Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Hearts of Iron 4 Wiki

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Hearts of Iron IV 45531 Bug Reports 15230 After Action Reports (AAR)
Show only dev responses
As a response to the comments here we've also updated the Add template to have a link to the style guide. When its called by strategy pages it will also link to the country style page. I'll be pushing this out over the next few days and will also add it into the other wikis on the network.

Thanks for the constructive feedback everyone.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Finished another section of my mod, so went to the naval warfare page to keep plugging away at it, and found the bit at the top had changed to:

This article or section does not follow the wiki's style guidelines and may need to be rewritten in part or entirely.
Please help us improve this article.

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it with: Explain abbr., reword in accordance with styleguide.
Click to expand...

For an article that's 3000+ words, a general statement at the top saying "it doesn't follow guidelines, please help us improve it" isn't terribly useful. If the mods going through the wikis see something that needs to be fixed, it would be really helpful if they could specify what needs to be fixed (just a section - narrowing it down to a few hundred words helps a heap). I'm not going to parse 3000 words trying to second-guess what a mod wants changed - I'd be pretty irritated if I was being paid to do it and got directions that were that useless - there's clearly not enough volunteer-hours available to keep the wiki in a good state now, without wasting people's time like that (both volunteer's and mods, as directions like that are unlikely to get the results you're looking for, leading to more mod time wasted as well).

I also noticed that when I first started working on the naval warfare page, it was tagged as being updated to 1.3.1 (ie, before any changes I made). Since then, however, it's been 'downgraded' to 1.1. What's going on here? I definitely didn't add anything that would have shifted it back to 1.1. The notification I got suggested it may have been @Dauth that changed things, but I'm not entirely sure how all that works.

Anyways, as always, I'm happy to help, and am trying to as best I can, but the more I have to do with the wiki, the more I feel it's a terrible way of trying to achieve what it's trying to do. I don't use the wiki for my own personal 'how to' notes - it's far, far easier to keep off-wiki documentation and refer to them (indeed, it's relatively painful to just transfer information from my off-site notes onto the wiki in a way that's appropriate). I'll keep adding bits and editing for consistency with the style guide as best I can in-between modding, but while the wikis would be great as an unofficial enthusiast site, as the official manual for the game, they leave more than a little to be desired, and even if I won the lottery and could work on them as much as I'd like, instead of an hour or two a month, it would take me months before I would consider them in an adequate state.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Axe99 said:
For an article that's 3000+ words, a general statement at the top saying "it doesn't follow guidelines, please help us improve it" isn't terribly useful. If the mods going through the wikis see something that needs to be fixed, it would be really helpful if they could specify what needs to be fixed (just a section - narrowing it down to a few hundred words helps a heap).
Click to expand...
It would seem that request was added by an anon user and later moved to the top by another - it originally was in the Strategy Fleet Composition section.
If a request been added by a mod it would be relating to the latest change in the page and/or list specifics in the article's talk page.

I also noticed that when I first started working on the naval warfare page, it was tagged as being updated to 1.3.1 (ie, before any changes I made). Since then, however, it's been 'downgraded' to 1.1. What's going on here? I definitely didn't add anything that would have shifted it back to 1.1.
Click to expand...
Only major version are used in versioning tags. A Version tag [article version] is set to the lowest SVersion tag [section version] on the page - this has been noted in the edit summary itself.

Your efforts and contributions to the wiki are appreciated; Thanks :sadly_there_is_no_thumbs_up_icon:
 
  • 1
Reactions:
My efforts so far haven't been much, and have born far less fruit than the actual text in the wiki would suggest, but hopefully I'm slowly getting the hang of it. Unless someone else comes along who wants to do it, I'm hoping to get on top of and maintain the naval warfare and units pages, but I'm notoriously slow, and want to maintain my modding as well.

SolSys said:
It would seem that request was added by an anon user and later moved to the top by another - it originally was in the Strategy Fleet Composition section.
If a request been added by a mod it would be relating to the latest change in the page and/or list specifics in the article's talk page.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much for this :) I've got a word doco with a list of things to do, and I'll put this there for my next wiki session. Glad to hear a mod would provide clearer directions.

SolSys said:
Only major version are used in versioning tags. A Version tag [article version] is set to the lowest SVersion tag [section version] on the page - this been noted in the edit summary itself.
Click to expand...

Sorry for missing this. I'm still getting the hang of reading the edits (I'm pretty clueless at the moment). Good to know :).
 
Axe99 said:
Sorry for missing this.
Click to expand...
No need to be sorry; it's not as if you're being paid to do this :p
My general expectation of volunteers is that they don't make the wikis worse, and that they follow recommendations from the mods when they're given them.

You're going above and beyond by asking what the right way to do things is :p

Like SolSys says, we appreciate your contribution.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Meneth said:
My general expectation of volunteers is that they don't make the wikis worse, and that they follow recommendations from the mods when they're given them.
Click to expand...

Hahaha, now this is a bar for performance I can live with :). That said, I am hoping to try and make the little patch I'm working on better!

I appreciate the kind words. Sorry to you and @SolSys for sounding a bit grumpy when I was grumbling about the vague directions at the top of the page.

Going forward, is there value in looking at a different angle for engaging wiki volunteers than a 'quick dash and its done' competition? My feeling (and you'd be far more on top of this than me, so ignore if it doesn't sound useful) is that the wiki would be better looked after if they had someone who looked after specific pages, so a naval expert, an air expert, land warfare, production, etc, who'd be able to update them each patch/DLC, refine them over time and what-have-you. You could then provide rewards to people who did this for 6-12 months (or whatever time period seemed sensible), and then perhaps bonus rewards for people who hung around longer. Note - I'm not fishing for rewards here (you'd probably need to have people minding more than a page or two to be eligible in the first place), just trying to think of ways to get a better result in terms of content breadth, depth and currency.
 
Axe99 said:
Going forward, is there value in looking at a different angle for engaging wiki volunteers than a 'quick dash and its done' competition? My feeling (and you'd be far more on top of this than me, so ignore if it doesn't sound useful) is that the wiki would be better looked after if they had someone who looked after specific pages, so a naval expert, an air expert, land warfare, production, etc, who'd be able to update them each patch/DLC, refine them over time and what-have-you. You could then provide rewards to people who did this for 6-12 months (or whatever time period seemed sensible), and then perhaps bonus rewards for people who hung around longer. Note - I'm not fishing for rewards here (you'd probably need to have people minding more than a page or two to be eligible in the first place), just trying to think of ways to get a better result in terms of content breadth, depth and currency.
Click to expand...
That kind of user is obviously very useful (we've got a number of them as mods and half-ops), but it is a difficult type of behavior to encourage.

Users who go significantly above and beyond are rewarded, but it is very much an informal mechanism. As an example, note SolSys' avatar and wiki icon; those are one of the rewards.
Making it a formal long-term mechanism would incur all the difficulties of defining what's good or not; that's much easier to do on a short-term scale like we do for the contests.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Meneth said:
That kind of user is obviously very useful (we've got a number of them as mods and half-ops), but it is a difficult type of behavior to encourage.

Users who go significantly above and beyond are rewarded, but it is very much an informal mechanism. As an example, note SolSys' avatar and wiki icon; those are one of the rewards.
Making it a formal long-term mechanism would incur all the difficulties of defining what's good or not; that's much easier to do on a short-term scale like we do for the contests.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're right - I was thinking later that it'd be tough trying to administer it all. That's why you're running the wiki :).
 
I thought doing a service back to the community who has helped me a lot in getting up to speed with HOI4 and filled the Political Parties and Leaders tables in the wiki. I did it from the game itself, not from code or so, so the releasable nations that do not exist at the 1936 start are not done yet.

Changes made to the table

Also added the hotkeys for the Air section that was desired:

Changes to the Hotkeys page

Spotted a possible typo in the name of 1 of the leaders; the Fascist leader of Saudi Arabia is named Uthman ibm Kamil in the game, but shouldn't that be "ibn" (son of)?
Also spotted; the party popularity percentages of the dominions of the UK, New Zealand and South Africa do not add up to 100% exactly. It's a minor thing, but still.
 
That is a kind thing to do. Please do check the style guide as to how to present it., You are thorough so I would expect no difficulty. My pastime is going through correcting "you" and polishing up text.

I have assumed that the Panam border is passable since otherwise it would be too hard to move between the two countries since a naval invasion is a big deal. I have no idea in game.
 
Sir Garnet said:
That is a kind thing to do. Please do check the style guide as to how to present it., You are thorough so I would expect no difficulty. My pastime is going through correcting "you" and polishing up text.

I have assumed that the Panam border is passable since otherwise it would be too hard to move between the two countries since a naval invasion is a big deal. I have no idea in game.
Click to expand...
Yes, the border between Colombia and Panama is passable in the game, even with tanks. In reality it is not. ;)

But to get to the northern/western part of Panama, the country split into two because of the US occupied Panama Canal in the middle, you need a Naval Invasion or paratroopers. Or in case you stay Democratic and join the US you have military access, but then Panama should be made Fascist or Communist with boost party popularity (+ coup).
 
Last edited:
I would love to contribute to the wiki. Hearts of IRon 4 is a great strategy game.

Besides that, there is always the possibility that history has been rewritten! "As the Germans attempt to reassert their control of their rightful territory, the war mongering French and British attack the Germans. In a matter of weeks, the Germans, with God on their side, steamroll the weak French militia who dare challenge their claims to their homeland."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back