Hearts of Iron 4 Wiki

[Sir Garnet]

Good points, d'Axe.

Note, this is not a slight on Meneth or any of the other wiki contributors - to get the wiki up to the standard (and I'm not saying this is the standard it needs to be at) I'd want it at if I was responsible for it would be multiple weeks' work, and expecting that of a volunteer, however closely linked with Paradox, is inappropriate and unrealistic.

Volunteers however can be asked to do things beyond the call of duty for employees since that's the mission they volunteered for. Chances of success are poor of course if a scribe is airdropped in the jungle without a compass. However, success is likely if they have a expert local guide.

I've edited or rewritten and updated tabletop game and video game manuals and guides, and the crucial element is not the volunteer scribe but the person who is the data source - who describes in general or with specific details how the game works - or at least how the game is intended to work. This is a person able to explain and answer relevant questions. It certainly helps if the scribe has access to the game to confirm things, or better yet deep experience with it, but that is not enough - with a good data source, a decent manual could be written up without ever seeing the game.

For quality work the data source should be someone who can say "the way I coded it is . ." Better yet, the fanatics on the development team could take a few weekends to get organized and put the necessary info together.

I'm not laying any of this on Meneth - creating the wiki is not his job, and he is not the HOI4-dedicated expert data source we've been looking for.

 

[Gamengervi]

Totally agree with @Axe99.

I understand the thinking behind a fluid, evolving wiki as opposed to a manual that is outdated by v1.1 (if not before), but if you're going to go down that route then at the very least I'd have expected consistent developer involvement.

Hopefully this is something that gets sorted in 2017 -- if the idea is to adopt this system for all future Paradox games, it seems like a good idea for someone on the company payroll to be working on these things with some regularity.

I'm actually pretty positive that they want the community to be the ones to take care of the wiki specifically so they don't have to have someone on the company payroll spending their time working on it. From a business perspective, it's not necessarily a bad idea.

 

[Axe99]

I'm actually pretty positive that they want the community to be the ones to take care of the wiki specifically so they don't have to have someone on the company payroll spending their time working on it. From a business perspective, it's not necessarily a bad idea.

Aye, but it only works if this approach works. If it doesn't, it adds a layer of inaccessibility to games that are already on the inaccessible side. I think we've got a great community around Paradox's games, but right now if I was a new player, I'd be very wary of reading too much into anything on the wiki that wasn't updated, which would leave me fumbling in the dark in a game that's pretty complicated. I wouldn't be posting if I thought it was working, but the evidence (based on a quick scan of what is "up-to-date" and what isn't) suggests it's not, if the goal is to have an up-to-date source of key reference information for the game.

Not to take away from any of your or other contributors efforts to update it (which are tops ) - there's a _lot_ good on the wiki - but it's (hardly surprisingly, given the nature of how it's set up) somewhat inconsistent in coverage. Inconsistent is fine for players that can easily parse between 'up-to-date' and 'oh, I know this isn't current', but it's a whole 'nother story for new players, who I'd expect are the wiki's most important audience.

 

[TehHank]

Just wanted to say i'm new to contributing to this community wiki. Going to focus on documenting minor nations in game.

 

[egill]

Some country pages seem to have their strategy guide content severely cut back.

Has there been a policy change?

 

[Sir Garnet]

If there is a set of policies, I'd like to know the page where they can all be found. Searching the wiki for them does not turn them up, though there are style guidelines flagged repeatedly.

Why delete sections in their entirety? I was disturbed as well by such severe action and asked directly. Here are answers from a couple of people re country strategy content someone put up and was deleted in bulk by an editor who thought it proper to do so.

It's because the politics section is for a most part about the in-game relations between different nations rather than a giant paragraph of fluff that isn't helpful to the game. Most of the content if it were stay it would be modified and put into Historical Information."

If you think you can repair the out of date mess that existed on this page and the others then you can check the history of the page to see the original text. However after several years on these wikis by far the best way to get a strategy that follows the style guide is to remove the junk and start from scratch.

Fair point about putting things in the right sections, but the pages are not consistent either, itself part of the problem. There's probably a guide to the ideal country templates to use, and I thought that is why there are flags as to things to be done.

On the deletion issue, there is a huge difference between a "Needs work sign" and something that disappears with not a trace remaining because someone found it fatally deficient.

Before I comment, these are posted instructions one may find in going through the Wiki:

"A general reminder
1. Do not create pages with close to none-existent content ["frameworks"]. They create the impression that a page is a WiP and "will be filled soon enough" deterring users from working on that page.
2. Do not create pages with speculative or false content in the hopes that some other user might come along and fix it. Data on the wiki pages is mostly extracted from the game files and most users are either unaware of this or don't know their whereabouts.
3. Having pages with false content is more harmful than having no page at all. Pages such as these create frustration among the userbase and the notion that the wiki is not up to the task.
4. One can find many pages not adhering to wiki style are allowed as long as they contain information benefiting users.
5. The wiki team [for the most part] consists of volunteers so no more suggestions such as: get to work, and fix what you've done. You can even do it to your standards this time.~ SolSys (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2016 (CEST)"

"Style Guidelines
1. Use of you/your: Please change to third person
2. Use of slang/ internet speak: Please correct to full English sentences
3. Bad grammar/spelling: Please correct it
4. Prescriptive instructions: Make more generic
5. Absence of links: Links missing or replaced by bold or italics which do not function
6. Poor sectioning: Article should be broken up into easy to understand sections
7. Version specific strategy: Update to fit current version or delete
8. Messages to editors left in page, remove"

My comment on a very large deletion of strategy/tips info that looked like it did need work.

"China is a country with more convoluted politics than most. You deleted the China page politics section rather than revising or replacing it with something you find more pertinent and informative, unless there is a more detailed explanation somewhere. Just purging something that does some good is a dramatic step when it might be rehabilitated. I believe you can place a comment which should be discoverable by viewing the page or page history.
What was there is interesting to readers if correct, particularly those without historical background on China. So it is net useful. Obviously you are using "fluff" as a pejorative and not technical term, for all historical info in a game manual can be regarded as fluff. If you know enough to identify inaccuracies, you know enough to change them."
[To be fair, one may know something is wrong but not be able to find the answer in a minute's search. The Talk Page I understand is where comments can be made about what needs to be done on a page]

"There is a great gap between being "edited mercilessly" to improve the wiki content and it being eliminated, so in the interest of the readers who are the beneficiaries of this wiki it ought not to be done in a cavalier manner but instead with due deliberation." This is very discouraging to prospective contributors and to users who can't find something that has disappeared.

And I add here that having something simply disappear in its entirety is not likely to encourage page visitors to search for it and revise it.

Having messages to potential editors about things that need to be fixed is useful, and even more so where a large deletion has been made of material that is too inaccurate to be left in the page to harm visitors. Notes to editors are an essential part of an editing system.

 

[Dauth]

The style guide is linked to from the front page of any of the PDX wikis. I've also included a link below for those who haven't found it yet.

http://www.hoi4wiki.com/Hearts_of_Iron_4_Wiki:Style

In addition there is a specific guide for strategy pages

http://www.hoi4wiki.com/Hearts_of_Iron_4_Wiki:Style/Country

I cleared out a large number of strategy guides for outdated versions of the game. This is not a change of policy, this is something we've been doing for years. In particular I removed strategies which were both outdated and not following the style guide. The reasoning is that it is much easier to update a strategy guide when it follows the style guide and has appropriate versioning templates.

A stream of instructions is not a strategy guide as the variability of the game is completely missed by this method. This is something directly touched upon in the style guide.

Paradox games allow for limitless possibilities.

• Correct: The Ottomans have multiple options for engaging in Eastern Europe. One strategy is to...
• Incorrect: The best way for the Ottomans to engage in Eastern Europe is to start with Hungary...

The content has not disappeared, every page has a history tab that you can select to see older versions of the page. As to the comment of notes to the editors a number of the pages had notes for 6 months and had not been fixed.

 

[SolSys]

... content ...

It's necessary to point out that you're quoting comments made by several users from different time points on different discussion topics [related, but still different]. Stamping them correctly might help avoid potential confusion.

As been pointed out by @Dauth in the post above me, strategy guides get removed if they are outdated and not following the style guide - they are removed at start only if severely not up to style.

I'd also like to take this opportunity and encourage users to experiment with major content editing in their userpage till the final revision is satisfactory before moving them to public spaces.

 

[Axe99]

I'd also like to take this opportunity and encourage users to experiment with major content editing in their userpage till the final revision is satisfactory before moving them to public spaces.

A guide as to how to do this'd be handy, I've spent about half an hour on the wiki today trying to think of where to start, and it's like looking at a big unwieldy monster. Being able to draft things on the wiki would be nice (beyond the preview view), and it's definitely not intuitive (at least to someone as thick as me ) that this is the case.

The list of jobs required is a tad confusing as well. I swung by the naval warfare page, and it says it wants more info on naval combat when there's already nearly 3000 words in the naval combat section, and a detailed blow-by-blow of a combat. There could be value in adding a little section on naval combat results highlighting the results details page, but is this what the editors mean (@Meneth ?) by their 'want more detail on naval combat?' comment? I could provide a detailed breakdown of how naval armour and penetration works in the game, but this might be overly dry or detailed, and spending the time to write it up to have it cut would be a bit silly (I'm not looking for things to do - I'm trying to help)

The page also wants more info on naval missions, but unless I'm having a brain fade I can't think of anything else I'd put there. Giving them a read, there's one place where I'd tighten the language a little for readability, but I can't think of anything I'd add there.

The other thing that's requested of the page is 'links' which is also a tad vague. Links to what? Should I be going thoroughly through the wiki, mapping out where things are mentioned and making sure they're all linked? Is it something else? Again, lots of potential for me to spend serious effort doing something that's not wanted.

Looking at the page, the only things I'm confident in doing would be to refine some of the language and add some info on the detailed naval combat results page.

As always, not trying to cause trouble (I'd prefer to use my free capacity modding, so if I'm being counter-productive tell me to leave you alone and I'll focus on modding instead - I'm just trying to help out if there's stuff needed, but very reluctant to spend serious effort doing something that's going to end up in the bin).

 

[SolSys]

A guide as to how to do this'd be handy, I've spent about half an hour on the wiki today trying to think of where to start, and it's like looking at a big unwieldy monster. Being able to draft things on the wiki would be nice (beyond the preview view), and it's definitely not intuitive.

I'll try to add a guide to the wiki later. For now:

1. Click on your username [first option above the search box].
2. On the opened page click create/edit.
3. Copy-paste the desired article to edit.
4. Revise to your hearts content.
5. Copy-paste the final revision to the target article.

For more uesrpages to work on click on the address bar in the browser and add "/Sandbox" or "/Test" for clarity purposes [and then steps 2-5 again].

The other thing that's requested of the page is 'links' which is also a tad vague. Links to what? Should I be going thoroughly through the wiki, mapping out where things are mentioned and making sure they're all linked? Is it something else?

This means that if you create a new article make sure it is linked from other related articles as well - so it won't be "orphaned" and unreachable to users.

I swung by the naval warfare page, and it says it wants more info on naval combat when there's already nearly 3000 words in the naval combat section...

The naval page got revised during the previous month and might only require some simple copy-editing to make sure nothing is missing. If you have some "math" on how mechanics work it could always be useful.

If you're unsure of adding something you can post a comment on the article's talk page and someone will get back to you [when possible].


Edit: I created a test page for you as an example on your userpage. If you have no need for it leave a "delete" tag and I'll take care of it later.

 

[Meneth]

The list of jobs required is a tad confusing as well. I swung by the naval warfare page, and it says it wants more info on naval combat when there's already nearly 3000 words in the naval combat section, and a detailed blow-by-blow of a combat. There could be value in adding a little section on naval combat results highlighting the results details page, but is this what the editors mean (@Meneth ?) by their 'want more detail on naval combat?' comment? I could provide a detailed breakdown of how naval armour and penetration works in the game, but this might be overly dry or detailed, and spending the time to write it up to have it cut would be a bit silly (I'm not looking for things to do - I'm trying to help)

The list of work needed is often a bit outdated, as people usually don't remove stuff from it when they complete a task, if they even know it was a task to begin with.

Such a breakdown sounds like it'd likely be useful.

 

[Sir Garnet]

Thank you for your response and additional information.

It's necessary to point out that you're quoting comments made by several users from different time points on different discussion topics [related, but still different]. Stamping them correctly might help avoid potential confusion.

It was to avoid confusion. It was the customary courtesy of omitting names as it was as not directed at the authors or the particular context but apt for the general issue and was quoted as it was not written by me.

I have been told that there is no directory, index, or similar way of being actually able to read through the wiki cover to cover, so to speak, as one might in a manual or a website with a full site map - one must just keep clicking every link until stumbling on unexpected content. Is this true? Or is there some method for reading through and getting the full benefit of the wiki in an orderly progression?

Another more minor point is that I have assumed that typographical errors in the game text quoted in the wiki should be left intact for accuracy so long as they don't distort the meaning or raise confusion, but that a bug report (or maybe it is a suggestion) could be filed.

 

[Meneth]

I have been told that there is no directory, index, or similar way of being actually able to read through the wiki cover to cover, so to speak, as one might in a manual or a website with a full site map - one must just keep clicking every link until stumbling on unexpected content. Is this true? Or is there some method for reading through and getting the full benefit of the wiki in an orderly progression?

There's an alphabetical index: http://www.hoi4wiki.com/Special:AllPages

 

[SolSys]

It was to avoid confusion. It was the customary courtesy of omitting names as it was as not directed at the authors or the particular context but apt for the general issue and was quoted as it was not written by me.

Perfectly understandable; though I meant that some of the quotes belonged to wiki staff and others to general editors.

I have been told that there is no directory, index, or similar way of being actually able to read through the wiki cover to cover, so to speak, as one might in a manual or a website with a full site map - one must just keep clicking every link until stumbling on unexpected content. Is this true? Or is there some method for reading through and getting the full benefit of the wiki in an orderly progression?

Not exactly from cover to cover, but you can use the following:
http://www.hoi4wiki.com/Special:AllPages [also contains redirects]
http://www.hoi4wiki.com/Special:Categories [stick to the version categories for written content]

Another more minor point is that I have assumed that typographical errors in the game text quoted in the wiki should be left intact for accuracy so long as they don't distort the meaning or raise confusion, but that a bug report (or maybe it is a suggestion) could be filed.

I assume you mean the various flavor text incorporated from the game files [as in events and others]. They are almost always left intact unless a clear typo [note: PDX uses US English]. If you notice a mistake which is also present in the game files [i.e. not made by an wiki editor] you're more than encouraged to file a bug report and help better the game**.


**this is also true for any other scripting errors or strange inconsistencies that you may find within the game files.

 

[Axe99]

I'll try to add a guide to the wiki later. For now:

1. Click on your username [first option above the search box].
2. On the opened page click create/edit.
3. Copy-paste the desired article to edit.
4. Revise to your hearts content.
5. Copy-paste the final revision to the target article.

For more uesrpages to work on click on the address bar in the browser and add "/Sandbox" or "/Test" for clarity purposes [and then steps 2-5 again].

This means that if you create a new article make sure it is linked from other related articles as well - so it won't be "orphaned" and unreachable to users.

The naval page got revised during the previous month and might only require some simple copy-editing to make sure nothing is missing. If you have some "math" on how mechanics work it could always be useful.

If you're unsure of adding something you can post a comment on the article's talk page and someone will get back to you [when possible].

Edit: I created a test page for you as an example on your userpage. If you have no need for it leave a "delete" tag and I'll take care of it later.

The list of work needed is often a bit outdated, as people usually don't remove stuff from it when they complete a task, if they even know it was a task to begin with.

Such a breakdown sounds like it'd likely be useful.

Thank you both very much for your replies (and particularly the guide on the 'how to do a test page, but the other info as well), very helpful . What I'm planning to do is update bits and pieces each time I finish a significant stage of the mod (in this case, the OOBs and variant events for a major nation navy), so will alternate it with that. I mulled over the naval side of things last night, and thought that a 'more details on naval combat' list of dot points would probably be the way to go with details - that way things like carrier aircraft efficiency, armour equation, torpedo distance for surface ships and what-have-you can be added there easily by people without it affecting the structure of the page more broadly. If you don't like it, feel free to kill it with fire .

 

[Axe99]

Just a heads up @Meneth - I'm trying to load up a new version of a picture to replace the one I initially loaded up (on a test page, so there's no urgency to this), and it's acting all kinds of funky. The file that displays on the test page now has the dimensions of the newly uploaded file, but retains the image (warped to suit the new dimensions) of the original file. All kinds of weird. File and history is here.

Edit: To add to the oddness, when I changed the picture display settings from a frame to a thumbnail, it updated them (so the good news is it's working as I intended now).

 

[Sir Garnet]

How do I do a wiki word search of a word without a redirect applying? Someone asked in the forum for a detailed description of how to use subject troop recruitment. I recall editing something more detailed than the reference on the Puppet page under advantages of puppets. The search bar does not offer options a search appears to dead-end at Puppets. Thanks.

 

[Meneth]

How do I do a wiki word search of a word without a redirect applying? Someone asked in the forum for a detailed description of how to use subject troop recruitment. I recall editing something more detailed than the reference on the Puppet page under advantages of puppets. The search bar does not offer options a search appears to dead-end at Puppets. Thanks.

Search for something that doesn't exist, then use the resulting search bar near the middle of the screen; that one won't redirect.

 

[Lillebror]

Or use the the search spezial page directly.

 

[Sir Garnet]

Very nice. Thanks.