Talk:Drift City/Car Stats

Completion Status

Please help get this information from here. V1, V2, and Drifter are complete. --Tathar (talk|contribs) 11:52, 30 September 2007 (CDT)

All cars introduced before 9/30 are done. Please add new cars in the tables based on their original class, after the other cars in that original class. --Tathar (talk|contribs) 15:36, 30 September 2007 (CDT)

I've finished all of the cars up until before the Nova. The newer cars need to be added. --Tathar (talk|contribs) 17:29, 21 January 2008 (CST)

Skid Rush cars?

Should the cars that are in Skid Rush but not Drift City be added? --Tathar (talk|contribs) 14:35, 3 October 2007 (CDT)

I don't think so. I believe Skid Rush has its own page. CrashMurphy 00:10, 6 July 2008 (CDT)

No, Skid Rush redirects to Drift City. --Tathar (talk|contribs) 02:03, 6 July 2008 (CDT)

Sure, just make more headers to separate data. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 13:24, 8 July 2008 (CDT)

Can't be done. The SR cars follow the same car classes as the DC cars, and separate headings for the same class interfere with the usefulness of the chart. --Tathar (talk|contribs) 19:34, 8 July 2008 (CDT)

In that case, use a level three heading ( ===like this=== ) at the end of each class to cover Skid Rush-exclusive cars. If it has a large number of exclusive cars, however, it might be better to give them their own page. Garrett^Talk 20:26, 8 July 2008 (CDT)

There is a large number, but the usefulness of the chart would still be diminished because you wouldn't be able to sort the SR and DC cars in the same chart. --Tathar (talk|contribs) 22:56, 8 July 2008 (CDT)

Ah, right. Hm. Perhaps the SR cars could be marked with some sort of symbol or image--the Japanese flag perhaps?--with an accompanying note in the page text. That way they could be included in the same tables while still making their availability clear. Garrett^Talk 23:35, 8 July 2008 (CDT)

Sure, but it has to be a Korean flag or something. --Tathar (talk|contribs) 23:46, 8 July 2008 (CDT)

?? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 16:32, 12 July 2008 (CDT)

That works. The SR site is really slow for me, so I can't add the data, though. --Tathar (talk|contribs) 17:59, 12 July 2008 (CDT)

Also, since the US and JP versions are starting to get cars that the KR version doesn't have yet, maybe putting the flags for each car is best? The JP version has its cars in different starting V classes too. If someone can get me access to a JP account (or a proxy so I can make one myself) I'd be able to add information from the JP version.

You could add a column for each version and use the {{yes}} and {{no}} templates to say if the car has been released for that version (like the MapleStory version templates). -- Prod (Talk) 20:03, 12 July 2008 (CDT)

Car Class

The Vx and Rx car classes were added before car class upgrades were available. Rx car classes don't exist, so the car class column should be replaced by the original car class. --Tathar (talk|contribs) 17:29, 21 January 2008 (CST)

Re: Partial additions of "Real Life" car names

I've copped a bit of flak for this on my talk page, so it's time to bring this to the people for a consensus.

An anonymous editor of the car stats page has been addding the "real life" car names to the upgrade classes. You can see them by looking at the changelog. Now, after each one (there have been two "sessions" of these so far) I've been clearing the names from the "upgrade class" entries, because whoever has been making these changes has:

1. Made additions to only one or two "upgrade classes"
2. Edited the page by section (rather than as a complete page)
3. Added wrong names despite the correct ones being clearly visible on-page

Which has lead me to believe that the edits were made by an inexperienced editor and although innocent, do not add to the quality of information on the page; rather, it makes the tables appear messy and disorganised. Unfortunately, there seems to be a misunderstanding with the implications that leaving the "real life" entries blank in the "upgrade class" entry rows bring about. It has been suggested to me that by being blank, it implies that the upgrade class has no "real life" counterpart. However, the way I see things, it is redundant to add the real life names of vehicles to their upgraded entries, as the names are already exist in the stock class entries for every car, and adding them to the upgrades as well would make the table more difficult to use and cluttered.

Although I am fine with other people seeing things differently, I may stress that if someone wished to add the "real life" names to upgrade entries, it would be best if he or she do it for all upgrades for a vehicle, and for every vehicle to ensure the page is consistent. In addition, I understand that this would be a very labour-intensive task, so I am looking for suggestions to alternative ways to show that the car name already exists elsewhere on the page, and perhaps something extra to tell readers that this is the case.

My first thought would be to add something like the {{n/a}} template to the upgrade classes and/or place a message at the top of the page, or a comment in the document like:

To editors of this page: The real life names of upgrade-class entries have been deliberately left blank to maintain the cleanliness of the page. If you can suggest an alternative, please discuss it on the talk page.

I want to collect some ideas about how to organise this page well, as I think the way it is right now is perfect. I also hope this sheds light on any misunderstandings. ahiddenfigure 15:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Two ways to avoid the redundancy of adding real car names from the tables above would be to split the tables into a new cars table and an upgraded cars table, or convert the "Car in Real Life" cells into a large rowspan cell. Organizing the page by car instead of car class would also work. Lastly, removing the columns all together would solve the problem. If the real-life car is something beneficial to know, it can be put in its own table elsewhere on the page or the guide.

Changes aside, there is no harm in filling out everything in a table, and as the page is organized by class, someone looking at it and going to a class from the table of contents would have to scroll back up and find that car in a previous table to know what its real-life counterpart is. The thing is, filling out missing table cells is too pervasive an idea on a wiki (and encouraged, by the way) to have a policy of reverting any edits attempting to add information. Any solution you like is fine, but having one page on the wiki where people can't fill out the table is just asking for trouble. - najzere^T 16:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As each car class is to be viewed separately, I have to vote in favor of filling out the real life car names for every entry, regardless of if the information can be found on a different table. --Tathar (talk|contribs) 18:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Upon further thinking about this, I'm proposing the idea of a page restructure. Instead of grouping all cars by class, would it be more useful to a visitor (being a web designer by hobby, I was thinking about the motivation a reader would have to actually clink to and read the page) to have the page be more of a car "bios" with each car in their own section listed by either alphabet or stock class? Each section could have an image of the car (if one really wanted to go nuts, with/without kit pics or multiple views), next to a list including "stock class" (if sorted alphabetically), "cost", "prerequisites" (i.e. coupon) then a table showing the stats upgrade path from stock to V9.

Not only would it look a lot neater, but for someone interested in seeing how a car upgrades, it would make finding the right information quicker and simpler as each car would have its own section or sub-section (which means a named page anchor to jump and link to), it would be easier to add new information to (for when new cars get added) and we get a more helpful, logical and generally good-looking page to boot.

If it sounds a bit confusing, I'll post an example on my user page in the next couple of days. ahiddenfigure 15:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a lot of work for you, but it will be a big improvement to the page. Thanks! - najzere^T 17:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

While I think that you may have something of value in mind (I'm still quite confused about what you mean) the purpose of this page has always been to be able to compare stats between cars of the same class. Perhaps you can link each car's page from the respective entries in this page instead. I am strongly against a page restructure that would cause the purpose of this page to change drastically. This page is one of the most visited in the DC guide because it organizes car stats in a way that no other resource (even in-game) provides, and any proposed restructuring needs to continue to meet this highly-demanded need. --Tathar (talk|contribs) 19:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I just checked, and this page is the second most viewed of the entire guide. Only the guide's main page has more views. Additionally, this page is #613 overall (across SW) most viewed. --Tathar (talk|contribs) 20:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

How about keeping this page, but taking off the last two columns (Cost/Coupon and Car in real life) in the tables and creating a new Vehicles page that can be organized by car? — najzere^T 20:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense for the "Car in real life" column, but the cost is an important stat when considering what car to buy. I'd like to propose that fuel mileage and tank size be added to the tables since they are both important and hard to obtain without asking someone who owns the car. --Tathar (talk|contribs) 20:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Tath makes a good point. I realised that this possible restructure would lose the ease of comparing cars of the same class, however I do know people use this page to see how a car upgrades as well, which is quite difficult to do now, but it is immediately apparent that the two ideas can and probably should co-exist. However, the ideal compromise is that this page loses the controversial "real life" column perhaps in favour of Tath's idea of adding fuel economy and tank size, which would be extremely useful given the current page scope.

As further motivation for going ahead with this idea, it also solves another problem which has received some discussion on this page; the availability difference between regional versions of the games. It would be very easy to show which cars are in which versions simply by selectively showing country flags or using a table and the {{yes}} and {{no}} templates.

Finally, although I would be more than happy to do a page in the proposed structure myself (currently on break from Uni, so I've got more free time than one can poke a stick at), I'd need a template made for the vital information to speed up the process, and because I'll be starting a new guide soon, which will take some time away from Drift City. I'd be hoping for something like this:

{{drift_city_vehicle
|altname= _alternative name for sponsored manufacturers_
|image= _image of vehicle_
|stock= _Stock V class_
|price= _Initial Purchase Price_
|rlname= _"Real Life" name_
|level= _Minimum level requirement_
|coup= _Coupon required (optional)_
|us      
|skid    Just set any of these
|jp      to show availability
|tw      in region-specific
|hk      versions of the game
|in
}}

Since I have no idea how to create templates, I'd need someone to do that for me before I begin. Also, if anyone is still confused about this proposed change/new page, see my user page as I updated it earlier today with an example. Also because the intentions of that template are a little unclear, I'll update my user page tomorrow to show the full use of the template, so check back then. ahiddenfigure 13:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

We should leave out the real car column, because its taking up a lot of space in the tables and has nothing to do with upgrading. If you want to create a list of the cars using that template, the data will have a lot more room, so fill in whatever information is available. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 20:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)