Talk:Dominion of Canada

From Hearts of Iron 4 Wiki
(Redirected from Talk:Canada)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

C - This article is considered a C-class article on the wiki quality scale


This page has been tagged as a {{Rewrite}}, the below issues have been found when the page is compared to the 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. Excessive use of bold/capitals: Use italics instead for emphasis, if emphasis is not needed then remove is
  6. List: Reformat into prose (a listed ideas section is acceptable)
  7. Repetitive strategy sections: Merge into relevant up to date strategy
  8. Absence of links: Links missing or replaced by bold or italics which do not function
  9. Poor sectioning: Article should be broken up into easy to understand sections
  10. Excessive use of html, use wikicode or remove
  11. Formal register needed in section titles
  12. Messages to editors left in page, remove

Dauth (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2016 (CEST)

Armor Strategy Section[edit]

I'm new to editing, so apologies if this shouldn't go on this Talk page. As a new player to Canada I gave the armor strategy a shot. While I like the idea, it was highly confusing that the "General Guidelines for Fast Armor Focus" section instructs the player to first build 45 civilian factories. This is not possible at the 1936 start as Canada, as the country does not even have enough shared building slots to construct 45 total buildings. The player can eventually achieve greater than 45 slots by pursuing each of the Construction Effort national foci and the Armament Effort foci (each of which provide free factories and slots), as well as the Naval Effort focus (providing 3 free dockyards and slots), followed by multiple yearly instances of Industry research (either concentrated or dispersed) granting +20% max factories per state. I achieved it only by roughly 1940 or 1941. Needless to say, I don't know if the intent of the strategy is to wait that long before the player ever builds the first military factory, but either way I felt the strategy needed to be clarified. Because it's not my strategy I wasn't sure it was my place to edit and make a judgment of intent, so thought it might fit best to put the concern here. Seeing as it hasn't been edited since August, I'd be happy to tweak it if that's acceptable by custom on these wikis.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nindustrial (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2016‎ (CET)

The list above shows the current style problems with the strategy and the page is dated for version 1.0 so its entirely possible for the guide to be outdated (we're now 1.2). The talk page is exactly the right place for this sort of comment. If you have an updated strategy then improve/replace the existing one. The whole concept of wikis is that it is a collaborative effort so if you have ideas to update the guide then please go for it. Also if you end your talk page comments with ~~~~ then it will automatically time and name stamp your edit. Cheers, Dauth (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2016 (CEST)
Excellent, thank you! I am working on a general style edit of this page for the moment and will have to consider the strategy bit. Nindustrial (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2016 (CEST)

Thanks for everyone's involvement. Certainly, feel free to make the strategies better. Billcorr (talk) 05:11, 7 October 2016 (CEST)

Hi Billcorr, thanks for publishing the strategy. I was interested in trying out a smaller Allied side for my first Allied game, but wasn't fully sure what to do with Canada being sort of small, so your guide was wonderful inspiration. Nindustrial (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2016 (CEST)

"Inspiration" is a good word. Thank you for your encouragement. Given the feedback from you [Nindustrial] about the "45 total" civilian factories, I went back last night and tried to follow my own advice. Hmmm...45 civilian factories are unrealistic. Even 30. 15 to 20 civilian factories is more reasonable. The intent of the light armor guide is to figure out how to take advantage of Canada's starting Tier 1 Light Armor technology in 1936. I wrote the light armor strategy guide with a minimum of experience. The whole light armor guide certainly could be re-vamped, taking into account piercing values, division width, etc. Billcorr (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2016 (CEST)

Updated to v. 1.2[edit]

So, another newb question, but other than the strategy guides section, I verified and updated any info in the remainder so it's consistent with v 1.2. Am I authorized to change those types of indicators? And for strategy guides, would you use an individual indicator that it may be out of date while removing the top-page v. 1.0 verified? Nindustrial (talk) 04:00, 7 October 2016 (CEST)

The wiki uses 2 templates for the versioning of the pages. It would be advantageous if you could add the versioning to the sections that you have edited. Of course, you can also change the versioning template to a newer version if you have checked all the content. Please do not remove the versioning templates, just change the number. – Lillebror (talk) 07:40, 7 October 2016 (CEST)
Great, thank you! I noticed the versioning instructions state to mark out each section by version, and then mark the article in entirety as up-to-date, but that didn't seem to work logically for me -- the top {{Version}} template would remain stating that the whole article was 1.0, while noting each section as 1.2 would simply make the {{SVersion}} template hidden because it was up-to-date, thus appearing to fall under the umbrella of the {{Version}} template as being outdated. The way I did it seemed to make logical sense to me, but please let me know if I missed something. Nindustrial (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2016 (CEST)
When updating versioning, the page version should be marked as the lowest section version on said page. ~ SolSys (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2016 (CEST)
Thanks for the reply. So when a section version is higher than the article version, there is no way to indicate that? I don't mean to be argumentative, just trying to understand because it seems that wouldn't work as intended -- wouldn't that mean that the {{SVersion}} template would only ever display when: a) the article as a whole is out-of-date; and b) the section in question is either as old as, or even older than the out-of-date version ascribed to the article? Part (a) becuase if the whole article is up-to-date, it will say so up top and so all sections must be up-to-date; and part (b) because a "current" version section has the template hidden.
For example, only two subsections in this article, pertaining to two strategy guides, are potentially still v 1.0. So If leave the article version at 1.0 and tag every other section as 1.2 except those two guides (tagged as 1.0), it will appear as though the entire article is updated only to 1.0 because every section tagged as 1.2 will have its {{SVersion}} template hidden (for being technically up-to-date). Meanwhile, the only two sections that are 1.0 will redundantly state that they may be outdated and were last updated for 1.0 -- which the article version already states. Thanks for indulging me, Nindustrial (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2016 (CEST)
Just to add, I totally understand that you wouldn't want a page saying the article was v. 1.2 and then having, say, all but one section marked with {{SVersion}} templates stating they're each out of date. But just thinking maybe there needs to be some way to mark out up-to-date sections when the article as a whole is otherwise outdated? (And again, open to my possibly missing the bus on understanding all this). Nindustrial (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2016 (CEST)
The up to date sections don't have a warning, that's how we know the page is up to date. In general we don't want to see too many warnings so the idea is to keep the wikis up to date. It also lets us know which pages need most attention. Dauth (talk) 02:14, 8 October 2016 (CEST)

Page name[edit]

Should this page not be called 'Dominion of Canada'? – Lillebror (talk) 10:25, 28 December 2016 (CET)

I wouldn't... --Trifler (talk) 10:34, 28 December 2016 (CET)
Why not? – Lillebror (talk) 10:36, 28 December 2016 (CET)
Because I genuinely think it's better to leave it as Canada. It's what people know and are familiar with. They look for it under the C's in alphabetical order. --Trifler (talk) 10:44, 28 December 2016 (CET)
If you start a game, there is no country called Canada. (A Canada redirect would persist.) – Lillebror (talk) 10:53, 28 December 2016 (CET)
Well, I voiced my opinion, but I guess you can change it and create a redirect. --Trifler (talk) 11:05, 28 December 2016 (CET)
Another example is the British Malaya page. It’s not called 'Republic of Malaysia'. (PS. I have expanded the {{country}} template by an optional parameter that it’s now possible to change the sorting in the Category:Countries.)– Lillebror (talk) 12:04, 28 December 2016 (CET)
I've moved the page. – Lillebror (talk) 08:54, 30 December 2016 (CET)