FANDOM

WelcomeEdit

Hi, welcome to Company of Heroes Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the 88mm Flak 36 page.

Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Nukedz (Talk) 01:17, October 21, 2010

Greetings,
I would like to thank you for cleaning up the unused categories in most of your edits. But it concerns me that the edits are mere changes in links and additions of spaces. Would it be possible that we can expand on this?

Regards,

Nukedz 15:27, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

P.S.

It occurs to me that you are using the old layout of this wiki. If in any case that you are using the old version, please go to the upper-right corner of the page, click preferences, and change the skin on the "skin tab" Hope that helps :) Nukedz 15:27, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Unit costs Edit

Do you know if the unit costs for units any different from singleplayer than for multiplayer?

I recall the Sherman Crocodile costing 110 fuel in multiplayer.

99.108.124.197 13:29, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is some changes between single/multiplayer modes. And there is a LOT of changes between vCoH and COHO. Currently I dont have a list of those changes, gotta search forums... --Bachinchi 13:49, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Layout Edit

Greetings,

I'm sorry but I'm afraid I cannot do that. The former admin, now a bureaucrat, Attack Rhino and I have agreed on this layout. I will not abide to change it. It is a part of the new wikis and we already made plans to improve on this new design. Please abide to this, as it has been agreed by the admins. :)

Regards,

Nukedz 16:11, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Nukedz is correct, and Wikia Central is going to be enforcing this layout policy.† We will like your opinions on the current design and colour schemes, and how things could be changed for better, like the background colour and whatnot else.
We do not know exactly what Wikia plans in the next few months, especially about the New Look, where it will be going and how it will change, especially administration and design customisation.
Regards,
Attack Rhino (Talk - Contributions) 15:05, October 22, 2010 (UTC)
†If you want more information on the New Look, go to our Main page, there are links there.


It is not about the layout of the page, it is about the theme and colour design; that stuff…
Attack Rhino (Talk - Contributions) 08:47, October 24, 2010 (UTC)


How do you think we should change the colour and theme design? I do not like the change I have made to the background colour, as it is harder for me to read things, especially the logs; like the Recent Changes log. What do you think?
Attack Rhino (Talk - Contributions) 07:55, November 5, 2010 (UTC)


I like the new layout and design of the main page teplate. I also like very much what you have done with the background colour, great work. Maybe it is me, but I cannot see any difference between the wiki links. Generally good changes though, and I think that it would be a good idea to change the Featured Article and Media.
Attack Rhino (Talk - Contributions) 00:55, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Re: Mistake Edit

Oh, don't worry about it. :) Thanks for letting me know, though.

Xzar The Mad 17:01, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Categories Edit

Greetings,
It has been to my concern that you are removing some categories on most of your edits. Mainly the Category:Company of Heroes and its expansions. Please refrain to this, as I have to rollback your deletions.

Regards,

Nukedz 16:56, October 22, 2010 (UTC)


P.S. The Company of Heroes category and its expansions is used for missions and other articles that should not be categorized on others. Just add these categories as they also tell where they have been first introduced. For example, the Panzer IV was introduced in Company of Heroes; it will be categorized in "Category:Company of Heroes".

Re: favicon Edit

Hi Bachinchi,

I have protected the favicon you uploaded. The edit protection is currently at blocking new and unregistered users, and the move protection is at sysop level. I hope that is what you wanted. Reply to my talk page, or Nukedz's if you want it changed.

By the way; the protection log

Regards,

Attack Rhino (Talk - Contributions) 08:43, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Greetings,


Unfortunately, I cannot change File:Wiki-wordmark-temp.png due to the fact that it blends to the background too much - most users will not see it clearly with the new layout. But, I considered the current wordmark to be changed eventually.


Sincerely,

Nukedz 08:57, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Re: RfA (Request for Adminship) Edit

Hi Bachinchi,

I cannot completely agree that Nukedz has not been active recently (by looking at his changes log. Sure, he sometimes has not edited anything for a couple of days at a time, but if you look through my log, I have sometimes not been on for a few days.

I therefore think the activity of the administration of this wiki is a relative moot point in this discussion. I can although understand where you are coming from for the rest of your RfA. There are only two things that I think would be stopping you from an admin here. 1) the Fact that we already have an admin, and Ido not believe that another will significantly help, or more precisely the fact that the wiki is in need of another admin currently. 2) I also cannot think of how sysop powers will greatly enhance you ability to help this wiki.

The two arguments above might give reasons for you not being given sysop powers, I also do not believe they are very good reasons for you not to be given sysop powers.

They only thing I want you to do is 1) convince me with more detailed reasons and 2)some past evidence from elsewhere, other wikis or generally of websites of whatever else you see fit will also be good.

I will also be asking some advice from Sarah Manley (Wikia staff), who I have spoken to before.

Kind regards,

Attack Rhino (Talk - Contributions) 09:55, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I just reread your post on my talk page, and I did notice that you said of your familiarity of Media-Wiki, CSS and Javascript. How are you with HTML/XML? ...as Ido know that would also be an added asset.

Massive change to CoH:OF Edit

Hey Bachinchi,

I noticed the huge change you made the Opposing Fronts page. GREAT STUFF you added there, great stuff! I do have one small bone to pick though: does the page need to be that long, and also there are a few internal links that are already in use, but they are not, like the Commandos, which you are labelling as something else.

Anyway, thanks for the edit,

Attack Rhino (Talk - Contributions) 10:12, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

When I wrote the above, I did feel I was point out the obvious to you. I did although think that if there was a chance you did not know, or did not notice how the page was at that time, I thought it would be good to know. It is also good you agree about the lenght of the page, and know about the incorrect links.
Regards,
Attack Rhino (Talk - Contributions) 01:18, November 5, 2010 (UTC)
P.S. nice info box and temp!


I saw your recent edits and trimmings on the page, nice!
Attack Rhino (Talk - Contributions) 02:35, November 5, 2010 (UTC)
P.S. To heck with it, you are now an admin!

Main Page layout, design and content Edit

For the Featured Articles section, you said in the Wiki talk page that the FAs can be randomly generated to be displayed on the main page with the FA template. How does one go about doing that? Also, what type of script did you write with to make the main page template?

Thanks, Attack Rhino (Talk - Contributions) 09:16, November 7, 2010 (UTC)


Ah yes, I saw the HTML. I thought it was, although I was not completely sure. By what you mean with the sub-templates you mean that they are also HTML/XML? If that, then I have enough confidence to do minimal editing of them.* I should then be able to help you with the othe FA options (or whatever) Would you be able to clarify how frequent the random displaying of the FAs and FMs are?
Thanks, Attack Rhino (Talk - Contributions) 09:47, November 7, 2010 (UTC)
I have learnt just enough HTML to do very basic text changes and whatnot else.


I can help you with the editing of the FA articles and whatnot else, I just currently do not have enough time to be able to put together a whole new article from scratch. That Flak 88 article took something like an hour to do properly (as you see it), and I do not have that leisure at the moment. As said above, I can make observations, comments, edits and changes to these articles, like the FA section, but I cannot wholly create any pages or articles myself. I would be very happy to help you or anyone else with editing anything here though.
Kind regards,
Attack Rhino (Talk - Contributions) 03:21, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

Policies Edit

Greetings,


Although that's the first time I've seen the policies page (because I barely read policies for that matter), it's a good addition to the wiki, just in case someone wants to read the wikia policies.


Regards,

Nukedz 23:40, November 8, 2010 (UTC)


Hey Bachinchi,

I read the new policies that you have added. Two policies I think we will need to edit/tailor to our wiki are the Manual of Style and User treatment policies. I thinkt it is rather clear that the User treatment policy needs to be significantly changed to fit our wiki. I am not sure if the Manual of Style is currently written along the lines of what our wiki si currently looking like.

What do you think?

Regards,

Attack Rhino (Talk - Contributions) 03:47, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

CfD of "What do we want in CoH 2?" Edit

Hey Bachinchi,

I have posted a new topic on the CfD talk page. I don't really understand your reasoning for the CfD of this page

Regards,

Attack Rhino (Talk - Contributions) 01:33, November 18, 2010 (UTC)

P.S. If you did not know, please direct discussion to the CfD talk page, thanks.

Thanks for the changes and fixes but... Edit

Hey Bachinchi,

I have seen all of the changes you have made. Thanks for them, especially the media-wiki ones and I like the merging of the Medic, as it makes a lot of sense. I saw you also made some templates, and protected the policies. I do not really understand why you made a template for citations though, (and the doc). If there was any real reason for it to be made, would it not be better suited to a [[CompanyofHeoresWiki:Citation|Wiki Citation]] page?

Kind Regards,

Attack Rhino (Talk - Contributions) 05:46, November 25, 2010 (UTC)

Why not? I thought a projet page would have made more sense. Then again, you are more senoir than me in knowledge and experience with Wikipedia.
Attack Rhino (Talk - Contributions) 01:29, November 26, 2010 (UTC)

interesting blog and suggestions (of improvement drive) Edit

Hi Bachinchi,

I saw this blog by a newly registered member on the wiki. I think you might want to read it. I would like to hear your thoughts.

G1n032, the user's blog and his talk page.

Reagrds, Attack Rhino (Talk - Contributions) 14:05, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

Template work Edit

Hi, since you obviously know what you're doing with all the templates and documentation and stuff, could you take a look at Template:Cover? I wrote it with lots of nested ifs, since that's about what all my programming looks like... Could use a tune-up by someone who actually understands all the parsing functions.

Also, as you probably saw I played with the infobox templates quite a bit to make them work as they do now (including changes to Template:Infobox to accept individual header styles). That might need cleaning up too (or preferable, some CSS Classes instead, I can't edit those). Oh and, I'm using FireFox and don't know what the gradients I used look like on Chrome or Opera or all those other browsers, I have no way to check whether they look the same as they do in FireFox. Do you have a good way to check that?

Thanks.

-- Headrock 17:04, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

P.S.

Because you're the only active admin, just to let you know what I've been doing in the past month: I've completely revamped ALL of the British pages, including units, command tree options, the lot. All of those articles were completely re-written - I left almost nothing that was there in the first place, it was a huge mess.

I am currently re-doing all the Panzer Elite articles, going by tech tree progression. I'm about 1/3 done with the Panzer Elite at this point. It should take another two weeks or so to complete that, and next if I have the energy I'll continue to the Americans or Wehrmacht.

Just to let you know, when I do end up finishing whatever's on the table, I will eventually re-check your work on the Wehrmacht articles and might re-do them entirely like I did to everything I worked on so far.... It's really nothing personal or arrogance or anything, I just have impossibly-high standards (read: "mild insanity"). ;) Then again I only had to change the British and Panzer Elite articles so thoroughly because the original ones sucked balls.
Also, I'm not interested in admin rights (surely you mean Bureau rights), the only use I'd have for those is CSS, I wouldn't do well managing this place anyway. Thank you for the offer.
Finally, with regards to the gradients, as you saw I put many of those into the various infobox templates (as I said, I redid the infantry/vehicle/building templates quite extensively), but I think I messed up the gradient directions in the webkit/normal ones. Just saying - I bet it isn't that important.
There is something you can do that doesn't require good English but is really important: replacing all those terrible screenshots from User:Willy NOD. Some of them are fine, but many are baaaaaad. I don't know how he could possibly take such bad screenshots (looks like his screen settings were really low, and badly configured), but there are LOTS of them and they're really terrible. His one strong point was to get good "scenarios", like getting a good camera angle to make a cool picture - which would be great if they didn't look so bad. I was thinking of "redoing" some of his work by carefully positioning units the same way as they appear in the images, but that's a lot of work and I'm busy writing all this content. :D
Anyhow, if you have the skill for that, you might be able to do a lot of good by creating new screenshots for the Gallery sections (I'm creating the "primary" screenshots for each unit, that's easy enough, they don't have to be interesting, just clear). A lot of articles could benefit from good screenshots. Especially missing are units with different upgrades, units firing their weapons, using abilities and interesting combat situations.
Also, I've been putting most of the images in the Gallery section of each article rather than inside the article itself. I think in some situations it's good to put them in the article, though sometimes they just squash the text and make it difficult to read. Your opinion on this would be very very helpful...
To answer your question, I read the game data files with a very useful tool called "Corsix's Mod Studio". It displays all the unit attributes, modifiers from effects, objects appearing in game, weapons, explosions, pretty much everything you need to get a good picture of how the game works "behind the scenes". There's a lot of comparing one thing to other things (like comparing two weapons or two units, the differences are sometimes really small...). If there's something I'm not sure about, I run a game with the CheatMod activated, and test it out to see how the data and the rules actually behave in the game.
Both these tools are absolutely excellent, and very recommended.
And if you want to take cool screenshots, that CheatMod is amazingly useful too. You can build very complex "artificial" combat situations with it... Greating fuckin' tool. --Headrock 23:04, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

Collapsible Infobox Data Edit

When I saw the Collapsible List template you added yesterday I began having some ideas that might reduce the size of the infoboxes.

I figure the "Produces"/"Abilities"/etc. boxes don't need to display all their data if the reader doesn't ask for it. The easiest way to do so is to make the boxes or the data collapsible.

The best way I can see this done is if each of the colored header bars (for instances the green "Production" box) shows the number of items on that list and a "[SHOW]" button. When the "SHOW" button is clicked, the box containing all the details is opened, just like with the collapsible list template.

The problem is that if I use the template you've added, then it's the green box that expands, and all the text appears in that green box (since it's now part of the header). What I'm suggesting is that the SHOW button actually displays the Data box in the same way that it appears now. Here's a screenshot of how that's supposed to work:

Demo Collapsible Collapsed (initial) state on the left, expanded state on the right.

I don't know if that's possible, might require custom-made javascript and/or a serious alteration to the Infobox template, but it'll be extremely useful for keeping the infoboxes a little smaller, since on pages like the Panzer Grenadiers they take up a LOT of room.

I did manage to do something similar with the info itself. Instead of collapsing the entire box for each segment, I collapsed the bullets in the segment. So instead of using this:

|produces         = [[File:Production_Infantry_Section.png|right]] [[Infantry Section]]
* A versatile defensive anti-infantry squad.
* Costs {{Manpower|450}}, {{PopCap|5}}
* 37 seconds to produce
<br/>

I used this:

|produces         = {{Collapsible list
| title = [[File:Production_Infantry_Section.png|right]] [[Infantry Section]]
| bullets = true
| 1 = A versatile defensive anti-infantry squad.
| 2 = Costs {{Manpower|450}}, {{PopCap|5}}
| 3 = 37 seconds to produce
}}
<br clear="all">

This conserves some space (not a lot) and keeps the button images visible, but it feels weird to use this because you have to expand each item you want to look at.

Let me know if you have any ideas.

-- Headrock 16:13, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

I think I have solved it. Check this. :D I didn't use {{Collapsible list}} but the solution was not clean, I had to create a table inside the infobox. --Bachinchi 17:17, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that's lovely! So do I just need to change the templates used in each page? Also I'd like to add the number of list items to the header title, as shown in the image above. I hope I don't run into any trouble. --Headrock 17:56, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
I've changed the infoboxes. Everythin seems to work just fine. And Panzer Grenadiers now looks great! --Bachinchi 19:56, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
Several things:
  1. Since you seem to be busy, I'm going to try adding numbers to the collapsible section headers. I also think the [show] text should be a tad smaller - I hope I can figure out how the change its size, would that be simpler with wikia.css, or should I just edit the collapsible infobox template?
  2. Something is wrong with the veterancy tables for Panzer Elites. Now that the PEB template is in use, it looks like these tables don't expand properly - at least for me they don't. Instead of opening a box with the entire table in it, the full-sized table is displayed at the bottom of the page. Any idea if your changes have caused this?
  3. About categorization, are you use removing the CoH:OF category is wise? Shouldn't there be a category that contains all pages relevant to the expansion?
  4. Also, what about the {{CommandTree}} template? It could use some cool gradients/effects, I just can't think of any right now ;)

--Headrock 21:02, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

  1. I was busy... playing! [show] is now smaller.
  2.  :O WTH. I'll take a look into it!
  3. There shouldn't be many articles in top level articles, IMO. It's better to use subcategorization.
  4. CommandTree Template is great! For the moment I'll add the same effects currently in use with the PanzerElite Bonus tables.

--Bachinchi 21:16, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at Infantry Section. Do the numbers on the labels look ok, or are they unnecessary? Or maybe should be formatted differently? I made the edits directly to the specific infobox templates, was easy enough.
The smaller "[show]" looks great, that's excellent.

--Headrock 21:20, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

Just as expected. Cool! --Bachinchi 21:23, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
The expand problem: It does not work in Call of Duty Wiki. Not Firefox 4, Chromium (nightly), or Internet Explorer 9. It seems something went wrong with today update. --Bachinchi 01:24, July 21, 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I figured they might've messed it up, but I was too lazy to do check on my own wikis. I guess we'll have to wait with that.
By the way, whatever you did to the gradients in the infoboxes, I don't think it was a good idea. I made some of them go sideways for a reason, otherwise it it very visible that every cell has its own gradient - it looks like we "like effects too much" instead of just looking cool. When the gradient goes sideways, it gives several cells the appearance of being a single unit - just like the vertical gradient backgrounds in the PEB tables do. The borders then separate them into individual cells, achieving a good effect. That doesn't happen when each cell has a vertical gradient of its own.
Oh and, I've been meaning to ask this: The stats I put in the articles are all from version 2.301, which is what i have. I'm afraid to upgrade it because I've had all sorts of problems with the activation in other versions, the best version that worked for me is 2.301. Which means the data I use is probably not 100% accurate. In fact, any player who is not fully-upgraded will have different stats in different places. Is there some sort of way perhaps to be able to feed stats from later versions, and maybe have users define which stats they want to see based on the version they have?
--Headrock 10:30, July 21, 2011 (UTC)
I was replacing a deprecated version of webkit gradient and adding support for opera (shame that browsers don't implement gradiens the W3C way). I fixed and it should look ok, what do you think?
About the stats I think it would be much more work to give unit stats for different versions of COH. Why not using the last version? I have 2.602 but I haven't figured out where to find the unit stats (which SGA file? where!!?), can you help with that? --Bachinchi 16:48, July 21, 2011 (UTC)
The gradients look great now. I like that the small data boxes use the sideways gradient as before, while the expanding boxes use a top-down gradient, it suits them more. Good work!
Unfortunately I can't use later versions, because as I said I've had problems activating the game properly afterwards. I think one of the patches along the way from 2.301 to 2.700 that I've got is cracked or something, and when I use the next patches I keep getting asked to insert the DVD, regardless of whether it's in or not. It's a bitch mainly because I have to then reinstall the entire game and all the patches, so I've settled for 2.301. I might eventually try to just get a no-DVD crack or something just to get past that error, and when that happens I'll be sure to update all the data - if I'm still around.
When I use the Corsix Mod Studio, all I need is to open the RelicCoh.module file in the main program folder. It automatically opens all the data in a tree. I don't know how it unpacks the files, or whether there's an unpacker or something, but the Mod Studio is extremely useful anyway. You don't actually need much more than that - though the CheatMod for the game itself is also useful as I said earlier. Do notice that the data inside the files is a little cryptic at first - it takes a while to figure out what each piece of data does, where to look for stuff, etc. If you manage to open the files and have any questions, I think I understand most of what's written in there. --Headrock 18:30, July 21, 2011 (UTC)
P.S., I've been meaning to ask about this: Is there any sort of policy on how to name a unit article? Some articles are named after the name of the unit inside the game, for instance Commandos. Others are named on an extended version, possibly including the model name, for instance SdKfz 222 Armored Car. Both have their pros and cons, and in many cases I've created redirects so that both are found in different types of searches, but there should be some sort of policy or guideline about which of these is better... This is NOT a simple questions - there are many cases on this site where it is actually very difficult to decide which is better. --Headrock 18:57, July 21, 2011 (UTC)

I have managed to open the data with the Corxis' MS. There were some problems, the program didn't reconginize the RelicCOH.module so I had to create a new mod and load the data from there (People in some forum says the *.modules format changed since 2.500 so it isn't a problem with my install). I'll check the articles you hace rewritten to see if the information is still correct.

Also, I have no idea what to do with the names of those articles. I think we have to apply Common Sense™ here. --Bachinchi 19:26, July 21, 2011 (UTC)

Shit... Sorry. Also, a request. Edit

Please disregard the Panzer Elite articles for now, don't do anything with them. I just realized how unfamiliar I was with the Panzer Elite Command Tree, which is something that shouldn't have happened, and it seems like a few of those articles are going to have to be redone thanks to the new information I've learned. So, consider them "Men At Work" for the next couple of days, they'll see some... changes.

BTW, I wanted to say that there might be a good reason to write some more articles that aren't about units or factions. There are a lot of game concepts and rules that players would probably want to understand - and I don't mean modders, I actually mean players. For instance, you asked which articles I was "proud" of, and two of the ones I liked best are Commando Tactics and Suppression, both of which are about important game concepts. You've probably noticed how I've been red-linking to an article about Veterancy, which I certainly intend to write - as soon as I've thoroughly familiarized myself with how it works for all four factions.

I think such articles would be very useful for anyone reading this Wiki, because these things tend to come up, and a lot players - especially new ones - can be baffled by these concepts. So, if you have more ideas about which concepts need to be laid down in writing, please say them. I'm wondering which ones you'd think would be most useful, so I don't end up writing a lot of ones that really aren't that important.

So far I'm thinking Penetration and Armor need to be explained: in a single article since it's basically the same subject. I've actually considered doing that before Veterancy, because it would be easier (it's a lot more straightforward, and works the same for all factions and units...). Next maybe... Upkeep? Ugh no. Maybe something more complex like Firing Speed, with Aim_Delay and Cooldown and Reload and all that? See, that's why I need opinions.

I'm also watching the entire run of Farscape now, so it's eating up my editing will rapidly. The energy has to run out sometime, I made 1,300 edits in the past month or so, most of them really big... I will try to finish everything I've started though.

--Headrock 00:58, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

(Also Cover?)

--Headrock 01:01, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

As Veterancy is different for every army I created the page as a disambiguation page. We'll have to repair those links later. I'm sorry but I'm not as fast as you, do you have any secret or something to have such "editing burst" :D --Bachinchi 02:20, July 22, 2011 (UTC)
It's really little more than a slight case of OCD. Also the love of contributing knowledge, analysis, and a lot of spare time. In other words, the reason I work fast is because I really enjoy it. But you work pretty fast yourself, or at least, you think fast. I have to think constantly as I write, otherwise it would take forever to write anything.
Also as a token of gratitude for the contributions you have done here, just tell me if you need any help in other wiki or something like that. --Bachinchi 02:23, July 22, 2011 (UTC)
That's a kind offer, and I will remember it. But right now, we're editing this wiki, yes? :) --Headrock 03:00, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

Re: Greetings Edit

Hi Bachinchi,

It is good to hear from you again, and to see you back. I will hope to help doing more with this wiki, but I have been rather busy as late, and still busy for a week or more possibly.

Regards,

Attack Rhino (Talk - Contributions) 12:29, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Better veterancy tables? Edit

Check this out: User:Headrock/VeterancyTable

I think this presents the data better. Again, remember that some units (like Munitions Halftrack) have only one upgrade (Defensive), and I haven't checked to see what it would look like with that. Also there's sometimes irregular data, like with the Light Armored Car, so I'm not sure you can make a template for this...

Let me know. --Headrock 15:52, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Also check this out: User:Headrock/ComputedVeterancyTable --Headrock 16:05, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

I like those vet tables. Based on the layout I created this. You can see a test of that here, it includes two examples: a full table and a defensive only table. The defensive-only table doesn't look that good. But, it greatly simplifies its use. --Bachinchi 17:57, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
I have no access to see the code itself unless you expose it. But I'll make two comments:
  1. The column on the left (with the unit badges) needs to be restricted to width=60.
  2. Is there an ability to add out-of-box data? Look at Light Armored Car, there's a +15 Maximum Health bonus that is applied at the first veterancy level regardless of whether you choose Offensive or Defensive. Is there a way to enter it there, or would it need to be added as a point in each of the two boxes?

--Headrock 18:02, July 25, 2011 (UTC)

I have completed it, I think it looks fine now. Take a look again in the test case, it contains the three possible cases: off/def, def-only and off/def with shared bonus. --Bachinchi 19:27, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
Brilliant. Could you valign the veterancy badges to the top of their boxes? --Headrock 19:38, July 25, 2011 (UTC)

Screenshots Edit

Unit Commandos

New Commandos Squad-Pic?

I've replaced the Commandos single-soldier unit pic with a team pic. I think a squad picture it's better than a picture of one single man. If you agree with this, I might do the same thing with other squad pics as well.

I figured out how to do this really easily: I got 6 squads of commandos, and spawned an armored car to take out 5 men from each squad. That way each squad had one man remaining, and I could easily pose them individually to get the 6-man shot. :D

Also check out the previous comment about templates, need an answer on that one.

--Headrock 19:16, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Ow, that would even work as a nice wallpaper. --Bachinchi 19:30, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
Unit Commandos AF
Actually, if you want a wallpaper, I just learned something cool I could do with Photoshop and Anisotropic Filtering to the other day. It makes all the screenshots I take look... well, different. Check it out (right).
The AF actually makes it look as if it was hand-drawn, instead of being 3D models. At one point I considered doing this to all the unit pictures on this site, but then I realized people want to see things as they look in-game, whether or not they're uglier. ;) --Headrock 19:42, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
Great image. It's really nice what you did there. ¿Do you have your graphics maxed out? --Bachinchi 19:49, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
Yes, of course. Except I still use DirectX9 (windows XP, it's more comfortable for me). But that image isn't like that in the game, it's done in photoshop with the Anisotropic Filter. Theoretically you could do this in-game with a powerful video card... a really powerful video card... and it would look REALLY good. :D --Headrock 19:53, July 25, 2011 (UTC)

Unit Disambig Edit

I really need an answer on this in the near future: Talk:Panther


--Headrock 17:49, July 25, 2011 (UTC)

NAV tables? Edit

Have you considered adding Navigation Tables to the unit pages? Somthing along the lines of what's at the bottom of this page, so people can easily navigate between units. --Headrock 19:33, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I imported {{Navbox}} some time ago. But I didn't even tested it, I just imported it from Wikipedia. --Bachinchi 03:14, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

CheatMod Upgrades Edit

I've been busy today upgrading the CheatMod with some wicked SCAR functions. I'm learning how to get really good data that isn't really clear in the files - like the research I did for the Penetration article. If you're using the CheatMod, I can send you an updated SCAR file with the extra functions I added, they're really useful and it's easy to install.


BTW, still no answer on the NAV tables (above)? Too busy with the PEVT? :P --Headrock 03:07, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

I was busy fixing the computer of a cousin. Does the CheatMod works with 2.602?, it seems that mod isn't mantained anymore. And what's a SCAR? :P --Bachinchi 03:15, July 29, 2011 (UTC)
It does work in 2.602 :D --Bachinchi 03:27, July 29, 2011 (UTC)
SCAR is basically a LUA language script which can call functions from the game's code. Map makers use it to write all sorts of shit happening during missions, and modmakers use it to do all sorts of other cool stuff. I added a lot of new functions to the CheatMod SCAR file to make it more useful:
  • Remove all resources and command points from a player (also undoes the Max PopCap from shift-F10
  • Displays the health of each individual entity in a squad, in numeric format
  • Kills a random entity in a squad (for instance, quickly kill 5 of 6 infantrymen, leaving the last one alive)
  • Toggle a unit's invulnerability to damage
  • Heal a unit completely
  • Cause damage to a unit
  • Force infantry to use the TENSE, CALM or AUTO moods (they get a different idle animation in each state)
  • An in-game stop-watch for measuring exactly how much time elapses between two events, for instance between shots.
  • Show how much cover each entity in a squad is receiving (also shows cover for vehicles!)
There are many more things that can potentially be done, I just need ideas. :P --Headrock 16:13, July 29, 2011 (UTC)
Me wants! You should publish this in modDB or something. I had heard of that language before and I knew it was used in CoH. But I have no experience with it, but it looks much like python. --Bachinchi 18:31, July 29, 2011 (UTC)
User:Headrock/CheatModEnhanced. I'll add the instructions for the new features in a bit. --Headrock 23:26, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

A request, if you're still around for it... Edit

I've been somewhat annoyed with the fact that only a certain number of units appear on the Main Page for each faction (Template:Main_Page/contents), and I wanted to add a random selection to it, sort of like how the Featured Articles work.

I made a template called Template:ChooseRandomBritishUnit, which was supposed to draw a random link to a British unit from a pre-prepared, pre-weighted list. But I ran into several problems I can't solve.

For one, if I use the commented code in Main Page/Contents, simply calling this template 8 times to get a list of units, the template will choose the same unit every time, like this:

I guess it's based on a seed that only updates once per load...

But even if that problem is somehow solved, there's still the issue of choosing a different unit each time. I mean, even if you could introduce a random seed somehow, it may still randomly select the same unit twice, like this:

You're the wiki-wizard, so if anyone can solve this it's you. And if you can't, too bad, maybe I'll just make it a random choice between several pre-made lists or something. That would suck, but at least it would be better than what we have now.

Thanks in advance, and I hope I haven't disturbed you.

P.S. the Panzer Elite are almost done, yay!

-- Headrock 22:17, August 5, 2011 (UTC)

It was a bit tricky but I made it work. I had a similar problem before and the solution is to break the wiki cache using a parameter (even if it isn't used). There is now {{ChooseRandomBritishUnit}}, {{ChooseRandomAmericanUnit}}, {{ChooseRandomPEUnit}} and {{ChooseRandomWehrmachtUnit}}. But there isn't enough links in each template. Regards. --Bachinchi 04:28, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
They also need better names. I'll fix them tomorrow. --Bachinchi 04:29, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
Terrific, though that only solves the first issue. The second issue is still there: now that it chooses randomly, the same name can be chosen twice by two different calls. I can't think of any good way to solve that... --Headrock 14:22, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
Neither do I. :( --Bachinchi 14:53, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

I gave thanks to Bachinchi. Edit

Thanks for getting me started. Actually, this accound "Madd Dudde" is in the Men Of War Wikia, GTA Wikia and Tropico Wikia. I use them 3 at the day. I'll try to share all my knowledge in the wiki.


Madd Dudde 22:54, August 10, 2011 (UTC)Madd Dudde.

CSS changes etc. Edit

Hi, I hope I'm not encroaching on your busy schedule. ;) I have two things to ask, if you could spare the time.

1) I think it would be a good idea to set all H3 and H4 headers to font-weight:bold. The non-bold headers are not very visible, and I've found (probably a little too late) that I keep bolding them myself every time (well, I bold the H4 headers, anyway). The H3 Headers are the same size as the H2 headers, which is ok, there won't be confusion because H2 headers already have that great red underline, so it's not hard to tell them apart.

2) Is there a possibility to add some sort of tool that can help re-categorize articles en-masse? I'm asking because I added all the Veterancy Icons to the Category:Veterancy_Icons and only then I realized they should be split to faction-specific categories. So now all these files are in both the general and specific categories, which is probably not a good idea... Any similar tools for mass changes would be helpful, whether for images or otherwise.

Thanks for your time,

-- Headrock 10:47, August 29, 2011 (UTC)

P.S. the wiki's coming along nicely, wouldn't you say? :)

Wow man, you are pure genius. But I feel bad for all the improvements. Why? Because I have done almost nothing. You are super hight quality writer. As I said before working with bots is really easy. There are a couple of tools I use. Pywikipediabot and AWB. Pywikipedia is command line tool and it's faster, but it may be harder to manage. AWB has a nice GUI so you can make all those automated edits easily. For this task, it's easier with AWB. You can put all the images in Category:Veterancy_Icons and then edit them one by one, much faster than through the web interface. --Bachinchi 02:41, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
My bot, Locobot is working on it now. It should finish in five. --Bachinchi 02:42, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
Heh, thanks for the compliments but I don't deserve them - I'm just having fun, that's all. I'm sorry you're not getting the chance to write much, but you did help tremendously with all the templates and such, and this bot thingy worked great too - saved me a ton of trouble. I'll install it the next time I run into stuff like this ;)
BTW, it's a dilemma: on the one hand I have the "urge" to write as many articles as possible to keep the whole wiki at the same level of quality, but on the other hand I know it's taking the fun out for other people, since a Wiki is supposed to be a community project... but I figure there aren't enough people around wanting to make such large-scale edits, so if I don't do it, it may not happen at all... so I just do it. If you want to "reserve" some articles for yourself, just let me know ^^ --Headrock 10:55, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
Also, this is really bizarre, but it looks like not all the headers have automatically changed to bold. Check out M3 Halftrack which I'm working on right now - the header "M45/M3 Quadmount Halftrack" is an H3 (checked the source code as well, it's H3), but is not bold. The other headers in the article are bold thanks to your CSS change... any idea why this might happen? --Headrock 11:16, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

Re: Rights Edit

Hi Bachinchi,

I have looked into the user rights changes for both your bot Locobot and Headrock. As a crat, I am unable to change user rights to bot category, but I have changed Headrock's. It appears you will have to talk to the Wikia staff about your bot user rights change.

Regards, Attack Rhino (Talk - Contributions) 15:27, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

Layout Builder. Edit

Whoa Bachinci, this is some crazy stuff here. I was wondering what the Layout Builder was supposed to do.

What happens with irregularities though? Lots of pages can't be fitted into a rigid template, they follow the same guidelines but with all sorts of differences... How is that handled?

--Headrock 19:03, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I tried to get to the layout's talk page, it sent me to Infantry Unit template instead. I deleted that just now.

Merge template and Candidates for deletion category Edit

Hey Bachinchi

I wanted to give you the heads up on a template I have just made:

Merge template

I was looking though some short and dead-end pages, and it got me thinking; maybe we need a merge template as well. I have also looked over the Candidates for Deletion page, and added one to it. I also would like your thoughts on the current CfDs.

Thanks,

Attack Rhino (Talk - Contributions) 10:04, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

General counsel and input Edit

Hey Bachinchi,

If you're still around, I would like your thoughts on a few things.

Regards,

Attack Rhino (Talk - Contributions) 13:05, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.