Talk:War Thunder

Video games Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A request for a screenshot has been made to help better illustrate the article. (VG images department)

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

BIG SHOT (1 participant)
WinZO (8 participants)
Kris (Deltarune) (4 participants)
List of Dance Dance Revolution songs (8 participants)
Airlines Manager 2 (4 participants)
Fishstick (Fortnite) (7 participants)
Lilly Contino (18 participants)
Five Nights at Freddy's: Secret of the Mimic (11 participants)
List of Pokémon characters (15 participants; relisted)
Wraith Games (3 participants; relisted)
Gustavinho em o Enigma da Esfinge (4 participants; relisted)
Beenox (5 participants; relisted)
List of Uma Musume Pretty Derby characters (9 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Faction introduced: China (Sept 2019) Controversy

This patch introduced quite a bit of perhaps unavoidable controversy with it, namely the of Taiwanese flags from the game. This wasn't the first time that Gaijin was forced to remove content that may offend the CCP with the suspension of the "pilot diaries" blog and the removal of the manchukuo Ki-27 skin. In addition, a reddit user has mentioned that which once had monopoly rights in China to their private version of WT had their license recently expired, but I have not verified this information yet. I won't add this controversy to the article because I don't really know what wikipedia's official stance on politics in videogames. ZdrytchX (talk) 07:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: split the leaks section into a standalone list

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Not split due to issues with the sources. HarryKernow (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RPI2026F1, Ale rc310, Ylee, Nicerink, ScruffyFox, and Jsnider3: This section has relatively decent third party citations and is relevant to War Thunder, but is getting rather large and cumbersome for the main article. I propose it is split into its own list article to be named List of War Thunder classified document leaks (or something to that effect). HarryKernow (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think if there are enough sources then it should be fine. Especially considering that the classified leaks have had some other interesting effects like one of the defense companies publicly saying that they do not check if people are players of War Thunder. RPI2026F1 (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. Ylee (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A lot of the sourcing seems like WP:OR or of questionable reliability. It should most likely just be changed from a list into a paragraph or two of prose stating the most prominent leaks, which would be perfectly fine for the purposes of the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree 100% with ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. A bunch of the sources don't have anything new to say and more importantly they're conflating 'sensitive', 'restricted', 'classified', etc. Also, it doesn't seem to be clear to some people that it's ordinary for people on the forum to share (non-classified) military documents when they are arguing or making suggestions to staff. They're only providing reliable citations. So it's dumb to word it like "The leaker revealed the information" or whatever. Nicerink (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to move the leak list into its own page

With the last leak concerning the F-117 flight manual being added, we are well over a dozen military document leaks being reported. Shouldn't this list be made into its own page, to go into greater details and avoiding clutter? With a quick summary being kept on the main page and linking to such new page (I should mention this is my first time using the talk page on english wikipedia, apologies if I did something incorrectly) Evo1726 (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's already been a discussion about this a few sections up, and the main concern was that the sources aren't reliable. This is still the case (imo), especially with the F-117 section, which currently links to the removed forum post, instead of secondary coverage.

I've added a split template to the relevant section, if you don't mind. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 15:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is suggested to keep the sections connected. It is important as context to people in the future as they read into the article.

Making it a separate article will make it a footnote rather than retaining the seriousness of the incidents and occluding it from a majority of the readers. A majority of readers will only skim through the articles and read the titles, not the contents unless the subsection is of interest.

In a secondary note, it is better we don't have another article stating "This list is complete, you can by expanding it" and cause more work to counter defacement. SplitScream (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, there is neither enough examples for a blurb nor an article. If the number keeps growing, maybe it should be its own section, later on if the number keeps growing a lot then maybe its own article. Also I'm not sure how the details of whom, when and so on are relevant to the game or it being its own article. The leaks might be worthy of mentioning in an existing article for military leaks, but unless you have examples of how important details are missed because of the scope of this article, I don't think making it its own would be relevant. Tricameral (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support FWIW I am still in favor of splitting. The document leaks are only tangentially related to War Thunder in the first place. If the sources are not acceptable for its own list article, how is the list acceptable in this article? So IMO the options are to split the list or remove the list; keeping it as-is seems like the worst option to me. HarryKernow (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support This seems seperated enough for the game itself and notably signifant enough to justify the splitting. Maxime12346 (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Splitting is the wrong way to go about this, it would be better to write a new article from scratch in prose format, without an indiscriminate list, called something like War Thunder document leaks. In that case, the list can be removed from this article. If it were split in its current state it would merit swift removal. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ZXC's proposal per ZXC, oppose splitting a bare list. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support ZXC's proposal should be a completely new article. CynicNerd (talk) 02:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support ZXC's proposal per ZXC, oppose splitting a bare list. WarMachine0128 (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's become a major part of what people think of when they hear about the game. Not a croissant (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Export restricted doesn't mean classified document, instead export restricted ones should be removed.

Throat0390 (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2023 Regarding New leak on warthunder forums

Add the newest instance of leaked classified documents to the chart for such events. Relevent details: Date: September 26th 2023 Vehicle: AH-64D Apache Longbow Restriction Level: Export Restricted Description: Details not known about why or how

Source: Admin Response on War Thunder forum to the event https://forum.warthunder.com/t/technical-manual-for-ah-64d-longbow-apache/27350/6 Goddess Aife (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Already done ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay section doesn't actually say anything about gameplay

Basically what the topic description says. The gameplay section is massive, but it says absolutely nothing about the gameplay. It talks about what the game is based on (combined arms warfare), and what kinds of vehicles are in the game, and a bunch of April Fools events, but it never at any point addresses the gameplay. Is this a first person shooter? Real time strategy? Point-and-click? An idler? People looking at a gameplay section are going to want to know what kind of game it actually is. 2600:1700:4A5D:5210:363E:A46B:6915:EC19 (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]