Talk:Cerberus Sniper

Link to Nemesis
I thought that the reason I gave for me re-adding that note made it clear that I was indeed aware of the reason given for removing it, and that I was addressing it. The link is so that if people want to see the Nemesis page but are unaware of it's name and simply search the logical descriptive name, "Cerberus Sniper", they would have a quick and easy way of getting to what they are looking for. The two enemies are spectacularly similar. Both ware black, have the same general proportions, work for Cerberus, are snipers, use a red targeting laser ext. The fact that the official names are so different is irrelevant to someone unaware of this and the fact that the name of one is the simplest way of describing the other means that confusion is likely. To not include some reference to the other in each article would feel lacking. Having that link at the top of the page has no negative effects yet is a simple and easy way of preventing confusion and increasing the user friendliness of the wiki. Looking at the history of the page between the original addition of that note at the top and my re-addition I can see that an editor made the very mistake the note would have prevented. Phalanx-a-pedian 23:40, February 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * And I don't think that it is valid enough. They are not similar in any way, or at least beyond the fact they both use a sniper rifle. They are two completely separate enemies and named completely differently. If they were similar in name, then you would have something, but they aren't. Lancer1289 23:57, February 17, 2012 (UTC)


 * The point is that not every user will know the difference in name, case in point the user who mistakenly changed the name in the info box to "Nemesis" before realising their mistake. The fact that the most logical term to use if someone is unaware of the actual name of the Nemesis is "Cerberus sniper" and that there is another, remarkably similar enemy, with this exact name means that it really doesn't matter what the Nemesis is called, there will still be confusion. I myself player through 2 goes of the multiplayer and only realised that they had a name other then "Cerberus sniper" when I came on this wiki.
 * As for the "not similar in any way" I simply cannot agree with this. Like I said above, both have form fitting black armour, both are female (not sure if you get male Cerberus snipers in ME1, but I don't remember there being any and can't find any pictures), both are snipers, both work for Cerberus, both use red laser targeting and so on and so on. The only real differences between the two are the make of the armour and the rifle they use and the game they are in. I'm not trying to suggest that people will think that they are the same for any more then the time taken to skim through one of the articles, only that some people will find themselves on the Cerberus sniper page while looking for the Nemesis page. There is an easy way of addressing this potential problem and I can see no reason to not include it. At the very least there should be a section in the trivia explaining the similarities and differences. Phalanx-a-pedian 00:25, February 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * If that is what you are sighting as evidence, then I can counter with numerous examples that show people will do what they want anyway. I'm sure we will have someone changing the Nemesis article before long. You again say they are the same name when they aren't. Do they have similar functions, yes, but so does the Geth Sniper. You are describing similarities that I can go to many enemies in the game and say the exact same thing. This doesn't warrant a mention, and is just needless. Lancer1289 01:09, February 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, not to mention, they have completely different body models and weapons. While yes, a Nemesis DOES function as a Cerberus Sniper, doesn't mean that it is THE Cerberus Sniper from the first game. LordDeathRay 02:24, February 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * Since this topic has already been brought up, I suppose I'll throw my two cents in. Whether or not the Nemesis and a Cerberus Sniper (title) are identical as characters is irrelevant. What DOES matter is that the Nemesis is a Cerberus sniper (function, designation). That's what most people will call it. That's what everyone I've talked to has called it (and most of them don't even have the investment to include the "Cerberus"). Those of us that know enough about the series to edit this wiki, we're all probably on top of the technical differences. That does not hold true for the casual fact checker looking for a strategy. -- The Gunsmith 02:48, February 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * And what people call enemies is in all honestly irrelevant here. We call enemies what they are, not what everyone tends to call them. If we did that, then we'd be calling a number of things differently. The fact remains that they are called "Nemesis", not "Cerberus Sniper", and therefore they are different. Your justification for the edit is "all of my friends call it this" and that is not a valid reason. Again, what people call an enemy is irrelevant. What matters is what they are called, and while they are snipers, they are called different things. Lancer1289 02:54, February 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * If this was a Geth Sniper or Mercenary Sniper, I would completely agree with you. This, however, is a case of two enemies that are extremely similar in both gameplay function and in the story. There's enough similarity and potential for confusion there to justify this. --The Gunsmith 03:03, February 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * And I have to disagree. There is no reason for the tag as it is because of the differences. There are plenty of differences between them to distinguish them from one another. Lancer1289 03:08, February 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * Then let me ask this: Will you list off some of those differences? I'm having trouble seeing any of any importance beyond the name. --The Gunsmith 03:13, February 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * Let us start with the display method for them. The bars to represent health and shields are completely different. They behave differently. A Nemesis is always in cover and only pops out to shoot and will duck back in if they get hit. Cerberus Snipers will not take cover as much and hold position longer. They will also usually keep shooting if they are hit. Snipers also have a completely different armor type than a Nemesis does, and they look a lot different. Their method of attack is also different. You will always see the red light from a Nemesis. That is not always the case with the Sniper. In fact you will see it very sparingly, if at all when they attack. More often than not, you will just lose a massive amount of shields and health and not know where it came from. Another thing, Snipers actually talk during, a Nemesis does not. A Nemesis will usually run from players, a Sniper will try and keep fighting. There are plenty of differences and doing something jsut because the "fans" call it that, we already do not do. I cannot count the number of times we've removed something that said "the fans call it" or "as the fans on ___ call it". We do not allow that kind of thing here. If we allow this, then we have to allow all forms of alternate names, and that does not work. Lancer1289 04:02, February 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * Although almost all of those differences I would count as trivial ones based on the changes in engine and combat from 1 and 2/3 (and I have had the exact opposite experience regarding the laser sights on Assassination), I'll concede simply because, like you, I don't want there to be a disambig page called Cerberus Ninja with links towards the Phantom and Kai Leng. I do still think this is a special case and we won't wind up on a slippery slope, but clearly I'm not going to win this one --The Gunsmith 04:16, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not claiming that most people will think that they are one and the same, mealy that many people while looking for the Nemesis article will come across the Cerberus Sniper one. The two enemies are similar enough to generate confusion (especially as story wise it is likely that the two are the same with the Nemesis being what the Cerberus snipers became after being given better equipment/training). If they weren't both human snipers with similar coloured and formed armour working for Cerberus that I would agree that they were different enough for this to not be an issue. I'm not saying that this should be included just because that's what fans will call it, but like "The Gunsmith" said, this is a special case. If the Cerberus sniper had any other name it wouldn't matter but as is it will cause some minor confusion and there is a simple way of avoiding that that I see no reason not to include. What I don't get here is that adding the note at the top of the Cerberus Sniper page would improve the utility of this wiki, and I can see no reason not to include it. So far the only reasons I've been given is along the lines of 'they aren't the same enemy' or 'they have different names'. This wiki is supposed to help people who want to know more about Mass Effect, I've never understood people resisting the inclusion of little links or bits or information on the grounds that readers should know anyway. Phalanx-a-pedian 08:47, February 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * And yet nothing I've said before means anything apparently. You can easily call a number of enemies the same thing yet we are not going to go running around and place tags on every article like that. We would end up with hundreds of them and they would be as long as can be. I have stated what I said above for good reason and the fact you ignored it is nothing but a slap in the face to me. I see no reason to include it because of the aforementioned reasons. So far, the only justification you have for putting it in is "the fans call it this", and that is immediately an invalid reason. Lancer1289 15:28, February 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I have seen the reasons you removed the note from the top of the page. However, there has been little to no substance to it. All I have really been given is a statement of the blatant fact (one which I am well aware of) that the two units are not the same and have different official names, as well as an opinion that that the two units are not similar enough for there to be confusion. However, I do not feel that either point is a valid reason for removing the link.
 * 1) "The two units are not the same" & the opinion that they are not similar enough to generate confusion - Clearly they are not the same, but they are also clearly very similar. It is also clear that they are similar enough to generate confusion as evidenced by the fact that another user made the exact mistake only an hour and a half after you removed the note.
 * 2) "They have very different names" - This is true. However, many readers will not be aware of this. The best and simplest way of describing the Nemesis is to call is a "Cerberus Sniper". As a result many people when trying to research the Nemesis will refer to it as a "Cerberus sniper". Coincidentally there is a different yet similar unit with that exact name. The result is that there will be a fair amount of traffic to the Cerberus Sniper page from people aiming for the Nemesis page.
 * I have indeed paid attention to your arguments! However, I am not suggesting that we add this sort of tag to every article, only that we do so for this one example. This is a special case because of the following reason;
 * "The name of one unit is identical to the simplest and most common descriptive term used for another, remarkably similar unit".
 * We can simply and easily resolve this before it causes any problems and allow readers to realise their mistake quickly and easily. The note is unobtrusive, does not detract from the page in any way (it does not make it more confusing nor does it mess up the formatting) but it is helpful. We should be striving to maximise the user friendlessness of this wiki, not deliberately exclude things that could be useful on the assumption that anybody who would have a look would already know what has been excluded and why. Besides, even if there was no confusion involved, I would appreciate the ability to quickly compare two very closely related units via a link from one to the other. So I have looked at the reasons given and I have decided that they are not valid. I will be re-adding the note to the page, please do not remove it again unless you can supply me with a valid reason for doing so that does not rely on users already knowing what the page is supposed to tell them. Even if you come up with one, please tell me about it before removing the note again. Thank you Phalanx-a-pedian 18:05, February 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * And I have looked at the reason you want it and it isn't valid. The fact you keep readding it, and flat out said you would, despite the fact it is under discussion tells me that you want what you want and you could not care one iota about anyone else's opinion. If you do not get what you want, then you will do anything until you do. That isn't how things work here, despite what you believe. I have removed it again because you have yet to give a valid reason for including it. So far, the only reason is "the fans call it that" and that isn't enough. Two units that while sharing a similar function, are quite different and have enough differences to tell them apart. There is no reason to make a note because of fan calling it this. The bottom line is that they are quite different, have multiple differences, operate completely differently, and are even called different things. Therefore, no note is needed for the aforementioned reasons. Therefore, I will ask you to not add it again. Lancer1289 18:46, February 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh come on now! I kindly ask you to stop with the personal insults and accusations of immaturity. To claim that I am the one being out of line here is simply unfair. In reality you have reverted the edits of two users a total of eight (8) times now. I have only made four (4) edits to the page. Let me turn what you have said on it's head; "The fact that you keep removing it, despite the fact that it is under discussion tells me that you want what you want and you could not care one iota about anyone else's opinion. If you do not get what you want, then you will do anything until you do. That isn't how things work here, despite what you believe." With only one word changed and a small side note removed, all of that can be very easily applied to yourself. I can see that you have done the same with a simply insignificant change of wording on the Shadow Broker page (which for the record, did mean the exact same thing and made it clearer), so clearly this is how you are. For the record I was the one who started this discussion as soon as you reverted my edit. I did not respond by undoing your undo. Instead I gave you a chance to explain why it was important for that disclaimer to not be included. Once I read your reasons I decided that they were not valid reasons for the removal of what I consider a simple yet very useful addition to the page, and as such I re-added the information. I also gave you the courtesy of informing you of what I was doing and why, and asked you not to respond by simply removing the edit. You responded by removing the edit again and demanding that I do not respond with the equivalent of what you yourself had just done. Trying to portray me as entirely in the wrong here is simply hypocritical as you are (at least from my point of view) more guilty then me.
 * I gave some very valid reasons for the inclusion of the link while all you have responded with is a sweeping denial of the validity of my arguments (in spite of me actually giving evidence) but no reasons as to why the link should specifically not be there other then 'if we did this on every page we would have a lot of links,' which I responded to by pointing out that I was only including the link for this single special situation. You do not get to simply prevent other users from adding content simply because you... what exactly? I still do not understand why you feel that it shouldn't be there.
 * Do you not understand why I added it. I am not suggesting that we change the name of the Nemesis (enemy) page to "Cerberus Sniper", all I'm saying is that it's a fact that (possibly most) people call the Nemesis that and coupled with the fact that there is already a page with that exact same name we have a problem. The fact that the two are remarkably similar (which indeed is the exact reason that the term used by many for one is identical to the name of the other) is a coincidence that only serves to further the need for some clarity. I am suggesting that we make things a little easier for people who don't know exactly what they are talking about, something that I was under the impression was the entire purpose of this wiki. We are going to have to agree to disagree about the level of similarity of the two units, however this makes little difference to the fact that others still see them as similar. The link is help full. A wiki is supposed to be helpful. Removing the link is not helpful. This is not a case of "the fans call it that", it's a case of "here's a chance for confusion, lets be helpful and prevent it". That's it, this is simple. Having the link there is good, not having it there is not bad, but it's also not better then having it.
 * So, moving on from the hypocritical/baseless personal jibes, the fact remains that I have indeed given valid arguments for the addition and retention of the link and that you have given absolutely no reason what so ever for it's removal and exclusion from the page.
 * In closing. I reject your accusations and personal attack and while I admit that I have to a very minor extent (that of a single edit or two) been guilty of participating in an edit war, I however point out that you are in fact more guilty of everything you accused me of that was even slightly true. I then point out that I have considered your arguments, given reasons for why I think they are invalid, and given my own arguments and support for why mine are valid. This is also a notification that I will, for what I hope is the last time, be adding the link back in. I ask you to please not remove it this time and if you have any further objections then to tell me them (allowing time for a response) before taking down the link. If you make a valid reason for why the link should not be there, one which is not dependent on the assumption that readers all ready know all there is to know about the Nemesis (including the name), then I will gladly take it off myself. Phalanx-a-pedian 19:36, February 18, 2012 (UTC)