Wikipedia.org needs help w/ WC

Dragon1

Dragon1

Rear Admiral
Hello fellow WC enthusiasts,

I just took a peek at the Wikipedia entry for the WC universe. These articles seriously need help in terms of accuracy and could be beefed up a little. I am going to start editing some pages, but I don't have alot of time right now. Thus, would anyone else be interested in fixing some of this stuff? Let's do it right so anyone who frequents Wikipedia, but doesn't know about the community here is getting good info.

My username at Wikipedia is also Dragon1, so if you guys see anything that I have changed that you don't like, just contact me.

This page would be a good start- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_Commander_technology_and_vehicles

Thanks everyone
 
Couple quick things at a glance (I'm not that interested in changing them myself)

We do not actually know the Hellcat Vs designation but it is labeled in wc3 as a "Space Superiority Interceptor" with the possibility of a forward slash between superiority and interceptor to look like: "Space superiority/ Interceptor"

Also there are actually 3 kinds of tanks in the wc4 mission including a missile tank, hover tank, and IIRC regular ground tanks. ( seem to remember confed having the hover and missile tanks and the BWs having the ground tanks in the mission) In the FMV sequence, it is impossible to tell if the tanks are different but they look like the same model which suggests the BW do have hover tanks as well.

I also object to the Bearcat being listed as a BW fighter because the only reason you can fly them in wc4 is because you steal them.
 
No. Wikipedia doesn't tell you anything that the rest of the world won't be able to, and the rest of the world doesn't require you to check back every day to try to figure out wheter the information it provided was wrong or not.
 
There's been a more and more noticable trend towards "downsizing" Wikipedia entries lately -- making them equivalent to what you'd find in a non-Wiki 'pedia instead of cramming in as much information. Is there some way to petition to have them drop Wing Commander back to a basic outline of the games instead of all kinds of super-detailed often-wrong in-universe continuity stuff?
 
What about including a link to the CIC encyclopedia and a few major WC sites in the brief entry, which is complete (almost-didn't see much about the Nephilium ships or otherwise) and is accurate to 95% or more.

I think really all the entry needs is information about the game with some mentions to the history of Origin written into it (basically stuff relating to WC as a game/fashion). Then information about the basic storylines of the games and universe. Lastly have information about the WC communities with links and talk about all the fan projects currently-in-progress, finished, or approaching completion like HTL and Standoff.

This IMO would be the most comprehensive, accurate, clear, and complete wiki entry that would only need a page.

I might write the page myself if I had the time.
 
I'm afraid I'm partly responsible for this - I created the Vehicles page, though only after the links to the ships alone were taking up half the space on the main page. I really don't know if it's possible to downsize it anymore - the movement to have the ships' entries deleted got vetoed two years ago (check the Discussion page of the link Dragon posted), though I suppose it's possible to try to appeal it. In any case, the whole thing has exploded in size in the subsequent time - I used to maintain it, after a fashion, but checking 70 different pages that barely anyone reads regularly is so pointless I don't even bother anymore (and, apparently, neither does anyone else).

edit: If you really want to fix it though, it's probably best to focus on the main page, where all sorts of fun non-facts such as the "anacronistic presence of the Longbow in WCIII" appear.
 
Iceblade said:
What about including a link to the CIC encyclopedia and a few major WC sites in the brief entry, which is complete (almost-didn't see much about the Nephilium ships or otherwise) and is accurate to 95% or more.
Click to expand...

The CIC Encyclopedia is unfortunately far too incomplete right now to really bother with using for something like this.
 
I would liken being an admin to Wikipedia as being the owner of a successful septic tank company. Even if you are a big wheel - youre still dealing with shit 24/7
 
The WC entries are kind of slim compared to everything else on there. That aside, I've always been happy with the information I get from Wikipedia. I don't know why everybody trashes on it so much. Yes it can be flawed, but it's 99% good stuff, and going anywhere else would be about 10% as useful, and could still be just as biased or flawed.
 
Elephant jokes had their day in the sun, sure. But everyone knows them now; they're tired and old. Internet humor is fast approaching the same level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top