Which is another way of saying the release of this incomplete wiki is itself premature - bad decision making by someone.
I am quite in favor of QOL changes most of the time. but the stuff in the new wiki is not an improvement, rather a downgrade
Oh yeah, the new format is so good, all the info is completely messy and unprofessional
1 Like
You generally speaking cannot compare the war thunder wiki to wikipedia. Also most larger edits require permission from admins, happenened when i made a family page on the WZ551. Also I have never seen a troll on the war thunder wikis compared to the tonnes I see on wikipedia.
Both of which, idk you are hating on. The “inaccuracy” in usage in battle is often exaggerated, and it taught me how to use the ISU-152 properly, so i don’t know why you hate it so much. As for vehicle history, it provided historical context for lesser known vehicles especially boats and even had some pretty good refrecnes in the external links section.
3 Likes
Can the wiki economy cards include SL reward per minute for SB?
Compare in-game stat card:
Versus
Wiki economy card
The wiki tells me the fully-modified, reference cost to spawn.
The In-game stat card tells me the actual reward/minute.
Why do I need to look in two separate places to get the full story?
2 Likes
So far bring back the old wiki has 57%, keep new wiki but allow us to use the old wiki 23% and keep the new wiki 20%.
The community has decided: We don’t want the new wiki
1 Like
where is this Category:Maps and missions - War Thunder Wiki in the new wiki ended up? can access it over the aircraft, the ground forces or the home hub, it seems completly abandoned
Ofc there were alot of valid guides too. It’s just not great when you followed a guide on there and then wondered why you’re doing so bad - until a more experienced buddy or yt guide tells you you’ve been playing it wrong. Personally felt that more with aircraft than ground vehicles, as my experience in WoT translated well into WT’s lower ranks, so I didn’t really need the headsup on tanks.
Either way, you can still make articles about both usage guides and historical background and they’ll be checked first (and then also rewarded with some GE for the effort), so there isn’t really much negative about that. They’re not gone forever. Especially for usage guides imo it’s a positive that they’ll be updated that way, some of them were really old.
The info is much more in a similar format to social media and is harder to find overall; Old wikipedia-like format is just much easier to find info
3 Likes
Detailed ammunition information will forever be missed.
But just like player card changes - wiki got oversimplified and important data got removed because reasons.
3 Likes
That could just be because you’re used to centuries of wikipedia-like design and not the new design.
People hating new stuff because they’re less familiar with it than old stuff just bc they’ve been using that for years has always been weird to me. You can find things intuitive not by design, but out of habit.
You seriously cannot claim that it is easier to find things in the new wiki. I’m not hating on it because it is new, it is just simply useless.
Compare this: Rockets & Missiles | War Thunder Wiki
to this: Template:Missiles - War Thunder Wiki
Or this:
https://old-wiki.warthunder.com/F-14A_IRIAF_(USA)
the info was much more organized. Does have wingspan though, which is the first improvement i have seen in a long time
Back then we had this:
Now we have this:
Not to mention the new post system is basically turning entire thing into social media
Back then i could easily read how to use a vehicle or the history without needing to constantly scroll(Type 63 - War Thunder Wiki)
Nowadays, not only do these not exist, i need to scroll through tonnes of random posts to find them
which is easier?
#Bringbacktheoldwiki
5 Likes
As has been said now repeatedly:
2 Likes
even so the new posts system is completely unusable to find info
Not to mention weapon pages are mostly gone, getting replaced with a huge pile of random articles Rockets & Missiles | War Thunder Wiki
1 Like
Here’s one easy example:
Notice something VERY IMPORTANT AND CRUCIAL missing on the new design?
3 Likes
All that the new version is missing is a search function. You pretty much had to use the search function in the old one too because a huge table with a gazilion entries isn’t intuitive to search either.
By the way, articles like these that have no text other than describing what should be there weren’t exactly helpful imo:
https://old-wiki.warthunder.com/RB_75T
redirecting you to the RB 75 in small font below the banner and telling you, on the article you already got redirected to, to then go to the AGM-65A to find the actual description is beyond lazy.
Not to mention it’s not rare that there’s not much to be read beyond the ingame stat card info.
One more thing that can get fixed now that people have some monetary incentive to write an actual article.
personally I like the new style better tbh. Alot more is collapsable, so it looks more neat and organized instead of hitting you on the head with big blocks of text and big tables. Clicking on some of the parameters gives you brief explanations or in-depth details too.
I feel the opposite? also it’s not just wingspan that they added, you actually get radar frequency, detailed RWR functions, you can quickly get a list of vehicles in the vehicle family, or vehicles from it’s manufacturer, different roles, operator country, etc.
You also see at a glance that it has wing sweep instead of that info being burried in a wall of text near the bottom (and they explain briefly what it does and link to a list of all vehicles with wing sweep, which is neat).
Yeah, the ratings definitely need a bit more fine-tuning, especially more categories, like energy retention. I think it has the potential to be more useful than the pro/con of the old wiki though.
I mean, for your example, why does “Pros: Engines pack a lot of thrust, Cons: Acceleration below Mach 1.0 is below average compared to other planes in the BR” seem so contrary? When I read that, I think: “Cool, alot of thrust means it must accelerate really well. Wait, it’s acceleration isn’t even average? doesn’t that mean its thrust is pretty bad for its weight?”, especially since it doesn’t even say anything about the acceleration above Mach 1.0.
So like I said, the old pro/con section is partially more confusing than helping.
Or things like “RWR is subpar for the BR” doesn’t give you much info, the new wiki listing range, detectable bands and if launch detection / tracking detection / IFF is present or not is MUCH more informative.
that’s probably the point to get people to engage more with it.
yes, a search function is definitely needed, and is confirmed to be added in the future.
because noone wrote them yet and they didn’t want to just copy the old ones over, likely because fact checking thousands of articles at once would’ve been a bit much, and to give incentive to write new articles with more effort (as they will be rewarded now, people might go much more in-depth)
2 Likes
what else do you need other than a search function to find a post about the topic you want?
They didn’t get replaced, noone wrote new articles on them yet. Give it some time to catch up.
2 Likes
I think they also have not transferred all content yet.
3 Likes
Just a couple of suggestions of stuff that can be added to the collection section:
4 other suggestions for features to sort by would maybe be ‘Arrestor gear’, ‘Flare/Chaff’, ‘RATO rockets’ and ‘Drogue Parachute’.
Would also be nice to see the possibility to exclude vehicles with the features, so you search up vehicles without that specific feature.
1 Like
Also!
Limited WEP and how long it lasts…
It’s amazing we have such a crucial feature that’s not mentioned either in-game or the new forums and you got to discover it yourself mid dogfight as your engine power suddenly cuts out on a new aircraft you began practicing with
1 Like