User talk:Acherousia

Strikethrus

Bro, stop putting strikethrus on pages. The entire wiki has been moving away from them, since they fucking littered absolutely everything and made entire articles borderline unreadable. If you have a problem with some text in an article, rewrite the text entirely instead of putting a strikethru in. Alternatively, if you have a problem with a specific editor's work, take it to the talk page. Evil Executive, CEO of Evil Incorporated (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I used a strike through to specifically call out that statement as incorrect, as a lot of people make that exact mistake due the two abilities having the same name. Acherousia (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

TL;DR sections

As they are now, their quality is so poor that there is no reason for them to even be present. Absolutely no explanation or detail is given why each unit is given a category, and by its very nature it discourages any attempt to make advanced strategies. Put simply, they are worse than useless and the tactics articles are better off without them. If you want them to stay, make them worth keeping first. --Newerfag (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

"The purpose they serve is an outline to players who do not know enough about that army or competitive scene to know what they should specifically be looking into. It tells them what units they are most likely to run into or have issues with, so they can then skip to those specific articles to read about them in detail."

It doesn't even do that. As far as a player who doesn't know enough can tell, they are completely arbitrary. If you can't even be bothered to give a one sentence explanation as to why a given unit is in a given category, I don't see why the section should be there. It reads like your own personal opinion, not as a reflection of the meta or any unit's potential. And perhaps you should stop screaming "VANDAL" whenever you see the big bad red text- as I said, there is nothing worth improving in those sections as they are now. More importantly, the tactics pages are not meant for newcomers in the first place, but for experienced players who want to get the most out of their army; the hypothetical newcomers you speak of would be far better suited to asking for advice on /tg/ itself. If you think they can be salvaged, prove that you care enough about them to do so.--Newerfag (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

And I find it ironic that you're committing the same kind of "vandalism" by refusing to admit that those sections were not as universally welcomed as you think. What happened to the opinions of the people who disagree with you? --Newerfag (talk) 21:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

If you would be so kind as to read my response to you on the Space Marine page and cease trying to equate upholding the status quo (i.e. the section's absence) as vandalism I would be willing to give suggestions as to improvement. For example, a one-sentence description of each unit explaining the rationale behind its placement, like so:

>Tactical Marine Squad: Generalist heavy infantry with access to special and heavy weapons that can be used to fill a variety of roles, but somewhat expensive compared to Scouts and can't take as many heavy weapons as Devastators.

See? Short, to the point, and actually describes what the unit can do rather than acting as if the reader already knows. That's far more useful to a beginner than just putting the name in a category and trusting them to figure out the rest. --Newerfag (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Post it on the article's talk page instead, as others besides myself may want to give feedback as well. If they assent to it, then it can go on the page proper.--Newerfag (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I also suggest looking at what DarkAngel2020 says on the Necrons tactics talk page as well; while I think the sections in question could be brought up to par, they may end up being TL;DR themselves. --Newerfag (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)