Forum:Additions to Characters page

Forums: Index > Projects > Additions to Characters page

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: Additions to Characters page

Discussion over how to incorporate Liara into the Mass Effect 2 section of Characters

Currently developed by: - originally developed by: User:Swedish guy

Developer(s) notes: Discussion moved in whole from Talk:Characters#Liara as a Squadmate? to this project page by User:Commdor.

Status last updated: 09/11/2010

Page location:
Page should contain:
Supporting links or images:
Discussion on:

Vote on whether any change is merited (Closed)

Passed, 6 in favor, none opposed or neutral.

Yes, the layout of the page needs to change

1. Given the prominence of Liara in LOTSB, yes, it seems to me that at least some layout changes are warranted. EDIT: I also see merit in JakePT's idea. Concur with all those additions to Adversaries. SpartHawg948 10:16, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
2. No disagreement with you here Spart. Swedish guy 10:23, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
3. Yes, but I would go much further than adding Liara. Why's the Adversaries section so small? Kuril, Uvenk, Shadow Broker and Hock all have boss/adversary roles.JakePT 10:56, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
4. Aw, I rather thought I made the notion to include Liara to the Character page, I suppose I wasn't insistent enough. :p Regardless, I support this. --The Illusive Man 14:33, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
5. Support Change. Lancer1289 15:41, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
6. Support. -- Commdor (Talk) 19:19, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Vote on new layout (Closed)

Assuming the vote favors changing the page, which style do you prefer? Results - Style One - 1 vote. Style 2 - 6 votes. Style 3 - 2 votes. Style 2 wins. Since the other two options combined only recieved half as many votes as Style 2, no need for a follow-up (or 'run-off') vote.

Style One - "My Idea"

Liara added to squad members with note added, no other changes.

1. I vote for my idea. You can read my reasons below, probably over and over xD. Swedish guy 10:23, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Style Two - "SpartHawg948's Idea"

New section created for temporary squad members (i.e. Jenkins in ME, Wilson and Liara in ME2)

1. Surprise! I'm voting for my idea! Basically, a few reasons - accuracy (Liara is only a temporary squad member, placing her in the middle of thirteen permanent squad members seems misleading to say the least), inclusion of previously neglected "minor squad members" (Jenkins and Wilson), and to preserve formatting. SpartHawg948 10:35, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
2. If these are the choices, I prefer this one.JakePT 10:36, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
3. This seems best, I'm not entirely sure about including Wilson and Jenkins as they have far limited and brief inclusion, but I feel it is important to distinguish that Liara is only temporarily a squad member, otherwise as Spart says, it would be misleading elsewhere. --The Illusive Man 14:37, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
4. Since Liara, Wilson, and Jenkins were squad members, even if only briefly, they still warrant their own sections. Red Shirt Characters ware popular with BioWare, so they should get their dews as well. Lancer1289 15:50, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
5. Support. -- Commdor (Talk) 19:19, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
6. I vote this.SoulRipper 08:37, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Style Three - "Alternate Idea"

Liara added to Allies section, no other changes

1. This is the best option with the least problems. Liara is clearly an ally in ME2, even without LotSB. Anything else is just needlessly complicated. 86.4.177.115 02:06, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
2. Really, I support this idea. She's only an squadmate for one mission, so we'd have to add Wilson and Jenkins too. Better to just list her as an ally, at least in my opinion. Arbington 03:46, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Liara as a Squadmate?

Okey, now when the LotSB DLC is out I think we can all agree that this page needs something of an update; so I thought I would start a section here where it could be discussed how we should do it. Me and SpartHawg948 have already had a discussion on this, a summary of which can be seen below:

(note:SpartHawg948, if you feel I have misrepresented you in a way, forgot to include one of your responses or arguments or anything, you are free to correct me) Swedish guy 12:14, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Arguments

Argument#1:

• SpartHawg948's argument: inadequate clarification of Liara's position as a temporary squadmate.
  • My response: it is perfectly adequate, it literaly spells out that she is temporary.
    • SpartHawg948's response: still inadequate.

Argument#2:

• SpartHawg948's argument: your note messes up the formatting.
  • My response: it certainly doesn't, it's one line which goes along fine with the rest of the section.
    • SpartHawg948's response: I'm sorry, but it does.

Argument#3:

• My argument: it is redundant with a 'temporary squadmates' section since, while Liara is a character of great importance to the continuity and the plot, Wilson (and by extension; Jenkins) are nothing but plot devices and no characters on their own right. It would be misleading to lump them all together.
  • SpartHawg948's response: it is more misleading to put Liara together with the permanent squadmates. She is, after all, temporary.
    • My response: it is not misleading if you make it clear that she is temporary, the section is called 'Squad members' afterall, a criteria Liara fits perfectly, not 'Permanent squad members'. It's redundant to seperate them.
      • SpartHawg948's response: you don't make it clear enough that she is temporary (see Argument#1)

Argument#4:

• SpartHawg948's argument:Not everyone can have Liara or LotSB (think Eastern Europe).
  • My response: you can't have Kasumi or Zaeed (if you buy second-hand) either, unless you pay up, and you can't have Morinth unless you sacrifice her mother, still this is resolved on their individual pages, adn there's no need to seperate them, why Liara?
    • SpartHawg948's response: cause' once you get them they become permanent.
      • My response: doesn't matter (see Argument#3)

Squad Members

Garrus Vakarian		Grunt		Jack		Jacob Taylor

Kasumi Goto		Legion		Liara T'Soni		Miranda Lawson
				(temporary LotSB)

Mordin Solus		Morinth		Samara

Tali'Zorah vas Neema		Thane Krios		Zaeed Massani

Squad Members

Garrus Vakarian		Grunt		Jack		Jacob Taylor

Kasumi Goto		Legion		Miranda Lawson
Mordin Solus		Morinth		Samara
Tali'Zorah vas Neema		Thane Krios		Zaeed Massani

Temporary Squad Members

Liara T'Soni		Wilson

So, that was pretty much our discussion, which can be seen in its full on his discussion page. I think we both have made our positions clear, at least to each other, but what about you? The rest of the community, d'you have any opinions? ideas of your own or anything on how to update this page (or whether it needs an update at all) please post it here. Swedish guy 12:14, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Spart on this one. The little text bit looks silly, I'm vehemently against using acronyms in any of the articles, and since the size of the roles of each of the characters compared to Liara are an order of magnitude larger than Liara's, it doesn't seem right to wedge her into the article like that. She doesn't even really have the role of a squadmember, which is a character that follows you throughout the game and you can choose to take them on missions or not. Liara shows up once, you can control her for a bit, then she leaves.JakePT 12:22, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Liara is more than a temporary squad member. She is a SqM more time than Wilson (who is about 10-15 minutes) but also she is not a permanent member but I think Sparts idea looks a bit more accurate.SoulRipper 12:34, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

How is she more than a temporary squad member? She's in the squad temporarily. Unless your definition of temporary is 'the amount of time Wilson was in the squad or less', in why case... why is that your definition?

Personally if I think Liara's probably better placed under allies, and we don't bother with a temporary squadmates section.

Actually, honestly, I'm not even a huge fan of this page at all.JakePT 12:43, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Thats exactly what I said. Wilson is a temporary squad member. He is for 10-15 minutes but Liara is for more than an hour. Thats more than temporary compared to the time that Wilson is.

Puting Liara to allies its even better.

(edit conflict): I agree that the mention of Liara is better suited under allies, rather then under Squad. It's a bit misleading referring to her as a squad member (temporary or not), she is not part of the squad and never meant to be, she and Shepard just combined forces for that particular mission (and I doubt we would of had this conversation if Liara wasn't a squad member in ME).

As I see it, Liara became an ally of Shepard rather then part of the team, and could possibly become his/her greatest ally, and I don't think that she should be mentioned on both the squad listing and the ally listing. --silverstrike 13:01, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Squad Members

Garrus Vakarian		Grunt		Jack		Jacob Taylor

Kasumi Goto		Legion		Miranda Lawson
Mordin Solus		Morinth		Samara
Tali'Zorah vas Neema		Thane Krios		Zaeed Massani

Allies

EDI		The Illusive Man		Jeff "Joker" Moreau

		File:Kelly Character Shot.png
Doctor Chakwas		Kelly Chambers		Liara T'Soni

That looks better. SoulRipper 13:38, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Wow. This is getting really long. Any chance we can move this to the projects forum? I.E. the place things like this are supposed to take place? SpartHawg948 19:20, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

BTW... the one w/ the temporary squad members section looks great. The allies one, not so much, as it's inaccurate and misleading as of four days ago. Prior to that, sure, but I don't really think it cuts it anymore. SpartHawg948 19:22, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand Liara after the mission becomes a allie.SoulRipper 19:30, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

She does. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that during the mission, she is a squad member, albeit only temporarily. SpartHawg948 19:35, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

If we're adding Liara, could we not also add the Shadow Broker as an adversary? I think he's significant enough. -- Commdor (Talk) 19:47, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Sounds reasonable. Seriously, though, this does need to go to the forums if the discussion is going to continue. It's already too massive as it is to reasonably be conducted here. And please note also that the arguments presented as mine above are gross oversimplifications of what I actually said. He points out my position without providing any of my substantiation. See my talk page if you want the whole story. But again, this really needs to be taking place in the project forum. SpartHawg948 19:49, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

I'll move it myself if you want. -- Commdor (Talk) 19:53, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

That'd be great. The original user who proposed it likely won't be on for a while yet today, if his activities of late are any indicator. SpartHawg948 19:55, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please do because this talk page got really long, really fast. I didn't get to this sooner because I've been trying to figure out what's going on with the Credits found on LotSB. I'll state my opinions on the Forum page once it's up. Lancer1289 19:59, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry guys; I have been away for a while, but I'm back now. I'd just like to say that I support whatever decision the community decides to go with, whether it be mine, Spart's or anyone else's as this is a community. And Spart, if you think that my summary of your position was oversimplified it is because IT IS a simplified summary, same with mine. But if you want to change them go ahead. Swedish guy 20:15, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

My problem with it was that for your arguments you spelled out why you were arguing that point, making it seem reasonable, while my arguments were posed as "still inadequate", "your note messes up the formatting", and "I'm sorry, but it does" without providing any of the ample underlying reasons I gave, making it seem like I was simply being contrary and argumentative, which I find a bit... misleading (to say the least). SpartHawg948 20:18, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if you feel that way, but that's what I read. I can't know how you formulate it in your head, but in written form that's what it sounded like (to me at least). You said it 'screws up the formatting', I said 'I think it doesn't', and you said that 'it does and my opinion of the contrary doesn't change that fact'. But, as I said, you are free to change your response to whatever suits you. Swedish guy 20:26, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

But that's the thing... I'm not free to do so. Site policy says I can't. It's your comment, only you can change it. If anyone else were to do so, it'd be vandalism. And I for one, being 'Mr No Exceptions', don't like saying "well, I know it's a violation of site policy, but he said I can, so I'm going to". Policy is all or nothing. SpartHawg948 20:28, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Well, why don't you send me your version of said arguments, and I'd 'work something' up?Swedish guy 20:31, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

They're on my talk page. I don't want to make an issue of this (if you'll note, I never once have asked you to change what you originally put), I'm just trying to inform people that what you put as my arguments are not what my arguments actually are, and that they can see the whole, unedited version, sans spin from either of us, on my talk page. SpartHawg948 20:35, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Hi! yeah, I just don't like the idea of misrepresenting anybody... would it be better if I just removed the whole thing. Swedish guy 09:03, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Again, I don't care. It's your comment. Do what you want with it. All I wanted was to call attention to something, and I have done so. SpartHawg948 09:10, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise there was such a massive argument going on here, it's just seemed like such a no-brainer! She's clearly an ally in ME2 (even without LotSB) and that Wilson guy is hardly significant enough to be on the main page. Lumping her in with the recruitable squadmates would just be misleading. 86.4.177.115 19:17, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, did not realize this was going or I would have came here before changing it. She should be allies.

Comments

(edit conflict) Thanks for taking care of the move, Commdor. Just to restate, oppose the original change (i.e. plopping Liara in with squad members with a vague [Temporary LOTSB] tag) b/c it A) Messes up the formatting (just look at it... you can't say it doesn't. The note adds extra space there), B) Is less than accurate, as Liara is a temporary squad member who only is with your squad for one mission, putting her on par with Wilson. And no, overall impact to the plot of the franchise does not somehow magically negate this fact. The second option posed, with the temporary squad members section, looks great. The third option, however, is inaccurate as of 7 September, when Liara ceased just being an ally and became a temporary squad member. SpartHawg948 20:12, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Ok then. Personally I think a temporary squadmate section with Liara and Wilson would be the best way to go. Both are squadmates but they aren't permanent like the others. They are brief and I believe adding Liara and/or Wilson to the Squad Members heading would send the wrong message about them. Also the small text under the images in Swedish guy's idea just doesn't flow right. I like the temp squadmate heading idea. Lancer1289 20:14, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

As I see it now, the Add.Sq.M. thing looks better. SoulRipper 20:17, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, would you guys also call Joker a temp squad member, I mean he is controllable under one mission (I don't really know if it's a mission, but you get the point). Or is he a 'temporary protagonist'? Swedish guy 20:19, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Neither would seem to fit. After all, he's not a member of the squad, and per the definition of protagonist - "the leading character, hero, or heroine of a drama or other literary work.", he wouldn't qualify for that either. Maybe something more like 'temporary player character'. However, given the very brief nature of this player control and the context of it, I'd be content to leave him an ally, as that was essentially the role he was fulfilling. Call it contradictory if you will, but that's the way I see this one, at least as of now. SpartHawg948 20:22, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

I would call it a little contradictory, I mean he is the leading 'protagonist' of that mission or that section of the game. You pretty much plead the same argumet I do (impact to the story/importance/role to the overall story/game). Swedish guy 20:29, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Joker really isn't a temporary squad member. Temporary usable character, yes, but temporary SqM, I don't think so.SoulRipper 20:31, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Well, why not? Only taking gameplay into account, he's controllable more or less like Shepard (i mean without the powers/weapons or being permanent) so why isn't he a 'temporary protagonist'? Swedish guy 20:38, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Simple. Squad members are (by definition) members of Commander Shepard's squad. Joker is not a member of Shepard's squad for the brief time he's controllable. SpartHawg948 20:40, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, in this case I argue that Joker simply does not fit the definition of the term protagonist. It's a bit subjective, I'll admit, but not overly so, as I doubt you can find anyone who will argue that Joker is the leading character or hero of the franchise (or even just ME2), not Shepard. Still, for the sake of consistency, if push came to shove, I'd support including Joker as a temporary PC or something, I just find it more accurate to keep him as an ally. Note that I'm not denying that Liara is a squad member, just pointing out that her overall role in the franchise does not negate the fact that she is a temporary squad member in ME2, akin in that regard (if not in overall plot impact) to Wilson. SpartHawg948 20:33, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry guys, you're gonna have to play without me for a while. Swedish guy out (for now) Swedish guy 20:37, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Joker belongs in the Allies-section where he is, I'm just saying that you could make any sorts of sections amongst these characters. 'DLC characters' for Zaeed and Kasumi, 'Temporary quadmates' for Liara and Wilson, 'temporary PC' for Joker and whatever for Morinth and Samara. It would make the page more 'informative', but also way more confusing. The section doesn't say 'permanent squadmembers' (atlest not yet) but it just says 'Squadmembers'. A definition Liara fits perfectly. Swedish guy 09:03, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

But that's some mighty specious reasoning. It's a mighty big leap from clearly stating (as has been done by pretty much everyone here who supports the split) that squad members need to be split on the basis of permanent vs temporary to "well, if we follow that reasoning, DLC squad members will need a category, and so will Morinth and Samara". How so? There's no logical reason to jump to that outlandish conclusion. The Joker one I will admit is a valid concern. The Kasumi/Zaeed and Morinth/Samara ones are red herrings. SpartHawg948 09:06, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

And squad members is a definition that Jenkins and Wilson also fit perfectly, yet you didn't want to include them. I, on the other hand, while advocating for the split, gladly agreed to include all the squad members, permanent and temporary, not just the ones who meet some subjective standard of "impact to the franchise". SpartHawg948 09:09, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Well DLC Squad Members seems logical to me cause not everyone has them and they are not standard. I think something like this: Squad Members(Including Samara cause she is recruited before Morinth and Morinth is an option to replace Samara and not vice versa), DLC Squad Members, Replaceable/Optional (or something like that-I dont know whats the exact word that fits) Squad Member for Morinth and Temporary Squad Members. SoulRipper 09:14, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

To you and me; yes. But you could argue that it WOULD make the page more informative. Someone who enters this site for the first time and stumbles upon this page would probably take it as if Zaeed, Kasumi and Morinth are all the same as the other characters. That they're there from the start and that you can recruit them all as with the rest. Swedish guy 09:14, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against including Wilson and Jenkins too, they are squadmembers as well (Jenkins for a full minute and Wilson for an entire five!) but I don't think that it's fair toput them in the same category as Liara or the other SqM. Just my two cents. Swedish guy 09:18, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

But now you're over-analyzing the thing just to make some sort of point. My issue regarding accuracy here was that it would be inaccurate to place a squad member (or two, when you factor Wilson in) who only appears for one specific mission in with the permanent squad members. The fact that Liara is a DLC squad member has nothing to do with it, which should be obvious because, if DLC was an issue, I wouldn't be including Wilson in that proposed category, would I? There's making a very limited argument for accuracy, which I'm doing, and then there's taking it to absurd levels. And now it's you who is arguing in favor of splitting squad members, but instead of doing it for objective reasons (i.e temporary vs permanent), it's for a purely subjective reason (because you don't think they belong in the same category). Wow. Just... wow. SpartHawg948 09:21, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of splitting anything. I'm just trying to, as you say, make my point. Which is that you could split the characters up in whether they are permanent or temporary, DLC or non-DLC, Optional or not, etc. etc. and it would make the article more accurate and informative, on all points, but would it be better? I just think it would be very misleading. Including putting Liara and Wilson in the same category. They are two completely different characters, not just in the impact to the story, but also how you obtain them, the purpose they serve (Wilson is just there to give you a SqM aside from Jacob to go through the introdustion, Liara is there on her own right, the entire 'point' of LotSB, other than to be fun, is to rekindle with Liara). Swedish guy 09:31, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

But Wilson is a squad member. By the very definition of the category, if Liara merits inclusion, so does Wilson. And we're not arguing the merits of splitting squad members by DLC or optional, but by permanent and temporary, in large part because the note that Liara is temporary messed up the formatting of the entire section. Accuracy is a nice bonus, I'll admit, and is one of the main reasons I feel the way I do, but I have to say, I can't see any reason to pick and choose which temporary squad members get included. All or none. Again, we don't seem to be changing each others minds, and this is getting pretty frustrating. So, if the intent is to vote on this, I'm just gonna hope we do it soon. As Commdor was the one who started this forum, I'll leave that up to him. SpartHawg948 09:35, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

He apparently wasn't a squadmember until Lair of the Shadowbroker showed up. He had been there since January, and Jenkins had been there since 2007, so don't say it's because they "are" squad members. You had all the time in the world to put them there before. If formatting is the main reason, then I suggest we walk around that. Swedish guy 09:41, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

You're right. He has been a squad member since then. And Jenkins has been a squad member for even longer. This, I will admit, was quite a bit of an oversight on my part. I fully admit that, on my watch, squad members were left off the list, and I do apologize for allowing this. However, now that the issue has been brought to my attention thanks to the increased visibility temporary squad members have since LOTSB ccame out, it's an error I aim to fix. So please, don't tell me what I can and can't say. I don't patronize you, so I'd appreciate it if you not patronize me.

On a side note, I likely could have said this sooner, but the reason the Temporary Squad Member thing struck me as a good idea is because of how it was implemented on the Dragon Age wiki (here). The only difference they have (as I'm sure someone will make an issue of this) is that they have to list most DLC companions separately, as major DLCs are totally separate from the main plot in DA:O. They only have equivalent of Zaeed or Kasumi, Shale, who is listed with the other permanent squad members. Just throwing this out there, in case it helps clarify my point. SpartHawg948 09:47, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

My apologies if you felt patronized it wasn't my intention. As for the temporary sqadmate section on the dragon age wiki, I don't think the same could be done here. Dragon Age is mucher freer with who you control. They even have some unnamed squadmembers who, more or less, just pops up for you to control temporarily. Plus, the different origins on Dragon Age makes such a section a neccessity. the same can't be said about Mass Effect. Swedish guy 09:57, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

On a little sidenote of my own; atleast they clarify that Shale is DLC only. This serves to not leave new players completely confused. Swedish guy 09:59, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

"so don't say it's because they "are" squad members. You had all the time in the world to put them there before." was pretty patronizing. It may not have been your intent, but it sure sounded like it was. As if the only possible reason for their not being up there was because I deliberately didn't put them up there, not because of an oversight. And yes, given that there are multiple temporary squad members in the ME games (one in ME, two in ME2), the same can be said about Mass Effect. There are temporary squad members, so it makes sense to have a temporary squad members section, rather than just popping them into the section with all the permanent squad members and adding a vague little note. Once again, this is going nowhere and is getting very frustrating, so I suggest we just hold off on further pointless argument till it comes time for a vote, should that time occur. SpartHawg948 10:04, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe so, but you do realise that English isn't my own language...? So, I'll just hide behind that xD. No, but seriously though, I don't patronize people (atleast I try not to) becasue it's completely useless. But, yeah, let's hold off for now. Swedish guy 10:12, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, apologies to Commdor, but this whole thing has become quite a mess, so I think I'll see about adding voting info now. This is a convoluted thing, so it'll be oddly formatted, but oh well. SpartHawg948 10:08, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute Spart. Before you set up a vote, I have a suggestion. Swedish guy 10:16, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Too late. SpartHawg948 10:18, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Just hear me out! If you consider the Dragon Age wiki again. Why don't we go for the same model? Completely different pages for characters and Squadmates (or Companions in their case). I just want everyone to consider the possibility of redoing the entire characters page all together. Change the concept. Maybe split it up in different pages of something. Just something to consider. Swedish guy 10:20, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Ah, damn! Swedish guy 10:20, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Two things: 1) The model you describe doesn't exist. If they have a page for non-Companion Characters, I can't find it. They just have a page for Companions. Were we to do this, it'd basically mean just scrapping 75% of the characters page and renaming it "Squad Members". And that doesn't sound like a good idea at all. 2) Please mind the language. Crude or offensive language is a violation of site policy. SpartHawg948 10:25, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

You consider d*amn crude and offensive... okey.... Swedish guy 10:27, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

No! That's not what I meant! I just mean that other works categorize their characters in a different way. Protagonist, Supporting Characters, Adversaries, Antagonist, etc. We could do it like that, then we could also have a page just for the Squad members. We already have a squad page. We could re-do that. Swedish guy 10:30, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Have for some time now. Basically, it's FCC/MPAA rules. Has been for some time. You're not the first person I've cautioned about that particular word (which I'll admit, I use often in RL, but not here where there is a policy against it). And as to the second point, it may bot be what you meant, but it's what you said. "If you consider the Dragon Age wiki again. Why don't we go for the same model? Completely different pages for characters and Squadmates (or Companions in their case)." Which does not exist. And I dunno about all that. Let's just see how this one pans out before proposing even more huge changes, shall we? Please? SpartHawg948 10:34, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but when I spoke about the same model, I spoke specifically about the companions/SqM page. If you want to go through with this before going into another discussion concerning the same topic then okay, but it seems a little unnecessary to me. Swedish guy 10:39, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to my world. This whole argument seems more than a little unnecessary to me. They're temporary squad members. Just label them as such. For now, let's just focus on the issue at hand, then worry about new issues. It may seem unnecessary, but each these forum posts if for one issue. If you want to start a whole separate discussion about whatever with getting rid of the squad members section and adding a supporting characters section, start another policy forum post for that. SpartHawg948 10:43, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Now look who's patronizing xD Sure, I'll go through with this for now, but when the changes has been done, I'll do just that (open a new policy forum). Swedish guy 10:46, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Patronizing? No. Really tired? Yes. I know, I know... you were joking. I'm not so old and square that I don't know what xD means... I just can't for the life of my see what part of my prior comment could be called patronizing even in jest. It was merely a statement of my opinion, and a request to follow established policy for these forums. SpartHawg948 10:55, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

The 'Welcome to my world'-thing sounded a little paronizing, as if I was just here to torture you, which of course I know wasn't your intent. Swedish guy 10:59, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. I can see where you're coming from on that one. It was more a general statement, as it's kinda been one of those days, what with all sorts of issues popping up leading to all sorts of unnecessary things, but I do see where you're coming from. You're correct, it wasn't my intent, and my apologies for it... I can sometimes come across as a bit of an... ahem donkey. :P SpartHawg948 11:02, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

I understand, we've all had our own share of "one of those days" xD Swedish guy 11:08, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Results

So, it's been a week, and as such, the polls are now closed, and the votes have been tallied. Both votes were overwhelming. 6 votes in favor of changing the page, no votes opposed. And for vote two, one vote in favor of adding Liara to the squad member section, two votes for adding her to the allies section, and six votes for creating a temporary squad members section. And, since the second and third-place options combined only got half as many votes as the winner, the results fall outside the "margin of error", and there is no need for a follow-up vote.

So... as I've said many times, this sort of thing (i.e. pages like the Characters page) isn't my strong suit. So if any of you enterprising individuals wants to create the Temporary Squad Members sections for ME (with Richard L. Jenkins) and ME2 (with Liara and Wilson), cool. If not, I'll see about copy-pasting the mock-up for the ME2 section from this page to the Characters page, and muddle through setting up the ME section. SpartHawg948 23:40, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

I'll handle it and get the temp sqaudmate sections in under the main squadmate sections. Lancer1289 00:00, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Done. Lancer1289 00:06, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Muchas Gracias. :) SpartHawg948 00:19, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

De nada. Lancer1289 00:21, September 20, 2010 (UTC)