|
Bullet Point[]
First I want to say that this should have been done after the first undo, between seven hours ago and now, as someone had a problem with an undo I made. Per site policy in matters like this, the policy is not to undo the undo, but rather open a thread on the talk page about it to discuss it. Since this policy was not followed, I have opened a tread in accordance with site policy in matters like this.
As to the issue, I want to point out that the information that is currently being warred over is being removed for unknown reasons. The other person involved stated in their first undo, not in accordance with site policy in matters like this, that they gave a reason for the undo and for me to check the history. Yet they have never edited the page before, and in the edit before my first undo, no edit summary was left, so no reason was given for the removal. I'm assuming the second edit summary, telling me to check the history, was "Deleted as unnecessary" and I'm assuming that was supposed to be the first reason that was never left. I disagree with that statement as it is just a bit of humor inserted into the article, and there are multiple instances of humor inserted into articles around the wiki, and in walkthroughs in particular and I can provide examples. The information is there to provide a lighthearted moment in a serious situation and I completely disagree with its removal, and the two undoes not in accordance with site policy in matters like this. Lancer1289 04:12, June 11, 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting - so as long as you're the one adding the unnecessary humour, it's okay? I was wrong in the history, I'll admit that - I thought it was the other Lancer who added the comment originally, and you were reverting to his original edits, but that aside, I believe that the unidentified editor was working in good faith in accordance with this wiki. The line was deleted as unnecessary. The bit about this telling you who is responsible for it is, as you said, just a humourous insert, but does not belong in a walkthrough, and is better for the talk page or the forums, or perhaps a blog entry. --Snicker 04:28, June 11, 2011 (UTC)
- First let point another fact, I'm not opposed to humor, I do like it, however when it is misplaced, then that is a problem. In fact, quite a number of other users here have reverted edits removing things like this a number of times. I won't oppose humor, just when it is misplaced. Otherwise, why would it be in a number of articles and when I reverted it, even when I didn't add it? Lancer1289 04:34, June 11, 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting - so as long as you're the one adding the unnecessary humour, it's okay? I was wrong in the history, I'll admit that - I thought it was the other Lancer who added the comment originally, and you were reverting to his original edits, but that aside, I believe that the unidentified editor was working in good faith in accordance with this wiki. The line was deleted as unnecessary. The bit about this telling you who is responsible for it is, as you said, just a humourous insert, but does not belong in a walkthrough, and is better for the talk page or the forums, or perhaps a blog entry. --Snicker 04:28, June 11, 2011 (UTC)
- I support deleting the point in question. It's unnecessary, and not funny (it was supposed to be?).JakePT 08:01, June 11, 2011 (UTC)
- Support removal of the item. JakePT hit the nail on the head here. It's completely extraneous, and while I am not averse to a bit of humor, this is not a bit of humor. I frankly wasn't even aware this bullet point existed. Now that I am aware, I hate it. To borrow from Ron Burgandy, it's bush-league. SpartHawg948 08:15, June 11, 2011 (UTC)
- I think the problem with having humour in articles is that humour is so subjective, and all it's going to do is alienate some people reading the article. If a certain brand of humour was why people came here, then obviously it would be fine, even welcome, but it's not.JakePT 08:19, June 11, 2011 (UTC)
- An excellent point. After all, some people even find Gilbert Gottfried and mimes to be funny. If that doesn't demonstrate the extreme subjectivity of humor, I don't know what does. SpartHawg948 08:22, June 11, 2011 (UTC)
- And I like Gallagher and Emo Philips. Yeah - no accounting for tastes ;) That being said - I didn't object to the humour, and I don't think the original (anonymous) editor did, either. My objection was simply that it doesn't belong in the walkthrough. It seemed very out of place when I read it, and had I read this page when playing through, I would likely have edited it then. As usual, we will wait the requisite 7 days before deleting it again, assuming that there are no further objections. --Snicker 20:27, June 11, 2011 (UTC)
- An excellent point. After all, some people even find Gilbert Gottfried and mimes to be funny. If that doesn't demonstrate the extreme subjectivity of humor, I don't know what does. SpartHawg948 08:22, June 11, 2011 (UTC)
unc depot sigma[]
i've tried getting the sigma quest but i don't have it even after completeing both theatas so i would like to know what should i do?
Cerberus is recognised by the squad.[]
Just finished this mission earlier today and the first point in the Trivia is incorrect. I had Kaidan and Liara with me and upon reading the files, Kaidan remarked "Cerberus? We should have known." Or at least something along those lines. At this point, I had completed UNC: Missing Marines and had UNC: Cerberus in my quest log if it makes any difference.
--Astus 18:14, February 15, 2012 (UTC)
Ditto
- I don't understand why the edit was revoked? So, you say that both pieces of dialogue can happen (recognising or not recognising Cerberus) but the article makes it sound like they definitely do not recognise Cerberus. This is simply not true as the dialogue recognising them is definitely there. The fact that it's there makes it seem like the not recognising dialogue is a bug (similar to the one where Toombs slips and thinks you're a SS at times) and not a piece of trivia as shown in the article. --Astus 17:01, February 23, 2012 (UTC)
- Becuase of what I said in my edit summary. We've had reports of the dialogue going both ways, recoganizing and not recoganizing Cerberus, so therefore it is valid trivia. Lancer1289 17:08, February 23, 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand why the edit was revoked? So, you say that both pieces of dialogue can happen (recognising or not recognising Cerberus) but the article makes it sound like they definitely do not recognise Cerberus. This is simply not true as the dialogue recognising them is definitely there. The fact that it's there makes it seem like the not recognising dialogue is a bug (similar to the one where Toombs slips and thinks you're a SS at times) and not a piece of trivia as shown in the article. --Astus 17:01, February 23, 2012 (UTC)
- If there are reports of the dialogue going both ways then why does the Trivia make it seem like it's absolutely one way? Simply put, there is dialogue present in the game that illustrates that this doesn't necessarily have to be the first time you hear about Cerberus. The fact that there even is dialogue in the game recognising this indicates that the other case is more likely to be the anomaly rather than this one. --Astus 17:26, February 23, 2012 (UTC)
Yep, I just got the "damn, should have known" dialogue, too. Already did UNC: Cerberus and UNC: Hades Dogs. I remember on an earlier play through when I didn't the squad said something like "Cerberus? Is that a corporation?"