Difference between revisions of "Template talk:Stats Table Cargo"

Latest revision as of 13:33, 3 March 2015

Roman numerals and tank comparison

1. what the f*ck is that ii and iii? Is there any life form over Brendan use it instead of the common Mk2 and Mk3 or knows what sh*t it is? (s1, small... derives from game)
2. The Jumbo is 7,5m tall, and not 10m! That is the reason, why those tanks were not noted!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NWM (talk • contribs) 02:35, 1 March 2015‎ (UTC)

Woho, calm down. First of all Brendan added it here and here to the template. I'm not sure what your problem is with it. Before they added the Roman numerals, I had added that the numbers (and not names) should be used preferably so that it's easy to rename the sizes. I guess they wanted to follow the same scheme. And considering that the old Mk* and new Mk* are quite different I'd say it would have been important if the old parts weren't removed (because then you'd have old Mk* and new Mk*).

I can't really do the measurement for your second complaint but I think (unless we start adding the part's height) that those tanks could help as a guideline. And especially for the Mk2 parts they were a relatively close fit to the noted tanks. (I'll query Brendan to make them aware) — xZise [talk] 10:52, 1 March 2015 (CST)

By the way sign your posts and use the “Add topic” feature. — xZise [talk] 10:54, 1 March 2015 (CST)

Don't tell me about the number of the sizes. I had offered you, as it was foreseen with the arrival of the 3.75m parts, the "small" and "large" loose their meaning. Now, it is replaced with "1.25m" and "2.5m" in official naming of part. The Mk* naming seems stable. The motivation of "ii" is same as replacement of  -s with spaces. And the sense is same too. NWM (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2015 (CST)

I don't understand why is the motivation behind “ii” the same as replacing   with spaces. Because who replaces non-breaking spaces with normal spaces, and both have a different meaning. Also those spaces aren't automatically converted into a “human readable” format like “ii” is. (And please watch how you write stuff “don't tell me…” sound aggressive and as I don't remember all discussions I had with others I feel a bit offended.) — xZise [talk] 04:12, 2 March 2015 (CST)

Tone aside, I think NWM is just passionate about quality and consistency of the wiki. I am too, and that puts us both in the guts of these templates and looking at broad-ranging formatting, sometimes with different ideas on the best solution.

The tank sizes come from the product descriptions, so I assume the devs meant them to be indicators of capacity. NWM feels they're flawed, I think by being two short in the Mk3 cargo bays. Not sure, but a picture would be the best start.

I actually agree with NWM about ditching "tiny, small" etc.; they're terrible names, and arbitrary to just this wiki. As for following the guideline I read in the template about using numbers, I used roman numerals since, obviously, the arabic numerals were taken. But it also allows mk2 to return "Mk2", or just write Mk2. Only MK2 would be "bad", though it would still show up. I suggest having a full conversation in the Radial template talk page. --Brendan (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2015 (CST)

Regarding the tone: Problem is that this transfers to others. When I'm answering to something like the first I really have to hold me back, but maybe it's just me.

Now I'm not sure about another picture in the table, as it would be relatively small (the thumbnails here are 60x60 px) so you might not see the difference. Of course an image in the part page would be fine. I'd prefer in this table if it was qualified how well the tank fit (barely or with a lot of space?) especially considering the width in the Mk2 parts. I think they help visualize how large the cargo bays are by having a sensible comparison.

By the way the discussion about the radial size is now in the radial size talk. — xZise [talk] 07:33, 3 March 2015 (CST)