Mass Effect Wiki
Mass Effect Wiki


I have no problem with listing items that have been confirmed by developers as fact, but how will we get this confirmation? My concern is that we will have people entering random things and then tagging it as devconfirmed. SpartHawg948 21:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. We could limit the use of devconfirmed tags to admins or something. DRY, thoughts? --Tullis 21:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I linked the tag through to a category page (which I haven't actually created yet in case you can think of a better name for it) which would act as a monitoring point. The idea really was to try to reduce administrative burden of policing removal of devconfirmed text (as a small number of recent edits did). However, it could be that the cure is worse than the disease Smiley.gif. I certainly don't feel particularly strongly about it one way or the other. As I mentioned we could also just go with an unobtrusive HTML comment. --DRY 21:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Or a comment embedded in the wiki code? (That could have been what you meant.) That might work just as well, though it sometimes didn't for the Races page before the Citadel / non-Citadel shuffle. We can try. --Tullis 21:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I was thinking along the lines of <!-- not speculation --> or similar in the wiki markup. Users would only see it if they opened the page for editing. On the other hand, as you point out, it's a lot less attention grabbing - and is quite subtle for non-technical users - so it might not be as effective. Whatever you and SpartHawg think is fine with me, though (including the omnipresent "leave it as it was before I messed with it" option Smiley.gif). --DRY 21:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm less concerned with the technical aspects of it than I am with ensuring it isn't being abused. If someone just enters some random, made-up factoid and then claims it's devconfirmed, what can we do to disprove it? It becomes sort of a he-said she-said kinda thing, without any real resolution short of talking to the developers. SpartHawg948 22:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not too sure how that differs from the current state of affairs with speculation disagreement resolution in general Smiley.gif. My motivation is primarily administrative, so to my mind an administrative solution would be fine. --DRY 23:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Optional Missions[]

I don't see a section regarding how to deal with things Shepard can do but doesn't have too. I want to add a section about Shepard taking a drink from the bar in the Afterlife Club and falling unconcious to the Club's article, but I don't know if "if Shepard orders a drink from the bar" is ok, or if I should just say "when Shepard orders a drink from the bar". Any insight would be great. Cheers. JakePT 11:05, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

This stuff shouldn't be added until the game is out so we can see how it works. Also: spoiler warning? :s --Tullis 15:07, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
First off, yeah, this is something that should wait for confirmation, and yes, some indication of spoilers may be nice. Also, as for insight, refer to Flux. That article seems pretty well laid out, I don't see any reason that can't also work for the Afterlife article. SpartHawg948 19:51, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Adding to welcome message?[]

Would it be worth sticking links to the Style Guide and Community Guidelines pages into the autowelcome message? Might save us a lot of grief.

Also, the Style Guide needs updating, especially that screenshot of an edit-in-progress. It might also be worth underlining how we handle squadmate / critical character pages compared to normal ones. --Tullis 14:13, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

Image Size Standards[]

Paper Street's recent adding of images to Elanos Haliat and Lieutenant Girard got me thinking about establishing image dimension standards for different kinds of pages. Like a set resolution/aspect ratio for minor character images, squadmembers, major characters etc. Just to have some visual consistancy across pages, which we are generally lacking at the moment.

I don't know what they'd be, though my preference for major character images (i.e. ones with info boxes) would be that they should be 320px wide, so they fill out the info box. If you compare the Garrus page to the Mordin page, I'd argue that the Mordin info box looks significantly better, if a bit bigger, simply because the image doesn't have two large borders on each side, so that the image, name box and the info text are all aligned the same way.

Case in point:

Aspect ratio is a different issue, but I'd argue for something more like the Mordin page with a greater width than height, as opposed to the Thane page which is the opposite and makes the info box much larger. A consistent aspect ratio would also be nice.

As for minor characters, my only preference would be that they are consistent across all pages. Though something like the Elanos Haliat and Lieutenant Girard pages would be good, though maybe a bit smaller.

Just a pet peeve of mine, but it's something to mull over.

JakePT 08:37, December 26, 2009 (UTC)

Images of Shepard note[]

I guess it doesn't hurt to mention it twice, but there's also an explanation of the no-images policy under Canon. Maybe this aspect needs its own section on here? It is kind of important. --Tullis 11:06, December 27, 2009 (UTC)

Oops... totally missed the note in the Canon section. I do indeed think that the no Shepard images policy needs it's own section. It is rather important, and it's one that has popped up quite a bit as an issue lately. SpartHawg948 21:31, December 27, 2009 (UTC)

Manual of style section for Squad Members?[]

I would like to gauge any interest in add a new style for squad members from the games. Such details like Location/Mission Found, Race, Affiliation (Alliance Military, Migrant Fleet, C-Sec), Paragon/Renegade (cause all squad members, when they are squad members, do have specific personality traits that lead towards Paragon or Renegade). Stuff like that. Since squad members are above the usually NPCs you interact with. -- (Lone Hunter 16:28, February 27, 2010 (UTC))

Proper Noun for Husks?[]

Is the Husks among the capitalized name? It seems some pages has it capitalized and some doesn't. Case in point is in the Husks page where all instances of "Husks" are capitalized but in some other pages (eg, N7: Abandoned Mine), it is not. Also while on this topic, perhaps the gender-neutral section in the manual should be updated to capitalize "commander", as it is indicated as a proper noun by SpartHawg948 in one of his previous edit. Teugene 09:03, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

A Vague Manuel of Style[]

Moved from user talk page.

Hello, I'd like to make a mention of something I noticed when viewing this Wiki and our Manuel of Style. Obviously not everyone here is British, and not everyone is American, and there are different ways to spell certain words in both countries. (i.e. realization and realisation/ civilization and civilisation) Is there any specific form of the word that we must use? As a frequent write on my own school newspaper which has very strict rules, I must make note of the fact that this seemingly minor detail can really destroy our overall consistency with spelling. Identityis 15:46, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

We have no consistency. :)>Bastian964 16:21, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
Which is why we have the policy we do now in allowing both spellings. While I wans't here when that policy was made, I still enforce it becuase both spellings are acceptable. Personally I do like the policy as I get to see differnt things. Lancer1289 16:45, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to sound rude, but honestly, without a consistent and strict style book, then we look unprofessional. Identityis 16:51, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
Well that is a little rude from my perspective becuase if you want to standarize our spellings then you would be chaning a policy that has been here since the site was stared three years ago. You would also be penalizing anyone from either the UK or the US if went to pure US or pur UK spelling respectivly. I don't see it as unprofessionsal, I see it as this site welcoming the world, who uses British and American spelling in various parts, and saying that we won't be correcting small spelling mistakes. Remember what seems wrong to you to may seem right to someone else. Since I am assuming that you live in the US, changing policy to one type of spelling just doens't fell right to me, and I live in the US. I also study history as a hobby, for lack of a better term, and I come across many books written in British spelling. To that end I don't see armour or armor as wrong, neither with the civilization thing. Chaning a policy that has worked well just, again, doens't feel right to me. On top of that, I see us as selecting a spelling would penalize anyone one from another part of the world if we were to select UK or US spelling. Lancer1289 17:18, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
Forgive me, I didn't intend upon making you angry. However, I must still disagree with you. Even though this policy has been employed for sometime, perhaps it's time for a change. I wouldn't mind using either US or UK spelling, I live in the US, but if we made a switch to UK spelling, that's right by me because I believe that we must, in some way be consistent. In a similar way that a newspaper defines how to write out a date and time (2pm on Tuesday/ as opposed to 2:00pm on Tues.) I don't think it's unreasonable to define certain things as part of our style. While I appreciate the fact that we're opening this wikia to the whole world, I don't see that as penalizing anyone. If we want to be a professional source of information, then a strict style book will ensure that. Other Wikis like Wookiepedia (the largest wiki mind you) have very strict rules like the one's that I'm speaking of.Identityis 17:39, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
I see both sides on this. On one hand, sure, you don't want to alienate anyone. On the other, however, Identityis is correct in that a no-kidding style guide would help make the site look more professional. For my day job, I use the Associated Press style guide, which provides consistent standards on dates (as Identityis pointed out), datelines (e.g., Colorado Springs, Colo.), and spellings of certain words (al-Qaida vs., say, al-Qaeda). It's not meant to offend anyone, simply to establish a consistent way of doing things.
In the case of British vs. American spelling, I don't think one way or the other matters as much as a consistency throughout the wiki. I'd kinda lean toward British spelling, in fact, because (a) I think it's cool, and (b) Mass Effect was produced in a Commonwealth nation. PhoenixBlue 17:56, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)What's the old saying, "if it ain't broke don't fix it". This policy has worked for a while and I do see no reason to change it. Also this isn't Wookiepedia, or any other wiki. Each and every wiki has the right to set rules for governing that individiaul wiki. We have contribiutors from all over the world and I see changing our policy on spelling would be a slap in the face to anyone who doesn't use the new spelling standard. Even if we changed it, we would have to dig through every article for those "mistakes" and fix them. Which IMO, is a lot of very unnecessary work. If you really want to get specific, then we should use Canadian Spelling, which is US and UK spelling thrown in a blender. Because BioWare is a Canadian company, perhaps we should use Candian spelling. To which I reply, how about we keep the current policy as it has worked and chainging it either way would result in a lot of unnecessary, tedious, and fankly annoying work. Lancer1289 18:02, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, even if most people wanted to choose a specific spelling, we would have an extremely hard time doing so. BioWare is Canadian but Mass Effect is written using American spellings. So we could use the language Mass Effect was written in, the one the company that makes it uses, or the original form of the language which is spoken by the country Canada used to be part of. To make matters worse Canadian English is largely a combination of American English and British English to varying degrees with some Canadianisms mixed in. This is why it is better to just keep our policy as it is. Bastian964 19:19, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
Indeed and I completly agree. After reading that comment, and thinking on it for a few minutes, ok 15, I think that is the reason we have the current policy, and why it shouldn't change. Lancer1289 19:42, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
The policy exists primarily to avoid pointless, spelling-only edits (which serve only to clog up the RC) and to avoid the inevitable revert wars which result (which also clog up the RC). Past experience here has suggested that it is better in this instance to let sleeping dogs lie. --DRY 19:58, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
I should just point out real quick in response to PhoenixBlue's comment (i.e. I'd kinda lean toward British spelling, in fact, because (a) I think it's cool, and (b) Mass Effect was produced in a Commonwealth nation.) Yes, it was produced in a Commonwealth nation. A Commonwealth nation that is much more influenced by the U.S. than the U.K. lately. For example- which side of the road do they drive on in Canada? And they do by and large use U.S., not U.K. spelling, I believe. After all, in ME and ME2, Shep wears armor, not armour. All in-game stuff is done in U.S. English, which is why the only exceptions to the U.S./U.K. both being good rule are item names and Codex entries, which explicitly use U.S. English. SpartHawg948 22:23, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
For the record, British spelling is far more usual here in Canada. Nevertheless, I would strongly prefer that we not start making wholesale changes — a foolish consistency and all that… --DRY 03:01, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Lancer1289 03:03, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
Oh! Take that me! Shows what I know about Canada! :P SpartHawg948 03:06, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Move/Delete/Merge, etc vote tallying policy[]

At Lancer's behest, I'm moving this discussion from an obscure category talk page to here.

Basically, I'm looking for things to be laid out in plain language:

  1. What is the length of a voting period once it has been brought up? Does the voting period start as soon as someone places whatever tag on the page? (Delete move, etc.) I've heard "a week" stated... but I don't remember reading that in any style guide or other place. (I could have missed it, obviously) Just as word-of-mouth from other users.
  2. Once a voting period is over, how long is that decision binding for? I'll illustrate via example. If there is a vote to delete a page, and the vote fails (but is close), how long before someone can re-add the delete tag to an article and begin discussion in that direction again? I feel like this is important to have. Allowing people to continuously call votes would be extremely bothersome to the wiki. Right now there's no policy that says cut-and-dry "the decision has been made, you must wait for X amount of time before bringing up this issue again."
  • I'd be in favor of a relatively short period... say a month after the vote has ended, before a new vote can be called on the same issue. Things can change quickly on a wiki, so in a month opinions could easily have swayed to one way or another.

Like I said on that talk page, I could just be blowing what I perceive to be a problem out of proportion... but it irks me that there's no document to point to and say "this is the rule right here." Thanks for reading. :) Dammej 08:06, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Ok... well,
  1. - It is a week. This isn't written in the Manuals at all, it's somewhere on a talk page or something. Basically, a week was arrived at by myself and another admin deciding a week would be appropriate.
  2. . There's really no set policy as yet, so let's try this- how about a week? A week for voting, and then another week before it can come up for deletion or whatever again. Just my opinion on that last bit... SpartHawg948 08:32, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
I have no immediate objections to those time periods being the policy. But like I said, having it spelled out somewhere "official" would help immensely. Should this discussion be considered the place to go for this information? I don't intentionally want to make more work for you as an admin, I just want to be sure that there isn't a more "official" place for this information to be placed. :P Dammej 08:56, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

After looking at this for a few days, I think a few section should be in the Community Guidelines becuase the Style Guide is more for editing while this falls under guidelines. So opinions on adding a new subsection in the Editing Etiquette section in the Community Guidelines headline: Deletion, Moving, Spliting, and Moving Articles. Thoughts? Lancer1289 06:28, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Surely you meant Deletion, Moving, Splitting, and Merging Articles? But yeah, I would agree that looks like the correct place for it. Also, the "speculation" section seems to be repeated from the MOS, so I'll just delete that... Dammej 06:36, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) We also tend to work on a "cross that bridge when we get there" basis. Too many hard and fast rules simply lead to wikilawyering, which can be worse than the problem the rules were meant to solve. Leaving it discretionary has worked well so far. FWIW, the interval before action on a proposal is intended to be long enough that people who are in different time zones can reply and ideally long enough for those who don't log in every day. --DRY 19:04, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

I can respect that. :) Right now the wiki has relatively few contributors, so it's not -too- big an issue, but I could image it getting hectic as the release of Mass Effect 3 is upon us. It's tough to think about, really. On the one hand, you want to allow everyone who has an opinion to state it, and on the other hand, you want to bring issues to a close in a timely manner so that actual progress can be made. The reason I wanted rules to be explicitly stated is so that we can always say "yes, there will be progress made here." I don't want to silence anyone's opinion, but I also don't want discussion on a topic to sit in limbo for months on end because new people keep weighing in after protracted periods of time. Tricky issue, to be sure.
If there's no rule explicitly stated, then I will be glad that this discussion is "on record" as a sort of guideline. I suppose it may be the case that some issues will need more (or less) than a week to come to an agreeable resolution. But I can't think of any at the moment. Perhaps it would be best to "cross that bridge when we get there", as you said. :) Dammej 23:05, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

Real-Life info?[]

So yeah, removed the real-life info blurb, as there are actually quite a few instances in which real-life info is not only acceptable, but is encouraged outside of trivia sections. Something like that, inventing a new rule out of whole cloth, seems like it should be at least mentioned before being implemented, but maybe that's just me. I don't think it's needed, as it really wasn't accurate, but if there are people who think I'm wrong and that it needs to stay, let's here it so we can get it ironed out. SpartHawg948 19:08, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

Yea after taking some time to mow the lawn, I was planning on removing that bit when I got back. I guess I jumped the gun here, or catapulted seems to be more accurate. After just taking 20 mintues I found so many exceptions that I might as well have stuck my foot in my mouth and hit myself over the head, especially with the current argument on the Talk:Arcturus page. So after taking some time, what I guess was trying to do was to limit the amount of real world info, such as the recent addition to the Collector General article, and the additions to the Illusive Man article, with the (known to the fans ad TIM) thing. Hmm, that new thing had so many holes a sive would have been a drastic understatement.
So now that my "beat myself up one bulkhead and down the other" is over, how about something along the lines of no using fan fiction in articles or bringing up things that should be in articles like the Collector General edit I mentioned. Things that take the article out of the universe. Lancer1289 20:31, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
Well, the Collector General bit wasn't so much a real-world info issue as it was a 'what some fans are doing' issue. The same thing as any time people try to post crap from the BioWare forums or what have you into articles, like adding to the Illusive Man article 'known to fans as TIM', or to the Human-Reaper article that in the forums it has come to be referred to as 'Baby'. That's not an issue of real-world info being added, it's an issue of people adding sayings and such from fan forums. Honestly, I don't think we need any new rules to cover this, as it happens so rarely. Generally you can just tell people that it's not the appropriate place for it, and leave it at that. I don't think we need to draw up rules for every possible scenario, no matter how rare. And we haven't had a fanfic issue that I can remember since that (word I shouldn't say as it's an insult) User:Gormtheelder was running around making things up. SpartHawg948 20:34, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)And this is why I like conversing with you. You seem to be able to reach in my head, pull out what I was trying to get at or say, from the mess that my brain is usually in. That is percisely what I was trying, and falied epicly, to get at. Becauase people keep adding stuff like that, then it gets removed, and then some complain about it, I was thinking that we should just have a general ban on that kind of stuff, this is an encyclopedia after all, not a forum. Lancer1289 20:39, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
Yea I guess that would work better, and while it does happen infrequently, it still happens enough were I though just putting something down would maybe help stem the tide a little. I was thinking along the lines of the walkthough information in articles sort of thing, which in perspective happens more frequently than this does. So I guess I need to go bash my head against a wall for a few mintues, again. Lancer1289 20:41, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

Capitilization of Paragon and Renegade[]

Are "paragon" and "renegade" supposed to be capitalized? I was editing a page that had them in lowercase, but I have seen other pages that have them capitalized. I didn't see anything about this in the Style Guide.

Perspective undo[]

Ok, so here's the full reason for the undo I just made to the edit in the "Perspective" section. It seems to me that, as the perspective section explains intro paragraphs, and as intro paragraphs are purposely written to be spoiler-free, we should emphasize that the perspective should be spoiler-free in our examples. Now, let's consider: Do we write the intro for the Systems Alliance article from a start of Revelation standpoint? By this, I mean, is it written to avoid spoilers and such from Revelation? No. Why? Because there are no spoilers (or any pertinent information, for that matter) in Revelation that would fit there. On the other hand, we explicitly write the intro to omit the biggest Alliance spoiler of all, the ending of the first game. This concept isn't even debatable, as we've applied it consistently for quite some time now. As such, I tend to think that the current wording is more suitable. Anywho, that's the reasoning behind my undo. I tend to avoid these undos, but this one seemed warranted. SpartHawg948 07:54, August 30, 2011 (UTC)

And I'm going to disagree, but I feel that I'm going to have to end up dropping this one as well despite my reservations. I believe the wording should have been changed, and in all honesty, should have been that way from the beginning. If we are going to avoid spoilers, then we should write the intros from when something is introduced. That way, we avoid the spoiler issue altogether. Now since you pointed that out, if there are no spoilers, then the other part of it applies due to the wording of the paragraph. "These paragraphs are supposed to provide a brief intro to the article and contain no plot spoilers". If there are no spoilers, and it is still accurate, as it is written without spoilers and, in the case of the Alliance article, from the perspective of Revelation, then there is little need to argue the issue. Revelation does provide information without spoiling everything and the paragraph can be written without spoiling anything, then it is still in line with the policy as it is still written from that perspective, but since there are no spoilers, there is a bit more freedom with that article. Lancer1289 12:35, August 30, 2011 (UTC)
It's in line with the policy, sure, but the way it's worded now makes it obvious exactly what it is we're trying to avoid. We've literally never had a problem with spoilers from Revelation being added to the intro, because there aren't any spoilers from Revelation that can be added there. But, as stated above, we've had quite a big problem with people adding spoilers from the first game to the intro. As such, the wording we have now seems much more appropriate. SpartHawg948 20:49, August 30, 2011 (UTC)

Type of English[]

In this article it states that either British or American English can be used, but also that Mass Effect is in American English. Is this true, or is it in Canadian English? Since Mass Effect was made by Bioware, a Canadian company, I would assume that it would be in Canadian English. I can't tell myself as I am unfamiliar with the specifics of Canadian English, is anybody able to give me an answer? It is my understanding that both "armour" and "armor" are acceptable in Canadian English but I really don't know (I also don't know if the writers are mostly Canadian, or what studio did most of the work on the game or anything like this). If it is in Canadian English, would it be a good idea to have that as the sites preference? Phalanx-a-pedian 19:51, February 19, 2012 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraphs[]

"The intro paragraphs to most of our articles are written from the perspective of when they were introduced." This is the only wiki I've ever come across with this stylistic choice. Does anyone else find it limiting? Derpherpherp 09:35, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

No because it avoids spoilers right off the back. Lancer1289 11:30, March 12, 2012 (UTC)
Isn't the point of an encyclopaedia spoilers? :p Derpherpherp 22:08, March 12, 2012 (UTC)
No because they are above a spoiler tag. There's a reason we have them, to put spoilers under so people don't get slapped with them off the back. Lancer1289 22:15, March 12, 2012 (UTC)
Which still makes this the only wiki that doesn't use the introductory paragraph as a general summary of that character with information from all available sources. Derpherpherp 22:19, March 12, 2012 (UTC)
And this is relevant how exactly? We are free to write our own policies and our own rules. We agreed this was the best way so that new readers aren't hit with massive spoilers off the back. Lancer1289 22:27, March 12, 2012 (UTC)
I just feel it affects quality, and was curious about the choice. I supposed the aversion to spoiler is also why we don't have more detailed character boxes here.Derpherpherp 22:36, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

Race Capitalization[]

I just replayed Priority: Eden Prime. In the coversation afterward, the word "Inusannon" is capitalized in the subtitles. See at around 11:26 here. Should we update that manual? TheUnknown285 05:45, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

The same goes for Priority: Thessia. If Javik is with you, he mentions that the Protheans built off of the Inusannon. "Inusannon" is capitalized. TheUnknown285 09:18, May 6, 2012 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards no. In the primary source we have for the inusannon, Eingana, inusannon is not capitalized. Javik may be correct, in which case it seems that inusannon would be a title as opposed to an actual race name (like Reaper, Collector and Prothean), but again... the actual in-game source, as opposed to captioning of dialogue, does not capitalize. SpartHawg948 09:39, May 6, 2012 (UTC)
I would argue that the captioning is every bit an in-game source as a Codex entry. Afterall, the captioning follows the spelling and capitalization rules for other races. We don't see any other races' names capitalized in the captions except the Inusannon, Protheans, Reapers, and Collectors. If that codex entry and the captions came from the same game, I think I would agree with you that the codex should take priority, but now it seems like the developers decided to upgrade the inusannon when developing ME3. Sorry for the very late reply, by the way. TheUnknown285 (talk) 19:02, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

Just for future reference in case someone comes across this conversation: I'm withdrawing my argument in light of the fact that the subtitles for Javik's lines are the only places it's capitalized. According to TempEditor, it's not even capitalized in the game files save for Javik's lines. TheUnknown285 (talk) 04:56, May 4, 2013 (UTC)

Bioware writers make mistakes too. :-) Cattlesquat (talk) 22:20, May 4, 2013 (UTC)

Race Name Plurals[]

I suggest adding a section to denote the correct race-name plurals. BioWare apparently wanted to be weird and have many race names have identical singular and plural forms. I have seen instances of people saying "krogans" or "asaris." So, how about adding a section saying that the only race names in which the plural or collective form is the singular form with an -s added to the end are humans, salarians, turians, quarians, batarians, keepers, Reapers, Collectors, Protheans, Leviathans, oravores, and husks. The other races are the same as the singular form: asari, geth, drell, elcor, volus, Inusannon, densorin, arthenn, zha, zha'til, thoi'han, vorcha, raloi, hanar and krogan. TheUnknown285 (talk) 21:26, February 26, 2013 (UTC)

Another actor Twitter[]

@RaphaelSbarge is the Twitter for Raphael Sbarge -- confirmed by Chris Priestly. TheUnknown285 (talk) 06:35, March 25, 2013 (UTC)

I'll add it. (Should've remembered to do so a long time ago; he does a lot of fan communication stuff.) Trandra (talk) 17:22, March 25, 2013 (UTC)

More Twitters[]

Writer Jo Berry - Listed in a post on the BioWare Blog.

Edmonton and Montreal studios GM Aaryn Flynn - Retweeted by Jo Berry on March 27 (sorry, don't know how to imbed it to directly show that Berry retweeted it.

Senior Level Designer Dusty Everman - Listed in a post on the BioWare Blog.

Composer Sam Hulick - Listed in a post on the BioWare Blog.

Social Media Coordinator David Hulegaard - Listed in a post on the BioWare Blog. TheUnknown285 (talk) 21:10, March 29, 2013 (UTC)

Another Twitter[]

Composer Jack Wall - confirmed in a tweet by fellow composer Sam Hulick. TheUnknown285 (talk) 21:32, April 7, 2013 (UTC)

Bumping to call attention to this. TheUnknown285 (talk) 23:49, May 4, 2013 (UTC)

Manual of Style and Gameplay Mechanics[]

I put this on LilyheartsLiara's talk page, but this is really a community issue (I made a few tweaks from my original post just to make it more community-directed):

I realize I'm extremely late to the party but are editors on the ME wiki aware just how inaccurate or incomplete significant chunks of ME3 gameplay information are? The manual of style requirement of having a ME-specific Bioware developer explicitly confirm bits of gameplay information is an *extraordinarily* high bar, especially now that Bioware has all but moved on from ME (e.g. they shut down ME3 weekend challenges). As a new player (picked up ME3 a few weeks ago) I've found that any time I read anything about a power or weapon on the ME wikia, I end up having to google it elsewhere to see how it has changed through patches or if there are undocumented issues or features not mentioned here.

The manual of style: "Here at the wiki we strive to present information about our topics as accurately as we could, citing only from the most reliable sources. This oftentimes presents problems in that while we know certain things about the franchise have occurred we still need them explicitly spelled out in order to avoid ambiguity. [emphasis mine]" This I can understand when it comes to issues of canon and lore (i.e. don't want to put wild fan conjecture in an article), but sticking the gameplay mechanics in with the same strict verifiability requirement makes the wiki itself de facto inaccurate. It's not like for my edits [which have since been mostly reverted] I was referencing random posts on BSN where some guy/gal was wildly gesticulating that they thought X ability was doing Y, I was referencing posts where people have been doing lots of in-game testing, sometimes in collusion with game data file analysis or building off explicitly-developer confirmed info.

I'd like to draw a contrast here between the ME wiki and the Fallout wiki, of which I've been a significant contributor and the very different experiences I've had in the communities. Fallout's wiki has no such strict confirmation requirement. So yes, on occasion, incorrect information filters into an article because sometimes it's based on wild anecdotal information. But because it's a wiki, eventually there are people who can verify things in-game with repeated testing and make alterations until the information on gameplay mechanics is effectively accurate, if not completely accurate in the sense that all variables are known. This, in fact, seems to be the point of building a wikia community or any wiki whatsoever: things eventually become accurate through progressive edits (hence wikipedia's stance on NPOV).

Even if the Fallout wikia may have articles that are momentarily inaccurate at times, the gradual accuracy is still better compared to the ME wiki's stance. The gameplay mechanics discussed on the ME3 parts of this wiki might match what the in-game text says, but the ME wiki itself becomes effectively inaccurate because the in-game text itself is wrong. In other words, the manual of style may be purporting to ensure reliability of in-game information, and it may work so for purposes of ME lore and canon, but I can say that the manual of style's reliability requirement is in fact turning (at least the ME3 parts of) this wiki into an unreliable source for gameplay information. Increasingly my experience is that if I'm googling for information on some ME3 gameplay mechanic, I'm starting to tune out any search results coming back from the ME wikia. By contrast, if I'm googling for information on some Fallout mechanic, results from the Fallout wikia are the first place I go. Because I actually like ME3 and I like wikia in general, I thought I could help remedy this, but the manual of style creates an impossibly high bar to fixing some of the endemic issues on this wikia.

In short - I'm a little flabbergasted that this wiki has a very un-wiki-like policy.

As for bugs, I get that it's not good policy to just let everyone mention bugs willy-nilly, but there's no provision for bugs that are confirmed on BSN? You can get way more than just three independent confirmations for something through BSN, so it seems odd having to have yet another confirmation requirement on this wiki itself, especially since many pages for ME3 seem to have very little edit/talk page traffic.

(Thelee (talk) 16:50, May 14, 2013 (UTC))

Hi Thelee - and welcome! You've stumbled across a long-time set of policies. It's definitely sometimes controversial but the first to know is that you'll find it pretty strongly enforced here. One of the main reasons is what has happened with sites for other games where the bar was set lower. That doesn't mean policy can't be changed or at least amended - we have a Policy Forum for just that; I'd suggest you read through some of the previous debates of policies that have passed and failed. And in general just spend some time here first and you will get the hang of it - many times I find the high bar does a lot of good. On the other hand I recently sponsored a minor policy amendment where something was still bothering me and it passed. Based on my sense of the community here I think you'd want to stick with small changes - e.g. possibly there's something to the idea of counting bug confirmations on BSN toward the 3 independent confirmations rule in some way, I haven't thought it through all the way but etc. You'd need to put it in a form that got majority community support which isn't impossible to do but will require some care and patience in the wording etc. Meanwhile - I saw that some of the info you put up was devconfirmed, so thank you very much: the Shield Gate / Health Gate stuff I'm especially glad to see. Cattlesquat (talk) 17:05, May 14, 2013 (UTC)
The edits you've made recently that I've removed on the basis of poor sources don't add very much "information" anyway. (One of the removed notes about Overload claimed that 60% of 60% is 16%, where the correct math is actually 36%.) But the main problem with these edits is that they are claims made by random people on the internet with no solid evidence to back them up—they are literally people just saying "it's true, I say so!" One of the threads you used as a source stated specific modifiers, with the only attempt to support the information being a claim that it was "tested in-game". How exactly would someone verify that power combos have a "x.5833333" damage modifier on Narrative difficulty based solely on in-game testing?
Wiki editors have a responsibility to ensure that the information on wikis are accurate and do not potentially mislead readers. And that means that when you want to say that something has a specific number/effect, you either have to provide evidence from the game or a reliable source. Random people on the internet are not a reliable source; anyone on the internet can say just about anything they want, whether it is accurate or not. After all, how much do you want to bet that there are plenty of other random people who have completely different figures and beliefs on how these things work? LilyheartsLiara (talk) 17:41, May 14, 2013 (UTC)
LilyheartsLiara - I would like to raise the issue that perhaps you didn't investigate the sources properly? For example, the it's not 60% * 60% = 16%, it's 40% * 40% = 16% (because it's a 60% damage reduction, not 60% of normal damage). And I feel like every source I used either references test data or has test data in the thread itself or is trivially verifiable (such as Neural Shock on Overload causing a double-shock effect). I suggest that you might be attacking the strawman of unreliable sources instead of actually considering the edits that I made. These aren't unverifiable claims, these are claims backed up by test data and very frequently grounded in either devconfirmed equations/numbers or game file data. Anyone else can verify these claims and that's kind of the whole point. The stuff that I was changing (and would like to continue changing) is stuff that is verifiable, repeatable, etc. Like a science. (Thelee (talk) 18:50, May 14, 2013 (UTC))
And when you say "Wiki editors have a responsibility to ensure that the information on wikis are accurate and do not potentially mislead readers" I think you're missing the fact that sticking just with devconfirmed or in-game information as regards to mechanics is misleading readers. (Thelee (talk) 18:54, May 14, 2013 (UTC))
One simple sentence you should think about: How do you know that when someone says that they tested something, a.) they actually did tests, b.) the tests were not flawed in any way that would impair perceived results, and c.) the tests actually provided the feedback that these people claim that they did?

And no, providing information verified by people who are actually more than just random users on a forum is not misleading anyone. LilyheartsLiara (talk) 18:57, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

Because, like a science, discussion occurs, people can comment, people can verify. Overload, for example, has had 3 distinct long threads of test runs where people have tweaked the conclusions and tweaked the information until a consensus was reached as to how it worked. Hence why in my policy proposal, simply one person posting test data isn't good enough.
And as for how using solely devconfirmed or in-game ifnormation can be misleading: for example, using Overload again as a case study (since I made many edits to that page), the in-game text used on the wiki to describe the Shield rank 6 evolution is misleading as it stands. Does it double damage to barriers (100% multiplicative)? Does it increase the multiplier from 300% to 400%? In fact, neither is wholly true. Has a dev confirmed it? Aside from the base multiplier of 3x, no. How then do we know that it does something different (doubling to 6x against shields, increasing from 3x to 5x for organics)? Just because someone said so? No, because someone said so and then provided many, many actual runs with test data, and in such a way that anyone else could verify the information (like science). And in fact, these tests and theories came about because it became trivially verifiable for anyone playing multiplayer that neither a wholesale doubling (from 3x to 6x) or additive (3x to 4x) matched in-game experience. (Thelee (talk) 19:01, May 14, 2013 (UTC))
And since by your vote it doesn't look like I'm going to convince you otherwise, I just have some rhetoricals for you. How does a wiki function? It is supposed to be an absolute purveyor of truth or is it supposed to be more evolutionary in process? How does science work—just because some with a PhD said "gravity is real?" And does it concern you at all that ME3 gameplay information on this wiki IS in fact without a doubt inaccurate at times because of an exceedingly high bar for edits? Doesn't it strike you as odd that frequently incorrect "strategies" and "tips" have no such verifiability requirements, but the data that shows such things as being wrong cant be used on this wiki? (Thelee (talk) 19:11, May 14, 2013 (UTC))
In real life, you have things that can measure things like gravity. You can watch it in action, you can measure its qualities, the rate at which things fall affected by the things themselves. In Mass Effect 3, there is no ruler which you can use to divine the exact radius of a Tech Burst. There isn't a numerical indicator of an enemy's health so precise that it allows you to calculate exact damage modifiers to power combos to five decimal places. And furthermore, the BSN threads you've used as sources don't even mention how they measured and "confirmed" these details. LilyheartsLiara (talk) 19:22, May 14, 2013 (UTC)
There's no ruler, but you can use strides and other things that do have fixed measurements. There isn't a numerical indicator, but you can assume things like a linear bar graph for shields and pixel measurement OR game data files. I'm not sure how this is different for how people started analyzing gravity or classical physics before they had the theories and equations to understand it.
As for methodology on BSN, obviously it varies. But go take a look at the console commands, you can basically set/get whatever information you want. It's even linked from the wiki: PC_Tweaks_(Mass_Effect_3), though you have to go to the actual .py file and dig around.
I mean, the general point that I've been trying to make is that your own personal refusal or indifference to verify test data does not make the data invalid. (Thelee (talk) 19:55, May 14, 2013 (UTC))

I know one thing that (at least in principal) we have tended to accept is something that any wiki user can independently verify themselves. So for example at least at the simple level it was okay pre-devconfirmation to note the existence of some kind of "shield gate" effect for Shepard in the sense that you could stand there and watch the bullets hitting you and you not taking any damage. On the other hand there has been an allergy to "data file mining" because numbers in data files have often in the past not proved to be the complete story. I can't speak for the community but I can see there might be room on the point of independently verifiable stuff when it can be shown to be independently verifiable. But the complexity of something where you'd have to run 100 tests and dig around in data files might get problematic. Cattlesquat (talk) 20:14, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

Another Twitter[]

Caroline Livingstone, voice actor director for BioWare. If I'm not around to make the edit when we add this Twitter, please add Brian George as the voice of Oleg Petrovsky.

Lksdjf (talk) 11:46, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

Here's a confirming link for Caroline Livingstone. Hope this helps. Cattlesquat (talk) 13:24, August 15, 2013 (UTC)
this source more preferred. flat-out job confirmation. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 13:43, August 15, 2013 (UTC)

Twitter verification for @tibermoon[]

Ian Frazier - previously we've heard in the gaming press that he's involved with the series, but in any event this tweet from @GambleMike should hopefully do to confirm him. He's apparently going to be our Lead Designer for Mass Effect 4 so w00t on that!

I'm new to the verification-of-new-sources business here, so somebody important please tell me how much more discussion/confirmation/etc before we can add. Cattlesquat (talk) 13:19, August 15, 2013 (UTC)

Some Twitters[]

Composer Jack Wall - confirmed in a tweet by fellow composer Sam Hulick.

Actresses Ali Hillis and Courtenay Taylor are both confirmed in a tweet by David Gaider (notice also that Patrick Weekes also participates in that tweet thread, so we have confirmation from two confirmed sources. TheUnknown285 (talk) 02:06, September 19, 2013 (UTC)

Update: Here are some celebrity Twitters that are confirmed by Twitter:

TheUnknown285 (talk) 14:43, December 10, 2014 (UTC)

"followed by bioware" isn't an automatic stamp of confirmation as anyone can follow anyone else. "verified account" is. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 14:53, December 10, 2014 (UTC)
At any rate all three are verified by Twitter. TheUnknown285 (talk) 15:00, December 10, 2014 (UTC)

Developers' Twitters for ME4[]

Here are some more according to this post on the Bioware blog:

Chris Schlerf, Lead Writer for the next ME game.

Chris Wynn, senior development director

Fabrice Condominas, producer for the next game.

Ian Frazier, lead designer

Joel MacMillan, art director

We already have Mac Walters, but he is "creative director" for the new game. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheUnknown285 (talk · contr).

legit, all of them, of course, since the official blog is the source.
on a semirelated note, i'm considering spinning off the sources section into its own page since it sort of grew long enough and also to consolidate relevant questions about it on a separate talkpage. not yet a proposal, just looking for other inputs. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 22:50, November 27, 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that's a good idea. I'd thought about putting the sourcing in the talk section. TheUnknown285 (talk) 00:30, November 28, 2014 (UTC)
So how are we going to be handling this? We have these plus TWitters for the new voice actors. I'm about to make updates the ME:A article that sources one of these new Twitters. TheUnknown285 (talk) 20:15, November 12, 2016 (UTC)
yeah i dropped the ball on this one, sorry about that. too many things going on irl, as usual. i'm still totally planning on doing this though. stay tuned. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 01:09, November 13, 2016 (UTC)

Section needs updating[]

The section Shepard and Gender should be renamed and updated to take into account Pathfinder Ryder, now that ME: Andromeda has been out for over 2 months now. In fact anywhere Shep is mentioned should be replaced with "player character" or something along that line. The Cat Master (talk) 04:31, June 2, 2017 (UTC)


Should titles be italicized? They don't seem to be on this Wiki, but I feel like it generally makes things much easier to read (Mass Effect vs Mass Effect, etc.). I had some edits reverted because I added italics, and I'd like to know if this is Wiki policy. Pvoberstein (talk) 14:32, December 5, 2017 (UTC)

I think this deserves an answer as well, with the rule spelled out on the page for maximum clarity. Ale89515 (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure when italics were put into certain articles recently, though as can be easily seen, it's not generally how we format titles on this wiki. I'm aware it's how many encyclopedias do it, but there is hardly a universal rule that titles of works of art should be italicized when written in digital text.
This is just speculation on the historical reasoning, but I think one factor is that we are documenting a franchise "from within", where everything in our articles relates to something in a fictional work of art. We have to reference game titles constantly, so they're scattered all over the wiki by now, consistently non-italicized. For this reason alone, it doesn't make sense to change this anymore, as it's a very minor alteration but one that would take a tremendous effort to reflect everywhere on the wiki. (Individuals putting italics here and there whenever they happen to come across a use case is hardly an option.)
Bottomline, we don't emulate everything Wikipedia does -- far from it. And the time to make a decision such as whether to italicize titles is when a wiki is first formed, not more than a decade and thousands of pages later.
That said, point taken about adding this to the MOS, especially since the /General subpage contradicts some of our conventions. —Elseweyr talkstalk June 16, 2021, 19:43:49 (UTC)
To be clear, I wasn't arguing for one way over the other, merely wanted clarity. I'm just personally used to italicizations as being the convention in academic/formal writing like what I use in my own education/career (not just trying to copy Wikipedia). I've of course long known that the titles of the ME games weren't to be italicized in the same way as outside sources referenced in say, Trivia sections. Neo89515 (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia as external links and notes[]


I'm new here. Browsed through some random sites for new editors (though I do have some wiki experience), and landed on the Codex/Ships and Vehicles (I was looking if this was protected due to having read somewhere that codex entries shouldn't be edited). Something I noticed there was a massive use of superscripted "1"s but nowhere a note, footnote or explanation for them. Then I realized, all the 1-links go to Wikipedia. Next I learnt that those links all use external formatting, i.e. e.g. [ time dilation<sup>1</sup>], instead of [[wikipedia:Time dilation|time dilation]]<sup>1</sup>.

Then I visited this MoS, and the first example of an external link also was for Wikipedia, though without a "1".

I've found nothing more regarding interwiki or Wikipedia links. My questions now are:

  • Why use WP as external links, while internal formatting spares underscores and usually is shorter? (Two aspects that seem to be important, regarding other sections of the MoS.)
  • Why adding such a superscripted "1" to the WP links, at least on codex entries?
    • And why is there no explanation of this "1"?

Just curious. It might happen that I come editing here a bit, as I just installed ME2. Usually I don't care about starter guides, but this is something I'm interested in. Don't want to get my possible edits reverted, only because I use some different but nevertheless default formatting. -- CompleCCity -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 10:57, June 28, 2018 (UTC)

i chose the wikipedia example on the mos page pretty much off the top of my head. don't read anything else into it, that's just to illustrate how to link anything.
there's no actual policy that enforces that sort of linking. you stumbled upon an article that hasn't seen major revisions since way before my time, i certainly won't stop you from making the appropriate changes. because on the contrary we -have- been using interwiki links whenever we've consciously updated something. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 13:33, June 28, 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thanks!
What about that "1"? Was its purpose perhaps some note like "External link to Wikipedia article" or something similar?
And, yes, I already noticed your partial revert of my first official edit here. ;) (I'm no native English speaker.)
Uhm… did someone already tell you that your signature/user name makes your posts hard to read? Perhaps you could consider adding two blank lines in before? ;) -- CompleCCity -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 18:29, June 28, 2018 (UTC)
The <sup> 1 </sup> coding is the coding for superscript. Superscript "1" is used on some articles to give additional information without having to place all of that information in the current location. I have an example below:
Mass Effect 3 Multiplayer/Character Customization#Class and Race
I haven't seen it used much on the wikia, that article was one of the places I remember seeing it.
If you click on the superscript numbers, it automatically takes you to the supplemental text. In this case directly below the table in question.
Instead of using a footnote symbol (*, †, ‡), the superscript coding was used on the ME3 multiplayer page. I'm assuming it was used as they have the possibility to go into much higher amounts than traditional footnote symbols and it automatically takes you to that information (if you code it that way). A nice easy way to code "Go here to find additional information" and it takes you there.
It looks like the superscript coding isn't being used correctly in the codex article you found. There is the start of the coding but the "1" doesn't point to anything on the codex page and there is no description of what "1" stands for. You could get rid of the sup coding next to all of the examples as it is not doing anything. There is no footnote explaining the "1" and it is only an external link.
Hopefully that helps you with an example (so you can look at the coding and see it used correctly) and a little bit of explanation of the function. :) --GS877 (talk) 19:32, June 28, 2018 (UTC)
Wow, many thanks! I always hate the way, a ref group does have to be named and cannot only contain a number, so always when I want a note (not a reference) somewhere, I have to deal with that awful, long Note 1, for example inside an infobox. (I'm talking about other wikis.) Doing it this way is a great and much, much better idea! Thanks for pointing me to that page and that coding – never thought of that! (I hate, btw., the usual footnote symbols.)
So, I read from this that you here on this wiki do not want to have Wikipedia links marked in a specific way (as that page implicates), so that they are easily recognizable for readers as a not-really-internal link? (Some wikis do.) And the superscripted 1 on that codex page could be removed in (would have to check en detail before) all instances?
Follows another question, regarding codex entries (remember, I'm playing the game for the first time, and at the moment only part 2 – I don't have others): I've already read that minor corrections of e.g. typos are allowed, or they need a {{sic}}. What's with those cases where the narrator tells something that differs from the written text? -- CompleCCity -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 20:27, June 28, 2018 (UTC)
codex discrepancies already explained in the main codex page.
linking to external wikis typically should be done on the meta aspects like trivia or voice actors. overdoing it is never the goal, and "sparingly" doesn't mean "once per article". basically means "don't" most of the time. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 20:41, June 28, 2018 (UTC)
To answer your first question, from what I have seen on this wiki, the extra <sup> number on outside wiki links isn't used. I haven't seen it on this wiki before the instances you found. I do know that using <ref> for external links seems to be the best and most used format. The exception that I have seen is when it is linked to Wikipedia. For example, the following external link on the Meridian page links externally but doesn't need to the external link and reference. [[Wikipedia:Dyson sphere|Dyson sphere]]
You could remove the extra "1's" as they serve no purpose and don't follow what is used on this wiki. It's not really hurting anything and is entirely up to you.
The second question you asked. The article that Temporaryeditor78 is referring to is the main Codex page. It looks like the second "Please Note" answers your second question about audio not match text. Other instances of in-game text that are incorrect use the {{sic}}.
Temporaryeditor78 has been around for a very long time, knows the ins and outs of this wiki, and is always watching edits. He usually knows the history of why they chose to do what they did, and if he doesn't, one of the other admins (User:Elseweyr, User:Teugene) probably will know the answer.
Temp doesn't always give long detailed answers as he has to review lots of edits. He can be a bit curt at times but would you like to have to write "Read the MOS" a thousand times a day? You'd be a little be curt as well. :) He is strict on the rules and wants the editor to research/review/lurk/learn BEFORE editing/asking lots of questions. As long as you clearly state what you have reviewed and what your question is, you can usually expect an answer. It may take a few days to get an answer but he will usually give an answer.
You had excellent questions and I learned some new things from your discussion. :) --GS877 (talk) 21:46, June 28, 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome, GS877, though I can't completely understand why my questions were so "excellent" and which stuff there was to learn from them. ;) But I can return the compliments, as I have learnt some really useful (though simple) code for designing my future note references, as mentioned above. (I didn't really "learn" that code, I knew it before – but I didn't think of using it for that purpose, so thanks once more!)
As for the codex entries: There's really much to read at the start of the game. I stumbled upon an error in a certain entry, which was not present in the audio, so that's what my question were related to. I'll have to find and check it again to see how the wiki handles this specific situation. Usually I'd say, if there's a mistake in the written entry, but the audio is correct, why not alter the cited entry on the wiki – though the guideline says "no". As said, I have to find it again …
I don't know if we both have the same understanding of in-/external links and Wikipedia (I don't get the exact meaning of your "the following external link on the Meridian page links externally but doesn't need to the external link and reference".) To clarify this:
  • As Wikia sees itself affiliated to Wikipedia, a WP link can use internal formatting in the given coding: [[wikipedia:PAGENAME|page name]].
  • A link – "internal" – to another Fandom wiki would use the following code: [[w:c:SITENAME:PAGENAME|page name]].
These are called "interwiki" links – kind of "internal", though some people might understand them as external, as they link to another SITENAME.
External links have the following code: [http://SITENAME.DOMAIN/PAGENAME page name]. They are easily recognizable by the superscripted external link symbol at the end of the link.
Usually Wikia wikis are coded in a way that links which use external formatting but are indeed interwiki links, e.g. to Wikipedia, are not shown as external, but rather as internal links. See the many Wikipedia examples on the cited codex article. However, it is good practice – and suggested by this wiki's MoS – to use internal/interwiki coding for those.
There's one exception from this: if you want to avoid red links, e.g. on talk pages after the according articles have been moved with a deleted/without a redirect, you can change their coding to external ([ Meridian]) – as such they aren't shown in red anymore, and also do not appear on the wanted pages. But perhaps you knew of this already. :)
Looking forward to more productive communication and cooperation here. -- CompleCCity -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 11:26, June 29, 2018 (UTC)
The codex rules were put into place long before my time here. I don't know the history of why they made the decisions that they made. I do know that they more than likely would have held community discussions and votes for those types of rules. You could try looking back into the history to see the discussions (maybe Temporyeditor78 can point you to the applicable time period).
There is an extra word in that sentence so the grammar doesn't make sense. "the following external link on the Meridian page links externally but doesn't need to the external link and reference".
You know WAY more about linking than I do. I was very crudely trying to explain something that you know much better than myself. :)
To use your detailed descriptions:
  • I normally see external links with superscripts/symbols on this wikia.
  • I've seen a few WP links using internal formatting used on this wikia. The WP links I've seen don't have superscript numbers associated with them.
  • I haven't seen any interwiki links used on this wikia. They may be here but I just haven't seen them.
I didn't know about the redlink fix. That's a nice trick to know about. Thank you for letting me know about that.
Thank you for teaching me about the links. Your descriptions and technical info make the subject much easier for me to understand. --GS877 (talk) 18:19, June 29, 2018 (UTC)

concerning mods[]

for the purposes of formalizing the following, here's the advance notice for codifying the wiki's stance on adding information from modded games. tl;dr: don't. we never accepted information from mods as part of normal gameplay since forever ago and this only elaborates on why.

Modded Gameplay

Numerous user-made mods have been created for the Mass Effect games to enhance certain aspects, extend replayability, or both. However, these are unofficial additions and not part of the core experience, particularly for console users. Generally speaking, information on the wiki is restricted to what can be encountered through unmodded gameplay to keep things uniform between players in all platforms the games are released on.

Modded textures are not allowed on screenshots. Modifying files and settings for the express purpose of taking screenshots of game scenarios using default game assets, however, is allowed. Information derived from altered gameplay mechanics are likewise prohibited. Story and lore materials from mods are definitely not allowed, and will be removed on sight.

Editors with modded games should disable or remove their mods first before testing, adding, or confirming information that could potentially be at odds with normal gameplay. When reporting bugs and asking for confirmation about something, make doubly sure no mods are working at the time, so as not to burden others with looking for or attempting to test things that may not exist in the base game.

T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Certainly it's useful to have the wiki's stance on modding written down white on dark-blue. (Surprised there wasn't anything to this effect until now, but better late than never...) —Elseweyr talkstalk April 24, 2021, 17:39:53 (UTC)

dealing with remakes and remasters[]

crosslink with discussion thread:

time to consolidate some of the identified issues with legendary edition and hopefully this can serve as a blueprint for similar issues in the future. might move this to policy forum or discussions (just to formalize consensus on some issues), but whatever.


we already give bugs a separate section. if something's fixed in legendary edition, simply append a note.


changed information in walkthrough main content can be noted as well. or even Warning: if it warrants it. battlemaster battle on therum used to have no barriers, now in LE it's easier since his straight line charges may hit those instead of massacring your team.

verbatim text[]

several OG trilogy entries are misspelled, necessitating the use of sic tags where applicable. if they're fixed in legendary, they're fixed for everyone's peace of mind and the change is noted in trivia below. too many people remove sic tags without knowing what they are. what if legendary edition version fucked up instead? ...we'll get to that if it's encountered.

images and replacement[]

see Mass_Effect_Wiki:Files_Guideline#Mass_Effect_Legendary_Edition. peaceful coexistence where applicable.

UI changes[]

the first game has major changes to the UI. unlike the original, gauging an enemy in LE is more vague this time: singular health/shield bars instead of rectangular blocks showing how much shields an enemy has. in this regard, ME enemy infobox should retain its old emulated health/shield bars as the new one isn't really useful.

restored content[]

some content in ME/ME2/ME3 that were dummied out in the OG versions have been reported to be restored in legendary edition. are these canon in context of the original game? the wiki's policy is to deem cut content noncanon, and if restored by official means then they're canon.

  1. asteria
  2. the drell ME2 primary codex was cut from the game, but was legitimized through outside channels via N7HQ website.

altered content[]

bioware themselves are not above tinkering with their own concepts after release. see the original codex pic for batarians. is that canon for people who only played ME1 without DLCs? subsequent games and other media say no.

Elanos Haliat, "human". now a turian. so which is he? in-universe implies the latter. legendary edition makes it explicit. for some guy who hasn't played the LE, there's a significant chance he might also conclude haliat is turian (see the numerous reverts to his race on the article before legendary).

the M35 Mako now handles like a brick ND1 Nomad: vertical and horizontal nitro boosts, though still physics-defying as its OG incarnation.

some ME1 guns now behave differently according to manufacturer: burst-fire assault rifles, full-auto ones and the like.

talents powers abilities and so on[]

several LE powers have different mechanical attributes than their OG counterparts. they're discrete sets of information, so it stands to reason they can be compartmentalized with no issues.

the problem[]

how to go about presenting complex legendary edition changes, then, that can properly denote that the information is from LE?

 == Mass Effect ==
 == Mass Effect Legendary Edition ==
 == Mass Effect 2 ==
 == Mass Effect 2 Legendary Edition ==
 == Mass Effect: Retribution ==
 == Mass Effect 3 ==
 == Mass Effect 3 Legendary Edition ==
 == Mass Effect: Andromeda ==

simple, unobtrusive, doesn't radically change anything. applicable to a wide range of pages. level headers flexible according to situation.

alternatively, maybe giving legendary edition its own level 2 headers is too much. simplifying here, and partially resolves the nomenclature issue (table of contents automatically know which legendary edition is being referred to when linked, so no issues there):

 == Mass Effect ==
 === Legendary Edition ==
 == Mass Effect 2 ==
 === Legendary Edition ===
 == Mass Effect: Retribution ==
 == Mass Effect 3 ==
 === Legendary Edition ===
 == Mass Effect: Andromeda ==

what does this mean for, say the altered content examples above? for haliat, nothing really. just legitimizes any acceptable LE pic of his and changes his race to turian. nothing else in his biography is changed, so the headers aren't necessary, leaving the commentary about his race change (and old picture) in trivia. if there are demonstrable changes in AI behavior as an enemy type, then perhaps the headers are applicable. as for the mako and gun pages? the headers are applicable.

there may be some concerns that "mass effect 2 legendary edition" and "mass effect 3 legendary edition" aren't official terms, so to speak, and "mass effect legendary edition" usually denotes the entire remaster, but we have to call these things something. certainly the ME2 remaster isn't officially called "Mass Effect 2 Remaster".

Support the above but suggest putting (Legendary Edition) in a parenthetical like so to denote it isn't part of an official title. Ale89515 (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

the general format above may not be applicable for some cases, so feel free to fire away on those not covered. some of these ideas need to be formalized post-haste especially if there are no major objections. all in, it's not like one is completely disregarded for the other: there are mechanisms already in place to ensure that people curious enough can see that so-and-so was changed in this version or the other. the trivia sections basically function as behind the scenes anyway, and if content is more substantial, the proposed section headers can be used.

comments, violent opposition, other proposals, fire away below. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 05:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


Good start and in line with the previous discussions. As discussed, the idea is to keep consistency across wiki. Regarding TE78' proposal:

  • Bugs: Agree
  • Walktroughs: Agree
  • Verbatim: OK, MELE correction should prevail. Trivia to remind the OT 'problem'.
  • Images: Current MoS looks OK. Order for gallery should be clarify for consistency. I'd go for MELE first.
  • New/restored content: Agree. New/restored content is IMO, canon (we could ask dev confirmation on Twitter) and should be added in the wiki accordingly. Trivia is the place to explain that it was cut from OT
  • Altered content: (category should be splitted)
    • If lore: MELE prevails and OT as trivia (Haliat exemple is a clear 'correction', such as sic tag).
    • If Gameplay: categorization is OK (see below).
  • Presentation/Problem: I would absolutely avoid more 'chapter/title'. It's terrible. A tag for MELE and a tag for OT could be created. (just like baldurs gate wiki but with more consistency of course). Those tags could also replace the notes for bugs and so on.DeldiRe (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I think "usually" things will be the same for both OT and LE of any particular game, so "usually" a section such as "== Mass Effect 2 ==" will be sufficient to cover all cases. Occasionally we will need e.g. a "== Mass Effect 2 (Legendary Edition) ==" or some such, because there was never an ME2 header in the article and new content needs to be added that's only in ME2. Or it's an in-universe article and the content is both *different* and requiring a substantial paragraph of information in each of ME2-OT and ME2-LE. In which case it may make sense to have a "== Mass Effect 2 (Original Trilogy) ==" header separately. Shouldn't come up *that* often.

MELE becomes the new canon for lore, content, etc in my opinion. OT differences can be noted in trivia.

Tags are an interesting idea, since they might make it easier to draw appropriate attention without lots of extra headers. Somebody want to mock something up?

Cattlesquat (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Basically in agreement generally; like I said above, if using a header for Legendary Edition, place it in parentheticals like so: Mass Effect 2 (Legendary Edition), if the situation even comes up. I think how to organize headers will usually be fairly easy to figure out for a particular page on a case-by-case basis and the MoS just needs to offer Do's and Don't's for the most common cases.

One situation I did want to bring up was the issue of where "canon" might have been changed and it does NOT necessarily fall under "bug fix" or "restored content" umbrellas. I don't know if there is any example of this at all so far, but hypothetically? I think right now one of the closest examples is actually Tali's face reveal: her MELE appearance is pretty drastically different from the old one. While we have basically settled that for "images" we go with peaceful coexistence (and on Tali's page, currently), and I agree, but "some may argue" that her new face is now her "canon" appearance and the old one should be relegated to the dustbin of history (or the dustbin of a Trivia section). We know that the old "canon" face was the source of a lot of controversy; I'll reveal I never cared for it and personally am glad they've, in my view, rectified it, but people will be divided as that's the nature of things. After all, it's not just an image, it's part of the identity (physical appearance) of a MAJOR character. However, I am FINE with allowing them to co-exist on the page, I'm just raising the issue.

On a related note, is there any need to mandate that Legendary Edition files/images be clearly labeled as such with some notation, either in captions or in the file name? Something short and sweet, like "(LE)" just to make it easy for people to tell if an image is from Legendary or the OT without having to count pixels? People may not follow that guideline even if we implement it, but again I merely raise the question. Ale89515 (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

we've never used parentheticals before. it was always colons dashes and whatever else was given verbatim, so as much as possible i'd prefer to stick with "tradition" or as close to it.
tali's face
let them bray and babble. both pictures are there explicitly as examples of peaceful coexistence (although i might replace them someday with sourcefile versions if the fancy strikes). moving the old one below is in violation of that condition, and the odd talimancer foolish enough to argue about it will likely do something stupid to get himself hammered first.
legendary pictures
from what i've seen so far legendary pics are distinct enough at first glance. i'm basically the only one who gives a damn about file organization, and i don't care to enforce another labeling system there. people barely organized their own uploads before LE released, and that isn't going to change now. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk)
Re: headers - this is the unique situation where we're not using an "official title" such as "Mass Effect: Deception" so using a parenthetical will achieve the goal of denoting it's the Wiki's notation, not "official" and is also similar to the convention we use for many page names e.g. "Combat (Mass Effect 3)". If using a dash accomplishes the same thing so be it, but dashes can sometimes appear in official titles as well; parentheticals on the other hand, very rare. Ale89515 (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I found the drift of the following conversation increasingly inappropriate as it went on. If "peaceful coexistence" is to become a cudgel to keep new/LE images out of articles that already have enough images -- because the OT images can't be replaced and yet adding new ones would crowd the article and make the formatting look bad -- and/or to discourage newer users like Kaebus from updating pictures so that e.g. TE can do them "in one fell swoop" then it sounds neither like peaceful nor coexistence to me.
I'm all for some balance and don't endorse a campaign of e.g. replacing every OT image with an equivalent LE one, but on the other hand part of the idea here is this is an evolving series and an evolving player base. And a long-running wiki should have a certain amount of churn - rotating out some of the old images keeps things fresh, and trains new editors, and so forth. While one could aspire to have new images appear in articles that don't have enough, it seems unreasonable to expect LE players to stay out of the popular high traffic articles e.g. Romance or whatever and require them to remain forever a shrine to OT.
And so I'm going to suggest that "peaceful coexistence" might need to be more specifically defined, at least for the time being, as "ideally 50% of the images in each article from each version". Meaning an article with 8 OT images and 0 LE images becomes at least a prima facie candidate to have 4 of the images updated/replaced with LE images of similar subject matter. Doesn't have to be the exact same camera angle or whatever, but also doesn't have to not have the same camera angle. There may be exceptions in both directions needing future consensus of course. Cattlesquat (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I completely agree. Perhaps especially with the mentioned conversation being inappropriate. U Kataka (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

A few cents. I think the big question here is which version to put emphasis on. I could write a lengthy post on what and why, but the numbers speak for themselves:

Steam Charts
Name Current Players 30-Day Avg. 30-Day Gain 30-Day % Gain
Mass Effect™ Legendary Edition 18206 27247.5 -1925.3 -6.60%
Mass Effect™: Andromeda 1603 1302.9 127.8 10.88%
Mass Effect (2007) 124 179.8 0 0.01%
Mass Effect 2 (2010) 167 157.3 -0.4 -0.26%
Mass Effect 3 (2012) 73 99.2 -2.4 -2.38%

MELE is the definitive edition of the first trilogy and it's what readers who come here will expect to see - it's to be expected, given that the originals were released 10-15 years ago. As such, it'd be prudent to actually update all the images in the long run and retain the Original versions for historical purposes. Fortunately, in cases of infoboxes, this can be relatively easily achieved by using Tabber with LE/OT headings (these can be tooltipped or tagged). For all other concerns, I'd also refer to the above numbers: Wikis should generally reflect the state of the franchise as it is now, not as we wish would be (especially when canon is concerned; believe me, I saw entire wars over this, including doxxing, simply because someone was hell-bent on marking everything he disliked as non-canon).

For organization, I am a fan of subheadings, but I think that the long-term solution should be something scalable - and, again, taking into account the player numbers above. The idea of using tags is something I find appealing, personally, especially since it neatly sidesteps the problem of having sub-headings for Legendary Edition changes where there are no changes.

Basically: Scalability, ease of use, and something that will support the majority of our current visitors.

As a side note, I'm not sure if this is what was raised in Discord, but I think users should be absolutely free to upload newer, higher resolution versions of older files. I might have misunderstood the convo, though. Тагазиэль 16:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

"Wikis should generally reflect the state of the franchise as it is now, not as we wish would be (especially when canon is concerned; believe me, I saw entire wars over this, including doxxing, simply because someone was hell-bent on marking everything he disliked as non-canon)"
O__o well that's... scary. I doubt that's likely to happen here since MELE isn't really doing much to canon but we've already had some hostility even over a minor nobody character like Elanos Haliat so I can definitely see this happening. I will admit I had some "traditionalist" resistance to upending the status quo but I've largely gotten over it and am willing to bow to the passage of time. My only "line in the sand" is that the OT should not die without so much as a gravestone to mark the passing. Ale89515 (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe for images, we could have a toggle setup like Dragon Age Wiki's Morrigan if there are significant texture/model differences like Elanos Haliat, Kelly Chambers, or Dr. Warren (see Discord #keepertunnels for the latter). And maybe we could also implement it for Mass Effect to Mass Effect 2 and other changes as well.

As for subheaders, maybe it should be

== Mass Effect ==
== Mass Effect 2 ==
== Mass Effect 3 ==
== Mass Effect: Andromeda ==
== Mass Effect Legendary Edition ==

if only trilogy-wide differences are detailed, and

== Mass Effect ==
== Mass Effect 2 ==
== Mass Effect 3 ==
== Mass Effect: Andromeda ==
== Mass Effect Legendary Edition ==
=== Mass Effect ===
=== Mass Effect 2 ===
=== Mass Effect 3 ===

if game-specific differences are detailed. U Kataka (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
And if there are no significant differences other than quality, maybe just full replacement (e.g. Nihlus Kryik at Discord #keepertunnels)? U Kataka (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

the idea behind peaceful coexistence is to discourage pissing contests over whose images get featured and to focus attention on other parts of the wiki that are actually lacking. surely those prospective screencapping talents can be put to good use shoring up the holes in the wiki first instead of fixing what ain't broken. nobody, least of all i, is suggesting all of the classics should be preserved for good or ill (i certainly have more than a few replacements lined up). selective culling and additions first is the name of the game.
  1. jpegs and gibberish-labeled files are fair game since time immemorial. go replace those first, there's still a few around.
  2. pngs smaller than 1 megapixel (length x width < 1,000,000), sure. plenty of those as well. doesn't apply to items ripped from sourcefiles though, like cinematics (all of them were 720p), codex/upgrade/weapon pics, etc.
  3. pngs larger than 1 megapixel, generally no. they're there to show the level of unmodded detail present in the older games, and that taking such pictures is possible in the first place.
  4. 1080p prospective legendary edition replacements: no. the remasters were made for 4k gaming, sooner or later they'll be replaced again with something bigger (might as well be me, hence, pissing contest)
  5. 1080p images upscaled/AI-upscaled to 4k and/or jpegs saved as pngs: are you joking?
  6. cropping standards: by 50s or 100s, say 1700x2160, 1850x2160, 1400x2160, etc. eyeballing it is shoddy work considering the availability of precision tools.
character boxes didn't implement tabber due to spoiler/canon concerns and crowding. if they're to be made now, only two tabs should suffice - original and legendary - as anything more is bloat. already seeing the crowding problem in fandomdesktop versions of MEA weapons and enemy infoboxes.
header ordering above
interesting. can live with that. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I mostly agree with the below. If someone replaces an image with a higher-quality one and then you do the same, it does not mean there is a "pissing contest." In fact we should strive to continually improve the quality of the Wiki—it is not like you can be everywhere at once and one should not have to wait for someone else to provide the absolute maximum quality.
Tabs: I concede on the game-to-game point. But I still think it should be done in the cases I outlined for Mass Effect Legendary Edition.
Upscaling: That one I absolutely agree with. I tried it a few times (just for trying it, not with intent) and it can easily deform and or obscure details (especially background text). U Kataka (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

A lot of that sounds like unnecessary gatekeeping to me. "Good images that look good in the page formatting, and don't get in fights" is really the main idea. We shouldn't be pre-emptively discouraging people (here or on discord) who have e.g. seen a neat new take on a familiar scene from uploading new pictures and adding them to articles. When we get stuff that is truly bad we just revert it like always; if they seem like they're trying then we give them some guidance. If people get into a disagreement about one then we can use the usual consensus methods when we come to it. Cattlesquat (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm strongly opposed to the subheaders principle as it will overload all pages and create a lot of inconsistency trougouth the content and pages. A simple specific signet should suffice for MELE or OT. However, such a subheader COULD eventually be interresting for massive changes (for example mako gameplay).
As said severala times, even if I'm a long time player, I do agree with Tagaziel for lore and images as I'm in favor of MELE prevailance (BUT always keep a record in trivia of OT if the change is more than HD tecturing). Double tab for characters is not a bad idea even if we need to avoid spoil issues (I'm with TE78 on this point).DeldiRe (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)