User talk:SolSys

From Europa Universalis 4 Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Decision standard[edit source]

I had decided to not insert the province code because the player could not know the meaning of it. And I had standardized the the gain/lose of something as:

  • Add red/green numeber icon Name with capital letter

I saw that you have changed that for Arabia. Before change it again I think it is better discuss about it. Stigni (talk) 10:30, 3 December 2015 (CET)

  • I don't think the province code will be of issue to those who don't know about it, they'll just ignore it. On the other hand it saves time to those who know about it [for debugging etc.].
  • I put the name-without-a-capital because I saw both examples in the wiki and in the end decided to go with wiki's advice not use too many capital letters.
  • As to the icon-before-number I think it makes easier to read. When the icon is in the middle it sort of a 'stop' [at least for me].
I do make the distinguishes between Add/icon/number/name and when it is number/icon alone.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SolSys (Talk) 16:31, 3 December 2015‎ (CET)
I'm not a fan of them in general pages. The uses for modders are true, however most of our readers are not modders and the numbers make little sense. We do have a page with the IDs listed for use by modders and it is here List of provinces. Dauth (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2015 (CET)
Well, it's also useful in testing mechanics [and consequently filling the wiki], but if you all think it is unnecessary then I won't object.
Also, sorry for forgetting to sign again. SolSys (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2015 (CET)
I like province IDs mentioned. It’s much easier to update. (Okay, you can also put them in a comment as in the lists on the province page.) The distinctness to a country of the same name is given. And of course, you can enter the IDs in the searchbox ingame. (Much easier to write and to remember than some province names.) – Lillebror (talk) 18:41, 3 December 2015 (CET)
Didn't even know about the in-game search, thanks. I'll look into the comment thing. SolSys (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2015 (CET)

As long as you're not in ironman, you can see province IDs by turning on debug mode in the console (debug_mode). Hairy Dude (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2015 (CET)

Box wrapper Bharat/Hindustan[edit source]

Please do not add Box wrapper to Bharat and Hindustan otherwise the transclusion does not work. Stigni (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2015 (CET)

Wasn't aware of it, will keep that in mind. SolSys (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2015 (CET)
I used the alt box-wrap Lillebror used. Doesn't seem to cause issues with transclusion. Is that one OK? SolSys (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2015 (CET)
Perfect. I didn't know about that. Stigni (talk) 09:40, 7 December 2015 (CET)

Group idea templates[edit source]

You changed the notes of some idea infoboxes. Is there a difference in the meaning? If a modder or paradox adds a new country with Kongolese culture to the game, what NIs are used by this country? – Lillebror (talk) 10:20, 11 December 2015 (CET)

You have a point. I checked the files and it seems even though they are group ideas the trigger check is actually by tag (apparently wasn't changed after AoW). I'll change it back and add the new note underneath. SolSys (talk) 10:42, 11 December 2015 (CET)

Regions pages[edit source]

I have to say exellent work on the superregions. Meneth has told me that the preferred name for regions is Name region without brackets or capital on R. If you don't want to change your layout then that's fine, we'll see about doing edits using some of the admin wiki tools. This will translate to the super region names too. If you want you can use the existing regions category or make a new super regions category for your new pages. I suspect when they're done they're going to be some of the most useful page. Keep up the good work. Dauth (talk) 02:03, 30 December 2015 (CET)

That's not a problem, I make changes to the older pages when the next one is done, so it should be soon [waiting for a map, but Zraith is probably out for the holidays]. TBH, I thought it made a clear distinction for a cursory glance. Any special reason or is it just styling? Also, some minor problems:
  • I used the same naming format on every other place [meaning achievements, events/decisions etc.]. Unfortunately, I don't recall them all so you'll have to use the wiki tools for them.
  • The new naming corresponds with the current region provinces so you'll have some name clashing. If there isn't plan to retire them I was hoping to update them later; I know we have the big List of provinces, but individual seem more helpful when looking for something. ~ SolSys (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2015 (CET)
Excellent thanks. The reason is styling, the round brackets are only used for disambig pages, everything else is using plain text.
  • When you're done with the new super regions we can set up redirects instead to convert ones with incorrect formatting. Eventually we'll have links from all regions into their respective super region page.
  • We'll delete or adjust the old pages once everything else is up to date. One way for us to test how useful the old pages are is to see their number of hits and compare with the big list page. After all search functions do exist in modern browsers. Dauth (talk) 12:21, 30 December 2015 (CET)
I moved the note and removed the brackets from the region pages and navbox. The rest is kinda a problem...

Australia and Pacific Islands[edit source]

Do you have any plans with these locations? Dauth (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2016 (CET)

As much as would like to, it would be a waste under the Regional Nations format. As far as nations go, each nation was placed in their location. The only left were two former CNs and I put them here [Australia and Haiti]. The area can still get a page in their respective areas/provinces pages though. At this point the super-regions pages are basically finished - save for slight improvements here and there [adding collapsible NIs and etc.].
I'm currently focused on the map-modes legend and upcoming changes to estates page. You can check looks in my sandbox if you have any input regarding style. ~ SolSys (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2016 (CET)

Halfop[edit source]

I've made you a halfop on the wikis due to your significant contributions, especially in talk page discussions. This means you can now:

  • Delete and undelete pages
  • Suppress redirects when moving pages
  • Edit protected pages (except those with cascading protection, which is essentially just the main page)
  • Rollback all edits to a page by a single user so that the last edit *not* by that user is restored, with a single click (great for removing vandalism)

~ Meneth (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2016 (CET)

(short answers are often the best answers). ~ SolSys (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2016 (CET)

National ideas[edit source]

I think you've made the right decision there. Since you've got AWB working, can you do the fix onto the country pages too? At least that way we're not duplicating anything. Dauth (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2016 (CET)

I'll delay this a bit and if there won't be a solution change them back. If nothing else at least the template got updated in the process. ~ SolSys (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2016 (CET)
No need to change them back; I'd just update the country template to fetch them from the NI page section transclusion instead.
Regardless of how we do things, letting the country template handle it on country pages is clearly the most compact and user friendly solution. ~ Meneth (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2016 (CET)
I like the sound of that. Dauth (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2016 (CET)
Great. After that there's just updating the naming part in Template:Idea group - left it as it is 'casue the NI template is without a 2nd name for now. ~ SolSys (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2016 (CET)

New world[edit source]

stop screwing around dude — Preceding unsigned comment added by (Talk) 18:03, 25 January 2016‎ (CET)

# Show some respect comments like that are not welcome on the wiki
# Solsys is working with the full blessing of the moderators and administrators of the wikis and the content you've commented on is a work in progress.

Dauth (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2016 (CET)

First,Dauth thanks for the support.
Second, while I do welcome criticism and suggestions it might be more helpful in the future if you actually left more details in your complaint instead of letting me investigate what you might be referring to by myself. If you'll take the time to survey the new pages [left you an answer on the other page] you'll find they are a tad more informative than they were in the past [sans the notable section] as now almost all nations are listed [except some wild-cards]. I do plan on improving them further so if you have suggestions feel free to leave them here and I'll add them to the list of ongoing work if possible. ~ SolSys (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2016 (CET)

Patch 1.15[edit source]

Please wait until tomorrow before update the articles to 1.15, so you will also update the SVersion templates. Stigni (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2016 (CET)

No problem. ~ SolSys (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2016 (CET)

File upload tip[edit source]

If when you upload a file you put the category code in as normal then it will upload directly into the category. Might make the job a bit easier for you. Dauth (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2016 (CEST)

Thanks, I'll try to remember that in the future. I'm doing a bunch in a row so it somewhat easier.
I do need a name for the management UI category [the best I got is Management tabs]. ~ SolSys (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2016 (CEST)
I'm not sure which part of the UI you mean with management. Dauth (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2016 (CEST)
The shield/country tabs. I thought country tabs might be confusing. SolSys (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2016 (CEST)
I'd go with Country interface tabs though Management tabs is also fine. The image categories are effectively storage for the files for an easy overview but they're not ultra important. Dauth (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2016 (CEST)
I think that you have duplicated some image (e.g. [[File:Technology interface.png]] and [[File:UI tab tech.png]]). Stigni (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2016 (CEST)
I'm aware of that, but thanks for the heads up anyway. I wanted all the images to be updated and with the same naming format for the UI page rework. You're welcome to start if you wish [general outline is listed here ] as I would only get to it after the Regional nations updates. ~ SolSys (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2016 (CEST)

Central and South American Superregion[edit source]

I noticed that the Caribbean region isn't located in any of the superregions, I'm planning on adding it to the Central American superregion image with the map updates for 1.16. Is that fine? Zraith (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2016 (CEST)

I don't see any problem with that, although it won't really have any effect on the page as the region doesn't contain any nation [except a formable CN].
BTW, good work on the new uploaded maps. They look great. ~ SolSys (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2016 (CEST)

Study technology[edit source]

The redirect links to Espionage, but there's no content on study technology. Is this something you've missed? Dauth (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2016 (CEST)

It's behavior has been changed and therefore it is listed now under passive benefits. I've rephrased it to be more clear and update the redirect to the right section. ~ SolSys (talk) 11:13, 16 April 2016 (CEST)

Changes to achievements[edit source]

Heyo, do try and remember when changing the difficulty of achievements to also change which difficulty class they occur in within the navbox. :) Rygel8472 (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2016 (CEST)

Regarding that, some of the achievements are pretty straight-forward and do not require strategy guides [Networking is one such case - especially since there's no actual strategy on the page]. ~ SolSys (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2016 (CEST)

Email[edit source]

Good afternoon. 5 days ago I sent an email to the email address you use on the wikis. As I've received no response, I was wondering if the email got to you? ~ Meneth (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2016 (CEST)

Sorry, I don't check the emails unless I know I need to [just sent you an answer]. ~ SolSys (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2016 (CEST)

Regional nations navbox[edit source]

There a couple countries missing from your navbox: Meissen and Jan Mayen. I'd add them but I'm an EU4 noob and I'm not sure if they make sense to add in the Other tab or among the others.

Also, the Meissen link goes nowhere since it's not mentioned on the Europe central regions page IoannesBarbarus (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2016 (CEST)

As far as I remember, Meissen was removed with patch 1.8 from the game. Jan Mayen is a very special country, I think it should not appear in the navbox. – Lillebror (talk) 12:02, 4 October 2016 (CEST)
The Regional nations pages basically list all the nations available at the 1444 start [and if not at later dates] for the player by regional context. For that reason, wild cards such as re/formable tags or revolter tags do not appear on the tables [due to the many different possible variants] and are shown under the Other tab in the navbox. I would have added them there, but Flag of Jan Mayen Jan Mayen is basically a cheat for challenge [easter-egg] and Flag of Meissen Meissen seems to have become an unused tag [no culture/script ties] so it won't appear in-game at all without console use. Edit: wasn't fast enough. Or short enough. ~ SolSys (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2016 (CEST)

October 2016 contest[edit source]

Please post all comments/queries about the contest in this section. ~ SolSys (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2016 (CEST)

About versioning[edit source]

Hello, I was wondering why you didn't let 1.18 version in the Religions and denominations thread, because it is accurate for this version of the game..?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123e55 (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2016‎ (CEST

Usually when I revert an edit I leave a note in the edit summery as a pointer. Basically, a page version is set to the lowest of any of its sub-sections. In the case of Religions and denominations you can see that it's sub-sections are as low as 1.15. I also advise to check the article against previous patches as well [since 1.15]. Also, please use ~~~~ to sign your name. ~ SolSys (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2016 (CEST)

Contest question[edit source]

Hello, I was wondering if I can get a bit more points for the work I've done? For example for the Nation Designer or uploading images ( I don't know if I have points for that or not? ). Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123e55 (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2016‎ (CEST

The points are granted based on the list in the contest page. In cases where the task is partially done only a portion is granted [the task list is updated to reflect this] - this is the case for said example. Also, please use ~~~~ to sign your name. ~ SolSys (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2016 (CEST)

Trade nodes - it is not true that "Only Sea/Inland nodes exist"[edit source]

Hello. I'm a little disappointed with your deletion of my edit to Trade nodes on May 14th: I had edited the page in a similar manner before (November 4th, 2016) with Lillebror's approval (User_talk:Lillebror#Trade_nodes_table), and, from your point of view having not necessarily noticed that, most likely had found a way to distinguish between Inland sea and Sea nodes (which I would have been willing to discuss). On top of that, I had explained the difference in the Notes section.

That aside, there is a difference between Inland sea and Sea nodes, although it is not as explicit as the inland=yes lines in the 00_tradenodes.txt file make inland nodes. If you try to hunt pirates with galleys, you will be able to in Basra, Novgorod, and most of the Mediterranean, but not in California, Brazil or Sevilla. The reason for this is (I'm 90% sure) that nodes in the group containing the first three only have inland seas as sea member provinces (shown within members={} in the 00_tradenodes.txt file), while the second group's nodes have non-inland sea member provinces. This is merely hinted at in the Wiki (Trade#Hunt_pirates and Naval_warfare#Hunt_pirates), and before this, a player reported this feature as a bug to the developers.

It's not always predictable (from the player's point of view) which nodes will allow galleys to hunt pirates. For instance, they can hunt in Canton, but not in Hormuz, despite that both have a mixture of inland and non-inland seas nearby, and that fleets on missions in Canton will enter the Luzon Strait (a non-inland sea). The game itself seems to give little clue as to which nodes allow galleys to hunt pirates (that is until you have a province in the node and a spare galley). This is why I consider it a useful addition to the Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2017‎ (CEST

The edit did ring a bell. Having checked the page history it seems the previous edit [11/2016] was undone during the article's version update. Considering the above point, I've incorporated your changes back into the page [post editorial]. Also, please use ~~~~ to sign your name. ~ SolSys (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2017 (CEST)

Trapalanda[edit source]

Trapalanda country and horse culture was right, it summons in Falkland Islands after you convert save from CkII. You can try it yourself. -withche.07 (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2017‎

Many different cultures can appear in-game that way. The culture article [and any CK2 relevant data] lists information already present in the EU4 game files -- such as /Europa Universalis IV/common/cultures/00_cultures.txt. BTW, you can sign your comment with ~~~~. ~ SolSys (talk) 08:36, 20 August 2017 (CEST)

Wiki functioning[edit source]

Hello, I just have a question about your functioning into this wiki. This is several times I try to enchance some pages. However, you just say no without any explanation and without exposing a clear way to change the initial idea.

I see no answer to a suggestion, no constructive argumentation, no suggestion to enhance an idea, no discussion. After a while you make your own edit instead of explaining it before. People don't know what is in your head if you don't explain it.

Are you here to moderate and explain or to edit alone in your own corner? Thanks for answering. --UserID (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2017 (CET)

I'm sorry, I'm in a bit of a loss here. I tend to leave notes on most of the reverts, but unfortunately if a revert consists of several consecutive edits [from the same user] then the wiki doesn't let you leave a note. I did contact you about some reverted edits lately [along with some suggestions]. As EU4 is not the only wiki I look after, some things may have slipped - accidentally - between the cracks. Do you inquire about a specific case? ~ SolSys (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2017 (CET)
OK, so here is some examples.
I was working on the countries pages, but you explained me that the informations into the old table must be displayed. I had a proposition to change it, but no answer, so I started to change it as I suggested: reverted.
Now, you changed the countries table with a new table. It is better than the preceding sorting, but if you explained it clearly at the beginning, this table could be done few months earlier instead of the list.
Now, I made some changes in the countries pages to add the units sprites from the DLCs. You reverted it. I do not understand why and you don't suggest an altervative method to display these informations. --UserID (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2017 (CET)
I could not explain it, because there was nothing to explain at the time. A few weeks ago some user added new information - that could only be presented conveniently in a table - and I merged it into the page. You could have found the reasoning yourself if you read the edit summary.And again, you were contacted about your latest edits along with some alternative suggestions. If you'd like to hear more about the alternatives, then simply ask about them [preferably tomorrow as it is late on my end].
Edit: Regarding the old proposition, after considering that overwhelming majority play only the 1444 start I deferred to your first implantation -- you interpreted consent as a disregard. ~ SolSys (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2017 (CET)

Why did you remove Portugal's strategy?[edit source]

Why did you remove Portugal's strategy? Lystraeus (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2018 (CEST)

Usually guides are given a grace-period of 1~2 weeks to be refined and conform to the style guidelines, however, this strategy wasn't even pretending to follow them. They are linked everywhere for a reason. If you still wish to work on the guide you can copy it to your user sandbox though here. In the future, do not undo a moderator action without a valid reason/discussion beforehand. ~ SolSys (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2018 (CEST)
Your dismissive explanation is a bit better, but still rude. At least you alerted me to a style guide this time. But rather than, y'know, improve the section by pointing out which bits contravene the style, you still mash the delete button for something I spent a lot of time and care creating. From the style guide, I cannot see any major conflicts (except perhaps Rule 2, although the rule is qualified by "Country strategy guides are exempt from this rule, but it is still preferred"). Be more helpful, or I will escalate the issue with a more responsible moderator. Lystraeus (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2018 (CEST)
It would seem you are new to the wiki, in which case, an explanation is in order as well as a "welcome to the wiki". When reverting consecutive edits by the same user it is not possible to leave a note in the summary. As I was pressed for time I did not contact you at the time. As tone does not follow through in written medium you seem to have interpreted my response in a hostile manner -- which albeit short, had an explanation, an advice for improvement and a way to implant it, along with a reprimand.
Regardless of the above, my critique still stands -- to be more elaborate, your guide violates points 2-5 [#2 has actually been enforced for a while and it will be corrected, thanks for bringing it to our attention]. I've copied the guide to your user sandbox if you wish to improve it. When you are done you can contact one of the moderators for evaluation and re-posting.
Though I'll assume it is just another issue with misinterpretation of tone, a reminder nonetheless -- neither myself or any of the other wiki staff get a paycheck for doing it so remarks such as "be more helpful" are not acceptable. Irregardless, if you believe to have been slighted by a staffs' actions you can ask any of the moderators to weigh-in at any point. Have a fruitful day. ~ SolSys (talk) 23:53, 5 September 2018 (CEST)

Land Unit Pips Graphs[edit source]

I wanted to let you know that I changed the pip per tech level graph for cav and inf (mostly because I tried to use the previous version for my india playthrough and had to resort to the table anyway). Also being a seasoned eu4 wiki contributor and the last one to post there I wanted to ask if you have any improvement suggestions. Note: The colors for the nations stayed the same, the order in the legend is per average pip count then alphapbetical. Neato (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2019 (CET)

I'll have a look and see if it could be simplified [though, no promises on that front]. ~ SolSys (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2019 (CET)

Dev Diaries[edit source]

Hi, do you have knowledge of what the next code version of EU4 will be cause if not then lets keep it as unannounced because to date we have not had any information whether the next update will be 1.29 or 1.30 or 2.0 or whatever. If we follow the standard of other paradox games we can assume the next patch will be 2.0 instead of any incremental number of 1.0 --Pbhuh (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, in the past EU4 stuck with the 1.xx version scheme due to game director's wish. While we do not know if the new game director will follow suit we'll assume the case until it is said otherwise. Edit: Though I don't mind changing it to a simple "unannounced expansion and patch".~ SolSys (talk) 06:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Religion Denominations[edit source]

Hello, I'm a normal player who doesn't edit but still likes to use the wiki. By splitting the religions page into several smaller ones you made it harder to navigate them, as now I have to look at several pages when comparing religions. I also don't understand why you split them, as there was nothing wrong with it beforehand.

Hi there. The page was growing too big and became cumbersome to edit. In such cases we tend to break the main articles into smaller connected ones. Navigation should not be different as the split was done by religion groups and the navigation table at the top was preserved. In addition, all links, redirects and transclusions were updated accordingly. ~ SolSys (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Question about the contest[edit source]

Hi. I have edited States and territories and Governing capacity pages but it gets undone by someone. Can I still get tickets or should I restore the page? Thank you. Alivanza (talk) 06:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Edits are checked per users and rewarded based on their merit. No need to change a page to get them. ~ SolSys (talk) 10:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Overlooked feature for contest?[edit source]

If feels like the changes to the mercenary system were overlooked for the contest. It may have been wise to include it in the 'Emperor/1.30' section. Anyway, thank you for running the contest. Rygel8472 (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Each edit is rewarded based on its usefulness to the wiki regardless if it is mentioned or not. ~ SolSys (talk) 10:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Cascading protection and Heavy ship.png[edit source]

I produced cropped (38*31px) versions of the ship icons, with fully transparent rows and columns removed, but I cannot upload the cropped File:Heavy ship.png because of cascading protection from the front page. How might I upload a cropped version?AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 14:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the goal is not to have the icons as small as possible. The 4 ship icons - the representations must match one another in terms of their size. – Lillebror (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. (I experimented with that the other day, and while it did improve spacing for galleys/transports, I decided it wasn't worthwhile to abandon the use of to-scale icons.) Therefore, I've cropped all ship icons to 38*31px, and am holding off uploading any till I'm sure I can upload them all.AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
You can upload them under another name and PM me or the other moderators and we'll apply the changes. ~ SolSys (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
The heavy ship file is [Heavy_ship38.png. I'll update the others myself.AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. – Lillebror (talk) 05:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks :) ~ SolSys (talk) 12:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Mission trees style[edit source]

Hello! Lately I’ve begun to check all mission tree articles updating them and looking for any errors. I’m going through not only those that are not updated but through all of them in turn because sometimes they too contain some mistakes. It didn’t take too long for me to notice the discrepancy of style between many of them. I just read the wiki style manual and the only things covered by the manual that pertain to mission tree articles are that only proper nouns should be capitalized (so “trade efficiency” not “Trade Efficiency”) and that italics should be used for emphasis (so “not” instead of “not” or “NOT”). As I didn’t know about these policies I haven’t corrected them anywhere, but now that I know about them I will conform every article I edit to this style.

But there are several other divergences in style I’ve found. For example whether the modifier icon should come before or after the number (“+10% Manpower.png manpower” or “Manpower.png +10% manpower”). Different articles use different styles. Another issue is using bold font for numbers in the requirements column: for example the article Generic missions uses it this way but some others don’t.

These might be of trivial importance, but there are others that concern readability. Please take a look at my recent edit to the article Franconian missions: here. The creator obviously just translated the code from game files to English. I think that readability is more important than faithfulness to the game code so I changed the conditions from pseudo-code to human speach. Still, I wasn’t sure what to do with the part about personal union on Brandenburg/Prussia. Many other mission tree articles simply ignore mentioning all those conditions and just say, for example: “Austria gains a "Restoration of Union" casus belli on Bohemia”. Every or almost every instance of this casus belli coming from missions checks if the country is eligible to become a PU, and if it isn’t it gives perma claims instead. Anyone with this knowledge will have a much easier time reading this one line than the whole query, as it is written in the aforementioned article about Franconian missions. Adding to that I want to point out that every mission tree article also ignores a similar requirement: when giving claims all missions check whether or not the country already has claims on that province, or if it owns the province. If this is the case no claims are given. I think this would serve as a precedent to justify dropping the whole query and just writing “Austria gains a "Restoration of Union" casus belli on Bohemia” instead of specifying that Bohemia has to be independent Christian asf. I hope I phrased myself well when describing this one.

I haven’t found any style guideline for mission tree articles. Do you think we should maybe create such a style guideline to unify the style across all such articles? If we were to do that I would be happy to help with the implementation. Or maybe the wiki already has a policy on this, but it’s buried somewhere I haven’t seen. In that case I would propose to place it in the above style guideline for easier access and reference.

With due regards, MichaelTheSlav (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I am a bit pressed for time today, so I can't grant saisfactory answer to your (rather good) inquiries. I'll try to answer on Friday (my day off), though feel free to ping me on the forums if I am late with it. Regards, :) ~ SolSys (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for answering. No problem, feel free to answer when you find time. BTW I discovered the template Effect. It isn’t in widespread use, but perhaps it could be used to unify the style of writing modifiers, after some tweaking? Regards, MichaelTheSlav (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I have often struggled with the style and have been very inconsistent because of that, so I think that a style guide for missions would be very helpful. Or maybe just a collection of good styles for recurring phrases. This is one of the things which have held me back from adding more missions. For the PU CBs I think that the claims that you get instead should be mentioned. Maybe the exact conditions for when the PU CB is given could be put in a footnote. This is different from the perma-claim example, because it is quite obvious that you would not get a perma claim if you already have one or already have a core and this is always the same. The claims that you get instead of the PU CB differ. And there are sometimes people who ask on the forum/reddit if you can get a PU cb as a republic or why they don't get the CB from the mission. That you don't get the CB if the country is already subject might be obvious for experts, but it is not for newer players. I think some of the missions don't describe under which circumstances you get the CB, because the person who wrote the wiki article only looked at the mission tree in the game and not at the game files. There are probably more cases in which the wiki doesn't describe the circumstances in which triggers and effects can change(e.g. if-blocks or things like "religion = ROOT"). I fixed a few of these already when I noticed them and I have seen that you fixed a few as well. Thank you for the good work on the mission trees. --Grotaclas (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

[Unindented] Hi again. I'll try to go over your points one by one:

  1. "Manpower.png +10% manpower" is the prefered version to display this info. Reasoning is based on how info is being "read" with the icons acting as focal points.
  2. Bold numbers for modifiers should be used when the modifier can have both positive and negative effects so how it may be percived depends more on the user and the situation.
  3. Many pages event/mission pages on the wikis were generated by a script where possible as it wasn't feasible to have a human go over all of them. It would seem not all of them were marked as {{computer generated}}. If you enconter such a page, please mark it as such and if you got the time, hrlp "translate" it ;)
  4. Expanding on queries can be important in situations where outcome may end up different than ecpected and users may not understand why. These should help solve issues popping in various forum posts asking about "I did X. Why Z does not happen?". Of course an editor can always convey this info in a more "human/flowing" way.
  5. There is no specific guide for mission trees. The preference is to have general guide apply to all -- though I'll admit it has been a while since they were updated. That said, if you feel the wiki could benefit from such a guide you can prepare one and if it is good we will add it to the style guidelines (for example, Europa_Universalis_4_Wiki:Style/Country).

~ SolSys (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you a lot for answering.
1. I see. So icon before the number, and no capitalization. What do you think should be done to the template Effect? It follows the same format, except it also links to the modifier. It also doesn’t have much use on the wiki. Perhaps it could be used to enforce the preferred usage you mentioned on the wiki (if we removed the awkward link) although it already has very limited use. Maybe it would be overcomplication?
5. I thought about it too, although I wouldn’t want to do it by myself. My idea would be to cooperate with a few people who are active in editing such articles to agree on the standards. If they are willing of course. So that nobody would blame me for imposing my own whims on the whole wiki. But for now I think I will focus on correcting objective errors in the mission trees on the wiki. When I am done with it or I get bored I will think about assembling such a team.
So thanks again for answers, I will continue doing my work. MichaelTheSlav (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the modifier capitalization -- if it is in the middle of a sentence then no need to capitalize. You can capitalize the first word if it is starting the sentence (for example, a table row). In a nutshell, you may use Wikipedia's common grammer rules. ~ SolSys (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Alright, thank you for clarification. MichaelTheSlav (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

script to generate mission files[edit source]

Hi, in your reply to MichaelTheSlav you mentioned that mission pages were generated by a script. Do you know if such a script is publicly available or who has it? Do you know if such a script can also generate the triggers and effects of the mission or only the empty table with mission names, icons and prerequisites? There are several mission pages which are missing the triggers and effects on some missions and would benefit from some autogenerated content. pdxparse can do that for events and decisions, but at least the publicly available version doesn't have something like that for missions. --Grotaclas (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

We usually ask the original authors to make such things public to ensure it would be available to rest of the users after they move on. Sadly my memory draws blank on this one. What I can tell from other similar projects is that new effects/triggers have to be added to the utility to be auto-generated so they may never been "in". ~ SolSys (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Wiki contest/Page expansion[edit source]

Hi, FYI I updated the Flemish, Hungarian, Lübeckian, Papal, Savoyard and Serbian mission trees with the missing details a couple of days ago, so it might make sense to review the reward for updating them. Since the changes were mostly auto-generated a human touch is still needed, but the reward might be disproproportiante. No biggie if it's too late in the process. -- Mras0 (talk)

Thanks for the heads up. I've pulled them from the list. Dauth (talk) 09:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)