Forum:(enemy) pages for all major named adversaries

Forums: Index > Projects > (enemy) pages for all major named adversaries

The form below serves as a tool to describe the project. The form is intended to be as specific as possible to what the project is to accomplish.

• Please place all comments under the Comments heading.
• If there is a discussion page linked, then be sure to check it out as well.
• Also please do not create any articles unless all the details have been worked out, or at least the majority of them.
• Once the article/project has been created/finished, please put a mention that the article/project is completed and provide a redirect to the relevant article/s and talk page/s.

If any new things come up after the project proposal's passing, then please shift the discussion to the relevant article talk page/s.

If you have any questions on how to fill out the form, or any other question, please refer to the Project Forum talk page.

Project:

_(enemy) pages for all major named adversaries

Currently developed by: User:Hellfire101

Developer(s) notes:

Status last updated:

Page location:
Page should contain: Giving each lore-heavy adversary who you fight, Saren Arterius, Shadow Broker, Kai Leng etc., their own _(enemy) page. Instead of having an adversary box on there own page. Though we are not including side adversaries such as Dr. Saleon, Captain Wasea etc. As all you really do is fight them and that's it, the adversary box should be all the information necessary for them.
Supporting links or images:
Discussion on: here

Sandboxes

1. User:Hellfire101/sandbox/Saren_Arterius_(enemy) - enemy version of Saren
2. User:Hellfire101/sandbox/Saren_Arterius - in-universe Saren article

Voting

Support

1. As project proposer Hellfire101 --Hellfire101 (talk) 18:05, July 29, 2013 (UTC)
2. Yep. Further enemies case-by-case but using _(enemy) paradigm. Cattlesquat (talk) 18:42, July 29, 2013 (UTC)
3. I'm in --DeldiRe 19:30, July 29, 2013 (UTC)
4. I don't know if my vote means something, but I agree.78.8.15.181 20:27, July 29, 2013 (UTC)
5. Fine by me. Garhdo (talk) 21:35, July 29, 2013 (UTC)
6. For Saren, at least. Elseweyr (talk) 15:11, July 30, 2013 (UTC)
7. Exceltent idea.

Comments

User:Hellfire101/sandbox/Saren_Arterius This is how I'm proposing we add the adversary box to Saren, please note that I don't have all the information at hand, and that I'm allowing anyone to edit it to perfect the adversary box. I also think that the Thorian should have its own box. And giving Legion and Jack and adversary page for ME3 when you fight them at Cerberus HQ. Should anyone else have any adversary suggestions, please don't hesitate to comment. Moving this comment to the top for everyone to see. --Hellfire101 (talk) 02:04, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to Cattlesquat for suggesting this project be about other past enemies not just Saren, I've now updated the project. --Hellfire101 (talk) 00:55, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

I suggest we add and Adversary box to Saren's page for both him and his transformation. I understand that this will cramp his page so I also suggest we add tactics and capabilities to Saren's page as well, exactly like the Shadow Broker page.

There are tons of information we could add, although someone would need to take new images of both Saren and his transformation.

Simple answer, yes I'm in favor. Complicated answer... as TE78 pointed out we should really discuss doing that for all the unique-named-enemies from the earlier games who don't have this treatment. Cattlesquat (talk) 00:35, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

I agree we should do this for all unique enemies from past games, I'm going to rename the project. --Hellfire101 (talk) 00:51, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

So the next thing to do is... make a "sandbox" version of the Saren page showing your suggested improvements. So put it somewhere like User:Hellfire101/sandbox/Saren_Arterius and just copy the rest of the page over but then have a first stab at adding the boxes the way you think they should be. Optionally give the rest of us permission to edit the sandbox page too (by telling us it's okay). Another thing we should do is go through and figure out which other old enemies need this. (e.g. Benezia already has one; the Thorian doesn't though is it really an "adversary"). TE78 might know better which other ones need looking at. Cattlesquat (talk) 01:37, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

---

at this point i am going to have to close down voting. there's literally nothing on the table and there's all sorts of wrong with voting on something BEFORE THE FACT.

hash things out first before anything. that is correct procedure.

---

i'll also have to remind you that there's formatting considerations to factor in. i allowed the changes on balak since it doesn't look as cramped as it would seem. capabilities, tactics, all there. with benezia though since the bulk of her article is lore shoving in a character box and haphazardly moving the adversarybox needlessly fucks with article appearances. we're here to add content but in the process make them look good as well, not turn them into unsightly messes of accumulated information.

any further changes of that caliber, HASH IT OUT. no exceptions. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 02:33, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile Hellfire I've turned your Saren sandbox into a sandbox of the full article - since part of the point per TE78 is to get the formatting on these things right first. I've also filled out his info a bit - for the flying platform version at least. If you want to make a second version for the Saren/Sovereign version then go ahead and put it in and I can work on filling it out - that version has more abilities like the ever-very-annoying Sabotage. If you make some more sandboxes and put links here somewhere (e.g. Benezia) I can help improve formatting on those as well. Cattlesquat (talk) 03:20, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to get on that right now, can you tell I'm new to this. --Hellfire101 (talk) 03:26, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

One of my personal missions is to help new users learn to contribute well ... which also means I can make you do a lot of the hard work, heh heh. Cattlesquat (talk) 03:29, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

---

---

in ME3 we simply shoved adversaryboxes onto the relevant sections. i have some objections to that on principle, but they're relatively filled out so that the articles don't look too out of place aside from the inevitable dip into out-of-universe perspective (lore things should be in-universe; combat tactics disregards that writing convention entirely). important adversary characters also got characterboxes. what does this mean for the named ME enemies?

• some named enemies (Doctor Droyas) are mere one-scene wonders and their articles are mostly comprised of tactics. shoving in a characterbox would be redundant in their cases because even if they technically -are- characters there's not enough lore on them to justify the additional box and clutter. ergo, they should be left as is.
• important named adversaries (saren, benezia, balak) must have fleshed-out tactics sections before any proposal to standardize takes off. that's right, that means additional research for you guys if you want this project to go somewhere. balak already has something, so he should probably be left alone unless you have something new to add.
  • in saren's case, he technically has two forms. hoverboard saren and husk saren. it's counterintuitive to put both on the page as is, one look shows an imbalance between lefthand information and righthand information with that setup. if you got bright ideas to lengthen the information on the left-hand side, manual of style compliant and finessed, then by all means.
  • same reasoning applies to benezia, though thankfully she only has one form.

as i said before, this has been a thorny issue in the past, with attempts at resolving this going nowhere. with the addition of ME3, it seems we simply put in the combat data there and then. i'm amenable to any proposal that solves that niggling problem of in-universe vs out-ouf-universe BS, but for the time being i'll not raise that spectre. i'll see if i can dredge up those discussions as they're in this wiki somewhere. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 03:32, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

---

I was thinking of pulling tactics information from the walkthroughs of the missions these bozos are involved in -- I know there's loads of stuff on Husk Saren for example, even though the tactics for "Hoverboard Saren" mostly seem to be "fill him full of holes", lol. If Hellfire puts a second adversary box for Saren/Sovereign (aka Husk Saren) into the article I'll attempt to supply some "finessing" "bright ideas" etc. :-) Benezia ought to be likewise easy for me since there's a bunch of tactical stuff in her mission - some of which I wrote. Cattlesquat (talk) 03:40, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

Here is the updated page User:Hellfire101/sandbox/Saren_Arterius again I don't have all the information, but this is the type of thing i'm proposing for the Benezia and Thorian pages aswell.

I splorted around with it a bit so that it (a) has actual tactics from the walkthrough articles and (b) at least the tactics line up with "the right Saren". BUT it still looks terrible, so it's going to need a bunch more finessing. Yet right now I'm going to bed, so more later or perhaps some good samaritan will improve it meanwhile. Cattlesquat (talk) 04:01, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

As a base, it's just what we need. As you've said it needs work but it's a good start. Likewise, i'm headed to bed, it's 5 in the morning over here. And my bed is calling me.

Great job Cattlesquat, the adversary box is looking even better. I was going to flesh it out a little last night but I was so tired, heck I even forgot to sign my last post. --Hellfire101 (talk) 13:07, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

After TE78's pass it's looking a lot better IMHO in spite of his doubts expressed in the history. I added some more tactics text from the relevant articles mostly to provide balance. There's still a funny "blank line" that seems to be getting forced between the header (e.g. "Saren on the Citadel") and the first line of the paragraph. I can't make it go away at least not without editing the Template:Adversary which I'm afraid to do (or at least would need to go sandbox first) - anyway doesn't seem like the valign=center should be causing that but I'm not sure; in any event adding any amount of text to the paragraphs on the left doesn't seem to help. You can see the forced blank line even more clearly if you temporarily change the header to a == level header. TE78 do you know a way to get rid of it? Cattlesquat (talk) 13:10, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

the extraneous spaces seem like a namespace thing and should resolve itself upon article transition to mainspace.

---

the fundamental nature of this issue is thus:

• character articles are in-universe. adversary articles have no such restriction.
• adversary characters exist. some are we-hardly-knew-ye one-scene wonders, others figure heavily into the story.
• merging in-universe with out-of-universe content in lore-heavy pages is ALWAYS a bad idea from a design standpoint as it's a jarring shift in tone from one to the other.
• there are some ways to get around the problem, all of them have serious drawbacks.
  • splitting off combat tactics into pages like [[Saren Arterius (enemy)]] and leaving the lore in the lore pages.
    • good idea in theory, bad idea when forcibly applied (for the sake of standardizing) to articles that were short before splitting. we end up with barely enough content for each and we'd be parroting tactics already detailed in appropriate walkthrough sections just to pad the other.
    • this does have precedent for common mooks: Husk, Husk (enemy), Thresher Maw, Thresher Maw (enemy). the question is whether to apply it on plot enemies.
    • this approach works for important boss/plot enemies as most of them have fully fleshed out in-universe blurbs. this begs the question as to how to determine if a named character qualifies as some named enemies have lengthy in-universe entries. lazy answer is to make one for all of them. smart answer is to go case by case.
• in the process of brainstorming more thoughts and writing/rewriting i actually forgot about the rest. but i do remember i arrived at the conclusion they were drawbacks serious enough to think about. in short, _(enemy) pages should probably take care of lore vs gameplay issues for the time being, and i would be fine with it since we do have established precedent. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 15:28, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

I'm certainly down with doing _(enemy) pages where appropriate, and I'm always a proponent of "case-by-case" over shoehorning. And at the same time I think Hellfire is right that having an adversary box completely missing for the biggest enemy in the whole first game is an omission that deserves to be corrected. If I build up a head of steam this evening I'll try splitting the sandbox (Hellfire, may I put the split off _enemy version in your sandbox space?). Thanks for the guidance for sure. Cattlesquat (talk) 16:38, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

Cattlesquat, you can do anything you want to the sandbox page. :) Also, do you think the Benezia and Thorian pages should get the same treatment should this go through or should they get there own _(enemy) pages? --Hellfire101 (talk) 16:43, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

If/when we manage to get the Saren page(s) to where the three of us and especially TE78 like them, then we can make other relevant ones. BTW I've come to the conclusion that the Thorian shouldn't really have an "Adversary" box - since the actual adversaries in the formal mook sense are Thorian Creepers and Asari Clones. It could probably have a character box if it doesn't already. Benezia already has an adversary box it seems, so the only question is whether she needs to be split up into two articles (probably). Can you think of anybody else from original ME? Then the question after that will be if there's stuff from other games, etc. I might lean toward tying this project off at base ME and getting a vote done at that point, and then a followup cleanup project for ME2 or whatever...? Cattlesquat (talk) 19:00, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

Guys I have to say I am loving the work done here, but I can easily agree with TE78's point about splitting the pages. IF this is done for Saren, the other characters who would need this treatment across the main series are actually few, namely Benezia, Fist (maybe), Shadow Broker, Kai Leng, Mysterious Figure and possibly Tela Vasir, although I believe she is better served on the one page, as hers is structured with all out-of-universe details separate from in-universe content. I just wish I had anything to add to the sandbox. Garhdo (talk) 19:48, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

It actually sounds like a good plan to tie this to ME exclusively. we should worry about other games later. Also we should discuss if we keep the adversary box on Saren's page or create a _(enemy) page. Personally, since you only fight him in one game, and the fact that he's the main villain suggest's to me that we should place the advererybox on Saren's main page. If that doesn't work how do you guys feel about tabs, definitely excessive so I wouldn't be the biggest fan. Thoughts?

---

It is actually a great project and I support it. However it is quite hard to solve the issues raised by TE78. From my point of view I would prefer to put every infos into the same article rather than splitting them (IF possible). The thing is that it is not always really clear so if you find another solution, I will support it. _(enemy) is quite a good solution too.

For info, this page : Turian (Mass Effect: Infiltrator) has the same problem. You can also think about a resolution for that one or you can use it as a model or an inspiration.

I'd like to participate more to that project but I'm leaving for vacation till mid Augustus, so I wish you luck to deal with it. I'm sure that you will find a solution before I come back from Holidays.--DeldiRe 22:32, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

---

Okay I've split off the _(enemy) version into its own sandbox: User:Hellfire101/sandbox/Saren_Arterius_(enemy). The non-enemy sandbox version isn't really needed anymore (the regular Saren page will mostly stay the same and just gain a Disambig). Interested parties please have a look. Cattlesquat (talk) 00:59, July 29, 2013 (UTC)

The more I look at this, the more I think that giving a second _(enemy) to antagonists is a good idea. So I think the voting should be to give all major villains a second enemy page, Kai Leng, Benezia, Shadow Broker etc. Again, major props to you Cattlesquat for working so diligently on this project. --Hellfire101 (talk) 01:18, July 29, 2013 (UTC)

If I may offer a newcomer's humble opinion, I think adversary boxes next to lore sections generally disrupt character articles much more than separate in-universe and out-of-universe sections. The adversary box carries a heavy notion of combat, which in itself clashes badly with lore, and I also feel it can too easily mislead an unsuspecting reader. To provide just one example, on my first playthrough I looked up Helena Blake before the final confrontation, couldn't avoid seeing the adversary box, and (based on my previous wiki experience) assumed she'd become hostile in any case. Mainly because of this fact that some characters are only potential adversaries, I think the ME3 style is a good compromise. Out of the ME enemies, I think Saren may be only one who deserves a separate _(enemy) page; possibly Benezia, but not the Thorian. However, I definitely agree Saren should at least have an adversary box in the relevant space, be it a section or page. Elseweyr (talk) 15:04, July 29, 2013 (UTC)

Things seem to have settled down to what seems like general consensus/support. Assuming it stays that way, we can implement the Saren page split 7 days after the first vote was cast. Cattlesquat (talk) 20:56, July 31, 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic! If all goes smoothly, we should start doing this for the other antagonists. Also, even though the Thorian doesn't have health per se, his nodes do. I was wondering if they constitute a page split on the Thorian's page. --Hellfire101 (talk) 22:27, July 31, 2013 (UTC)