Capitalization Edit

For the benefit of newer users who may not be too familiar yet w/ the ME universe, I would like to see something included about proper use of capitalization where alien race names are concerned. It should also be noted (as this has caused some issues I guess) that the race name IS capitalized when it is the first word in a sentence, but nowhere else.SpartHawg948 01:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It's going in the Style Guide, which I'm currently patching together right now. : ) Give me five minutes. --Tullis 01:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I would love to get some clarification: In my understanding all space faring nations politically evolved to have some kind of supranational government, Turian Primarchs, Human Alliance, Asari Republics, Salarian Union etc., that represents their people. Thus said, every sentient galactic "race" in Mass Effect is commonly regarded more as a nation/group or as they often refer to themselves in the in-game dialog, a people, with history, interests and culture rather then a biological inbreeding group.

The Mass Effect Wiki describes cultures, history and governments of galactic people by referring to their biological race. Obviously, humans have races, too, though we would rather refer to the Nations or Countries to describe the history and culture of the people living in a certain region.

You know, like a Demonym, Ethnonym or even Exonym, given the different languages spoken in the Mass Effect universe.

TL;DR:
In the interstellar scope of the game I think Humans would be correct, or ... Earthlings.

So, why so racist :-) ?

--LegioN 18:01, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

First off, I have no idea what Turian Primarchs are. I'm sure if we were to contact the in-game turian government (the Turian Hierarchy) they may know more though. Also, not sure about the Human Alliance. Maybe we should ask the Systems Alliance about them? I've seen no evidence that the people use in-game dialogue to refer to themselves or others as a nation or group and not a race. In fact, there seem to be several instances where the only possible interpretation is that the person speaking is specifically describing someone by race. Turians and humans in particular seem to do this, especially when referring to each other. And it is worth pointing out that humans have what we call races, but these are not really races at all. Maybe more like subspecies? So comparing the word race when used to differentiate a turian from an elcor to the word race when used to differentiate a Caucasoid from a Mongoloid (two of the three human "races") is not a valid comparison at all. And at the end of the day, all we're doing is following the guidelines BioWare set down on this. They say it's human, turian, volus, asari, elcor, etc. Who are we at the Mass Effect Wiki to argue with the people who write Mass Effect? SpartHawg948 23:27, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Question Edit

For the section about a users talk page, do they really control everything that goes on that page? See as I have learned on wikia, it is an accepted rule that you can't delete someone else's messages on a talk page, but you can hide them with <!-- --> hidden markup. I'm just wondering if you follow this.-- C2 / CC 03:03, November 12, 2009 (UTC)

I would agree, if we're talking normal (ie article) talk pages. However, a user does control everything on their own personal talk page. So while it is true that on an article talk page, you can't just delete other users posts, on your own personal talk page, you can. It is, after all, your user talk page. SpartHawg948 11:42, November 12, 2009 (UTC)

I can understand why they want spam removed, but what if two users begin to hold a grudge towards one another? Begin removing the other person's messages without just cause? Not saying it is going to happen, and I hope it doesn't, but the privelege you are giving them, can be miss used.-- C2 / CC 18:43, November 12, 2009 (UTC)

That counts as impersonating another user, and is a bannable offence. --Tullis 18:45, November 12, 2009 (UTC)

I think what CC was referring to was a person removing the comments of the other (whom they have the grudge with) from their own talk page. If so, I don't see the problem. What is and isn't on your talk page is entirely up to you. For example, say I were to go on your user talk page and start hurling insults and obscenities at you, calling you every name under the sun, and for good measure, also besmirching your mother. You wouldn't want that on your talk page, would you? I sure wouldn't. Which is why you would be well within your rights to remove it. Now, Tullis is, of course, correct in pointing out that removing content from someone else's talk page is a bannable offense, but again, you have free reign over your own user talk page, which is as it should be. SpartHawg948 21:01, November 12, 2009 (UTC)

I love it when I look stupid on talk pages. : ) Yes, SpartHawg has the right of it, listen to him. : ) --Tullis 21:06, November 12, 2009 (UTC)

What I was reffering to was that you have a grudge on someone, and even if the person has something construcktive to say, the other person just denies them, because they don't like them. That's why having total control can be a bad thing. As I said there isn't anything from stopping you to use the hidden markup. @Tullis: It happens.-- C2 / CC 00:23, November 13, 2009 (UTC)

Well, in that case, there is nothing stopping the person w/ the constructive statements from posting them on their own talk page. The person w/ the grudge can't edit that out, now can they? As for total control being a bad thing, I think it would be far worse to dictate to people what they can and cannot do with their own personal user pages. I don't go in for censorship. At the end of the day, we're not gonna change the policy to take away a user's right to determine what they do and do not want on their own talk page. Again, censorship is not really my cup of tea. SpartHawg948 03:56, November 13, 2009 (UTC)

It isn't censorship, you arn't allowed to delete another's messages, just because you say so. You may have missed it, but I did say it is standard wikia policy(A general rule from wikia). But I'm just thinking ahead, because once this wiki gets huge, that type of grudges are unavoideable. And you arn't controlling what they do on a personal page, you are controling a person's talk page, whitch anyone can edit. Removing spam/vandalism/flaming is okay, but just removing something you don't like for no reason isn't. I can't do anything really. -- C2 / CC 23:14, November 13, 2009 (UTC)

Just speaking for myself: if I don't periodically clear messages from my Talk page, it soon becomes uncontrollably large. Those messages can still be viewed in the page history. They're never completely gone. But I can't manage without the ability to control my own Talk page. People's messages get lost, and I can't do my job as an admin. --Tullis 23:18, November 13, 2009 (UTC)

Also, different wikis have different policies. This works for us, and it seems fair to the most number of people. --Tullis 23:21, November 13, 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I would much rather allow people to control their own talk pages than attempt to impose any sort of arbitrary rules on them. If they want to remove something someone they don't like put on their talk page, who cares? And yes, controlling what people can and can't do on their own PERSONAL talk page is controlling what they do on a personal page. In fact, it is the very definition of controlling what someone does on a personal page. As Tullis said, nothing is completely gone, you can still look it up in the histories. Also, if we are to control what people can and can't remove from their own talk pages, where do we draw the line? Spam/vandalism/flaming is all subjective. One man's spam is another's debate. One man's vandalism is another's valid argument. One man's flame is another's counterpoint. Who makes the call on subjective matters like that? You? Me? Finally, wikia gives us leeway to run this site the way we do. It may be a "standard wikia policy", but it's not our policy. Here, we give you leeway with your talk page, the only rule being not to edit other people's comments on your talk page. If you want to delete who chunks of it, great! It's your talk page, and I wouldn't have it any other way! :) SpartHawg948 01:47, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

Actually you can archieve them. So if user "X" has a talk page that is to long, instead of just clearling everything out, he or she may just create User talk:X/Archieve 1, that is actually done on many, many more wikis in my experince. As long as there is some sort of link on the talk page, you can have as many archeives as you want. And techincally Tullis they are gone from the current version of the page. And it would not be arbitrary rules per sa because people will know if you are openly flamming or spamming them. You draw the line when it seems like they have done something unfair, aside from that they make their talk page as screwy as they want it to be. I'll give an expample on my talk page. -- C2 / CC 19:03, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

Ok, or you can just delete it. Again, still visible through the page history. And you never answered my question about who draws the line about such a subjective topic. It IS very arbitrary to tell people they have virtually no control over their own personal talk page, especially in lght of the fact that wikia actually says very little concerning user talk pages. The wikia help page on Talk pages actually says very little about user talk pages, and nothing whatsoever about deleting comments left by other users on your own talk page. However, on the page governing User pages, Wikia states, "Other policies for what you can and can't have on your user page should be by community decision, and will differ on every Wikia. However, most communities allow users to do whatever they would like with their userpages, within Wikia policy." That's what we've done here. We've come up with out own policy for this wikia. Finally, not to sound rude or anything, but what purpose is there to continuing this? You've made your point, we've made ours, and it's also been made pretty clear that we aren't going to change a policy that is so popular with our editors. SpartHawg948 21:26, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

Hey I'm just throwing a thought out there. I never intended for their to be so much text, so I gave up trying to sort through it all...... It really isn't that big of deal, if it your way works so well. For now I'll just let slide, until I get bored one day and decide to read this again.-- C2 / CC 00:29, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

And on that day, I will tell you the same thing. There is NO overarching policy from wikia on this, and as I have demonstrated, there is remarkably little on the subject one way or the other. If, as you admit, our way works so well and you were just asking a question, why bring it up again in the future. Again, we have no intention of changing the policy, as it's worked very well for us in the past, and any attempt to more strictly regulate people's user talk pages would be met with much dissatisfaction. So, if at all possible, we can just leave this be from now on, it would be greatly appreciated. SpartHawg948 01:29, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

I was more joking than anything. It honestly doesn't matter unless a problem comes up, to be fair I did not know that you have been using it for awhile. I was just bringing something up that I know is a problem on most other wiki's. I willing to just forget about it, but are you? O.o (Kidding)-- C2 / CC 02:35, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Indeed- we've been using this system since the wiki was founded over two years ago, and the next problem it gives us will be the first. On the other hand, I can think of several instances just off the top of my head where the system you were proposing (the so-called "wikia standard") would have created all kinds of head- and heartache. Who knows, maybe someday the other wikia wikis will wise up and start using our method. And when they do they will find that when you give people more control over their own personal user pages and talk pages, the world does not end, chaos does not run rampant in the streets, and anarchy does not take hold. And yes, I am more than ready (and willing) to forget all about this. SpartHawg948 04:51, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Interesting how this can blow way out of scope, so quickly.-- C2 / CC 00:36, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

Removing pages Edit

This may be answered in another page, but how do I delete a page that has been nominated for deletion? Tantalus91 02:04, January 28, 2010 (UTC)Tantalus91

You don't. Only admins and up (i.e. admins, bureaucrats, wikia staffers, etc) can delete pages. SpartHawg948 20:42, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

What qualifies as trivia? Edit

I've seen many things added under trivia sections, some of it being completely worthless, speculative, and irrelevant to the mass effect universe, yet it’s there. I and others I know have added things that are factual and that fit well into articles, adding info that doesn’t really fit under any of the other categories and yet they are deleted. So are their guidelines to what goes/counts under trivia sections?

Can you provide examples of... well, of either of those? Irrelevant and speculative stuff kept, and good and factual stuff discarded? Basically, it boils down to a few guidelines. If they have the same name, it's not automatically trivia. There has to be some connection. If it's an item or place likely named after something, then it generally is, as being named after and being a reference on the basis of the same name are two different things. Now, as to references not involving names, if it's a reasonable conclusion, i.e. one that people can look at and say 'that makes sense', it's trivia. If it seems like a stretch, it isn't. Nobody is safe from having their trivia deleted, not even admins. I've had trivia items I've added called stretches and removed too. The one exception is developer confirmation. If a developer says it's trivia, it is. End of story. A lot of it is situational, which is why it would be really helpful to provide examples. SpartHawg948 04:28, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

Nothing? Nada? Hmmm... disappointing. SpartHawg948 20:41, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

What qualifies as speculation Edit

The guidelines need to be updated to explain why adding the point calculation to the "Hold the Line" portion of the Suicide mission (or similar empirical information) is speculation? Apparently, the rationale is that this information has not been confirmed by a developer. However, I don't fully understand how interpretation of game data is necessarily speculation. Some information is easy to verify via experimentation, especially the relationship of Mordin, Tali, Kasumi and Jack to dying during Hold the Line portion of the Suicide Mission. Obviously, confirmation by a developer is ideal, but there is a lot of room between pure speculation (anything about Mass Effect 3) and empirically verifiable information. Moreover, the Collector Ship (mission) page notes that the "exact trigger is unknown," but then affirmatively states that "at least five new missions" are required to trigger this mission. How was that determined if not empirically? Technically speaking, the only thing that is certain (presumably) is that the Collector Ship Mission occurs after Horizon. To me, the line between speculation and fact is not clear and should be clarified under "Community Guidelines." Blindman25 18:56, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Language Question Edit

Is it against policy for offensive language used in context in articles? Like when jack says "fuck off" to shepard, is it acceptable since it is in the game? BeoW0lfe 17:46, February 8, 2012 (UTC)

If it was, then would the headquote in Jack's article still be there? Short answer, no if it is quoted and in context. Lancer1289 17:53, February 8, 2012 (UTC)

Why is it so strict? This wiki is based on an M rated game that contains by your standards "offensive" language? User:Super Warden

Probably for the same reason that BioWare, the company that created the M-rated game that contains (by our standards and theirs) offensive language, enforces a strict language policy on their own forums. Offensive language is often detrimental to the type of environment we're trying to foster here. And it's much easier for people who do use offensive language frequently (such as myself) to suck it up and tone down the language for a bit than it is to tell people who don't like offensive language "too bad. Deal with it or stay away." That's not at all conducive to the environment we're trying to create.

To close, I'll quote BioWare staffer Stanley Woo: "Our game's rating has no bearing on the kind of language that's acceptable in our forums. Forum discussion should be rated PG. Not even PG-13, PG--no swearing, no nudity, no sexual content, etc." SpartHawg948 01:46, March 16, 2012 (UTC)