Mass Effect Wiki
Advertisement
Mass Effect Wiki
GethPrimeME2.png
Geth Prime
Race: Geth
Type: Synthetic
Armament: M-76 Revenant
Siege Pulse Cannon
Abilities:
Drone ME2 Icon.png
Combat Drone
Class Power ME2 Icon.png
Morale Boost
Health: Low
Armor: High
Shields: High
Barriers: N/A
Locations: Haestrom, Migrant Fleet, Heretic Station

Mass Effect 2[]

A proposal for a new template for adversaries (see right). Width 240 pixels. Any opinions? Dch2404 13:11, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

As for sections on the left, the following headings (actual or implied) have been used in other articles: Appearance/Physical Description, Offensive/Defensive Capabilities and Behaviour, Tactics and Combat Solutions, Trivia. Dch2404 15:01, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Well I guess nobody has anything much to say on either end of the spectrum. I'll start rolling this table out for the Mass Effect 2 geth adversaries and see how it's received. Feel free to suggest changes or, if they are unpopular tables, then we can revert. If they are liked, then we can start using it on some other groups of enemies. Dch2404 10:25, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Useless pages for enemies/adversaries[]

I gone through some of the pages of enemies that are encountered only once and that have no real significance ("casual" encounter, have no story, and easily forgotten). In most cases, the page content is extremely short and most of it is forced content. Is there really any reason for them to exist? --silverstrike

I would really have to say put each up for deletion and then we'll just have to see. If it is forced content, then probably the best place for that is on the relevant talk page. I know that may seem like a case by case, but I'm thinking that this probably should be. Right now I'm really neutral on the subject. If you have nominated any as of now, then post links, otherwise I'll just have to watch for deletion nominations. Lancer1289 17:53, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
Well, there's Human Looter and I also saw Batarian (enemy) just before creating the topic. The reason I posted the proposal here was to have a reference if and when I nominate those pages for deletion (as too not repeat the same discussion on each page), I understand that regardless of what is discussed here (if you think that there is a point to discuss it separately) each page should be tagged for deletion and further discussion should be held. --silverstrike 18:03, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
Ok then. The reason I do think it should be a case by case is becuase there are different circumstances and probably different opinions. However that human looter page does seem a little forced doesn't it. The batarian one, I'm going to have to think about over lunch. Lancer1289 18:08, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
Tell you what, I'll go over the adversaries categories, tag, and list here the relevant pages (at least in my opinion, I know it's a subjective issue). We can then discuss it here or on the relevant pages - I'll update this section regardless just to direct here for reference. --silverstrike 18:16, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm... I'm not really liking where this is going. Subjective deletions of valid information that does fall into an objective category is, in my book, never a good thing. See Talk:Human Looter for more. If you're set on this course of action, I won't seek to dissuade you, but bear in mind that I most likely won't make it easy for you. :P SpartHawg948 18:28, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
I don't mean to encourage any deletion of topics/titles that have a place on the wiki, and I always welcome input that point to my misconceptions on those matters (so fire away! :)). I just personally can't understand why those articles exist, and would appreciate clarification. I can also see that my topic title is a big antagonistic (which I didn't mean), should it be changed? --silverstrike 18:44, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
Which is why I suggested bring it up on the relevant talk pages as I knew this would be a subjective issue. I know there is a difference between forced and relevant information but I also saw that perhaps any of these pages could be drawn attention to and be rewritten to make them better. As you suggested on the linked talk page. Lancer1289 18:36, January 3, 2011 (UTC)