Hearts of Iron 4 Wiki

[elfiwolfe]

The naval treaty events are added from the event files. not sure if that is of help.
https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/Naval_Treaty_events_MtG

 

[Dauth]

For those here who have the general wiki editing bug there's another contest on for Stellaris. Another chance to pick up discounts/avatar/badges https://stellaris.paradoxwikis.com/Stellaris_Wiki:Contest

 

[elfiwolfe]

Ouch.. I looked at their Events page.
Technology is easy to get from game files.
Events.. 90 event files in game files.
And I am less than 1/3 done with HoI events updates

NOOO too much to do.
/starts making pages.

 

[AkatsukiEmpire]

For the Spanish Focus Trees, I think it should be divided up like this. For the nationalist tree as an example: The Falangist, Franco and Carlist exclusive focuses in different sections in the wiki and the Falangist/Franco, Franco/Carlist shared focuses also in different sections. Below the orange line are focuses that require the Spanish Civil war to be over. They can similarly be separated in different sections as well. The tree will get more focuses in the next patch so I'm a bit reluctant to do an image map for the branches right now. I have the pre civil war sections done. What do you think?

 

[AkatsukiEmpire]

I'm also fine with having the during and post civil war focuses together in one section but I think that it is more helpful for the post civil war focuses to be in separate sections. In the following images, I have also marked focuses that require the Spanish Civil War to be over. So everything that requires those focuses must also have the SCW to be concluded.

The Iberian Pact and Latin Bloc focuses for Nationalist Spain also require the SCW to be over but they are within the "During the Civil War Section" of the Francoist exclusive focuses. I think they can be placed there, but if they are, then there should be a sentence on the branch description on the top saying that these focuses can only be done after the civil war.

What do you think about this?

 

[Crixus]

Added examples of alternative division template names for the National Revolutionary Army(Nationalist China) include:

• Garrison Units - Jingbei
• Provincial Division - Zhengshi Shi
• Cavalry Division - Qibing Shi
• Reorganized Division - Zheng Bian Shi
• Mountain Division(German Trained) - De Xie Shi
• Mechanized Division - Motuo Hua Bubing Shi

 

[Simon_9732495]

2 Questions:

• Is there a list of icons accessible with tags like [File:Motorized.png] [[File:Rubber.png|link=Rubber]] ? I'm looking for these:

• Is there a way to upload images to the wiki?

 

[Lillebror]

2 Questions:

• Is there a list of icons accessible with tags like [File:Motorized.png] [[File:Rubber.png|link=Rubber]] ? I'm looking for these:

View attachment 582617​

• Is there a way to upload images to the wiki?

The images are already on the wiki, you should find them here: Category:Land unit icons

 

[Simon_9732495]

I have a question about: https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/Hearts_of_Iron_4_Wiki:Versioning

The idea and intention is very good, but I see several problems:

• When a version changes suddenly a good chunk of the wiki is outdated
• The sections not outdated are mainly the ones, that have no {{SVersion|1.x}}
• That might give the reader a totally wrong idea which part of the wiki can be trusted, because
  • Sections that are not maintained with very high intensity may not have any {{SVersion|1.x}} tags at all. They appear up to date
  • Very good sections are marked outdated
  • And who will set a uotdated section to the next version? Are editors supposed to do it without knowing 100% sure that it's up to date? If a section contains heavy theory, who can confirm, if this still works like that without doing all the theorycraft again?

Right now there are 124 articles with outdated sections. E.g. good articles like https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/Naval_missions https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/Naval_doctrine https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/Naval_technology (these have {{SVersion|1.8}} a lot because they were updated with MtG )

I think a lot sections would be fine with {{SVersion|Timeless}}

Or maybe the SVersion tag should be only used on sections that are 100% sure outdated and be removed on all others?

 

[SolSys]

When a version changes suddenly a good chunk of the wiki is outdated
...
Or maybe the SVersion tag should be only used on sections that are 100% sure outdated and be removed on all others?

First, do NOT remove version tags.

That is the purpose of the version tags. They notify users to what content may need verification.

If you verify a section to be up-to-date then update the version number in the tag instead. It will cause the note to dissappear until the next version update.

 

[bitmode]

Or maybe the SVersion tag should be only used on sections that are 100% sure outdated and be removed on all others?

Great proposal! I would rather not rely on {{SVersion|Timeless}} though. Very few things in this game are truly timeless when you compare version 1.0.0 with 1.9.3 plus what is on @podcat 's roadmap. In practice, whether something is rather unlikely to change in a couple of patches or whether it is "guaranteed" to never change is kind of moot for both editors and readers.
In some ways the Timeless tag has a similar problem as the regular SVersion tag in that it asks the editor to make an assertion they can't confidently make and which is hardly meaningful to the reader anyway.
As a reader, I don't want to read about some versioning shenanigans at all, unless there is good reason for it. Only a human editor can give a good reason.

And who will set a uotdated section to the next version? Are editors supposed to do it without knowing 100% sure that it's up to date? If a section contains heavy theory, who can confirm, if this still works like that without doing all the theorycraft again?

I made a proposal in September in this direction which got a lot of upvotes before the forum update. Let's just say the wiki moderators have fundamentally different ideas about how collaboration in a wiki works than I do.

Do NOT remove version tags.

 

[Dauth]

I think you're fundamentally overestimating the time the wiki team have to spend on the wikis. Only one person derives any income whatsoever from the wikis and everyone else is a volunteer.

The SVersion and Version tags operate on the principle of "When was this last checked". When a new patch releases (lets call it N) we update the Version template to the new version. This has the effect that everything for N-1 is now marked as "last checked for N-1. We do not manually add in the tags, nor do we update them.

The issue with @bitmode 's method is that it requires manual verification of every item that may not be current. Given the complexity of the games and the possibility of changes not appearing in patch notes (which does happen), this is not something we wanted to invest the time in.

We recently had a contest on the HOI4 wiki where a lot of tickets were awarded for ensuring that SVerions tags appear on all tier 2 headers and not for tier 3. Obviously it wasn't 100% effective.

 

[Emren]

Hey guys,
First time post in this thread for me. Nice to be here!

I've started adding some graphs here and there on the wiki, to graphically show some of the more complex game mechanics and what the consequences of those mechanics are from a gameplay perspective. Check the https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/Land_battle and https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/Air_combat#State_anti-air pages for a selection. I only have a limited time to dedicate to this, but I find it to be therapeutic. So if you have any specific requests...

Anyone with better wiki skills than me are free to move them around to where they make more sense, feel free to do so.

 

[bitmode]

I think you're fundamentally overestimating the time the wiki team have to spend on the wikis.

Where did I say anything about moderators time? We are not asking you to do anything.

The issue with @bitmode 's method is that it requires manual verification of every item that may not be current. Given the complexity of the games and the possibility of changes not appearing in patch notes (which does happen), this is not something we wanted to invest the time in.

Automated verification is a pipe dream. Any automated system that can verify a section or image has at least 95% of the capability to just automatically update the content, removing the need for verification. But this only applies to a small fraction of the wiki. Most is both sourced and verified by humans.

Also, you presume the necessity of verification. In my opinion, verification is just a nice-to-have in a gaming wiki. Nobody will fall sick or get sued from reading something wrong. And if enough people care about it enough, it will get updated or at least marked as wrong/outdated. The current tagging prevents (or at least strongly discourages) the latter option.

 

[Simon_9732495]

It's all about reducing work.
State now:

• Someone has to check all articles that are marked outdated, if they are really outdated. That's a lot of work. (And I guess many are not really outdated)
• Then at some point 1.10 comes and all this work has to be redone.

In an ideal world this is good, because every version the whole wiki will be checked by someone.

But the world is not ideal, there are not enough editors to check all of that, so a lot of stuff is marked outdate and seeminly not useful for readers.
And it's not good for the trust into a wiki if most pages seem to be outdated.

Wouldn't it be better to not automatically (per new verision ) set the whole wiki to outdated, to save a lot of work?

 

[Dauth]

Someone's time is needed for the new approach, at least the transfer to your method and I'm not certain that maintenance of the versioning requires less upkeep after your proposal. Going back to this point, I believe we did change the text in the version tags too (https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/index.php?title=Template:Version&diff=33883&oldid=31421)

We are not automatically verifying, we are automatically stating that this has not been verified since Version X. Your method requires intervention for every page that has changed in a patch. For a large expansion that is most of the mechanics.

No one will get sued for stuff being outdated, I agree. However we do find far more people complaining about the wiki being outdated than actually working to fix it. The current system is an attempt to mark outdated content so we can keep a track of it. I'm open to a new method as long as it can be shown to be a practical improvement. Especially when you consider we have active wikis for HOI4, EU4, Stellaris, CK2, Surviving Mars, Prison Architect, Cities Skylines and presumably CK3 closer to release.

We've managed to eliminate most of the terrible writing on the wikis, (well constrain it to the strategy guides which I've given up on). So most of the writing is now updating content.

@bitmode please correct me if I'm wrong but I think I understand the premise you wish the wikis to offer

Current system: This page is true for the version X, and may be true for Y onwards but this has not been verified
Your system: This page is true but it has not been edited since version X

@Simon_9732495 when a new version releases we do change the up to date version number, this in turn marks everything with the previous version number as outdated.

 

[Simon_9732495]

@Simon_9732495 when a new version releases we do change the up to date version number, this in turn marks everything with the previous version number as outdated.

That is what I say in the last sentence in the posting before.

What are the advantages / disadvantages of doing this?

The advantages are:

• Every version update editors are pointed to all articles that may be outdated. If there was a horde of editors (there isn't) then they would fall over outdated article they would not see else.
• If a user complains that the wiki is wrong you can say: "Haven't you not seen the 'maybe outdated' info box". (Who cares, you can't be sued over a incorrect wiki, because you don't sell it.)

The disadvantages are:

• The whole wiki is outdated after a version upgrade and it is a lot work to verify everything (also the stuff that might not have been touched by the update) again.
• For readers it seems, that the wiki is abandoned, because everywhere it says "outdated, please verify or update"
• Veryfiying if something DIDN'T change is not so easy.
  • If you take the first point of the changelog and go to the corresponding article you have verified a point that has CHANGED. That's easy.
  • The other way round to verify it didn't change: If you have an article that is veryfied for 1.5 you have to go through all changelogs since then searching if something is relevant for that point.

What advantages have I forgotten?
Because so far the disadvantages seem to weigh more.

 

[SolSys]

I made a proposal in September in this direction which got a lot of upvotes before the forum update. Let's just say the wiki moderators have fundamentally different ideas about how collaboration in a wiki works than I do.

It was discussed a couple of times and the issues with your suggestion have been pointed out to you.
It is saddening to hear that a disagreement following a discussion on a major point which affects all PDX wikis ends on a not so subtle note implying "collaboration" problems.

Current system: This page is true for the version X, and may be true for Y onwards but this has not been verified
Your system: This page is true but it has not been edited since version X

Sadly, that is not an accurate description of the differences between the 2 systems. The two differ on a more fundamental level which is to say their approach to the purpose of versioning which is critical. If to summarize crudely:

Current system: This page may not be true for the current version.
Suggested system: This page is true for the current version unless you say it is not.

Both systems require manual verification. The difference is in their starting point.

I am going to state it clearly -- unless there is a better solution to the versioning requirement the tags stay.

 

[bitmode]

Someone's time is needed for the new approach, at least the transfer to your method

No, because there does not need to be a regime, a system.

The current method takes up your time because you (the moderators) have chosen to lock the {{Version}} template and set a rule that each page and section include it. You could simply stop doing those things (i.e. less work) -- this is the core of @Simon_9732495 's proposal.

Unless you decide to insert yourself into the process by locking pages or otherwise policing users, there is no moderator work involved at all.

Going back to this point, I believe we did change the text in the version tags too (https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/index.php?title=Template:Version&diff=33883&oldid=31421)

We are not automatically verifying, we are automatically stating that this has not been verified since Version X. Your method requires intervention for every page that has changed in a patch. For a large expansion that is most of the mechanics.

In my opinion a page not having been verified since version X does not need to be stated by default.
Changing the wording was in my eyes indeed a great improvement. But it still presumed that verifying for the latest version and stating as such on each page is a goal in itself.

The current system is an attempt to mark outdated content so we can keep a track of it. I'm open to a new method as long as it can be shown to be a practical improvement.

In that case it would be sufficient for the {{Version}} template to add the page to the respective [[Version:X]] category. There is no general need for the info box then.
Furthermore I doubt the effort invested to produce this tracking data is worth it. When I look at https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/Category:1.5 it really tells me very little. Most of the pages listed there don't have an actual issue except the one artificially introduced by this tracking system.

I want to again underline that this is an issue of perception. The contributors perceive that their updating work gets devalued after each new patch because many readers perceive these versioning hints as casting doubt on the content. The chilling effect of this outweigh the factual tracking data that is collected.

@bitmode please correct me if I'm wrong but I think I understand the premise you wish the wikis to offer

Current system: This page is true for the version X, and may be true for Y onwards but this has not been verified
Your system: This page is true but it has not been edited since version X

I propose there is no system across all pages because it is not needed. A page does not need to state it were true nor does it need to imply the opposite. By default, the information on the page just exists. Individual page can of course show this information when it is pertinent. It just usually isn't.

 

[bitmode]

a major point which affects all PDX wikis

How does it affect other wikis?

It was discussed a couple of times and the issues with your suggestion have been pointed out to you.

And so were the issues with the status quo.

I am going to state it clearly -- unless there is a better solution to the versioning requirement the tags stay.

With the determination what the requirements are and which solution is better obviously being done by the moderators, not the community.