User talk:Lancer1289

Welcome to My Talk Page. If you don't find an issue that you have brought up with me in the past, then please check my archive because I have moved a lot of it to there. However I ask you to not edit there, just drop me a new message to bring up the discussion again. Thanks.

Archives: Archive1

I'm trying...
I'm trying to deal with the situation. I've been edit conflicted about 5 times now though, so it's a little difficult. SpartHawg948 06:16, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just trying to help. Anyway something tells me he might revert that too. Lancer1289 06:18, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

No worries. It was just getting frustrating. You know how fun back-to-back-to-back edit conflicts can be. :) SpartHawg948 06:20, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, my favorite still remains the one with Revan's Exile. I still get a laugh when I read over that section on your talk page. Lancer1289 06:22, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

That was a classic! I didn't even have to look, as soon as I saw you mention it above, I busted out laughing! :D SpartHawg948 06:24, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Slam
Have you ever used slam? It does not need to travel, even when Shepard is using it. That's what I'm trying to convey. Grandmasterka 03:28, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Really, because every time I have used slam, it has to travel and I have missed quite a few enemies doing so. Every power Shepard fires travels, and we have proven that multiple times with people in the past. This on is no exception. Lancer1289 03:30, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I use it all the time, and it doesn't need to travel. Maybe it's a platform difference? I play on the 360. Grandmasterka 03:32, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have both the PC and 360 version and it needs to travel on both. Lancer1289 03:33, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm. I dunno then. Its instant effect is the main reason I choose it as a bonus power. Grandmasterka 03:35, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you downloaded any updates becuase that is the only reason I can think of. Lancer1289 03:37, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to randomly jump in here 3 days later and have nothing to do with the convo originally but seeing this discussion I just loaded up my Vanguard file and gave her Slam and it is indeed (in my PC version that is) instant effect as far as I can see as long as I can get the orange square edges to appear (I don't know how else to describe those sorry I'm kinda tired) the move hits regardless and instantly. Tomorrow I'll check my xbox version but I honestly don't see there being a difference. Draken-Korin 15:24, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to randomly jump in here 3 days later and have nothing to do with the convo originally but seeing this discussion I just loaded up my Vanguard file and gave her Slam and it is indeed (in my PC version that is) instant effect as far as I can see as long as I can get the orange square edges to appear (I don't know how else to describe those sorry I'm kinda tired) the move hits regardless and instantly. Tomorrow I'll check my xbox version but I honestly don't see there being a difference. Draken-Korin 15:24, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Adept Guide
It looks great. Enough said. But the notable talents bit, would it not be easier and nicer to read bullet-pointed or something equivalent? If there's a list of things, like talents or bonus talents, perhaps using a listing formatting would make it just that much better. Phylarion 15:06, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * However, I'm not done yet. I am formatting in sections and plan to overhaul all twelve guides over the course of the next week or so. Also I have wrote a style guide page for the class guides and with the approval, Spart has already given his go ahead, plan to add it to the style guide and then just copy-paste the new guides over the old ones. Lancer1289 15:11, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistent policy regarding speculation
Hello, Sorta new here. I'm just curious why you would revert my edit on the citadel, deleting the "inspired by Babylon 5" trivia. This is blatant speculation. It could have been inspired by any number of books or television shows that have a similar premise. And unlike the other trivia there, this piece provides no evidence suggesting why this reference is more likely than any others. Why the inconsistent policy? Dammej 01:58, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the time, but apparenlty all the wiki sites were locked down.
 * In that case the trivia has been there for some time, since February 1, 2010 in this case, and it has been passed over by many users, including myself several times. In fact, an admin with a repuatation for striking down bad trivia, modified it to its present state. While I will admit, being the huge Scifi fan that I am, a station like that isn't unique however it was the unique role of Bablyon 5 that makes it trivia. In its universe, B5 was a center of commerse and politics, which also describes the Citadel because it is the political and economic center of the galaxy. Also B5 was one of the few stations mentioned in the Bablyon 5 universe and just like B5, the Citadel is a center of galactic policy and economics. Lancer1289 02:50, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I won't get worked up about an hour's difference.
 * But it's still inconsistent though. I'm trying to implement the wiki policy of "Be Bold." Time shouldn't matter in that case. If something is wrong, just because it's been wrong for a long time doesn't mean it needs to continue to be wrong. Theres's no reason to believe that BioWare was thinking of B5 when they came up with the citadel. All other pieces of trivia in that section are interesting on their own; even if the Citadel isn't inspired by them, they're interesting to learn about. A small quip about the Citadel possibly being inspired by B5 is not. Dammej 03:04, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

And don't forget the governing council, made up of representatives from the most powerful races, that voted on matters and, while not having any direct power over the other races, nevertheless wielded considerable influence. After all, that's something else that B5 and the Citadel have in common. SpartHawg948 02:55, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I had 50 minutes to come up with that block of text, and how did I forget that. How did I forget the Council. Lancer1289 02:56, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * If deleting it is out of the question, I think it could at the very least benefit from a rewrite to make it sound less like an advertisement for Babylon 5. Which is pretty much the only purpose it serves. I liked the show too, but this is a stretch... Dammej 03:04, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

However most of our tivia like that looks similar. Take this one from Nihlus Kryik's page: "Nihlus' name bears striking resemblance to Darth Nihilus, an antagonist in Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords, the Obsidian-developed sequel to one of Bioware's most well known games, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic (KotOR). The facial markings upon Nihlus' face as well may be a reference to the Sith Lord, as he bore a white mask that hid the 'nothingness' of his face." Every time I read that, I have the urge to start up my Xbox and play KotOR or KotOR II. That example also sounds even more like an advertisement than the B5 one. Lancer1289 03:26, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I fail to see how "The idea of a space station which is the central hub for commerce and diplomacy for multiple species was possibly inspired by Babylon 5." sounds like an advertisement, or how it could be made to sound less so. It's more a summation of the similarities. SpartHawg948 03:29, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Spart, I saw the same thing, but I thought that example would show that most of our trivia like that sounds like an adverisement. Also I agree, I don't know how we could make it sound less like an advertisement. It is just stating facts, nothing more, nothing less. Lancer1289 03:32, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I chose my words poorly. I suppose it's not an advertisement for the show, but it's certainly not an interesting read. It says things about the citadel which have already been said in the article, and then mentions that this is the same as with B5. It might be true, but I don't feel that it adds anything to the article that hasn't already been discussed. Contrast this with the Nihlus example that you provided, which genuinely provides interesting facts that supplement the article. I'm going to try to rewrite the B5 trivia part since this issue seems to be immovable. Dammej 03:40, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no objections to a little rewrite but just be careful about it. Lancer1289 03:56, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Or you already did. I have no objections to what it says now. However I won't object if it reverted because both look good and say the same things. Lancer1289 03:58, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * The most recent edit struck me as odd since it removed all discernible reason for the B5 mention. The bit as is could possibly be worded better, but that wasn't the way to go about it. SpartHawg948 04:00, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well in that case, how about we just leave it as is. Its worked since Februray, so something was done right. Lancer1289 04:03, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * All descernible reason? It said the same thing without implying that B5 was the inspiration for the Citadel, merely that they were the same. I feel it improved the way the trivia was mentioned. They might say the same thing, but my edit said so without implying that ME was inspired by B5. This has certainly not been acknowledged by the authors, so it goes against the speculation policy. What possible reason could there be to revert it?

Because possible references are trivia, similarities are not. There are lots of things that are similar in sci-fi genres. If we acknowledged all those, trivia sections would be enormous. In some rare instances, there are so many similarities that it can be reasonably said that there is a 'possible' or 'likely' reference or inspiration. These we do note. SpartHawg948 04:23, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, when I took a better second look, it did remove all possible references to B5. However Spart is right, there are possible references, as we acknowledge those, but without devconfirmation we say likely until we have it. He is also right because as I think Tullis said along these lines, "If we acknowledge all possible references, then the trivia sections would be as long as some articles." I really need to take a close look at things apparently. Lancer1289 04:31, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, when just plain old similarities are included, that's when you get people adding 'trivia' about how the krogan are similar to Klingons, the asari are similar to Vulcans, and on and on and on ad infinitum. And that gets tiring real fast. SpartHawg948 04:34, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why, why Spart did you have to bring up the krogan-Klingon thing. I don't know how many times I have removed something like that. But I have an even more frusterating one, Kasumi and G0-T0. I am getting tired of that one. Lancer1289 04:36, May 27, 2010 (UTC
 * You say this, and then the very next edit I see from you (Spart) leaves some trivia about the vorcha being SIMILAR to another species in star trek. This is exactly why I made this section. You're applying the policies inconsistently. In the case of the vorcha, it's ok for the vorcha to be similar to another race, while in this case it's not ok to merely state that the Citadel is similar to Babylon 5. This is inconsistent, and it bugs me. Which is it? Dammej 04:39, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * However that is valid because the Vorcha have quite a few things in common with the Jem'hadar. One: Short life spans, vorcha live for about 20 years, Jem'Hadar, the onldes we heard was 8. Two: vorcha use fighting to communicate and it is part of their culture, and the Jem'Hadar are bread to fight so it is a part of their culture too. Three: While we don't know how fast vorcha mature, though I can't see it being very long, Jem'Hadar can be fully grown in three days. So that one is valid and you are arguing that it is applied inconsistently, however it is very consistent. Lancer1289 04:43, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not what I'm arguing. I have no idea if the Vorcha are similar to this race or not. I don't watch star trek enough to comment on it. What I take issue with is the inconsistency in wording. Spart argues that it's not enough to say that the Citadel is similar to Babylon 5, while in another article, it's perfectly fine to say that the Vorcha are similar to this other race, without being inspired by them. I have conceeded the point that B5 does belong in the trivia section. What I'm disputing now is that it must remain as a "possible inspiration" and not merely "incredibly similar" like the Vorcha and this other race. I just want consistency. Dammej 04:49, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure about the Vorcha-Jem'Hadar link. The Jem'Hadar were genetically engineered and bred by the Dominion to serve as soldiers and were controlled through the kercel-white drug to insure their loyalty and obedience. The type of connection you're implying between the two races seems as weak as the Klingon-Krogan connection, in my opinion. --The Illusive Man 05:04, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's the similarities that I pointed out above. While yes the Jem'Hadar were genetically engineered, they share quite a lot with the vorcha. The krogan-Klingon link was based on only one thing, their culture, not anything else. There is quite a lot in common apart from that but let's not get into a debate here about that. If we want to debate that, let's go to the Vorcha page. Lancer1289 05:09, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I barely payed any attention to the wording of the second trivia bit other than to see that the 'another' needed changed as the first Star Trek bit was being removed. This may come as a shock, but I (Spart) don't know all or see all. Sometimes I miss things and need to have them pointed out to fix them. My bad for not being omniscient. SpartHawg948 05:00, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's ok Spart, I missed it too when I modified the link. Lancer1289 05:02, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * No need for the snark. I had assumed you were reviewing the entire section, not just searching for one link. Anyway, thanks for the lesson in the policy at any rate. Hopefully my contributions will be productive enough in the future to not get reverted immediately. ;) Dammej 05:10, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well that is what we are all here for. Anyway at least ended civily, compated to a number of discussions that Spart and myself have gotten involved in the past. Lancer1289 05:14, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be unduly snarky, just trying to get across the message that a little benefit of the doubt would be nice. After all, saying "You say this, and then the very next edit I see from you (Spart) leaves some trivia about the vorcha being SIMILAR to another species in star trek." is hardly being nice and polite either, is it? The clear implication there is that I had seen it and knowingly left it there, which was not the case. Thus, my exasperated response that I am not omniscient. SpartHawg948 05:27, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize, yes, that was a bit aggressive. I was just frustrated I guess. Perhaps sleep is needed... Anyway, sorry and thanks again. Thanks to this I (think) I have a clearer understanding of what constitutes acceptable speculation. Hoping to make productive edits in the future.
 * I think we can all understand frusteration, as both Spart and myslef have gotten to that point severla times in arguments. However again, at least this came to a civil end rather than a huge argument, unlike several other conversations. I am getting close to the point where I need to archive this page. Maybe I will, but that is a topic I need to sleep on. Lancer1289 05:45, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the club! I'm just about to start archive #3. And to Dammej, apology accepted, and I in turn apologize for my admittedly terse response. And I totally agree, Lancer, it's nice that this was resolved civilly. And I agree with you both that sleep does sound like an excellent idea. I may have to follow up on that one here in a bit! :) SpartHawg948 05:53, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Geth War Page
Regarding the incorrect casualty figure you insist in citing in the Geth War article: Millions upon millions means several lots of million such as tens of millions, or if you really insist a hundred million. It does not mean a million times a million. Just as 'thousands upon thousands' does not mean 1000x1000=1 million. Whilst I don't doubt your knowledge of the Mass Effect universe, I suggest you take some lessons in basic arithmetic before you lecture other people on the subject, something you clearly don't know anything about. 81.144.212.5 20:51, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Another thing - If Tali had meant billions when she said "millions upon millions", she would have said billions instead. Pretty obvious when you think about it, but don't strain yourself. 81.144.212.5 20:56, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea I can't do math, really. Because millions upon millions in context means well over a billion. Tali also admits that the quarians had colony worlds. We currenlty have around 6.5 billion people on this planet, and Earth in 2183 has 11.3 billion people, so if the quarians went from their homeworld and colonies, to 17 million people, then they killed well over a billion quarians. Also you need a lesson on our community guidelines about insulting other users. Lancer1289 21:02, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who you were arguing with or why he felt the need to insult you, but he's right. X upon Y means X plus Y, not X multiplied by Y. You're speculating that the casualty figure was closer to the billion mark based on incorrect knowledge English grammar. But speculation is one thing, assumptions are even worse; you're assuming that Quarian civilisation is comparable to Human civilisation, an assumption which I must say is false. You don't know how quickly Quarians mature, how long they live, or how extensively they had developed prior to the Geth War. On a final note, which I hope will illustrate my point, millions upon millions of people died in the Second World War, a total of 60 million to be precise; which I'm sure you'll agree is well below 1 billion. If I told you that millions upon millions of people died in WW2, would you assume that 40% of the Human race (2.5 billion people alive in 1940-50s) died in less than a decade? Whilst I don't think this guy should have insulted you, he is also correct in pointing out that if Tali had meant billions she would have said billions; clear statements are not made so that people like you can twist them to conform to their own assumptions. This site has some pretty strict guidelines about speculation, I'd like to think that registered users such as yourself are held to the same standards; unless of course being registered gains you privilege of being exempted from such guidelines, and a modicum of common sense. 79.67.166.156 20:59, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to jump in here, but I believe the talk page that Lancer was referring to was the Talk page for the article itself. I happen to agree with you. Make your case there, please. Dammej 21:04, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) However you have to consider that the quarian homeworld and their colonies had to have well over a billion people. Earth in 2183 had 11.5 billion people, and Rakhana, the drell homeworld had 11 billion before the envrionmental disaster, so well over 5 billion on the quarian homeworld is a very educated guess. As to regesterd users being exempt, I am not nor is anyone else. You also have to take the information in context, which you clearly aren't becuase for any civilization reaching FTL flight, in all of scifi, their homworlds always have 7+ billion people. It is an educated guess, and in context, billions is much more appropiate. Lancer1289 21:08, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Armor page Merger
Do you know anything about the suggested merge of the Armor pages? I mean, the "suggestion box" thing at the top has been there for a REALLY long time. It's just kind of annoying to see it at the top every time. Can it be removed? I wasn't sure, so I thought you'd be a good person to turn to about this.--Effectofthemassvariety 06:00, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Currently there is a discussion about splitting ME and ME2 articles, however that discussion is almost mute because only one page is split. However I tend to agree that the merge tags are mute at this point, however I'll drop DRY and Spart a message saying that because only the Assignments page is split, let's just make it policy that we don't split pages like that. However again we need a policy on this. One page vs, well I don't know how many, it seems that policy has been made. Again I'll drop the admins a line and we'll see. Again I don't think that a split should be necessary, unless there is a need to split. Lancer1289 06:08, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

Pictures in the lead section
Here's my rationale, FWIW. 1. I don't want to clutter small articles with pictures. Boxing the text in with images looks cramped, IMO. 2. Articles with InfoBoxes have pictures in the lead section, so clearly it's not completely "wrong looking" for images to be at the tops of articles. RobertM525 07:19, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's just mainly on walkthough pages. I know we usually don't put them there. The rest I know we do, but not usually on the walkthoughs. Lancer1289 07:21, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Class Guide Logos
As I'm sure you've already seen, I just added a couple more logos to my sandbox page. Let me know what you think. It will literally take 5 minutes each to make the logos for the other classes, so once we hammer out a style that looks good, I can make the rest of them.

I still say that the logo sans-border looks best, but I'm not really a graphic designer, so I don't know. Maybe you could try them out on your sandbox guides and see how they look? Dammej 20:00, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I won't save the adept guide for ME2, but I'll place each one and see what does look good. Lancer1289 20:03, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well after looking at all three, a header really don't look good because it pushes the text down. However after looking though it, is there anyway you can get the scanline without the border? I'll see what that looks like before making a final decision. Lancer1289 20:12, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

(reset indent) Ok I got both in there, and I still think that the scanline image looks better. however I still want opinions. Lancer1289 20:37, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well right now they're both really crowding the TOC. Maybe try them with a smaller width? I'm thiking 500px or so. however small it needs to be so that the TOC isn't so tall. (on my screen anyway) Dammej 20:40, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I just resized my screen, and I they're not crowding it anymore. But I imagine not many people are browsing at a very high resolution, so it might still be a good idea to size them down a little. Dammej 20:42, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the TOC is that tall because of two things, the amount of headings and subheadings in the article, and the wiki code displayes them all. So unfortunatly shrinking the pictures won't shorten the TOC. I can put them in seperate articles, yea I'll do that, give a second. Lancer1289 20:43, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

(reset indent) Ok I have two seperate articles now, Adept Guide (Mass Effect 2), no scanline. Adept Guide (Mass Effect 2) 2, scanline image. To me the scanline image looks better, more professional. Lancer1289 20:48, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * edit conflict, from above That's not what I was talking about. To see what I meant, go to either page that you have, then shrink the browser window horizontally. When you start getting small enough, the TOC starts to get skinnier so that the image can still display next to it and fit in the window. In the process it gets really tall. Normally, I don't browse in full-screen mode, so this made the TOC really long and skinny. I can't be the only person that has a smaller browser window, so it would be prudent to resize it down. Dammej 20:52, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok I see what you mean, however unfortunatly that deals with the wiki's base code. So that isn't something that we can modify like the sidebar or something that deals with this wiki in particular. The only other thing that I can do is just hide the TOC altogether. Lancer1289 20:56, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well yes I realize that, but if you were to size the images down (to say, 500px wide or so), the likelyhood that someone with a smaller-sized browser gets a squished TOC would be reduced. It's a usability thing. Dammej 20:58, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok shrunk them down, take another look. Again though, I still like the scanline image because it is more professional, however I still want your opinion. Lancer1289 21:09, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Right now the border with the scanline provides a nice closure to the image, so I'm leaning that way. But I think that, in either case, they could do with being taller. Maybe some class-appropriate image in the background would help them? Dammej 21:20, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. However I am curious, what to you mean by background images. The ME guides at the top just have the Codex image for the class, and in my opinion, that is all they need. However I am curious what you do mean by background images. Lancer1289 21:23, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well maybe it would be that simple. I'm just looking for something we could add to make the images taller. Perhaps if I placed the Codex image for the adept underneath what we already have, it would fill out the space more. I'm almost finished mocking up a photo so you can see what I mean. Dammej 21:28, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I certanly have no objections to that what so ever. Actually it would show a progression, ME to ME2, and eventually ME3. Nice idea. So about the images, we are then set on a scanline image at the top, followed by the Codex image below? That would do nicely. Lancer1289 21:31, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * No that's not what i mean at all. In fact I'm certain that would be awful looking. Once I finish this image you'll understand. Dammej 21:34, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright then, just upload it your sandbox, and I'll think I'll understand then. Lancer1289 21:38, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Life interfered. I just uploaded it. Still not very happy with it, but it gives you an idea of what I'm thinking. I was hoping that it would fill out the vertical space next to the TOC better. But that's what I mean by "background image." something behind the logo itself. Dammej 22:10, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea I can see what you mean, I'll plug it in and see what happens. Lancer1289 22:13, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I pluged it in, however I am still particial to the scanline image. It does help to fill the vertical space though. I'll drop Spart a line, and see what he thinks. It is nice to have another opinion. Lancer1289 22:17, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. That TOC is just so huge that this image didn't even make a dent. As it is, I'd like either the original image or the scanline one better. Plus this image has a singularity right on his crotch. Dammej 22:20, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the scanline image for the professionality of it. However I dropped Spart a line and a third opinion would be good. I'll put up the other image, and again I'll see what Spart thinks. Lancer1289 22:24, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I made another one, check the sandbox. I like it a lot better, since it isn't as plain. Dammej 22:31, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea that does look a lot better, I'll put that one in. Lancer1289 22:32, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok it's in however I am still partical to the scanline alone. However let's see what Spart thinks. Lancer1289 22:34, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

You know what, I'll drop a few other users a line and get some opinions on the matter. What do you think about that? Lancer1289 22:38, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Style One Vs Style Two
This section is for voting on which style you think is better. Please leave a small comment and why you liked it better under the appropiate heading. This is just for voting, not a discussion at the moment. Any and all comments are welcome, but please remember that your comment is yours and this is NOT a discussion. Discussion will take place, if you wish to discuss it, after the votes are in, and in my sandbox on the appropiate page. I really don't want discussion right now to keep opinions unbiased. Thanks in advance. Whichever one is chosen, Dammej, the origial modifier of the new images, will be making them for the rest of the images. Lancer1289 23:39, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Style One
If you like style one better, then please leave a comment here and use a : for each new comment. Thanks.

Style Two
If you like style two better, then please leave a comment here and use a : for each new comment. Thanks.
 * I like style two better because it looks more professional. Lancer1289 23:11, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer Style Two, personally. SpartHawg948 23:50, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll toss my hat in for Style Two as well. Very nice. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:53, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I vote Style Two. It seems more crisp and refined than the one with the image of an adept edited in. Tophvision 00:22, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer Style Two as well. --DRY 00:28, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Style two is just a better overall look than style one, so I vote yes for this.MEffect Fan 00:31, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Since this logo will most likely set a precedent for later page logos, I believe that, while Style One of the Adept looks interesting, I don't believe the other logos for other classes would look as good. So I'm switching over to Style Two. --Effectofthemassvariety 00:52, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Style 1 is too distracting, so I prefer style 2. Teugene 02:37, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems a little redundant now but my vote goes for this style too. --The Illusive Man 04:36, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

I Thank You All For your Votes and it seems that Style Two has been decided on. However Dammej has come up with some new images and I'd like to you all to take another look. Personally I think they are good so I will redirect you all to his talk page for his sandbox and I'll be dropping messages again. I'll be commenting there as well.

Not a god. Got it.
Hey, thanks for fixing my mistake. It did look scetchy when I looked at it, and I could've sworn it said god on there before. But anyways, I appreciate it. And, hey, I learned a new thing, and that's always good! :D --Effectofthemassvariety 07:34, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry went to sleep the second I finished adding the wikipedia links. Anyway glad to be of help. Lancer1289 16:24, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

RE: Unknown User
Hi Lancer. The deleted page was created by User:Xuebao2010. JoePlay ( talk ) 18:14, May 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, you were asking about Ose, haha. He is on the Spam Task Force team. They fight spam and vandalism across Wikia. JoePlay ( talk ) 19:04, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Just wanted to leave a quick thank you for helping take care of this NiRv4n4 character. I was unaware that this was going on, as I was too busy stuffing my face with bratwurst, but fortunately you and a couple of other outstanding users were keeping an eye on things. Some of the people who wander through are just too much. And you seemed to be this guys favorite too, at least right up until he discovered my user page! So again, thanks for helping to take care of this punk kid with more free time than brains! :) SpartHawg948 00:41, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Class Guide images updated
Sorry about the delay, I've uploaded the new images. Try 'em out in the sandbox. I just replaced the previous images, so that should make it easier. Dammej 05:27, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I do think that those images are great, and to be honest, they look a lot better without the scanline. Maybe it was the background that did it. Anyway they look great, and thanks for all the hard work. They even look great in the class articles. Lancer1289 05:29, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Another ME2 class icon idea.
I was browsing through the Miranda Lawson article, and I noticed that the nifty template for her powers also includes a location for the "achievement" image. So I thought, hey, that looks really neat, why couldn't the class powers template include a similar spot for a class image? Might look odd, but I thought I'd bring it up. What do you think? Good? Stupid? Let me know. In the meantime, I'll probably try something like it in my sandbox, if I can figure out how. Dammej 08:06, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I was able to figure it out. Check it out at my sandbox. I think it looks neat, but I'm probably biased. Let me know what you think. Dammej 08:41, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry fell asleep, needed it. Anyway I'll probably just be taking the template information and updating the current template, then fixing the articles. Good work, and again I don't think anyone will object. Lancer1289 14:38, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Ok I just updated the template, and after some experimentation, it really won't work with the ME powers, so I'd dodge that one. However they look great, and good work on them. Lancer1289 14:57, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really see what you changed in the template, apart from some image sizing. Regardless, changes to templates should be discussed publicly before implementation. --silverstrike 15:48, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Nice image. I find the table and image placement for ME and ME2 a little inconsistent in its implementation. Maybe if I could work something to make it consistent. Teugene 16:22, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok sorry for the lack of discussion, but after looking at other pages, it just seemed more consistent with the other tmeplates on squadmate pages. While they had the various completion/loyalty images, I though the class image would just be the same. Again sorry for the lack of discussion, that one is on me. (Bashing head into wall), again my bad on that one. Lancer1289 16:54, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow, I go to bed and this happens. Crazy. I just wanted to let you guys know that there need not be 4 seperate templates for what is essentially the same thing. Templates (at least on wikipedia) can use "if-else" logic and so forth to determine if they should display something or not. I can probably come up with a "global" powers/talents template that could easily accomodate all 4 uses (ME1 class/squadmate and ME2 class/squadmate). Dammej 17:28, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually in this case, four seperate templates are probably better because they can be modified easier than a global template if an issue comes up. So I'd have to say no on the global templates, and four templates makes much more sense, at least to me. Lancer1289 17:30, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

I'm just arguing from a "reusability" standpoint here. The main difference between the ME and the ME2 templates is the number of powers/talents that they can display. I'm just saying that making one template that can display an arbitrary number of talents/powers would be a "good thing" At least, that's what my computer science teachers always said. Dammej 17:37, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * However we still have at least one more game to account for. I am in computer science as well, have programming experience, and from what I have learned, sometimes having similar subs that peform similar actions are a good thing because they can become more specialized if necessary. Also if something goes wrong or a new issue comes up, then having four subs instead of two can help to quickly identify the problem and change/fix it if necessary. Also do remember that not every who edits here has programming experience and may not understand a more complicated template. So four in this case is much better, for ease of use, and to fix/modify new issues that arise. Lancer1289 17:41, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * You should really stop listening to your teachers if they said that. Having multiple subs that do mostly the same thing means that if you want to change some core piece of logic, then you need to change it -4 different times-, which is error prone and will bite you in the ass in the future. If you need to specialize something, then you write a function that does the specialized things later. You don't plan for it arbitrarily.
 * But as you said, not everyone on this wiki is a programmer, so I doubt they'd be able to change a more complicated template. Plus it's not like these templates are particularly difficult. Dammej 17:54, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I guess every teacher is different in that case. I am just saying what my teachers and professors told me, so again everyone, as I sure you know, has their own way of programming. Getting back on topic, the main reason for simplier, and in some cases more tempaltes, is to resolve that issue that not everyone who edits here could maybe understand a more complicated one. However let's not get into a discussion about programming a certain way, because as I sure you know as well, that discussion can go on for a while. Lancer1289 17:58, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Your "people are stupid" argument has already convinced me that a template with if/else logic would be too complicated to understand for most people here. :) 4 templates it is... Dammej 18:00, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok based on your last comment, and please correct me if am wrong, but I think I may have accidently insulted you, which wasn't my intention. If I did so then I do appoligize, as it wasn't my intention to do so. Lancer1289 18:03, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh no, not at all. Perhaps it's just my weird sense of humor. Was just saying that I had already agreed, hence my comment above about "not everyone on this wiki is a programmer, so I doubt they'd be able to change a more complicated template. Plus it's not like these templates are particularly difficult." No need to keep arguing, you sold me. Dammej 18:06, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok then, I just wanted to clear that up. I really don't like it when I have an issue like that, espeically if I think I offended someone without realizing it, unresolved, it just keeps nagging at me. You don't have to respond if you don't want to, I just wanted to explain why I asked. Lancer1289 18:09, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

I was about to comment something about some things above but... I gave up after 3-4 edit conflicts.. :/ Teugene 18:11, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict x4): I didn't follow the entire discussion, but from what I understand, using four templates that do the exact same thing is a source of many inconsistencies. I suggest using one template with thorough documentation. --silverstrike 18:12, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * However it is the, "people may not understand it" argument. that comes up in my mind. While we may understand what the template does, how it works, and what to do with it, a user visiting for the first time, and making an edit on the template probably won't. Even with extensive documentation, as I have learned numerous times in my CIS classes, can still cause problems. Reading over the documentation about what and what not to do on a single tempalate, might just confuse people and lead to even more headaches as they make an edit and then we have to revert because it did something weird. Having four seperate templates makes for easier use of them and prevents any accidental mistakes when using just one. Lancer1289 18:17, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

&lt;-- Well, USING the template will be pretty straightforward. It will be editing the template which could cause problems. And if there's supposed to be much discussion before a template edit is made anyway, having an "expert" around to edit it would probably be required anyway. Dammej 18:20, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) The usage of a parameter in the template won't make it complicated. I might agree if you need to use several or if the parameters are not obvious. You can also implement calling templates, the same as DRY made with the spoiler templates. That is, one template uses logic to determine the output and additional four that call the "base template", each passing the relevant parameter(s). That way, you only make changes to the base template.--silverstrike 18:27, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * I will have no objections to something like that, however that goes beyond what I am familiary with. I can do simple templates, as I am still learning the coding of wikia, and while I do know a fair bit of HTML, that goes beyond what I can do. If you want to tackle that idea, then by all means. I do have to think however that the four templates as they are aren't bad as they serve their purpose, however that is my opinion on the matter. If you want to do something like that, I think that would be great.

Apology re: Talk:Asari
My apologies, Lancer, I was just trying to clean things up a little. I won't move anything around or try to consolidate, in future. Thanks for the clarification of the rules for Talk pages. --Danse CC 19:45, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok then, if I came over as overly sappish, it is just when I usually see this and it is intentional, and it results in an argument. So an attempt to clean up is a good change, however again sections are kept seperate, even if they have similar content, and deleting comments and/or moving them, unless they are yours, is a big no-no. Your welcome for the clarification on the rules, I really don't like seeing anyone banned over something they didn't know. Lancer1289 19:50, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's cool. I imagine you fellows put up with a lot of unreasonable nonsense.  In retrospect, I totally understand why reorganizing Talk pages carries with it a lot of risk.  I apologize for adding stress to your day.  --Danse CC 20:04, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Believe me this wasn't as stressful as some other edits to talk pages have been, or someone who just goes on a vandalsim spree. As for the unreasonable nonsence, it comes and goes, but there probably isn't as much here as some other larger wikis. Lancer1289 20:09, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Universal template
I'm pretty sure I got the "universal" template working correctly finally. Check out the sandbox page for uses with all of them. If need-be, I can prototype edits to the original templates which just pass the parameters on to this new "universal" template. That way the pages wouldn't have to change (too much, anyway), and they'd still all have a consistent styling. Let me know your thoughts. Dammej 20:13, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * I know that this template is based on the in-use one, but there are way too many parameters when at least half of them are not necessary. I also think that the images should be hard-coded into the template (or support template) to limit the required parameter in each template call. --silverstrike 20:22, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * How about we switch the discussion to User talk:Dammej/Sandbox/TestClassPage Personally I think it will work if it is good, but I'm not sure what you mean by hardcoding images. Lancer1289 20:25, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * sorry, conflicted: I'm not sure what you mean. The maximum number of powers displayed is 8, and the minimum is 4. The template doesn't do any checking on powers 1-4, since no use-case has fewer than 4 powers... every power above 4 is completely optional. If the power is omitted, then it isn't displayed.
 * As for including the image as part of the template... perhaps templates like Template:TaliTalents, Template:TaliPowers, Template:AdeptTalents, Template:AdeptPowers, could be made which would contain all of the necessary parameters? Dammej 20:29, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok no offence to the two of you, but can we please shift this disucssion to either the template or the display page, which I have already started. It is more appropiate there than on my talk page. Lancer1289 20:31, June 1, 2010 (UTC)