I have recently become quite enamored with rank 1 German vehicles lately, and because I am very invested in them I wanted to go through and refine their wiki pages, especially the ones for the tanks, as many of them as short or incomplete. I haven’t been accepted into the WSP yet(hopefully it is still alive), so I dont have access to those resources unfortunately, so I’ll try and get some help here.
I believe that the Pz.III E battle usage description is misleading and only shows some of the picture, but I also objectively disagree with the points that it makes that the tank is unsuitable when played aggressively as its mobility cannot be relied on, a statement to which I heavily disagree and am currently collecting top placement replays playing in an aggressive flanking/peek and dip play-style to contradict the advice. However, I am not really sure what to do, as I suspect I cannot just go and rewrite the entire section to say things counter to what was said before without evidence, so how should I legitimize my claims so that the wiki is able to be improved? I definitely agree with some of the current points, and when rewriting the section I would leave the current play-style notes as a valid subsection along with my more aggressive subsection, as I think it would improve the quality of the wiki page a fair bit. Im just not entirely sure how to approach the situation.
T.L.D.R I disagree with play-style notes for the Pz.III E and want to change them to be more accurate, but am worried that the new write-up will be tossed out as it somewhat contradicts the old one and would like advice on the matter.
1 Like
having done a little more digging, I do not believe the author tested this tank in AB, as the mobility information is objectively incorrect, so I suspect differentiating the two can kind of bypass the problem I outlined above, although advice for in the future is still appreciated
1 Like
Usually battlle usage is written while keeping RB in mind.
But you can change the description entirely and if the watchers or the author of the section dont disagree or dont care to correct then your edits shall stay there for the forseeable future.
1 Like
Ok, thank you for the help. Because of how low tier this tank is (reserve) its probably pretty important to have stuff about AB, but i will make sure to run 10 ish battles with it in RB to see if that should be changed as well
2 Likes
I would suggest adding a section about how it performs in AB rather than reworking the current RB-based one.
Ok. I will probably make minor edits to the RB section for better readability and flow, and maybe add info as I become more knowledgeable about the tank, but what is there is pretty good as it stands for RB
1 Like
Everyone is free to edit pages on the wiki and if the edits are good they will get approved to be shown to everyone so feel free to do your thing
1 Like
Of course. Minor edits for flow and readibility is great. Thanks for helping out with the wiki :)
2 Likes
Yeah, everyone is free to make the edits they think are good, I am just trying to take it a little more seriously than F it we ball lmao
1 Like
If youre interested in wiki stuff and make edits that get approved regularly you can get GE from it
1 Like
I applied for it, I suspect they will need a month or twos worth of decent edits before the consider approving me, so we shall see, im not too fussed, the main reason I would want those GE is to get more vehicles to write about and maybe premium account lol
Just keep in mind you, and everyone else, are free to do as serious editing of the Wiki as people in the WSP do. There’s no problem in just rolling with it :) You’ll get exactly as many tools and privileges in editing as the WSP members do. There’s nothing special in the WSP when it comes to editing, other than some added rewards and incentives at the end.
2 Likes
IIrc you have direct contact with others in the WSP and wiki team to ask questions such as these or get others opinions without just posting it as a forum thread to everyone