.5 usually rounding down (contrary to common convention), though even this is not consistent.".  

I would like to see the ambiguity eliminated.  i.e., Is x.5 rounded down or not?  Perhaps not x.500000001, but certainly x.49999999.

CHANGE #3:

Expand upon the 'HE Penetration' section to include the recent IJN HE penetration change.

 

Thanks!

 

 

 

For #1, I added a few notes and words to make it clearer that IFHE is calculated before rounding.

 

For #2 I can't remove something that is truthfully ambiguous. If the rule varies, it varies.

 

#3, expanded.

 

Remember that anyone with 100 battles can edit the wiki, so feel free to try your hand at it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
435 posts
20,136 battles
1 hour ago, Doomlock said:

For #2 I can't remove something that is truthfully ambiguous. If the rule varies, it varies.

First, thank you so much for updating the Wiki.

But saying that "if a rule varies, it varies" seems to imply the WG development staff either has not, or will not provide enough information regarding this behavior.

Having extensive experience in software development, I can see, at least theoretically, how the variance in the rounding behavior could be due to differences in a CPU's internal floating pointing hardware (e.g., some have more precision than others).  But to have a "rule" and then say it is "inconsistent"...  isn't that like an "oxymoron"?  i.e., an "inconsistent rule" isn't much of a rule!  ;)

Holding out hope that someone knows who to contact within WG in order to get a better explanation for the "though even this is not consistent" phrase.

Again, thank you for taking the time to address my request.  In the future, if I know for certain what needs to be changed, I'll give it a go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×