From Europa Universalis 4 Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

Improve quality.[edit]

I have changed all the "steepes" to "steppes" and made the small section with "you" to "Ming".

What more can be done to improve the quality of the article?

Teonod (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2014 (CET)

The event page could use an update since it doesn't include any of the 1.9 events. The events already listed also need to be verified for the current version. --Kite (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2014 (CET)

How to remove Celestial Empire?[edit]

I think this is a pretty big question as now Celestial empire gives 50% local autonomy which backs the country now, making it progress really slow, so far I've westernised and still had no options to remove it, any ideas?

Nichika (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2015 (CET)

Celestial Empire auto changes into a normal monarchy when you finish (not begin) westernizing. You lose Inward Perfection at the start of the new month. --Kite (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2015 (CET)

It's been 5 years since westernisation and I'm still a Celestial Empire with the factions and the inward perfection (1.9.2)

Nichika (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2015 (CET)

Alternative Strategy: Division[edit]

I am all for new contributions, but those that are based around mechanics that players can follow as a general guide to help with campaigns. This is an exploit strategy, do we really want this on the wiki? Also, it doesn't follow rules 2 & 3 of the style guide consistently. I will wait for a possible edit by the author before trimming it to within guidelines. --Kite (talk) 06:42, 31 January 2015 (CET)


Below is a a description of rewrites, where the page has been tagged delete the comments not needed and add in any special instructions.

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. Prescriptive instructions: Make more generic
  4. Excessive use of bold/capitals: Use italics instead for emphasis, if emphasis is not needed then remove is
  5. List: Reformat into prose (a listed ideas section is acceptable)
  6. Repetitive strategy sections: Merge into relevant up to date strategy
  7. Absence of links: Links missing or replaced by bold or italics which do not function
  8. Poor sectioning: Article should be broken up into easy to understand sections
  9. Version specific strategy: Update to fit current version or delete

Dauth (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2015 (CET)

1.20/MoH Warning[edit]

Since this page is severely inaccurate for the 1.20 update and/or Mandate of Heaven, could someone add a more visible and urgent warning that most of the page is out of date? At least until the up-to-date information can be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2017‎ (CEST)

The page versioning says: ‘This article may contain outdated information that is inaccurate for the current version of the game. It was last updated for 1.18.’ as well as the section versioning direct below the section headings. What ‘more’ were you thinking of? – Lillebror (talk) 07:09, 26 April 2017 (CEST)
That page versioning is found on the majority of pages, most of which are completely correct. Because of that, the text is small, easy to miss, and largely ignored by most users. It's like a warning saying 'contents may be hot' on something that is superheated and could kill you to touch it. The warning is accurate, but overused and insufficient. I'm far from a wiki expert (or I'd be adding in changes from 1.20) but could there not be a banner warning like for stub articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:40, 26 April 2017‎ (CEST)
As it was already stated there is an article and section versioning on most of the wiki pages [and this is without including infobox/table versioning as well]. They are supposed to be informative yet intrusive so as to not distract from the content; As such, the versioning appears at the same location each time so they can't be missed - out of them all only the article versioning appears all the time as the others will disappear if they are up-to-date. Edit: As a final note I'd like to add that you don't have to be a "wiki expert" in order to contribute to the wiki. If you'd like to edit you can consult the style guidelines beforehand you and use existing articles as an example. If you're still unsure of something you can post a question in the wiki thread on the forum or leave a note in the article's talk page [just do remember to sign your comments with ~~~~ at the end]. ~ SolSys (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2017 (CEST)
Well, I already explained why that's insufficient/deceptive ("may be out of date" vs. "known to be entirely wrong"). I won't waste any more of our time, other than to say that in this case we *should* be distracting from the content, and also thank you for the information on how to sign comments. I tried four things that didn't work and eventually just hoped it would show up for others. ~ 22:57, 26 April 2017 (CEST)

Low quality edits that are really just one-off comments[edit]

I noticed some edits that were in reality comments to existing sections.

Most glaring was the standalone change of section title "Managing Empire of China" to "Managing the Hell that is Empire of China" despite of not adding any other content, despite of the existing section featuring mostly benefits, despite of the author having had no non-vandalism experience on this wiki. This is a low quality edit. I am making this section to highlight the need for more frequent editors to revert such edits

Ecpgieicg (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)