Guide: The Artifact Tier List

[Squirrelloid]

IMO: the problem wasn't adding descriptions. If you had just done that, it would be fine. The problem was making it vanilla instead of CBM.

Virtually every user contribution to the wiki is CBM (1.6 or later in most cases). The only vanilla content is the stuff that's *autogenerated* from the game code. (lch extracts game stats directly from the gamecode or equivalent as i understand it). If it was possible to make it do this for CBM instead, it probably would have been done. (Note, this is why capital only units don't show up on nation pages iirc, because the auto-extraction is failing to connect that those units belong to that nation since they're assigned to a site, not the nation).

Anyway, when virtually every actual contribution is CBM that tells you something about the wiki's userbase and about the 'suitability' of the wiki for CBM content.

[Gandalf Parker]

Wow. I use the wiki all the time and did not realize that it was CBM. I was fairly sure Ive used player provided content that wasnt. I took it for granted that everything was "vanilla unless specified otherwise".

If that is true though, that it will be a "cbm unless stated otherwise" then Id guess the "Official Dominions 3 Wiki" label might be rescinded.

[LDiCesare]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

The problem was making it vanilla instead of CBM.

Virtually every user contribution to the wiki is CBM (1.6 or later in most cases). The only vanilla content is the stuff that's *autogenerated* from the game code.

Utterly false.
Most content is vanilla, or just agnostic (modding advices or example).
Look at nation guides, which are imo the most interesting part and the one that is most impacted by mods:
EA: Abysia: Both are vanilla (see salamander cost, blood stones mentions)
Agartha; 2/3 vanilla, 1 is CBM.
Arco: Vanilla (Pretender cost)
etc. I won't list them all, but I counted 3 (maybe 4) out of 28 EA nation guides which are CBM-specific.
That is about 85% vanilla. So if 'virtually every' means about 1 in seven, then yes, you are right. But I think you're just totally wrong, sorry.