Talk:WSP Table Templates - Revision history

U17686967: "kph" has been updated to "km/h, " a correct abbreviation of speed in the metric system.

2023-06-05T19:02:15Z

"kph" has been updated to "km/h, " a correct abbreviation of speed in the metric system.

U30585107: /* the point of this page */

2020-02-07T04:13:50Z

‎the point of this page

U28580205: Response and added missing signature (Use "--~~~~" in future to sign talk posts)

2020-01-29T17:05:25Z

Response and added missing signature (Use "--~~~~" in future to sign talk posts)

U44629479: /* Mobility template including reverse and amphibious speeds */ new section

2020-01-29T12:31:39Z

‎Mobility template including reverse and amphibious speeds: new section

U30585107 at 18:29, 1 November 2019

2019-11-01T18:29:43Z

U30585107 at 05:46, 31 October 2019

2019-10-31T05:46:30Z

U30585107: /* the point of this page */ new section

2019-10-31T05:44:04Z

‎the point of this page: new section

U38088265: Response

2019-10-30T22:34:05Z

Response

U13682523: Aircraft limits table

2019-10-30T22:12:55Z

Aircraft limits table

New page

Could we possibly expand the aircraft's limits table to include takeoff and landing flaps breakage speed, instead of just combat flaps? It can be useful to know what speed your flaps break at when coming in to landing; particularly for aircraft like the Swifts, where there is a 600 kph difference in breakage speed between two flaps settings. In addition it would improve clarity for vehicles without combat flaps (Spitfires, Sea Hawk, etc.), currently the takeoff flaps breakage speed is put in the combat flaps box, or the box is left blank (depending on who wrote the page). Either way is not really ideal (for example the table on [[Spitfire F Mk IX]] page says the combat flaps break at 290 kph, when it does not have combat flaps and that is the actually the speed the landing flaps break at). --[[User:U13682523|U13682523]] ([[User talk:U13682523|talk]]) 22:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:02, 5 June 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	Could we possibly expand the aircraft's limits table to include takeoff and landing flaps breakage speed, instead of just combat flaps? It can be useful to know what speed your flaps break at when coming in to landing; particularly for aircraft like the Swifts, where there is a 600 ~~kph~~ difference in breakage speed between two flaps settings. In addition it would improve clarity for vehicles without combat flaps (Spitfires, Sea Hawk, etc.), currently the takeoff flaps breakage speed is put in the combat flaps box, or the box is left blank (depending on who wrote the page). Either way is not really ideal (for example the table on [[Spitfire F Mk IX]] page says the combat flaps break at 290 ~~kph~~, when it does not have combat flaps and that is the actually the speed the landing flaps break at). --[[User:U13682523\|U13682523]] ([[User talk:U13682523\|talk]]) 22:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)	+	Could we possibly expand the aircraft's limits table to include takeoff and landing flaps breakage speed, instead of just combat flaps? It can be useful to know what speed your flaps break at when coming in to landing; particularly for aircraft like the Swifts, where there is a 600 km/h difference in breakage speed between two flaps settings. In addition it would improve clarity for vehicles without combat flaps (Spitfires, Sea Hawk, etc.), currently the takeoff flaps breakage speed is put in the combat flaps box, or the box is left blank (depending on who wrote the page). Either way is not really ideal (for example the table on [[Spitfire F Mk IX]] page says the combat flaps break at 290 km/h, when it does not have combat flaps and that is the actually the speed the landing flaps break at). --[[User:U13682523\|U13682523]] ([[User talk:U13682523\|talk]]) 22:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
	: Point taken and I completely agree. I've made a (tentative) edit to the table and it doesn't look bad, so it should hopefully be ok to go ahead. -[[User:U38088265\|U38088265]] ([[User talk:U38088265\|talk]]) 22:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)		: Point taken and I completely agree. I've made a (tentative) edit to the table and it doesn't look bad, so it should hopefully be ok to go ahead. -[[User:U38088265\|U38088265]] ([[User talk:U38088265\|talk]]) 22:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:13, 7 February 2020
Line 7:		Line 7:

	Well I'm going to start turning them into templates. Let me know if you want any changes.--[[User:U30585107\|U30585107]] ([[User talk:U30585107\|talk]]) 18:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)		Well I'm going to start turning them into templates. Let me know if you want any changes.--[[User:U30585107\|U30585107]] ([[User talk:U30585107\|talk]]) 18:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
		+
		+	I changed my mind. With the visual editor I don't think templates are necessary unless there are calculations being done or other niche things. So all the stuff I added should be all the stuff that might benefit from templates.--[[User:U30585107\|U30585107]] ([[User talk:U30585107\|talk]]) 04:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

	== Mobility template including reverse and amphibious speeds ==		== Mobility template including reverse and amphibious speeds ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:05, 29 January 2020
Line 60:		Line 60:
	\| ___ \|\| ___ \|\| ___ \|\| ___ \|\| ___ \|\| ____ \|\| __.__ \|\| __._		\| ___ \|\| ___ \|\| ___ \|\| ___ \|\| ___ \|\| ____ \|\| __.__ \|\| __._
	\|}		\|}
		+	--[[User:U44629479\|U44629479]] ([[User talk:U44629479\|talk]]) 12:31, 29 January 2020‎ (UTC)
		+	: Thanks for the suggestion! We'll take a look into it. (Also, don't forget to add a signature to your talk posts!) --[[User:U28580205\|U28580205]] ([[User talk:U28580205\|talk]]) 17:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:31, 29 January 2020
Line 7:		Line 7:

	Well I'm going to start turning them into templates. Let me know if you want any changes.--[[User:U30585107\|U30585107]] ([[User talk:U30585107\|talk]]) 18:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)		Well I'm going to start turning them into templates. Let me know if you want any changes.--[[User:U30585107\|U30585107]] ([[User talk:U30585107\|talk]]) 18:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
		+
		+	== Mobility template including reverse and amphibious speeds ==
		+
		+	The max reverse speed is absent from every vehicle (it is not available in the stat card but it still is an interesting fact for the wiki). Here is my proposal to integrate it to the current template:
		+	{\| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center" width="70%"
		+	! rowspan="2" \| Game Mode
		+	! colspan="4" \| Mobility characteristics
		+	! colspan="2" \| Engine power (horsepower)
		+	! colspan="2" \| Power-to-weight ratio (hp/ton)
		+	\|-
		+	! Forward max speed
		+	! Reverse max speed
		+	! {{Annotation\|Weight\|Vehicle Weight (Tons)}}
		+	! {{Annotation\|AoA Weight\|Add on Armour Weight (Tons)}}
		+	! Stock
		+	! Upgraded
		+	! Stock
		+	! Upgraded
		+	\|-
		+	! Arcade
		+	\| ___ \|\| ___ \|\| rowspan="2" \| ___ \|\| rowspan="2" \| ___ \|\| ____ \|\| ____ \|\| __.__ \|\| __.__
		+	\|-
		+	! {{Annotation\|Realistic\|Simulator uses Realistic FMs}}
		+	\| ___ \|\| ___ \|\| ___ \|\| ____ \|\| __.__ \|\| __._
		+	\|}
		+
		+	I've also come across a few amphibious vehicles for which the speed in water, forward or reverse, isn't available. Here is my proposal for a template:
		+	{\| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center" width="70%"
		+	! rowspan="3" \| Game Mode
		+	! colspan="6" \| Mobility characteristics
		+	! colspan="2" \| Engine power (horsepower)
		+	! colspan="2" \| Power-to-weight ratio (hp/ton)
		+	\|-
		+	! colspan="2" \| Land
		+	! colspan="2" \| Water
		+	! rowspan="2" \| {{Annotation\|Weight\|Vehicle Weight (Tons)}}
		+	! rowspan="2" \| {{Annotation\|AoA Weight\|Add on Armour Weight (Tons)}}
		+	! rowspan="2" \| Stock
		+	! rowspan="2" \| Upgraded
		+	! rowspan="2" \| Stock
		+	! rowspan="2" \| Upgraded
		+	\|-
		+	! Fwd max speed
		+	! Rev max speed
		+	! Fwd max speed
		+	! Rev max speed
		+	\|-
		+	! Arcade
		+	\| ___ \|\| ___ \|\| ___ \|\| ___ \|\| rowspan="2" \| ___ \|\| rowspan="2" \| ___ \|\| ____ \|\| ____ \|\| __.__ \|\| __.__
		+	\|-
		+	! {{Annotation\|Realistic\|Simulator uses Realistic FMs}}
		+	\| ___ \|\| ___ \|\| ___ \|\| ___ \|\| ___ \|\| ____ \|\| __.__ \|\| __._
		+	\|}

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:29, 1 November 2019
Line 5:		Line 5:

	The existence of a page like this kinda boggles my mind. Shouldn't we make all of these tables into templates that we then group together in a category? --[[User:U30585107\|U30585107]] ([[User talk:U30585107\|talk]]) 05:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)		The existence of a page like this kinda boggles my mind. Shouldn't we make all of these tables into templates that we then group together in a category? --[[User:U30585107\|U30585107]] ([[User talk:U30585107\|talk]]) 05:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
		+
		+	Well I'm going to start turning them into templates. Let me know if you want any changes.--[[User:U30585107\|U30585107]] ([[User talk:U30585107\|talk]]) 18:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:46, 31 October 2019
Line 4:		Line 4:
	== the point of this page ==		== the point of this page ==

−	The existence of a page like this kinda ~~boogles~~ my mind. Shouldn't we make all of these tables into templates that we then group together in a category? --[[User:U30585107\|U30585107]] ([[User talk:U30585107\|talk]]) 05:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)	+	The existence of a page like this kinda boggles my mind. Shouldn't we make all of these tables into templates that we then group together in a category? --[[User:U30585107\|U30585107]] ([[User talk:U30585107\|talk]]) 05:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:44, 31 October 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Could we possibly expand the aircraft's limits table to include takeoff and landing flaps breakage speed, instead of just combat flaps? It can be useful to know what speed your flaps break at when coming in to landing; particularly for aircraft like the Swifts, where there is a 600 kph difference in breakage speed between two flaps settings. In addition it would improve clarity for vehicles without combat flaps (Spitfires, Sea Hawk, etc.), currently the takeoff flaps breakage speed is put in the combat flaps box, or the box is left blank (depending on who wrote the page). Either way is not really ideal (for example the table on [[Spitfire F Mk IX]] page says the combat flaps break at 290 kph, when it does not have combat flaps and that is the actually the speed the landing flaps break at). --[[User:U13682523\|U13682523]] ([[User talk:U13682523\|talk]]) 22:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)		Could we possibly expand the aircraft's limits table to include takeoff and landing flaps breakage speed, instead of just combat flaps? It can be useful to know what speed your flaps break at when coming in to landing; particularly for aircraft like the Swifts, where there is a 600 kph difference in breakage speed between two flaps settings. In addition it would improve clarity for vehicles without combat flaps (Spitfires, Sea Hawk, etc.), currently the takeoff flaps breakage speed is put in the combat flaps box, or the box is left blank (depending on who wrote the page). Either way is not really ideal (for example the table on [[Spitfire F Mk IX]] page says the combat flaps break at 290 kph, when it does not have combat flaps and that is the actually the speed the landing flaps break at). --[[User:U13682523\|U13682523]] ([[User talk:U13682523\|talk]]) 22:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
	: Point taken and I completely agree. I've made a (tentative) edit to the table and it doesn't look bad, so it should hopefully be ok to go ahead. -[[User:U38088265\|U38088265]] ([[User talk:U38088265\|talk]]) 22:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)		: Point taken and I completely agree. I've made a (tentative) edit to the table and it doesn't look bad, so it should hopefully be ok to go ahead. -[[User:U38088265\|U38088265]] ([[User talk:U38088265\|talk]]) 22:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
		+
		+	== the point of this page ==
		+
		+	The existence of a page like this kinda boogles my mind. Shouldn't we make all of these tables into templates that we then group together in a category? --[[User:U30585107\|U30585107]] ([[User talk:U30585107\|talk]]) 05:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:34, 30 October 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Could we possibly expand the aircraft's limits table to include takeoff and landing flaps breakage speed, instead of just combat flaps? It can be useful to know what speed your flaps break at when coming in to landing; particularly for aircraft like the Swifts, where there is a 600 kph difference in breakage speed between two flaps settings. In addition it would improve clarity for vehicles without combat flaps (Spitfires, Sea Hawk, etc.), currently the takeoff flaps breakage speed is put in the combat flaps box, or the box is left blank (depending on who wrote the page). Either way is not really ideal (for example the table on [[Spitfire F Mk IX]] page says the combat flaps break at 290 kph, when it does not have combat flaps and that is the actually the speed the landing flaps break at). --[[User:U13682523\|U13682523]] ([[User talk:U13682523\|talk]]) 22:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)		Could we possibly expand the aircraft's limits table to include takeoff and landing flaps breakage speed, instead of just combat flaps? It can be useful to know what speed your flaps break at when coming in to landing; particularly for aircraft like the Swifts, where there is a 600 kph difference in breakage speed between two flaps settings. In addition it would improve clarity for vehicles without combat flaps (Spitfires, Sea Hawk, etc.), currently the takeoff flaps breakage speed is put in the combat flaps box, or the box is left blank (depending on who wrote the page). Either way is not really ideal (for example the table on [[Spitfire F Mk IX]] page says the combat flaps break at 290 kph, when it does not have combat flaps and that is the actually the speed the landing flaps break at). --[[User:U13682523\|U13682523]] ([[User talk:U13682523\|talk]]) 22:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
		+	: Point taken and I completely agree. I've made a (tentative) edit to the table and it doesn't look bad, so it should hopefully be ok to go ahead. -[[User:U38088265\|U38088265]] ([[User talk:U38088265\|talk]]) 22:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)