Mass Effect Wiki
Mass Effect Wiki

Multi-Page Articles[]

I checked some of the assignments articles and found a few assignments that have more then one part - the N7: Archeological Dig Site or N7: Wrecked Merchant Freighter assignments. I thought of a way to link between multi-page articles that will be clear - so I took the concept of the Storyline article and tried my best to mimic it (examples below).

The code:

| next     = N7: Wrecked Merchant Freighter
| previous = N7: Hahne-Kedar Facility
| index    = Assignments#N7

Will produce: User:Silverstrike/Sandbox/MultiPage

The code:

| next = Storyline II

Will produce: User:Silverstrike/Sandbox/MultiPage

--silverstrike 16:03, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

You may want to consider boxing that using a background colour of #666999 to provide visual focus. --DRY 14:40, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
I did as you suggested and I still see some styling that needs doing - I would appreciate any suggestions you may have.
There is also a problem in the way the template is being called. It seems that the template do not appreciate line-breaks. So for it to work, the code needs to be: {{MultiPage|next_link|previous_link|index_link}} and not the way written above. The only way to fix this is to write the full link while calling the template:
| [[next_link|next_link]]
| [[previous_link]]
| [[index_link|]]
Another issue is that the default behavior require a link (the first parameter) for the next page - how should I change it?
  1. All parameter are optional ({{MultiPage||previous_link}} - will only show the previous link).
  2. Change the parameter from numrical to name based (instead of ({{MultiPage||previous_link|index_link}} we can use: {{MultiPage|previous=previous_link|index=index_link}}).
--silverstrike 15:32, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

New Version[]

I made changes to the original version (examples above) and it now seem more leasing to the eye (in my opinion) and without various bugs that the old version suffered from. The only changes I made to the template call is instead of using 1, 2, and 3 parameters, the author will need to specify the index, previous, or next parameters, respectively. All of them are optional (an in-case none is specified, only an horizontal bar will be visible. --silverstrike 00:53, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

I also tend to agree that the horizonal line would be better, and eaiser on the eyes, than the previous versions. I support the enclusion of this template for articles like Storyline, Collector Base: Infiltration, Noveria: Geth Interest, N7: Archeological Dig Site and its subsequent assignments, etc. This template will help reduce some of the items at the bottom like on the Collector Base: Infiltration article. When I wrote it the only think I could think of to direct users to the next section of the mission is this: The Mission Continues: link to next article. I can see this template doing a lot to eliminate those kind of things, and help users to follow a chain of assignments/missions. Lancer1289 01:11, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
I also thought about making an option to put the template on the top of the page by moving the horizontal line to the bottom - that way, we can have the navigation at the top and bottom of the page. --silverstrike 01:19, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. That way users will know that this is just step one on many first assignment pages. Lancer1289 01:21, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I've made some changes to the template and it can now be placed at the top or bottom without it being mistaken as anything but a navigation bar:

Top NavBar with next and index pages: User:Silverstrike/Sandbox/MultiPage

Bottom NavBar with next and previous pages and inclusion of series type: User:Silverstrike/Sandbox/MultiPage I can also add after "Series Navigation" header the name of the series or the name of the current page. The name of the template should change in my opinion, to a more obvious name, like: SeriesNavigation, CollectionNav, etc. --silverstrike 15:14, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

I agree on the name change, to that SeriesNavigation sounds good. As to the Header, I can see that being a good thing to replace with the various assignment/mission pathways. For the missions the cover the Blue Suns, N7: Archeological Dig Site, N7: MSV Strontium Mule, and N7: Blue Suns Base, I can see a title like, Blue Suns Assignments, or something to that end. A series title would work better then just having the current page listed in my opinion. However that is an naming thing that can be worked on later. However I can see some headings, Blue Suns Assignments, Blood Pack Assignments, Suicide Mission, Noveria, etc. Some of those series titles probably need be worked on, I am not very good at names. Lancer1289 15:25, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
I added a series parameter that rewrites the Series Navigation header if defined:


I think that the template is ready for production, unless anyone sees anything else that need to be altered or added. --silverstrike 16:04, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
It looks good, however I think we should wait a few days before implementing it. See if there are any objections or other changes that someone may see. However I think if there are no objections, I think Tuesday would bee a good day to put up the new templates. That is just my opinion however. In the mean time, I'll see about coming up with some names and posting them here, or is there some other place that seems more appropiate? Lancer1289 16:08, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that we need to wait that long. All of the admins have already approved the usage of the template concept (the real problem was its styling), so I'll post some notices on various users talk pages and on SpartHawg948 talk page, and implement the template after everyone has had their say on the matter. Thanks for your input on the topic :) --silverstrike 16:17, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good, I'll be posting a list of names for series in about 20 minutes or so, or do you think that we should just use generealized names? Lancer1289 16:21, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
I thought about letting the author(s) give the series names at their discretion. But we could use an automated listing. Whatever you think is best. --silverstrike 16:40, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) To summarize discussion elsewhere: series names should be used in lieu of numbers; help should not be a dynamic function of the template — documentation on the template page suffices. --DRY 18:34, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Navigation-Bar Location[]

It looks all right, although I do think they should be at the bottom of the page, as opposed to the top. It's already cluttered enough towards the tops of articles, I don't see the need to add another piece that may or may not be used by the person viewing the page. SpartHawg948 19:30, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, looks sharp. I'm pretty sure this sort of thing is at the bottom on other wikis too, and I think it looks best there. Dammej 20:20, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
I think we should try it on case-by-case basis. I believe that sometimes it can enhance the usability when the bar is located before the article text, when the content of the page is actually a continuation of another article (like in Storyline that has the link to the previous page before the article text). In other cases, It can confuse and reduce the overall navigation of the page. As a rule, we can only include the navigation at the bottom of articles, and discuss whether to include it also at the top. --silverstrike 20:49, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
That seems like a good idea to me. Putting it at the top of the storyline articles seems like a good ides. I'll have to see it before I make a ruling on the walkthough articles however. And see it for some time. A case-by-case basis has worked in the past, so I see no reason why it wouldn't work here. Lancer1289 20:56, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
Yup, makes sense. Dammej 21:01, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
I like the idea of having it at the top, it's more usable but it has to be in the way that doesn't distract. But at the moment, I can't decide which is better. Perhaps you could have a sandbox with those aforementioned articles and show us some samples with the template. Teugene 07:25, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the point in creating dummy articles only to show the navigation. The template can be used as bottom or top navigation bar, and seeing as I seem to have an approval of its use, I'll start implementing it into article at the bottom of the article. The only place That can have the navigation at the top is the Storyline article, so it can serve as a test-case. --silverstrike 07:57, June 5, 2010 (UTC)

Enhanced Usability[]

I applied some more usability to the template in order simplify the selection of the series parameter and make it more standardized throughout the various articles. I also added the help parameter that only returns a reference to the syntax and the numerical options of the series parameter:

Display the template help box by attaching any value to the help parameter:User:Silverstrike/Sandbox/MultiPage

Display the navigation table with the new numerical series selection:User:Silverstrike/Sandbox/MultiPage --silverstrike 19:08, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

Looks even better, and woll be great once implemented. Lancer1289 19:11, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

Character articles[]

I noticed the article for Delan (ME2) that has the indicates that the character appears in ME2 as the article name, which serve to separate it from Delan that only appears in the original Mass Effect.

In my point of view it separates the wiki (or the minor characters on the wiki) to individual games and make the names somewhat harder to distinguish.

I propose the following:

  • Naming characters based on the location they can be found. Delan (Citadel) or
  • Naming characters based on their status. Delan (Merchant)

This makes the title clearer, in my own opinion, anyway. --silverstrike 21:49, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

The latter would not have helped in this case since both are merchants. The addition of almost any in-episode context information is likely to be brittle. (For example, what if the same character appears in different places in the same episode, or between episodes.) External identifiers like (ME2) suffixes is perhaps slightly less brittle, but suffers from the same problem. All of these mechanisms will likely lead to mis-linking by contributors not familiar with the conventions. I'm not wild about heaps of disambiguation pages in general. I suggest we simply go with {{for}} and/or ME/ME:2 sections as the default reaction. --DRY 22:09, February 12, 2010 (UTC)
I see the problem you refer to. I just see the (ME2) suffix as out of place, but I suppose there is no other alternative - I withdraw my proposal. --silverstrike 22:30, February 12, 2010 (UTC)
Note that the suffix can be hidden relatively easily in contexts in which it makes sense using the MediaWiki support for parenthesized suffixes: [[Delan (ME2)|]] renders as Delan. --DRY 14:37, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
There is another solution. The original Delan's name was short for Delanynder. We could move his article there and keep the other Delan as it is, with an if / see tag at the top. --Tullis 15:59, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
The problem with that is the number of pre-existing incoming links: there are about a dozen. While that isn't insurmountable on a case by case basis, and may be appropriate here, it quickly becomes a chore as a general solution. --DRY 16:16, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Trivia Section In Articles[]

I just looked through a few articles and noticed the trivia section that seem to contain information that sometime seem like pure speculation or wishful thinking (in my point of view, anyway). I know that the topic has been discussed, but I have no idea where this discussion may be found. What exactly is the rules regarding trivia - what sort of information should it contain? --silverstrike 23:12, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

There is no hard rule: I tend to be more lenient, SpartHawg tends to be less so, and Tullis somewhere in between. The guideline (if you can call it that) is on the main Mass Effect Wiki:Manual of Style#Speculation (which is probably a better place to discuss most MEW specific things since this is actually a generic page). --DRY 02:21, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah! Less lenient! I can totally live with that characterization of my policy regarding trivia sections. :) SpartHawg948 02:28, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Categories (seperate ME and ME2)[]

I made a version of the {{Category}} template in my sandbox that takes the category and separate it in to three sections: Mass Effect, Mass Effect 2, and Full Listing. The template still need development and styling, but in this way, we won't need to create duplicate categories for ME2 (or ME3 when it launches). --silverstrike 15:05, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that really belongs on the category page (but I'm also not certain that it doesn't). Perhaps artificial sub-category pages holding just the dpl lists? At a minimum, it needs some dpl magic to format it better than a single column list, though. --DRY 05:03, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
I didn't want to do allot of work on the styling until I received a "go ahead". I think that creating a sub page (Category:Assignments/Mass Effect and Category:Assignments/Mass Effect 2, for example) is a clear way to do it (although it will result in allot of new pages). We could try and create a dynamic page that will serve the list according to user input or link provided - I'll play around with the implementation options. --silverstrike 06:37, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
A sub-category is not actually a sub-page. It's just a category namespace page with category links to parent categories. See, for example, Category:Gas giants which has a sub-category of Category:Ice Giant Planets. I'd avoid any solutions which require user input — that would be overkill. --DRY 06:42, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
I misunderstood your meaning, but the result is the same - We will have to create those categories and tweak them so they'll include only part of the result. I'll go through the manual for DPL to see what could be the best solution. --silverstrike 07:12, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I did some work on styling the category, and managed to reach the required result (User:Silverstrike/Sandbox/Template:Category). I also created a template that filters based on parameters (User:Silverstrike/Sandbox/CategoryFilter]). However, Since we can't pass parameters through links (and I tried every possible way to do so), the only remaining alternative is to create two pages (ME/ME2) for every category.

I see two options:

  • We might be able to use JS to accomplish this goal without the need to create multiple pages, but this approach will only work on machines with JS enabled (most of them, but the wiki shouldn't count of browser features).
  • Place the DPL template on category pages and use CSS to initially hide the "Mass Effect only" and Mass Effect 2 only" lists, and JS to toggle the lists visibility by clicking on a button (one for ME list and one for ME2 list). Browsers with JS disabled would see the page with three sections.
  • Beg Wikia to install an extension that will allow us to pass link parameters :p.

Both options have the issue with JS support, but unless I missed a third option, they are the only way to accomplish our goal without tripling the number of categories. --silverstrike 20:29, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the need to do something this complicated: let's just use simple categories (e.g. Category:Assignments (Mass Effect 2)). For the time being, leave the existing Category:Assignments and so on as they are, representing the first episode. --DRY 04:12, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
That approach will result in allot of duplicates and categorizing mess - but seeing as we don't have much choice for the moment, I'll leave it alone. --silverstrike 04:50, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
How so? An article is either in a category or it isn't. --DRY 05:01, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
Keep in mind that when you start implementing one category, you open a floodgate that will result in allot more categories than you anticipated. We will have ME2 categories for characters, krogan, missions, adversaries, and the list goes on and even more when ME3 will be released. I think that a filter page could prevent creating those categories, but as of this time, I don't have brilliant ideas on how to tackle the issue (I'll let you know if something comes to mind). --silverstrike 05:17, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
I actually view that as desirable: categories are a good, efficient way of implementing that type of search. DPL is useful as far as it goes, but it is nowhere close to a generalized query language. I'd much rather have the categories. --DRY 15:42, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
Well, if your fine with it, then I'll leave it alone. Personally, I think categories are a great thing, but when we start creating too many of them then they become harder to manage - just giving my point of view :) --silverstrike 15:55, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Duly noted. For me, one of the main advantages of categories is their tight integration with the mediawiki and the hands off admin. Even relatively unsophisticated users can create and use categories. The same cannot be said for DPL queries. --DRY 16:33, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

And it's even easier with wikia Ajax categorization. Perhaps you're right - in any event, we can always change them back later :) and about DPL, it is clear from the documentation for the extension that it was written by a developer and not a designer :p --silverstrike 16:47, March 9, 2010 (UTC)


I had some ideas regarding the implementation:

  • All the infoboxes (and other relevant templates) will get auto-categorize into the new categories first (for example the adversaries infobox could categorize "Adversaries (Mass Effect 2)") that way most of the work will be automated.
  • No contributor free will in creating categories. Before creating a category a proposal need to be started on the category intended for split (we can use the split tag), and only after the "go ahead" a category can be created (and populated). This will prevent multiple categories with the same name (ME2 Assignments, Assignments (ME2), Assignments (Mass Effect 2), etc.), and prevent a split of categories we want to keep as they are - so I think unapproved categories should be deleted without notice.

In the meantime I have only those two, but I think that implementing them will save allot of time, useless discussions, and redundant deletions. Just my two cents. --silverstrike 19:34, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

That's probably policy overkill. I really don't want to have to add an extra layer of formalism: it's hard enough to keep up as is. If contributors create inappropriate categories, they'll eventually get merged and cleaned up. --DRY 20:58, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
We still have duplicates for he armor, assignments, and achievements articles because contributors decided to split, but if you think that it's overkill, then I'll leave it alone (although I think some guidelines are necessary). What about auto categorizing the various templates? --silverstrike 10:07, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
Articles are a different and distinct issue from categories. Some policy is already in place, as you know. That people will proceed without following it is inevitable, and cannot be addressed by adding more policy. --DRY 17:21, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
So shell I update the auto-categorization of the templates? --silverstrike 03:26, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
Apologies: I do not understand the question. To which categories are you referring? (My memory is dreadful and I've lost the plot.) --DRY 21:21, March 14, 2010 (UTC)
"Previously on Mass Effect Wiki": I was referring to "Assignments (Mass Effect 2)", "Adversaries (Mass Effect 2)", etc. You mentioned you'd prefer to split many of the categories, so do you wish me to alter the auto categorization of the infobox templates, or should I leave it alone for the meantime? --silverstrike 21:51, March 14, 2010 (UTC)
Certainly, go ahead if you wish. (I don't think that we have an assignment infobox, though. But my memory is less than perfect. What were we talking about?). --DRY 09:11, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Italicization of titles[]

I've noticed that, for the most part, we don't italicize titles around here. I don't have any particular problem with this, but I just noticed that the relevant section on this page runs contrary to that. Should it be changed to reflect the reality of the wiki, or should we just attempt to correct our own grammar? --Shellsh0cker 15:32, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

See the notice at the top of the page. This is just an example of a general MoS page, not what the ME Wiki actually follows. -- Commdor (Talk) 16:30, October 29, 2011 (UTC)