Thank you. Sadly the google search not found the old one, just the work in progress new one. That caused misunderstanding. I delete my comment.
1 Like
No problem :) You are not alone in having missed that detail :)
2 Likes
I don’t think i am overreactting.
The new wiki is sort of unnessecary, the old wiki had everything that was needed and was aesthetically better.
However if they add the search bar to the new wiki I might change my mind and start using the new wiki.
But still the old wiki is better even if the search bar is added to the new wiki.
4 Likes
As I said, the work on it (including Global Search) is just not finished yet, so I personally find any strong reaction not overreacting, but simply a bit premature.
I for my part like the new wiki, but also eagerly await further improvements (especially when it comes to completeness of stats cards), features, and completion of transfer of articles.
2 Likes
Not sure if im the only one pointing this out but not a big fan of the new “player made article” format
Looks completely unprofessional unlike the old article format
If i wanted to read from stuff that looks like social media posts i have the war thunder forums and youtube for that. The new wiki is not an encyclopedia, it is unorganized mess of info.
6 Likes
My concerns are borne of Rinhord’s experiences. They tried writing an informative, concise article and were rebuffed as it was not long and wordy enough.
While I do not yet feel confident talking about my planes (the F4U-4, Ki-43, A6M3, P-51) authoritively, I could still imagine writing articles on par with Rinhord’s about basic experiences flying those aircraft with full-real controls would come very useful to people in my position a mere few months ago - looking for their learner aircraft and are curious about cockpit visibility, trim settings, MEC settings and weird little quirks to look out for.
This being Rinhord’s experiences: Introducing War Thunder Wiki 3.0! - #181 by Rinhord
Based on this, the kind of “Hey, you should look out for these quirks and these are screenshots of the cockpit/canopy because you cannot test-flight TT vehicles without unlocking them” I’m thinking and would’ve loved months ago would be rejected.
1 Like
The new article method is completely wrong. It feels more like google map reviews than an encyclopedia. Does not feel professional and the location of the info is pratically a mess.
1 Like
The new wiki should not have been released, and simultaneously become the officially supported main wiki, if it has come so unfinished. You can’t really blame the players for this one, the old wiki was just so much better.
4 Likes
2 Likes
Why was the ammunition storage areas removed from the wiki for ground vehicles? It was a really useful feature however without it, the only way to work out the ideal amount of ammo to take so that it is not stored in exposed areas is to use trial and error in the test drive
2 Likes
who needs QoL changes huh?
usage in battle was just some dude writing it and often plain wrong or at the very least, terrible. Sometimes even contradicting itself.
vehicle history and external links are still there, in its own articles.
again, allergic to QoL changes? now you don’t have to start up the game. especially if you’re looking at the wiki on your phone.
I think thats the point, you cant edit the vehicle stats etc so there’s no misinformation. what you can write about vehicles is in articles that get checked before they are released.
your post kinda just screams “i hate change, give me the thing i’m already used to back”. down to the boomer mindset and unironically typing “back in the good old days”, disgusting. tzeentch would be disappointed in you.
1 Like
I think that’s the whole point, random users not being able to edit vehicle pages anymore. Since you are a wikipedia editor yourself, you should know how much people love to troll and spread misinformation with edits. Aren’t wiki editors over there correcting tens of thousands of articles a day, or even more?
Same goes for the usage in battle category. Anyone could write anything there, and it was often bad advice, terribly outdated or outright wrong. That’s most likely why they carried those, together with historical info, over to articles that they can moderate by reviewing them before releasing them.
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
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.
2 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
2 Likes