Hearts of Iron 4 Wiki

[Simon_9732495]

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.

I agree.
If the wiki is wrong on some aspects that is not good but that happens. People will point at it and it will be corrected.

But if "this might be an older version", "this might be outdated", "this might need veryfication", "please help updating this" messages are all over the wiki, this undermines it's credibility and makes - what exactly - better?


But I understand now, that advantages and disadvantages can be discussed, but the system will not change soon.
That is an answer to my question. Thank you for that.


With a better understanding for the system I have another 2 questions:

1. Do you agree that having all these "outdated" messages around the wiki is bad for the credibility of the wiki? (If the opinion of the admins and moderators is, that they are not a problem, I will try to ignore them and forget the topic.)
2. If the answer to the first question is "Yes":
   • Is it ok, if I set {{SVersion|1.9}} at sections, where I, as somewhat experienced player, have a feeling that they might be still correct?
   • Or do you want me to NOT touch the SVersion tags unless I'm 100% sure.

 

[Dauth]

You are more than welcome to change SVersion tags to 1.9 if you're confident that the content is up to date. We fully encourage that.

 

[Mister Analyst]

@SolSys & @Dauth ,

There have been numerous times where I have verified all sections of a page except one (do not have the requisite DLC or do not possess the tools to explore the inner workings of the game or do not possess the necessary math skills or do not have the editing skills, etc.). Therefore, the whole page is considered outdated even though I have confirmed the remaining sections. This can be frustrating and can discourage volunteers and most likely leads to duplication of effort.

A reasonable solution exists. Common ground can and should be found to address this situation.

Here is a simple proposal.

There should be 2 distinctly formatted S-Versioning tags (see bulleted items). When a person verifies a section within a page, then that section can be up-versioned. When all sections have been up-versioned, then the page can also be up-versioned.

• One normal size unique format tag, with S-Versioning embedded, for the top of every page ("page verification tag").
• One smaller size unique format tag, with S-Versioning embedded, for each individual section within a page ("section verification tag").

You, and others, are encouraged to propose a better solution. Ultimately a solution should be found. Perhaps the chosen solution may be ground breaking and could be rolled out to the other wikis.

 

[SolSys]

Here is a simple proposal.

There should be 2 distinctly formatted S-Versioning tags (see bulleted items). When a person verifies a section within a page, then that section can be up-versioned. When all sections have been up-versioned, then the page can also be up-versioned.

• One normal size unique format tag, with S-Versioning embedded, for the top of every page ("page verification tag").
• One smaller size unique format tag, with S-Versioning embedded, for each individual section within a page ("section verification tag").

I am not sure I understand. This sounds like the current system.
Are you suggesting changing the format of the tags, i.e. the looks of it?

 

[Simon_9732495]

You are more than welcome to change SVersion tags to 1.9 if you're confident that the content is up to date. We fully encourage that.

Also Version tags?

For example this page: https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/Research

I checked all sections and upgraded SVersion to 1.9 everywhere. Can i set {{Version|1.9}} for the article now?

 

[Dauth]

@Simon_9732495 yes. The only rule for the Version tag is that it matches the oldest SVersion on the page.

 

[Dauth]

@Mister Analyst I'm all ears for a new approach. We are limited by the mediawiki software and also our skills to implement it.

I'm hoping to cut down on update time using scripts which will remove a lot of the update pressure. Ideally scripts for all events/decisions/massive tables. I've said before strategy guides are a lost cause which then only leaves the mechanics pages requiring manual intervention.

 

[Mister Analyst]

Are you suggesting changing the format of the tags, i.e. the looks of it?

Yes.

• The current look (format) of the tag at the top of the page would remain the same. The S-Versioning would not change. The "outdated version" tracking for wiki admins and volunteers would not change.
• A special look (format) of a tag placed in each section of a page would be new. The S-Versioning would be embedded into these "new" special look formatted tags. These "new" tags would not be tracked by the admins, but would be a flag for both wiki viewers and wiki volunteers to know the verification status of each section. After verifying a section, a wiki volunteer can edit the version accordingly.

 

[SolSys]

Yes.

• The current look (format) of the tag at the top of the page would remain the same. The S-Versioning would not change. The "outdated version" tracking for wiki admins and volunteers would not change.
• A special look (format) of a tag placed in each section of a page would be new. The S-Versioning would be embedded into these "new" special look formatted tags. These "new" tags would not be tracked by the admins, but would be a flag for both wiki viewers and wiki volunteers to know the verification status of each section. After verifying a section, a wiki volunteer can edit the version accordingly.

We thought it would be preferred by users if SVersion tags didn't take the focus from the sections, hence their "subtle" version notice. The tags can be styled in another way if it is helpful.

I'm still not entirely clear on what you mean, but If you have something in mind you can prepare an example on your sandbox.

 

[Mister Analyst]

We thought it would be preferred by users if SVersion tags didn't take the focus from the sections, hence their "subtle" version notice. The tags can be styled in another way if it is helpful.

I'm still not entirely clear on what you mean, but If you have something in mind you can prepare an example on your sandbox.

It appears as though the page Versioning template is currently in use, but that the section S-Versioning is not currently in use. Evidence that this is the case can be seen by viewing any "outdated" page. For example Land warfare is currently at version 1.7 per the Versioning template at the top of the page and yet there are no "warnings" that would indicate that any of the sections are outdated. Either the S-Versioning templates are no longer in use or the S-versioning templates are all at version 1.9 and remain hidden, therefore, the page Version template should be revised from 1.7 to 1.9.

The wiki versioning states below:

The wiki uses a versioning system to facilitate keeping pages up to date, and to warn readers of info that may be obsolete.

Every regular page on the wiki has a version number associated with it, indicated using the {{version}} template. This version number tells the readers and editors for what version the page as a whole was last verified. Any editor can update this if they've verified that all information on the page is up to date.

In addition, most pages include a version number for each section, indicated using the {{SVersion}} template. Like the overall version number, this tells the readers and editors for what version the section was last verified. If the version is the latest, this version number is hidden, but if it isn't then a warning appears at the top of the section. Any editor can update this if they've verified that all information in the section is up to date.

Once every section of a page that is versioned by section is up to date, then the page as a whole should be marked as up to date.

Either these "subtle" version notices do not exist or they need to be reformatted as they are too small for me to see.

 

[Simon_9732495]

It appears as though the page Versioning template is currently in use, but that the section S-Versioning is not currently in use. Evidence that this is the case can be seen by viewing any "outdated" page. For example Land warfare is currently at version 1.7 per the Versioning template at the top of the page and yet there are no "warnings" that would indicate that any of the sections are outdated.

Hm?
The article itself has version 1.7. -> There's a warning.
Theater has SVersion 1.9 -> No warning visible
Command group has SVersion 1.8 -> Warning visible
Border Conflict -> SVersion missing
Naval transport SVersion 1.9 -> No warning visible
Statistics -> SVersion missing
Battle -> SVersion missing

I don't get your point...

 

[SolSys]

It appears as though the page Versioning template is currently in use, but that the section S-Versioning is not currently in use. Evidence that this is the case can be seen by viewing any "outdated" page. For example Land warfare is currently at version 1.7 per the Versioning template at the top of the page and yet there are no "warnings" that would indicate that any of the sections are outdated. Either the S-Versioning templates are no longer in use or the S-versioning templates are all at version 1.9 and remain hidden, therefore, the page Version template should be revised from 1.7 to 1.9.


Either these "subtle" version notices do not exist or they need to be reformatted as they are too small for me to see.

Hm?
The article itself has version 1.7. -> There's a warning.
Theater has SVersion 1.9 -> No warning visible
Command group has SVersion 1.8 -> Warning visible
Border Conflict -> SVersion missing
Naval transport SVersion 1.9 -> No warning visible
Statistics -> SVersion missing
Battle -> SVersion missing

I don't get your point...

That page should state version 1.9 (now updated).
As a general rule, sections which basically refer to main articles (as opposed to "see also") do not require a version tag as they are introductory in nature and as such should not contain information that is subject to change.

 

[Mister Analyst]

That page should state version 1.9 (now updated).
As a general rule, sections which basically refer to main articles (as opposed to "see also") do not require a version tag as they are introductory in nature and as such should not contain information that is subject to change.

Thank you for updating the versioning and for the information.

As a side note, some people experience difficulty in seeing the "subtle" S-Versioning tags due to poor eyesight. A 27 inch widescreen monitor coupled with zoom controls helps a lot, but smaller things are still easy to miss.

 

[Simon_9732495]

The article "Beginners guide" https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/Beginner's_guide has a section "The interface" that is basically the article "User interface" https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/User_interface with a lot of differences.

If I understand correct, the article "Beginners guide" should contain the information and not only have a link to it, right? So just linking and removing the part from "Beginners guide" is not an option.

But the double content has the problem that it's hard to maintain, because often only 1 part gets edited.

So my question is:
Is it ok to merge the Section "The interface" with the article "User interface" and then link the sections with {{#lsth:User interface|...}} ?

Or is it better to merge and then copy everything to the other article? (Keeping double content)

 

[Simon_9732495]

The article "Beginners guide" https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/Beginner's_guide has a section "The interface" that is basically the article "User interface" https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/User_interface with a lot of differences.

If I understand correct, the article "Beginners guide" should contain the information and not only have a link to it, right? So just linking and removing the part from "Beginners guide" is not an option.

But the double content has the problem that it's hard to maintain, because often only 1 part gets edited.

So my question is:
Is it ok to merge the Section "The interface" with the article "User interface" and then link the sections with {{#lsth:User interface|...}} ?

Or is it better to merge and then copy everything to the other article? (Keeping double content)

Can someone answer this?

 

[Dauth]

I think that sounds like an excellent suggestion. We're big fans of transcluding information to prevent duplication.

 

[Emren]

Wow, I just discovered that the French wiki on Naval Tech is far more informative than the English version:

Database error - Hearts of Iron 4 FR Wiki

hoi4-fr.paradoxwikis.com

Naval technology - Hearts of Iron 4 Wiki

hoi4.paradoxwikis.com

 

[Mousetick]

Wow, I just discovered that the French wiki on Naval Tech is far more informative than the English version:

I just had a cursory look and didn't read every single detail. It may appear that way, while in fact it doesn't have more content than the English version. It may give you a false impression to be more complete because:
- The ship stats are presented inline inside the tables, while the English version links to them on separate pages. The latter is better IMHO, the French version makes some table cells too high and too narrow, the formatting is pretty bad.
- The French language uses far more words than English in an average sentence

 

[Emren]

I just had a cursory look and didn't read every single detail. It may appear that way, while in fact it doesn't have more content than the English version. It may give you a false impression to be more complete because:
- The ship stats are presented inline inside the tables, while the English version links to them on separate pages. The latter is better IMHO, the French version makes some table cells too high and too narrow, the formatting is pretty bad.
- The French language uses far more words than English in an average sentence

All the MTG techs are also listed, incl. their effects, which is not the case for the English version.

 

[Mousetick]

All the MTG techs are also listed, incl. their effects, which is not the case for the English version.

Ooops. You're absolutely right, my bad. I stand corrected.