Talk: Turrets

Turret Pages

Since we are in the enemy page creation mode, I figured I'd get some input on three things.

• First Thing: Because there are turrets that are Geth Heavy Turret and Geth Turret, I was thinking about just creating one page and calling it Geth Turret. Opinions?
• Second thing: Because there are just general turrets, i.e. no other name attached to them, like the ones on Therum, we should put a tactics section for them on this page and have a seperate seciton for the types.
• Third Thing: Because there are turrets encountered in ME2, only in Overlord I can't remember anywhere else at this point, may seem redundent, but a seperate page for the Cerberus Turrets? Also if I forgot turrets anywhere else someone please tell me where.

Well I would like some opinions on those things, thanks in advance. Lancer1289 06:07, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Addressing your points:

1. I have no objections. That's what I wanted to do with drones!
2. I think that's fine, as long as we also break out Cerberus Turret and Geth Cannon into different articles, because...
3. The Cerberus Turret requires different tactics from turrets in ME, because the Hammerhead is tissue paper compared to the Mako. It also uses mass accelerator weapons instead of rockets. Same sorta deal with the geth cannon, imo. Turrets are indeed only encountered in Overlord in ME2.

There ya go. Dammej 06:21, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Well that was good, I'll get working on those, but this whole project will take sometime. I have a complete list of all the necessary pages on my user page. Fell free to use it, some links are blue because of redirects that have already been created. I completly agree on the Cerberus and Geth cannon articles. I'll just add those two and get back to work. Lancer1289 06:24, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Category

As I am creating the various enemy pages I was thinking about creating a seperate cateogry for Turrets. While there may not be very many pages, I think there is enough justification for a category. Or would this be better suited for a drone cateogry? For more on that see the Talk:Drones page. Also I am thinking of something else, but I think I need to make a change first. Lancer1289 22:15, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Move Proposal

While I am creating the various enemy pages I am thinking of moving this general page to Turrets, to match the Drones page. Both pages can serve as disabmig pages for the while class of enemies. Thoughts? Opinions? Lancer1289 22:18, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be the opposite, really. Aren't page names in general supposed to be singular? So it should be Drones that should move to Drone for consistency. Dammej 03:07, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Well the thing is that there is an actual enemy unit called a Turret that is encnountered multiple times. So that it the reason that I propsoed the move to free up the Turret page for that unit. The Turret is encountered on X57, Therum, and a few other places. Lancer1289 03:10, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think it's still supposed to be singular. We'll differentiate the pages the same way we do any other things that need it: by putting something that further describes it after the name, in parentheses. Which one gets that depends on what the "preferred" page should be for Turret. When someone types turret, are they looking for information about turrets in general, or an enemy named turret? If we think people mean "turrets" in general, this page stays the same, while the other page is "Turret (enemy)". If it's the opposite, this page gets renamed to "Turret (disambiguation)" or, failing that, "Turret (defensive structure)" Dammej 03:14, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was on the line of thinking of turing the Turrets and Drones pages into disamb pages with links to the various turrets and drones. Much like the missions and assignments pages. On the turret page we can put a disamb tag. And this is why I wanted some opinions on the matter. Lancer1289 03:17, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

If it helps, I would like to say that is I were to search for "turret", I'd probably be looking for turrets in general. Arbington 03:20, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

I would also be in favor of keeping this page as Turret, not Turrets, for consistency reasons. No other similar page (other than Drones, which is also being looked at) that I can recall has a pluralized title. So yeah, I favor keeping this one the way it is, and working out some other solution for the actual turret unit. SpartHawg948 03:23, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

If the goal is to have the page Turrets (what this page will be moved to) describe turrets in general, and a page called Turret which describes an enemy, then I 100% disagree. Having pages named Turret and Turrets that lead to two completely different articles is not good. Like I said, this page (Turret) should have info in general. If there's an enemy named Turret, make that page "Turret (enemy)", or "Turret (adversary)". Dammej 03:25, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflicted while trying to change my mind. Curses. Anywho, I've changed my mind. Since this page describes multiple varieties of turrets, as opposed to just one, Turrets would actually be more appropriate. Therefor, I support the move proposal. SpartHawg948 03:27, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

And that is why I proposed the move for this page. Both the Turrets page (if created), and the Drones page desribe multiple types of the same unit. I figured a page where we keep them all would be a good idea. Turret would be good for the enemy while the Turrets page would be describing all the turrets encoutnered in the games. Lancer1289 03:29, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Outcome of the move proposal notwithstanding, I still think having two pages, one called Turret and one called Turrets leading to two completely different articles is a bad thing. Turret and Turrets should always redirect to one another, as they are the same word, and should be expected to have the same content. The Turret enemy should have a disambig. Dammej 03:33, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

But they aren't the same word. Sure, one is derived from the other, but they are different words with different meanings. I see where you're coming from, I'd just like to keep this process as simple as possible. SpartHawg948 03:35, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

They would show up differently on the Search bar and if we put a disamb tag at the top of the Turret page, like we have on the Operative page, I think that would do nicely. Lancer1289 03:40, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, only I was going to cite the Mass Effect page as my example. SpartHawg948 03:41, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

I believe "turrets" would be more appropriate than "turret" as a title for this page. Said turret enemy should simply be listed on this page amongst the other turrets. If we're talking about the turrets that I think we are, then they are already listed. Essentially, all is as it should be in that respect. Arbington 03:45, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you leave consistency out of it. After all, isn't the big thing right now giving all enemies their own page, with the one point of contention being small numbers of markedly similar ones like Alliance Rocket and Assault Drones? If this is the case, I don't see how we can not give the Turret unit its own page. SpartHawg948 03:47, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

(conflicts abound)I'm just arguing from a usability standpoint of a visitor. If you search for turret or turrets, you probably just want to find info about turrets in general. If they meant the enemy called a turret, then there will be a disambig message at the top of the page that will direct them there. Wiki-linking from within pages here will be able to specifically target the enemy page, so that's less of a concern in my opinion. I see you mentioned disambiguations above, so I'll summarize: I think it should be the other way. Turrets should have the disambig link at the top, rather than the enemy named turret. Dammej 03:49, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Why put the disambig on one or the other? I was thinking put it on both. That'd really be the way to go about it from a visitor usability P.o.V. SpartHawg948 03:51, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Er, I guess I should clarify: I feel the pages should be: Turret: Redirect to page Turrets. Turrets (has disambig link directing people to the Turret (enemy) page. Turret (enemy) (has disambig link to Turrets). Dammej 03:54, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Well that I disagree with 100%. I don't see that being user friendly at all. I envisioned Turret being the unit. This page will have a disambig link at the top to Turrets, which is what this page will become. This page, in turn, has a disambig link at the top to Turret. SpartHawg948 03:56, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

(edit comflict x3)Again I really don't think that a redirect would be necessary because the enemy is called turret. The operative example I provided is because it is a class for ME, and it a power in ME2 so a disamb tag would be necessary. I think that a disamb tag on both would be fine as I have seen it on Wikipedia and on other wikis as well. Lancer1289 03:58, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

So the case I'm thinking of: Someone types Turret in the search bar. Since there is a page called Turret here, it takes them to the Turret page, rather than doing a search. What did they mean when they typed Turret? I contend that they meant Turrets in general, not an enemy unit in ME called Turret. Disambig links are an extra step, which from a user's standpoint, is a bad thing. Therefore, Disambig links should direct people to the next likely intended search. We should cater to the general case. I contend that the general case is that they want this page, not whatever the new Turret unit page ends up being. Dammej 04:03, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Which is an assumption I'm not personally willing to make. I operate from the standpoint of- a person is looking for what they typed in. If there's a reasonable chance they meant something else, then we should provide a disambig link. For example, if they enter X while looking for Y, and there is a reasonable chance that they meant Y, it should send them to X, with a link to Y provided right at the top. It shouldn't assume that when they typed X, they meant Y, and that if they really wanted X, they'd have typed X (something special). SpartHawg948 04:07, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what Dammej said. At least, I think I do. To be honest, this arguement is getting somewhat confusingesque. Arbington 04:10, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, I'm not exactly suggesting that Apple redirects to Pear, with a disambig link going back to Apple (fruit). This is a difference of one letter, between a singular and a plural version of a word. It's not exactly a huge assumption. Dammej 04:15, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

But it's still an assumption, and I try to avoid those whenever possible. I remember that old saying, and I'd rather not make an ass of myself. SpartHawg948 04:16, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. We'll agree to disagree. :) Now we see what others actually want, I suppose. Dammej 04:20, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a pretty safe assumption to make. As for "user friendliness", I'm a user, and it doesn't bother me in any way, shape, or form. Arbington 04:23, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

But as I've said I don't know how many times, there are no safe assumptions. A 'safe' assumption is still an assumption. And what are assumptions? Speculation! And everyone should know how I feel about speculation. SpartHawg948 04:25, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

I leave for a few minutes to work on a page and after catching up I agree with Spart, no assumption is a safe one and by extension speculation. I still think two disamb tags are enough to eliminate the confusion. Lancer1289 04:28, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Whoops! I forgot to tell my opinion on the disambiguation headers in my last comment. Yeah, I'm all for those. That way, anyone who gets to the wrong page can go easily to the one they initially desired. Arbington 04:36, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

We have to make assumptions all the time on this wiki. When there are two things named the same thing in the game, we have to make an assumption: Which page should deserve the naked name without the disambiguating paratheses? With Operative, we assume that people want the specialization in Mass Effect, rather than the class power in Mass Effect 2. With Overlord, we assume that people mean the name of the DLC, not the assignment in Mass Effect 2 by the same name. These are assumptions we have to make. They're arguably -good- assumptions, but they're still assumptions. I think hiding behind "I don't want to make assumptions" is a weak position, as assumptions are a fact of life here. Dammej 04:44, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Those aren't assumptions though. They're clarifications between two things with the same name. Turret and Turrets are not the same. Comparing Turret and Turrets to Operative and Operative (power) or Overlord and Overlord (assignment) is, intentionally or not, disingenuous, and a bit of a red herring. Concluding that, when someone types one word, they really mean another different, albeit similar, word is an assumption. SpartHawg948 04:47, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

A fair point. I'll concede that a redirect from Turret to Turrets is more of an assumption than the examples I've given. But they -are- assumptions, though. We have no idea what people really want when they type Operative. Are they looking for the specialization in Mass Effect, or are they playing Mass Effect 2 and want information about the class power? We assume that they mean the specialization, because it's not very likely they'll search for the Operative power. Dammej 04:55, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. And I'll admit that when there are two things with the same name, assumptions are, regrettably, necessary. Happily, this is not one of those instances, as there is a difference between Turret and Turrets, a difference that applies to the search box. In cases where there are two things with different names, there is no reason to make assumptions, especially ones as big as 'well, when they type in turret, they really mean turrets'. Turret and Turrets are two different words, negating the 'sometimes assumptions are necessary' argument, at least in my opinion. SpartHawg948 04:58, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Didn't you guys "agree to disagree" earlier? As neither of you appear willing to concede, this will just keep going on. I think things have gotten quite out of proportion. All we need to do is decide the fate of one article, not rewrite wikia's policy on assumption! Arbington 05:05, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

I like the conversation. Don't steal my fun away! Dammej 05:12, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

(conflicted)Certainly true, that would be the case if this page were called Turrets, but we're forgetting that, right now, this page's name is Turret. Currently, this page does (will? The other page doesn't currently exist.) have the same name as something else. Until the move proposal gets more support (or you exercise admin privilege), the conversation is purely hypothetical. Dammej 05:12, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, if it comes to it, and someone wants to create a page for the specific unit, with no one else casting a tie-breaking vote, I will have to use the old admin tie-breaker. And for my part, I'm fine agreeing to disagree as well. It's just that the speculation-buster in me just can't rest until a 'safe assumption' argument that doesn't really have a proverbial leg to stand on has been rebutted. What can I say? I love to debate, and I hate speculation! :) SpartHawg948 05:15, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

(edit comflict)So if I am reading this conversation right, there is a 3-1 vote for the move to Turrets. Myself, Spart, and Arbington, if I am interperating you correctly correct me if I'm not, support the move, and Dammej doesn't support the move. Correct me if I am wrong anywhere. Sorry if impersonal but this is for anyone else who will be jumping in. Lancer1289 05:18, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

What I suport is this, just to make myself clearish: This page will remain "Turrets". A page, titled "Turret", or perhaps "Turret (enemy)", would be made to deal with the enemy named Turret. Disambiguation headers would be placed atop both pages, to inform readers of the other's existence. Thus, all is essentially dealt with. Arbington 05:25, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Then it is indeed 3-1, as that's the option I voted for as well. SpartHawg948 05:27, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

And me as well. Lancer1289 05:28, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Seems I misinterpreted. :| Ah well. I can begrudgingly accept Turret and Turrets as being two different pages. I'm going to secretly be very angry every time I visit the page though. :) Dammej 05:31, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Good. Now we know how things stand at the moment. Arbington 05:33, June 28, 2010 (UTC)