Wikia

Mass Effect Wiki

Talk:Manual of Style/Planets

2,897pages on
this wiki

Back to page | < Mass Effect Wiki talk:Manual of Style

Maps Edit

Removed image to remove from wanted files. --silverstrike 01:31, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

Good work! Just a couple of random discussion points:

  • Stick with the symbology already used by the game? Add small reference numbers next to them? (see thumb at right)
  • Different colors for initial points, discovered points, and unmarked points?
  • Three separate sections in text body for initial, discovered, unmarked?
  • Leave the mako on the map at the initial drop point?

I'd quite like to help with the cleanup of the existing pages too.

DRY 09:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for late reply, I've just finished my orientation week in my university. By the way, nice idea, better than mine, actually. Go ahead and change the template, and other articles. The preferable planetary map dimension is 335x376 type:jpeg.
SewerSpeakers 07:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Since the sizes are very similar, I thought maybe that the lossless format might be a better idea. Thoughts? -- DRY 08:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Tables Edit

A couple more points for discussion:

  • Put reference column first? That would be conventional (for LTR locales anyway).
  • Reduce rules/beveling to minimize the visual impact of the table?
DRY 22:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Reference as in? Add example in the template :)
SewerSpeakers 07:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I should have said "Location" column. -- DRY 08:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Codex entry DPL change Edit

I have/am about to edit the MoS to remove the Codex image and audio from the MoS page, since it can really squish the text at the moment. If there's disagreement, please revert and discuss alternatives here. Thanks. -- Dammej (talk) 19:33, November 20, 2010 (UTC)

Well I was going to wait so see what happened first but since it apparenlty didn't work let me just try to guess what would have happened and correct if wrong. If I understand this correctly, you were going to remove the Aeia Codex Entry from the MoS page. I have to say that it does squish the text if that is what was supposed to happen. Lancer1289 19:57, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm unsure of what the problem is. The syntax I used is correct to the best of my knowledge, but it just wasn't removing the {{CodexEntry}} template which bunches up the text. Others had suggested in the past that the Planet template (and others like it) should be shrunk. Is that something we should try here? -- Dammej (talk) 20:06, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
Well the template can't be shrunk by very much, unless we are willing to shrink the images as well. That said, the vast majority of Codex Entry planets have the entry well below the template. On the other hand, shrinking the template is really a discussion for the Project forum and would require a sandbox presentation to get the point across. I'd really have to see that before making a decision. Lancer1289 20:25, November 20, 2010 (UTC)

Shop list Edit

I think planets, at least in Mass Effect 2 where there are very few on which you can buy things, should have a brief list of shops. It seems obvious to me that it is useful in an RPG to have a list of where you can buy things at each "town" you come to. It's true that each shop has its own page which lists its location, but it seems useful to me to go about the "what can I buy?" search based on "where can I go?", since half of the shopping worlds are not available in ME2 from the get-go.

Now that things have settled down a little I can finally get around to this. There are a few things more I'd like to say, but I won't.
I have many problems with this and I'll list them. Needless repeat of information: Shops are put into their own categories and in the planet categories where they are located. Name: I have a problem with Notable Locations as that can be hard to enforce, as "Notable ___" has proven to be a pain in the past. Locations: I don't see a need for notable locations, and I can think of other places that are much more notable than the shops on the planets/stations. Inconsistencies: This would create a massive inconsistency between planet articles and would only apply to a handful of planets, less than the fingers on my hand actually. Unnecessary: Goes along with everything else. I don't see why it is necessary on just a handful of places. Others: Since I know this might come up I'll put this out there. Just because someone else is doing it doesn’t mean that we have to. Each wiki is independent and can make their own policies and do with their wiki what they will. What works somewhere doesn’t instantly mean that it would work elsewhere, or that it even could.
Frankly I don't see the need to mofify this for just a handful of planets and I do classify it as an unnecessary change. Lancer1289 01:46, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
Repeat - It's not a repeat of substantive information, or overly verbose. It's a short, useful list of links to where that information is. It's illogical to ask a player to identify the shop first, then the planet. The information of what planet you're on comes first, then you look up where to shop.
Notable - Where you can buy things is notable. It's one of the two primary things a player comes to "town" to do in an RPG, other than advancing quests. I don't know what previous problems with that term have been but it's self-evident that this is worth knowing. That there are other more notable locations is not an argument for excluding notable but lesser-so locations, it's an argument to include them all, which is how the Omega page does it. I would be amenable to creating a new category called Shops instead of Notable Locations for these links, however.
Unnecessary - What are you worried about, wasting ink? It's the internet. It's not taking up too much space, it doesn't blind the reader with too much information. There is no reason why it makes the page worse, and a lot of reasons why it makes it better. That an advanced player who has the shop locations memorized doesn't need such a list doesn't make it unnecessary to everyone, and it doesn't hurt anyone to include it.
Others - I have no idea what you're talking about. Obviously a shop list could and should work on a planet page, it's not like wikia broke down and crashed when I added them. Hythloday1 01:57, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Re: Lancer: I'm not really moved by many of these reasons... most of them are either trivially solved (e.g. name of the section) or irrefutable (e.g. The highly subjective "Unnecessary"). One to which I will respond: if there is a worry that information will be repeated, DPL can easily be used to automate the inclusion of shops on pages which require them. As it would be category-based, all and only those shops which appear in those locations will be included. (This would be a bit overkill though. Shops are not going to change in the first two games.) Personally, I don't see a big problem with including what shops can be found on certain planets. -- Dammej (talk) 02:00, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
I'll throw in here that I'm not averse to creating a "Notable Locations" section for planet articles where it would be appropriate; I don't particularly favor the idea either, though. But if someone were to formally propose to change the MoS for this, I'd at least give it some consideration. -- Commdor (Talk) 02:13, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
(Edit conflict x3)We don't need to list everything is another reason I see. Frankly we don't list a lot of things, because they are either redundant, or would be nothing more or less than a repeat of information. We do list assignments and missions because they appear on a larger majority of planets than shops do and frankly this would be such a small exception that I don't see a need to include it. Listing shops is like listing residents, and we don't do that do we. No because it is unnecessary and would be overkill, like this is. I seriously contend that a shops is notable, no matter what the situation. Especially on the Citadel where I can argue that Zakera Ward is more notable than the cafe named after it. Or Omega where Afterlife is much more notable than Omega Market. I still don't think that listing shops, or notable locations for that matter, are necessary to include. This would only apply to a small handful of planets, six to be exact, and I don't see a need for it. Lancer1289 02:15, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
Huh? If it's a change that only affects a small number of pages then why is this a big deal? I believe you're engaged in a "slippery slope" logical fallacy - there is no reason why including this short list of useful information on a few targeted pages would lead to this "overkill" scenario you're worried about where every possible useless thing is listed. Hythloday1 02:24, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
No that is not what I'm thinking, but rather that we don't need to list every little thing associated with a planet or station. I'd say that there are more residents than shops in terms of prominence and there would be a reason for including those. Aria is certainly more prominent than say the Omega Market; or Liara on Illium over Gateway Personal Defense. I really don't see a need to include them nor do I see a need to include locations or residents. Lancer1289 02:33, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why you think a shop, in an RPG, is some insignificant thing. Notability is not about matching up to some theoretical maximum, it's about clearing a minimum to be worth listing. I suggest, and have heard no compelling reason otherwise, that a shop list meets that threshold. If there are other, more notable locations, feel free to list them. Or take up my or Dammej's suggestion to list them separately, if the term "Notable Locations" has you hung up. Hythloday1 02:43, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
Except I still don't see the need to list shops. I can very easliy see listing assignments and missions, but not places, people, or shops. They are only a small part of the planet, and frankly you can bypass shops altogether. On the other hand, it is harder to bypass missions and assignments in some cases. Mainly because you might lose out on exp, resources, weapons, or a number of other things. Frankly, I can't see a resason for listing shops any more than I can see a reason for listing people or other places.
And yes "Notable (insert name here)" has had problems in the past so yes I have a problem with that name. Lancer1289 03:09, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
Um, the reason to list them is that shops have a significant effect on gameplay. I am very impressed at the skill you apparently possess to beat the game without buying a single item, which also would mean forgoing several quests. But it seems a pretty bizarre downgrade in player experience to ask everyone to meet such a challenge every playthrough, especially their first when they may be under the apparent misapprehension that shops, like in every other RPG, are a fun and necessary part of the game. The rest of us mere mortals would like to know which are available at each planet. If it would assuage your concerns about the word "Notable", however, I will happily re-add these lists with the parenthetical caveat that shops are in no way actually notable, and only weak-willed quislings visit them. Hythloday1 03:19, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Your entire comment completely skipped sarcasm and went straight to insulting, and extremely rude while we are on the subject. You just can't seem to stop being rude, or insulting to me can you?
Yes it is possible to go through the game without buying an item from a shop, as you can go through the game on research alone. Maybe not even then. You simply mine for resources and then research the items. You don't have to skip missions and assingments, but you can choose to. Frankly I don't see including shops is notable, whether or not that be the name, or worth noting. Unlike missions and assignments, which is a different matter entirely. Lancer1289 03:38, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
You know I'm so glad that action was taken with a current 2-2 vote on this being included. Two for, two against unless I'm misunderstanding something. Since when does a discussion conclude when someone doesn't respond and still is against it. Also with the vote count being 2-2. Lancer1289 03:45, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. You aren't discussing anything, you're caught up in your pride. Saying "frankly" doesn't make your non-reason more reasonable. I made a correction to deal with your only complaint, which was the word "Notable" (even though I think it's pretty obvious that shops are notable), by changing these lists to the title "Shops", and you still pulled them all down. I submit that your view is actually in the minority and I am looking out for the interest of the majority of users who want this information. Make an argument besides "I don't want it! I don't need it!" and stamping your foot like a child, and I'll address that concern productively, too. You're feeling insulted because you're emotionally involved by getting called out for your stubbornness. Grow up. Hythloday1 03:50, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)I need to grow up?! Really because you are the one who has flung insults and attitude at me since you came on this wiki. You acted against a 2-2 vote, which means that there will be no change. So far you have rude, condescending, and continue to insult me so I fail to see how I need to grow up when I have acted with a civil attitude and not thrown any insults in your direction, unlike what you have done with me. You have acted immature for most of this argument with sarcastic, rude, insulting, and downright uncalled for remarks. If anyone need to grow up it is you.
As to me being emotionally involved, do you even read your comments. "The rest of us mere mortals would like to know which are available at each planet." (uncalled for, insulting, rude) "I will happily re-add these lists with the parenthetical caveat that shops are in no way actually notable, and only weak-willed quislings visit them." (uncalled for, insulting, beyond sarcastic, beyond rude to me an others) "Make an argument besides "I don't want it! I don't need it!" and stamping your foot like a child" (insulting, rude, uncalled for, insulting other users). I have been civil in this whole argument, and you have resorted to calling me names, being insulting, and downright rude. I think you are more emotionally involved in this than I am since I have yet to resort to insults, being rude, or calling anyone else names.
I don't see the need to list shops as they have equal or even less impact on gameplay than people do, mainly people who can give you missions or assignments like Aria, Liara, Wrex, and a few others. I'd say they even more of an impact because without them, you can't partake in a mission or assignment. We don't have them listed, and I don't see a reason to. You can bypass shops a lot easier than you can bypass say, Aria, who you have to talk to get recruit Garrus and Mordin. I don't see a need to list those people, and others who are prominent/notable, although I don’t like that word, on the planet, or other locations on it for that matter, nor do I see a need to list the shops either. Lancer1289 04:09, December 31, 2010 (UTC)


(Reset indent) To Lancer and Hythloday: It seems that you both just repeating your arguments. What you wrote the first time, is still valid or invalid in the sixth time. Regarding the proposal: to me it seems a bit redundant. I also don't think that we should alter the MoS to accommodate that change - the MoS is not something we need follow without deviation. We should consider, however the implementation of a 'see also' section where such information could be listed (seems like the best place for that information, in my opinion). --silverstrike 04:03, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

Bah. You beat me! Well said, silverstrike. I think we can disagree on the merit of an inclusion without belittling those with differing opinions. I happen to share Hythloday1's sentiment regarding the usefulness of listing shops, and I think their inclusion in a See Also section would be an acceptable compromise. -- Dammej (talk) 04:11, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
I am happy to accede to such reasonable, mature comments! Can we consider this a 3-2 vote in favor of noting shops in the See Also section? Hythloday1 04:12, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)To be honest, I can't see the need for a see also section for the shops as that could extend to other things as well. If that is what you want to call a "slippery slope" well this time it is. Also I did address the redundancy in my first comment as well.
As to the MoS content, no we don't have to follow it word for word, there are plenty of exceptions around to prove that. ON the other hand, consistency is nice and to date only one of the affected articles, out of six, had shops and other places listed. I don't see a need to put them in the see also section, or anywhere else for that matter. Lancer1289 04:16, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
A see also section could benefit some articles in my opinion regardless of the shops discussion. I'm not suggesting we add the list of shops to the see also section, only that it's an alternative. Oh, and to Hythloday, discussions take time, even if you have a consensus (which you don't) you need to wait a few days for more input before implementing anything. --silverstrike 04:23, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the calrification. I also agree that see also sections would benefit some articles. I'm not against that as linking Omega and the Citadel probably aren't bad ideas just to start. I am against adding the shops in the see also sections however for the majority of the same reasons I've listed above. Lancer1289 04:28, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, with monitors as vigilant as these I can hardly see a single unnecessary addition slipping past the eagle eyes of our intrepid admins! To respond to the contention that mission-giving people are not listed on planet pages, I would say that they in fact are because the missions/assignments are. Adding shops to the planet pages thus fits under a sensible threshold requirement for notability, which is "What is on this planet that substantially affects gameplay?" That would exclude all the niggling story stuff that we're worried about, while including helpful cross-links to the very finite number of things on each planet which affect the actual game, without making judgments about how good that player is or how necessary those game-affecting things are. Hythloday1 04:35, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
So it makes sense to not list people, because we link assignments and missions? That's a little odd. What about other residents who don't give assignments, what about them? Should they just get ignored? Just because missions and assignments are listed doesn't mean the people who can give them shouldn't be. However, I have to say that listing them, like listing shops, is redundant and not because they are mentioned elsewhere. Lancer1289 04:42, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
"So it makes sense to not list people, because we link assignments and missions?" Yes. They are relevant to gameplay only because they give missions, so the mission listing is adequate.
"What about other residents who don't give assignments, what about them? Should they just get ignored?" Yes. They are not relevant to gameplay.
"Just because missions and assignments are listed doesn't mean the people who can give them shouldn't be. However, I have to say that listing them, like listing shops, is redundant and not because they are mentioned elsewhere." I agree. That is why I propose a sensible rubric for including and excluding listings, which is the effect on gameplay. Hythloday1 04:47, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
Basing something, like a rubric, completely off impact on gameplay is a slippery slope as the articles not only need to be representing the games, but the books and comics as well. There are characters in the books that aren't even mentioned in the games. The comics, not yet, but in the past yes. If a rubric is needed, it needs to be from an impact on universe perspective, not a gameplay perspective entirely. Yes, gameplay would have a part in that, it can't be avoided, but basing it entirely off gameplay, given the ME universe covered three games, three books, three current comics, two upcoming comics, one upcoming game (that we know of), and one upcoming book, is not acceptable. Lancer1289 04:57, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
Well okay. Obviously some story-type stuff needs to be included and some excluded, and I agree that there's not an easy rule of thumb to figure that out. Fortunately for my purposes that's not relevant. My suggested rubric is anything that substantially affects gameplay should be included without consideration to how necessary someone thinks it is -- thankfully that's a short list, which only includes missions, shops, and the other things already on the Manual of Style -- while stuff that's story-only doesn't automatically qualify and needs to be debated out. Hythloday1 05:49, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
You say that story elements should be debated, while qualifying gameplay elements should get a free pass right? So just to ask this: Anything that qualifies as heavy gameplay impact gets included with no discussion, while a story element, that could have more impact on the story gets excluded? And that said story link would require discussion to be included while the gameplay link would get a free pass? No that doesn't sit right with me one bit. I see the point of adding missions and assignments, considering their story and gameplay impact. On the other hand, stores have extremely little to no story impact and if they get included, then other things would have to be included. Some people have more influence on the story, but little on the gameplay and those people get excluded because they are irrelevant? While other things that have more gameplay and less story get in just because they have more impact on the gameplay? Just because something has a gameplay impact doesn’t mean that it should get an auto-pass while a story element, which could have more impact than the gameplay element in the grand scheme of things, gets excluded because it is not necessary or irrelevant.
I consider people that give quests more importance than shops, but then I would also consider both redundant information. I would also argue that the story has more impact than the gameplay in the grand scheme of things. Granted what is done to one, is done to everything, but I still consider shops to be redundant, and people as well.
Basing your list off the MoS is also something that doesn’t sit right with me. You say shops, missions, and nothing else. You can’t just stop it there and expect me to agree with it. I find that highly illogical since I don’t know what I’m agreeing to. I agree with missions, considering their story and gameplay impact, but not with shops.
Since story elements would have to be debated, that would wind up being one, extremely long mess with things being added, and removed almost at random based on people’s perception of the story. I would say that Orinia, the turian ambassador in Retribution has more of an impact on the story than Harrot’s Emporium and should be included. However, that would have to be debated while Harrot gets a free pass. I would also argue that Paul Grayson, who also has a bigger impact on the story than Harrot should get included, but he would have to be argued. That doesn’t sit right with me that the gameplay takes priority over the story when the story elements could have more impact than the gameplay. Lancer1289 06:46, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, my proposed rubric would automatically allow in some gameplay-related things that, from a certain perspective (not everyone's), are less "important" than some purely story-related things which would have to be debated. My point is that this proposed rubric allows editors to respond to people who say "but <arguably trivial gameplay-related item> is included on the page, so surely my very important fanfic should be too, since it's more significant!", by simply saying, "gameplay stuff is separate from story stuff; the former all gets put in, and the latter has to be of demonstrable significance". The second half of that is already part of the picture with wikis, I'm simply suggesting a rule of thumb that provides clarity for the former.
Look, things that substantially affect gameplay make up a very short list. Really the only thing missing from what's already there are shops. For the life of me I cannot think of a single thing that is a) gameplay related, b) isn't already included on planet pages, and c) isn't a shop list. Please tell me what specifically you are afraid will get added if shops "open the door".
And what's the alternate rubric for gameplay stuff, if mine is shot down? It seems to me to be awfully subjective and aesthetic. I'd put up with that if we'd have some crazy unruly pages that are choked with gameplay facts, but I find that fantasy scenario very improbable, and we can deal with it if it comes to that. Killing true, brief, and useful additions because you're afraid that people will add false, verbose, or useless ones as a result is, I'm afraid, not a very strong argument. Hythloday1 07:10, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
If shops are added then people might get added based on how people like them, or think that their impact on the story is good. There are probably other things like places that cold get added, even extremely minor places, and that would just choke the article beyond belief. Shops don't have much story impact, while missions and assignments do. If we were to add something, then I would support adding people rather than shops given their larger impact on both the story and gameplay. However, I would also argue against adding either because both are redundant. Oh and another thing we already have a problem with, walkthough information in articles. It got so bad that we had to put something in the MoS about it. Walkthough information like for Samara's recruitment mission has no place in the Illium article. That's a bit of a stretch, but it has happened before.
I don't think there would be an alternate rubric as the current version of the MoS Page is just fine and I don't see a need to change it. Adding people and places are just unnecessary and redundant along with shops. You are willing to up with gameplay choked articles, when the story takes a backseat? Well that may seem ok to you, but not to me. If anything there should be more equal balance, rather than one heavier over the other. I'd actually argue that story should have more priority, but I'd prefer balanced. Overloading articles with one side while, at the very worst, ignoring or having very little of the other doesn’t sound like a very good idea.
As to my fantasy scenario, you'd be surprised how quickly some things can get out of control if they don't get a lid of them quickly. And your last sentence, which is just reread my previous one. Things can get out of control very quickly as precedent, is something that is very strong and has been used in arguments before where if something went through, then it would set a very bad precedent for the future and similar articles. Lancer1289 07:27, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
Um, none of what you listed as specific concerns about things that would be added is gameplay-related. No one could use my proposed rubric to argue for their inclusion. Try again.
Gameplay-significant people are already included, and would continue to be under my rubric, in the form of mission/assignment lists. We covered this already.
Saying a shop list on a few planet pages would set a precedent, when there is already tons of low salience gameplay-related stuff already there (resource lists come to mind), that would somehow break the camel's back and allow in minute story-related stuff is just absurd. And for pity's sake, if I'm wrong and people, against all reason and logic, do take this one thing and run with it to publish their fanfics, and somehow it can all be traced back to not holding the line here, then just change the rubric back. What is this, the Supreme Court? We're worried about stare decisis now? I'm familiar with the problems with taming unruly pages, but give me a break. Hythloday1 07:39, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
No I did mention gameplay related problems, like walkthrough information, granted it was a bit of a stretch, but it is not unheard of. You say that places wouldn't be gameplay related, when on some planets you do travel other places on the planet? That is a concern as some places are just not worth noting. You would argue that people who have gameplay focus over story get included while story characters have to get debated. That just isn't right. There are probably characters that have more impact on the story than on gameplay, that would get left behind, and would have to get debated over to be included. That is also not right. You focus on the gameplay over the story, and make no attempt to balance, which is what currently happens.
The resources were added because of the scanning element and because perhaps it would make things easier for people to finish the game faster. I would consider that more important than shops given their impact, which is a lot larger than shops. Shops could open the door to other gameplay only features like locations, people, and information. You keep arguing that we should emphasize gameplay elements over story elements, which is somewhat strange to me. There needs to be a balance otherwise you will have an article that is just a lot gameplay elements, while the story elements get left behind, deleted, or just pushed to the end to make room for more gameplay stuff. That would choke the article with a lot of unnecessary information that is more appropriate elsewhere, yet it would merely be repeated on this page.
And just to say this, why should we change anything when the current version works fine and has a nice balance between gameplay and story. What you propose is throwing that balance off and focusing on gameplay over story. Lancer1289 08:01, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
The walkthrough stuff is already being capably contained, there are simple links from the planet page to the larger mission walkthrough page. That's exactly the mechanic I'm proposing here. For the love of Jeff, it's a list of shops. It's at most four tiny lines on six pages. You are jumping at shadows here.
You're imagining that I have some dog in the gameplay vs. story fight. I don't. I want the planet pages to be easier to navigate. Making it harder to navigate is a poor way to contain accretion of irrelevant story material.
I proposed including a tight, brief list of shops because I think all gameplay stuff should be included. You don't like that? Fine, make a more coherent argument than "maybe there'll be walkthrough things!".
But let's say I spot you that one and go down to just proposing including a tight, brief list of shops because it's a significant gameplay-related item. You reply with a couple posts about how amazing you are that you don't need shops to finish the game and so therefore they aren't significant. I think you're missing the point of and RPG, but fine, maybe shops are for bonkers min-maxers and everyone knows it, and let's all laugh at their obsessiveness.
But to then throw this in, as a defense of the current incoherent rubric of <whatever gameplay-related stuff Lancer feels like>, "The resources were added because of the scanning element and because perhaps it would make things easier for people to finish the game faster."? You have got to be kidding me. I mean here you're not only conceding that the planet pages should have get-people-through-the-game-faster elements to them, but you're willing to put up with big honking ugly tables of metal concentrations down to their number values on every single planet in the Milky Way? But not four words, comprising seven syllables, providing links the two shops on Tuchanka? Shops that sell huge upgrades to damage, armor, ammo capacity, not to mention a hood that gives the player a better shot at cool dialog options (oh hi, story-related stuff!). Get a grip, friend. Hythloday1 08:28, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
(edit confclit)So the story is irrelevant is it and all we should focus on is the gameplay? Because that is basically what you said in your second paragraph. You said that we have to prevent a buildup of story material, while at the same time you want more redundant gameplay material. The story is not irrelevant and focusing on gameplay is good, but not to the point where it starts to push out the story elements. I have already made arguments as to why I don’t think shops should go in, because it is unnecessary and redundant, and there is no need to include redundant information. We say that all the time, why do you think we have links for Unique Dialogue pages and for the Shadow Broker Files, because putting them in the articles would just be redundant and unnecessary information as this would be.
I never said that I go the game without purchasing stuff, get your facts straight. I said that it is possible to go without purchasing stuff, I never said I did that. So don’t misquote me and put words in my mouth. That is just rude and so was the last sentence of your fourth paragraph. I am not missing the point of an RPG, but shops are an extremely small part of that, while the story is a much larger part that you seem very willing to dismiss as irrelevant.
I never conceded that we should add the shops, but even you have to admit that mining plays a bigger part in the game than the shops do. You have to scan for a number of assignments and for resources for research if you wish. You can also go the game without mining, but it is significantly harder to do so. Mining is a system that received a lot of angry comments and BioWare has since made it easier, but it is much harder to avoid mining, rather than avoid shopping. I fail to see how I conceded anything by saying we should have tables for minerals, but not a list of shops based on what I said above.
If you want to have “have get-people-through-the-game-faster elements”, then you have to be willing to put up with characters and places as well. And I see all of that as unnecessary, and unnecessarily redundant. If you have gameplay features, then you also have story features, which you again seem very willing to dismiss because they are irrelevant and the gameplay should take priority. You need balance, and putting redundant and unnecessary gameplay elements, while at the same time ignoring story elements is not a way to do that. Lancer1289 08:53, December 31, 2010 (UTC)


Okay here is a compromise. I found the Merchants Guide page, which I've updated to include ME2 locations as well. I included headings for each town so there can be a simple, single line with a location tag, like this: Shops on Tuchanka. Can we pretty please, with sugar on top, just put this on the relevant planet pages, and cross our fingers that it doesn't summon the Reapers? Hythloday1 08:46, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

So when was this agreed to, or for that matter even discussed. I really don't like when action is taken and then you say it is a comprise, when I never even saw the comprise or even agreed to it. The Merchants Guide was for Mass Effect only, and you did not bring up a discussion about adding ME2 elements, which changes the whole purpose of the guide. I don't see how this is a comprise at all since I never agreed to it and you took unilateral action without bring up a discussion and changing the whole purpose of something.I am reverting that edit because you changed the whole purpose of the guide without discussion. Maybe if you had talked about it first, then taken action, like I explained to you somewhere is what is supposed to happen, then maybe something could have been done about it. But since you again decided to act unilaterally, against policy, I reverted the edit becuase you changed the whole purpose of the guide and how it is structured. Lancer1289 08:57, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
Okay your majesty, I hope this pleases the court, I have created a new page: Shops in Mass Effect 2. Same thing, location tags, single simple lines to link to. For all that is good and holy, would you please respond to my actual offer of compromise and tell me whether including this three-word link on the planet pages would be acceptable to your worshipfulness? If it'll help out balance, I'll even write three more words on each page in relation to story stuff. "Kasumi loves art", "Liara is gay", whatever you want. Hythloday1 09:12, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
I don't care about a new page, but if you had brought up a discussion on the Talk:Merchants Guide page, I would have been more than willing to participate in that discussion. Maybe I still can if you are willing to talk about it as I do have a few ideas about the content and what can go into it. I’ll be more than willing to talk about it, and maybe we could reach a comprise on that page to get the information in there. Frankly you don’t need to be rude about it, especially when I told you that things need to be discussed first, and considering the change this would be, a discussion would be required to implement that change. Again I am more than willing to discussion expanding the Merchants Guide as that would be more appropriate than a completely second page. Lancer1289 09:21, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
What? I don't care if it's on a new Merchants page or the old Merchants page. Do whatever you like to the old Merchants page. All I care about is that the planets pages have a tight, easy access to the individual shop pages that are on those planets. This is a compromise from my original proposal, which was to list all of them on the planet page, to just a single, three word link to a separate page with that list. I'm running out of funny things to plead to in order to get your attention here. Tell me whether this shortening meets your exacting standards of preventing page creep. Hythloday1 09:27, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
What are you talking about because now I am very confused. If you are talking about adding a link to the Merchants Guide, then I’d really have to see what others think about that, but I’d really have to say that a general see also section with certain links is a good idea at this point. I’d have to say that putting the information there, with some modification as to what it contains is a good place for it. Lancer1289 09:34, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
If you are willing to discuss changes to the Merchants Guide article, as I believe there can be much more added than just shop names, then we can come back to this after we have changed it for the better. I keep asking you to go to the Talk:Merchants Guide page and talk about changes, then I am more than willing to discuss changing that, then coming back to this one we are done. Right now I’m neutral, but right now we need to modify the Merchants Guide first before we do anything with this. Lancer1289 09:53, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
Forgive me, I'm sure you mean this in good faith, but this just comes across as foot-dragging to me. There's no "need" to get a perfectly formatted Merchants Guide first. The new page I created is perfectly serviceable, as was my update to the old Merchants Guide page. I've explained my reasoning here: Talk:Shops in Mass Effect 2. Hythloday1 09:57, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

Mission and Assignment Help description Edit

Proposal: Add text that missions and assignments are listed that start there and not where they happen. It's not that trivial.--MaverikCH 10:41, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki