Detailed ammunition information will forever be missed.
But just like player card changes - wiki got oversimplified and important data got removed because reasons.
1 Like
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
4 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?
2 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)
1 Like
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.
1 Like
I think they also have not transferred all content yet.
2 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
I actually like the design but too much useful information is missing.
There is no historical section, there are now some useless articles that only mess with you when you just want to scroll to the bottom of the page where the info you want would usually be.
Suspended armaments are now hidden because I guess they take too much space? Doesn’t matter that it’s very important info for an aircraft, better hide it… -.-
When you click on a missile you get basic info on it…stuff you can already see in the game, but when I open the wiki, that’s not what I want to see, I want to see pro’s and con’s of the missile, even if it’s half wrong as usual, it gives me a general idea. I want to see for let’s say Swedish missiles what are they derivatives of?
Just now I had to open the old wiki to look up the missile because the ones in the new wiki don’t have links or info for any of that on the aircraft page.
2 Likes
While I am still not yet fully satisfied with the new Wiki, I wanted to say I appreciate you checking up on the comments and feedback posted here on the forums and helping communicate between the players and devs. I hope we can get the new wiki into a state that (almost 😂) everyone is pleased with 👍
It really is missing a ton of information, the old one should have remained available whilst this one at least gets all the basic information added.
overall, I like the old wiki more because it has a lot more info (playstyle in different gamemodes, pros/cons, etc.) the only things that I like about the new wiki is the compare option and the overall nicer UI
1 Like
So far on my poll 63% of people want the old wiki back, 22% of people want to be able to edit the old wiki again but are fine with keeping the new wiki and only 15% want the new wiki.
Gaijin pls listen and bring back the old wiki
#Bringbacktheoldwiki
1 Like
And again, please let them tweak, finish and complete the new wiki first! Data from the old still needs to be transferred, additional functions like search etc. implemented.
1 Like
Genuinely, why introduce it if it’s so unfinished and incomplete?
Such a weird thing to do and a guaranteed way to get a load of push back about it too, clearly
5 Likes