FANDOM


Proposal: Creation of a community board

For a long time now I've been playing with the idea of creating and maintaining a "Community Board" where we can gather all the requests, proposals, and todo lists. This board can be a place where contributors make suggestions and request for articles, categories, templates, etc.

I believe that this board could help in several ways:

  • Gather information in one place: we have contributors that make suggestions, discuss features, etc. throughout the wiki, the problem is that not all contributors check the Recent Changes page, and even those that do can miss important discussions for article overhaul, template suggestion, and other trivial and not so trivial issues.
  • To each his own strength: not all contributors proficient in writing or creating templates, and even those that are proficient in such matters don't necessarily have the time, energy, peace of mind to start the new project. Requesting or suggesting the idea on a board might capture the attention of a contributor who is proficient, available, and ready to start that project.
  • Admins benefits (I can only presume from my viewpoint): As admin(s) you have just one place to get updated on what's going on, write messages and notices for wiki contributors, read contributors notices, and make sure you didn't miss anything important. I can only write from my impression, but sometimes I feel I bug you (and this is also for the rest of the admins) with questions, information, and grandiose proposals (such as this) that doesn't necessarily require your attention, but as a contributor I have no idea who else to ask for help or input.
  • Emphasis on community: I might have mentioned it before, but communicating with other members of the wiki community can resolve matters more quickly, supply more input for questions asked or issues risen, and could benefit in resolving issues without the need to get the admins involved.

I have started in making a "first draft" board that is located on my sandbox and will appreciate any input you can give me (of course that there is not much hope for the board without the admins support).

Thank you for reading :) --silverstrike 18:51, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Could be a useful resource. Presumably a Forum board or posts would do the job. --DRY 07:50, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
Yup. I can see some definite merit to this idea. I also heartily agree that the Forum is likely the best place for this. SpartHawg948 09:15, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
Didn't event thought about using a forum for this - but what about the posts layout? I made a few examples for posts here: User:Silverstrike/Sandbox/Community Board, they could be implemented as a template for posts on that forum (or a different layout that will give a similar behavior). --silverstrike 09:29, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, the layouts look good. I'm not so sure that the "Suggested by" and "Currently developed by" are really needed, but if the general consensus is that they're needed, I won't object too strenuously. SpartHawg948 09:32, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
If were going with forum layout, then the "Suggested by" will be replaced by the user that created the post, the "Currently developed by" can be helpful to see what user "took up the glove" and started the work on the project - it can even be multiple people collaborating. --silverstrike 09:49, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think the reason I'm somewhat concerned is because we've had some incidents lately with people becoming possessive of articles they view as "theirs", and as many times as I stress that there is no ownership of articles, it keeps happening. I'm not saying that this will happen because of the "Currently developed by" bit, but it is kind of a nagging concern of mine. SpartHawg948 10:13, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
I see your point - I think that it should state very clearly that development of articles, templates, or whatever is only done in the "Project Sandbox" or "User Sandbox", and once published, "EVERYONE" can edit those pages. We can try it out, and if people start "taking ownership" on pages, we can remove the "Currently developed by" item. --silverstrike 10:43, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
That works for me! SpartHawg948 20:50, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Should I mail/leave a comment in Tullis talk page regarding this, or should I just go ahead and start working on the forum template (seeing as SpartHawg948 and yourself approve of the idea)? If the answer is yes, do you have any comments on my layout? --silverstrike 16:30, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure we need a template? I'd like to avoid having to have a lot of policies which must be enforced and/or wikilawyered about. I was envisioning just having a forum with a post per proposal. --DRY 16:40, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
I think that the template serve more as a "helper" rather than "must fill". it will also summarize what is needed if the forum topic become too long with discussions. The contributor filling in the request/proposal could leave it empty at first and fill it in as the topic progresses - it is also possible for another contributor to fill in the missing data. --silverstrike 16:45, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
Well there's certainly no harm in that. --DRY 16:53, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and create the template, unless you have any additional comments about the layout of the information. We also need to decide on the forum name (the template name should match). --silverstrike 17:15, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
I created two templates to handle this:
  1. A Community Board Item template that creates the layout of the "form"
  2. A Community Board Post template that is called when creating a new post in the forum (and which has comments in the code as instruction for contributors).
I think that "Originally created by" can be removed, and "Status last updated" can be automatically updated using DPL. --silverstrike 18:44, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
I'd definitely choose a more descriptive name than "Community Board" since that's what the forums are as a whole. Perhaps something along the lines of "Projects"? The templates also need better documentation (along the lines of Template:Planet or similar). The markup can be simplified somewhat as well, but that's not terribly important (see m:Help:Lists). --DRY 04:05, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
"Projects" sounds good to me (can't think of anything better). I didn't want to start documenting something that is going to be replaced/overhauled, I'll go through the link and try to implement what I can. --silverstrike 04:57, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
I made some changes to the template layout (Template:CommunityBoardItem) and I think it's ready for production. --silverstrike 15:16, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
I'd suggest adding a brief description of how it is intended to be used; I also wouldn't bother with a default for a missing description (or else spell it out in full). Also there appears to be a left-over comment of some kind ("starter comment"). But in the main it seems good to go. --DRY 15:39, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
The brief description will be added instead of the "starter comment" - I will start tackling the description when I'm done with the rest. The text instead of the description was for my testings (I forgot to remove it), I think the entire description box should be removed if it's empty. I'll finish styling and write the description and leave you a comment when I'm done. --silverstrike 15:50, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I wrote the preface for the post, it's pretty lame, but that is the most I can muster at the moment. I can continue editing it at a later time if you feel that it's insufficient. --silverstrike 16:15, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Implementation

I implemented the community board under the name Projects. I do have an issue with the forum posts not getting the "Projects" category assigned (the page itself shows it's part of the category, but the category page and the Forum:Projects page don't list it).

Just wanted to update you, but if you have any idea where the problem is, I'll be glad to hear it and fix the problem. --silverstrike 19:22, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Also DRY, I contacted two staff members, JoePlay and Kirkburn, about the problem and asked if they could help. Lancer1289 19:29, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
I'll check when I have a moment. (I'm still very busy at work and have about 200 RC emails to plow through.) I assume that you've already gone through Help:Forums and the related bits? --DRY 19:40, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
I went through the help section and also the DPL group home page, and of course, Mediawiki - I still can't understand the issue. Maybe it will fix itself after the next caching cycle, that, or I'll find I made the most idiotic mistake.
To be technical: I built an auto-categorization in {{Forumheader}} that checks if the page is in the Forum namespace and assigns the category if it is ({{#ifeq:{{ns:110}}|{{NAMESPACE}}|[[:Category:{{{1}}}|{{PAGENAME}}}} - {{{1}}} is the forum name). I also tried it without the if statement, but it didn't work.
If you don't have the time, then forget about that, I'll figure it out eventually. Worst case scenario, I'll categorize page manually until the issue will get resolved. --silverstrike 20:42, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
I assume that you didn't actually put the colon before "Category" in the real thing? If not, I'll have to dig around a bit to work out what's going on. --DRY 21:28, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I also note in passing that we should probably be making use of the Project namespace for this sort of thing, rather than a forum post. --DRY 19:11, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

Confused

When looking over the talk pages and on the Collector Base ones I saw your comment that you would like full pages for the missions of Mass Effect. I was wondering if you ment that the links on the missions page should have its won page like in the Mass Effect 2 articles? I just want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you. Lancer1289 March 4, 2010 14:47 (UTC)

Hey DRY again I was trying to understand your comments on the Talk:Collector Base: Infiltration talk page. Did you mean that each major plot world mission in Mass Effect should have its own page? Lancer1289 March 9, 2010 14:19 (UTC)
Yes, I think that would be the ideal. --DRY 15:10, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
Well then, I'll pull some information from the guide and the planet articles and see what I can do with them. Lancer1289 March 9, 2010 15:28 (UTC)
I will be writing these articles to put in tactics and really get the details of where all the crates, items, and anything can be found. If the community doesn't like the articles when I or someone else writes and posts them, then we can remove them. You can see a preview of how many articles I plan to write on my user page. I had been actulaly writing some details down that weren't in the main guide and I figured that I would get your opinion on the topic espcially after your comments on the Talk:Collector Base: Infiltration page. Lancer1289 20:53 March 14, 2010 (UTC)

When I was digging through the list of redirects page I saw that a lot of the mission walkthrough titles I was planning on using are insead redirects. I don't know everything about how wikis work yet but I was wondering if I created a page with the same name as a redirect, will it cause a problem? If you have questions about the article names you can see them on my my user page. Thanks in advance. I left the same message on SpartHawg948's talk page. Lancer1289 23:08, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

There's no problem with turning redirect pages into real articles simply by editing them as normal. A redirect page is just a regular article which contains a #REDIRECT. --DRY 01:45, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

(reset indent)I just figured I'd let you know that I will have all the walkthoughs up by the end of the day and I would just like to ask you to take a look and comment on User Talk:Lancer1289/Sandbox page on what you think. Thanks in advance. Lancer1289 13:49, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

I just figgured that I'd let you know that I have finished all the articles and I am looking forward to your comments on my sanbox discussion page. I know they are lengthy but I hope they are currently better than the guide. Thanks in advance for your comments. Lancer1289 21:24, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

Tag templates

I implemented the new tag styles (as noted on my talk page) and after reviewing a few articles that feature them, I see an issue with the links colors. The active link (bluelink) seem too pale when not hardcoding the link color (in the templates I manually assigned a new link colors to the active links). This could be resolved by adding a rule to the stylesheet that will color the links on notice tags (tags with the orange background): notice_tags a {color: #color_value;}. --silverstrike 16:40, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't see a big problem with the existing scheme. You could try adjusting the relative contrasts a little. I'd still like to get the icons for the centred tag closer to the text. The one size fits all solution with the two cell table might not be the best choice: a couple of divs might be more flexible. --DRY 04:19, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
The only problem with the colors is that of the link contributors add. For example, on the merge tag a contributor might write something like: "the article could be merged because it is a duplicate of [[Assignments]]" - I cannot change the color for that link manually. Doing the minor change in the stylesheet will take care of the problem globally.
I should of changed the layout to tableless when you mentioned the problem with the image position. I'll make the change. --silverstrike 05:05, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
I made a change to the Tag template and updated {{Delete}}, {{Merge}}, and {{Cleanup}} templates. It's a bit difficult making the image stick to the centered text; changing the text size in the browser causes the text and the image to overlap. If you like the change I can change the rest of the "notice" templates. --silverstrike
I haven't looked at the underlying changes, but it doesn't actually seem to have made any difference to {{cleanup}}. IIRC the other two were left justified already. --DRY 00:00, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
I just replaced the table with a couple of <div>s. The problem with putting the image right next to the centered text is that it needs to achieve "pixel precision" which can change according the the preferences of the user - when a visitor's browser is set to show the text as larger or smaller then the default values, the image may overlap the text, which is not a good scenario. If you have other ideas, I'll be glad to try and implement them.
I also created another tag template {{move}}, for those occurrences when a contributor want to propose a renaming of a page. I created the template mainly for tagging images that have obscure names, but it can be beneficial on articles that are misnamed (in the last week I noticed two or three of those). Unless you're checking the Special:RecentChanges daily, they are easily missed.
If you don't like the template, think it's redundant, or any other reason, just delete it, and I'll remove the tag from all pages that use it - the reason I didn't consult any of the admins regarding this is because I noticed your not around the last few days, and I am currently doing massive organization to the wiki's images (I know that that's no excuse, I'll be more patient in the future). --silverstrike 02:04, March 13, 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't really need to be pixel perfect: it just shouldn't float all the way to the left. --DRY 15:36, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I'm not trying to achieve pixel-precision, but moving the image more toward the text will cause it to overlap. The only way that I see to fix this is to make all tags left-aligned. --silverstrike 15:45, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

I had something like either of these in mind. (They each have slightly different layout properties.) --DRY 16:54, March 13, 2010 (UTC)
hmmm, I like the inline-block approach, I'll try to implement it to the current {{Tag}} template. --silverstrike 17:28, March 13, 2010 (UTC)
While implementing, I realized that the table layout would work better and with less code. I altered {{Merge}}, {{Delete}}, and {{Cleanup}} back to the table layout and compensated when text is aligned to the left (It just looks weird otherwise). If you have some more input on the layout let me know. --silverstrike 18:57, March 13, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, those look very good. Thank you for taking the time to address the aesthetics, which I realize tend to be very subjective and personal. --DRY 18:25, March 14, 2010 (UTC)
I was happy to lend a hand :). There are still two issues that need to be addressed. The first is the behavior of the tags when there is a infobox beside it - the tag engulfs the info box and the result is not pretty, the second is the issue with link colors (the default is too pale) in which case we either make a change in stylesheet (as I noted at the start of the topic) or use the replace StringFunction to insert the span with the color definition to user entered links (like in the delete tag). --silverstrike 18:46, March 14, 2010 (UTC)
I personally don't find the default too pale (if we're talking about the same link/state), but we can certainly change the style sheet if you feel strongly about it. (I assume the class you're using is not used anywhere else?) For the overlap of floating boxes: I keep meaning to look at the CSS2 layout model to figure out exactly why that's happening. In the short term, wrapping the whole thing in a table seems to do the trick — but I was kind of hoping to avoid perpetrating that hack in multiple places if I could figure out a better global solution. --DRY 18:51, March 14, 2010 (UTC)
Look at the second tag on the Collector Base: Infiltration article, you have the altered links (who looks a little purplish) that use the code: [[some_link|<span style="color:#4A49FF;">link label</span>]] - this is no problem when I know the link (like: what links here, history, talk page, etc.), but is a bit more complicated when the contributor might supply the link (like the delete tag in the example above). Giving the Tag template a class (like "notice_tag") will allow us to declare a style for the class in the stylesheet.
Addendum: The tag was removed while I wrote my comment, but the same behavior also present on the Changes between games article - you can see that the contributor supplied link is extremely pale. --silverstrike 19:19, March 14, 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the tag behavior, I have a pretty good idea for what is the cause. It relates to the box-model and the float-model - I'll try to make a hack for it using Stylish (Firefox extension). --silverstrike 19:14, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Prereq adds

I just noticed that you are modifying the planets that I added prereqs to in the last few days. I'll be sure to add a little more space in the future. Sorry for all the extra work that I am apparenlty making you do. Lancer1289 01:27, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Most of them are fine. It's actually not spacing I'm adjusting: I'm only modifiying ones which could make use of the (undocumented) third parameter. One of these days I'll get around to improving the template…. In general, if you're finding that the template isn't suitable for a given situation, the best thing to do is to improve the template: drop a note or request on Template talk:Prerequisites. --DRY 01:39, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
Also, it's best if you don't attempt to add extra spacing manually on an article by article basis: it is far simpler to add any extra space in the template itself. Indeed, if the template spacing is changed, articles which manually attempt to modify the spacing will themselves begin to look wrong. --DRY 01:43, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully

Sir or Madam,

Recently you blocked my IP address from this site for a period of three days citing "vandalism". I would like to lodge a complaint as I did nothing approaching vandalism. I added data from the game in a rather unobtrusive manner. The only reason I can think of for being blocked was that I had a disagreement with a fellow editor. I would like to say that my edits were of no foul manner and I would appreciate it if you would unblock me. Now posessing an account, I will not need to use it but I feel that your action was wrong and I would appreciate the gesture. Thank you.

-Vanguard 15, 7:18 PM, EST, 03/30/2010

Not to stick my nose in where it doesn't belong, but the only recent 3-day block of an IP I see that DRY initiated citing vandalism was one on the 26th of this month, which did involve vandalism (specifically an IP inserting "tyler white is gay" into an article). The next one I see is over a month ago, again for obvious acts of vandalism. Any chance you could provide the specific IP that was blocked? Because I'm not seeing anything that fits your description. SpartHawg948 23:26, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

IP address 76.99.73.107. Reason listed is vandalism. 19:57, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

The IP was blocked for the following sequence of edits, which appeared to be part of a needless revert war:
In the event that you were not responsible, I offer my apologies. In the event that these edits were yours, please note that it was not clear from either the content of the edits, nor the edit messages exactly what they intended to accomplish (and they did damage the page layout while apparently offering no improvements of any kind). We do not typically offer any warnings to anonymous editors (as we would for contributors with accounts). In any case, you may avoid the block by creating a user account (if you have not already done so) and logging in. (The block affects anonymous editors only and account creation is not currently blocked on that IP.) --DRY 01:38, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
I actually also left a message on the talk page for that IP advising you of why the edits were being undone and had been classed as vandalism. SpartHawg948 02:24, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that, SpartHawg. Feel free to unblock if you think I overreacted: I did hesitate before putting the block in, since it wasn't the usual clear cut vandalism – that's also why it was only a three day block. I put in the block primarily because I wasn't sure that I'd be able to get back on tonight and I didn't want the situation to escalate in case you or Tullis weren't around. I'm also honestly not too sure what the editor was doing. Sometimes the WYSIWYG editor inserts some extra spacing, but I doubt that was the case here. I also was genuinely unclear about what the editor meant by "Added own section" in the third edit comment. I wonder if they (or I?) just had the wrong end of the stick or something? If it had been an account, I would have definitely gone to their talk page first. I don't usually bother when it's an IP since there's no email notification: I wonder if an anon IP gets the "You have new messages" at the top of their screen, though? --DRY 02:37, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
Well, it seems that the block may be moot, as the individual in question is now registered. As for the "added own section", the user in question was attempting to create a trivia section. And yes, IIRC, anaon users do get the "new messages" thing. SpartHawg948 02:46, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Cluster Pages

After making an edit to the Hawking Eta cluster page, I noticed that the system and cluster pages of the Mass Effect articles have assignments and missions attached to them. I was just wondering if we are doing the same thing for the locations in Mass Effect 2. Lancer1289 05:03, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to make we were before making a lot of additions and then having you or another user just revert them all. I want avoid the common revert headaches that would come out of this. Lancer1289 05:07, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for asking. Yes, the Mass Effect Wiki:Manual of Style does call for assignments and missions to be recorded on system and cluster pages. Feel free to go ahead. --DRY 18:36, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

Ok when I was cheking the style guide again, I noticed, after I had done the edits, that the cluster pages have both mission and assignment heading. I was just thinking that if there are no missions then why ven have a heading in the first place. When I added the assignments and missions to the cluster pages of ME2 clusters and pages, I didn't add that so that is why I removed the mission subheadings. I was just thinking that if there there were no missions or assignments then the section should be omited because it would be redundent. However if you disagree then I will rever all the edits and add them to the ME2 clusters. Lancer1289 13:48, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Planet's missions

Hey there! Looking at your user page, I figured you must be the admin who are mainly in charge of template layouts and "cleanups". Anyway, there's something that's bothering me about some planets articles, specifically ones that have missions and I was thinking of doing a cleanup for those planets. In those planet articles, for example, Illium and Omega (although Omega is technically not a planet), there are unnecessary bits of information here and there about Shepard's missions and story. However, among the worst offending planet articles are Virmire, Feros and Therum where those planet articles even has walkthroughs and plot related information! IMHO, those information should actually be shifted into their corresponding articles. I felt that the planet articles should be similar to Tuchanka or Haestrom where it is consistent, concise and strictly planet related info without all the clutter of unrelated info. So I'm thinking of doing a cleanup of those articles and shift information where it should belong and keep the planet articles strictly about the planet only (with sections consisting of description, additional description, codex, missions/assignments, trivia). But before I do any major changes, I'm just want to know what the admins feel about this. - Teugene 16:36, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

The layout of the older mission pages is more historical accident than anything else. Most of the information should probably be split out into separate mission pages and coordinated with the walkthrough. The trickiest part will be correcting any inbound links. I think that User:Lancer1289 is also working on a similar project, so you should coordinate with them as well. --DRY 12:40, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
I am actually working on walkthoughs of the major plot worlds. I was going to trim down the articles after I had posed them because they have a lot of walkthough information. I was also planning to trim the Mass Effect Guide down also to have it be more like the Mass Effect 2 Guide. As to the planet articles, if Teugene is willing to work with me then I'm all for it. Lancer1289 12:56, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
There's a fair amount of potential cross-over material, but I have no firm views on how it should be managed. I just wanted to make sure that there weren't two or more folks working at cross purposes. --DRY 13:04, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
Alright then, I shall coordinate with User:Lancer1289 on that then :) Teugene 15:51, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
Hey there, regarding the status of the planet article cleanup, it's now open for review and comments at my sandbox. You can see the articles here and comment here. Thanks in advance for your time :) Teugene 07:56, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Just dropping a reminder for my message above just in-case you missed it :) Teugene 03:08, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Apologies: very busy at work these days. I will try to get to this on the weekend. --DRY 03:14, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
No worries! I won't be around this weekend either as I will be going for a company trip. Teugene 03:19, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

RE: Project namespace alias

Hi DRY. Please use the Contact form to send your request to the Community Team. Someone will respond soon and take care of it. Thanks. JoePlay@fandom (talk) 22:11, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

SR-2 Crew Subsection

After another edit to the Crew Subsection of the SR-2 article, it again added a lot of space. The user said that they only added a bit of information and I have no grounds at this time to think anything different, but I think that this subsection has a bug in it that adds the extra space. I undid the edit then readded the information the other user provided. Lancer1289 14:49, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

I tested it and it didn't do it for me, but again I have no reason to doubt the other user. Just though I'd mention that I tested it. Lancer1289 15:04, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
There appear to be ongoing issues with the WYSIWYG editor adding spaces and generally playing merry Hell with structured elements like tables and templates. I usually just give users the benefit of the doubt and fix the spacing. --DRY 19:50, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

201.121.16.27 vandalizing

This person is vandalizing the Reaper article and has been for about 30 minutes now. Lancer1289 22:16, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Now he is on a vandalsim spree. Lancer1289 22:37, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
Blocked. --DRY 23:04, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

thank you, i tried asking him politely to leave. ralok 23:05, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you from everyone who reverted his edits, User:Tophvision, User:PikaShepard, User:Ajraddatz and myself. Something tells me he wouldn't leave anyway Ralok but thanks for trying. Lancer1289 23:08, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Citadel Missions

I was just wondering if we should add the assoicated missions and assignments to the Citadel Page. Every other planet/station has them and I was just wondering if the Citadel is unique becuase of everything else associated with it. Lancer1289 06:23, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for another message but after looking at the style guide I still can't decide whether or not to place the mission and assignment tags up. I also asked Teugene and Teugene thinks that they should stay as is. However since every other place has missions labeled and I wanted to avoid putting them up and then having you take them down again. Lancer1289 03:46, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
We currently lack a style guide for stations, ships, and asteroids — it's on my list of things to do. I don't see any real problem with adding sections with the lists. --DRY 03:48, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
Ok then I add the assignments and mission to the article the best I can. I will add them just above the trivia section for now becuase I really can't see where else to put them. Lancer1289 03:54, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
Whoops, I hope I wasn't misunderstood! I'm all for including mission and assignment sections inside Citadel. I was also just wondering a template would be better to standardize the layouts of significant space stations (eg Citadel, Omega). DRY, how far are you at in coming out with a template for space stations? I'm just doing my own exploration of a space station template (learning the syntax and stuff) but if you're going to implement it soon, then I will just stop at where I'm at. :) Teugene 04:54, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
Yea that was my fault. After rereading your post, and then bashing my head into a wall becuase I misread it. After I reread, I saw that you were for including the missions, again with the head bashing. Sorry my bad. Lancer1289 05:43, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

72.83.245.124 and Tali's article

For the tenth time this user has put in or modified information in the Tali article to make it incorrect. I have now asked them three times to stop and they keep doing it. While the edits are not huge, it is just annoying because they keep doing it no matter what anyone says. He has been reverted by three users, including myself now, but he still keeps doing it. If you could leave him a message as well I think that would help, considering my three haven't done squat. I will be informing SpartHawg948 as well Lancer1289 19:47, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. --DRY 20:00, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Lancer1289 20:04, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Dreadnought Codex Entry

Currently there is some confusion on the codex entry we keep here. The one here says the asari have 21 dreadnoughts but every in game codex I checked where I saved the Destiny Ascension says twenty. Also the one where I didn't says twenty. Currently I was hoping you would be able to check your saved games and see if you have the same thing. Thanks. Lancer1289 20:36, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

I have at least one save game which says 21 (pre-Virmire). Unfortunately, I don't keep a lot of save games around, sorry. --DRY 04:18, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
Quick note- it's the ME2 Codex that's being referenced here, as the ME Codex says 21 and the ME2 Codex says 20. I think we have it just about resolved, though. SpartHawg948 04:20, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I misunderstood. Yes, a quick check of my current game gives 20 as well. --DRY 04:29, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Codex

I was just talking with SpartHawg about this and I noticed that some of the codex entries change from ME to ME2. I will start added where appropiate. Just wanted to let you know. Lancer1289 01:51, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's been on my list too for quite a while. --DRY 04:21, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I forgot to tell you that I think we got them all and I believe the system we have is good, however I will defer to your judgement. I found two missing ones and SpartHawg and myself added the ME/ME2 splits. Lancer1289 04:23, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
Should be fine. One thing to be aware of, though, is that some entries (some planets for sure, perhaps others) are transcluded into other pages using DPL. Adding sub-headings wouldn't break that, but it might be inelegant at the point of transclusion. The version of DPL on this wiki is rather old, so the only way to get an idea where DPL is used is to look at Special:TagsReport. It doesn't look like any of the split ones were transcluded, so it's academic. --DRY 04:36, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
We will just have to keep an eye on that and hope that it doesn't happen. If it does then we will have to find a way to work around it, hopefully. Lancer1289 04:40, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Question

What page did you edit to make it so that your "Answers" widget shows the ME Answers Wiki, not the XBox Answers Wiki? Darkman 4 08:57, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

I believe it was User:Angela who actually made the changes to MediaWiki:Answers widget user note. --DRY 17:51, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Darkman 4 18:31, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Eden Prime Codex Entry

Hey DRY, currently I am in a dispute with a user over the codex entry on Eden Prime. After brousing through the page history, I saw that you added it on June 20, 2008. He thinks that it doesn't exist, but your history tells me that it does. Since you added it can you please tell me why it isn't in the codex and why you added it. Thanks in advance. Lancer1289 04:46, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Hey DRY, I don't know if you got this message before but again I'd just like to know where you got the Codex Entry for Eden Prime. Lancer1289 04:56, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
Looking back, it looks like I only added the heading and not the text itself. I suppose that I assumed from the style that it was a codex entry. It does show up in a couple of other places on the net, but it's difficult to tell what the origin was. --DRY 13:41, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
Then should we remove the entry or leave it? Lancer1289 16:55, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
It would be nice to figure out if it's canon or not, even if it isn't a codex entry. However, it should definitely not appear in the codex entry section unless it is a codex entry (which it does not appear to be). Perhaps move it somewhere else? --DRY 19:31, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
How about combining the info in the codex entry with the description heading. Lancer1289 19:35, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
Also not permitted since the description is supposed to be verbatim canon as well. --DRY 19:38, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
Ok then, I was checking the history again and it was added by Knoxitor. The information itself, well some of it anyway, appears to have been pulled from Anderson's description of the planet while on the Normandy. I assume the description that you added was from the galaxy map, I can check some other sources for the other information. Lancer1289 19:47, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

(reset indent)Hey DRY, I just figured that I should inform you of the change I just made to the Eden Prime article. I left a comment on the talk page but here's the short version. The "Codex Entry" is pieced together from comments made by Nihlus, the Salarian Councilor, Jenkins, Anderson, and a chosen dialogue option with Shepard. Overall it is good information, the secion just needed renaming, I used the president we set, or at least I think we set, on the Trident article. If anything isn't in line with the style guide, then please fix it, but the info is canon and it is good information. Also deleting it would just waste good info. Lancer1289 22:44, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Latest Vandel

Hey User:PROBLEM OFFICER? has been vandalizing articles by inserting a very inapporpiate pictures, can we please get rid of him. Lancer1289 18:17, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. --DRY 18:39, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks DRY, could you also delete the three images the person uploaded. File:Scream.jpg, File:TrollFace.png, and File:AGH.jpg, because only Admins can delete these things. Lancer1289 18:43, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
Already got 'em. SpartHawg948 19:28, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Romance page

Hi, someone is under the impression I 'vandalised' the romance page? I think the format of the page is very confusing as a male or female shepard can court either sex, and this should be amended --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sepurmann (talk · contr).

Your edits don't appear under your account name, so I can't be certain which ones you're referring to. However, the usual suggestion in this sort of situation is to post to the talk page and try to gather consensus for your proposed changes. --DRY 19:35, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Mass Effect Guide Rewrite

Hey DRY, after I finished and will be posting, walkthoughs for the major plot worlds of Mass Effect, I figured I'd rewrite the guide a little. I managed to finish a rewrite of the Mass Effect Guide, which you can view here. I welcome your comments, however it is tedious reading just as a warning. You can comment about it here and any and all comments, that aren't vandalism are welcome. I would like the admins' permission before I replace the page because I looked at the page history and a lot of work when into there. Thanks in advance. Lancer1289 04:36, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

Template

Apologies, I wasn't aware I couldn't adjust the template for a little visual coherence. I was attempting to standardize the spoilers in a fixed width and font style. If I may explain, currently some spoilers have all words bold with the ME titles in italics, while some has all words in normal weight but only the title is bold and without italics (specifically the ones with quotes). So I was trying to make it consistent it throughout. That's the rationale behind the edits. Hopefully if you could consider this and once again, sorry for the changes. Teugene 03:25, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Tharopto's Orbital Distance Miscalculated?

Hey DRY! How have you been?

I just wanted to point out that Tharopto's orbital distance MUST have been miscalculated by BioWare or whoever was responsible for the planet's data. As a computer science major/astronomy minor in college, I have written a Java program that calculates a) the orbital distance (in AU) and b) the orbital velocity (in km/sec) of planets around stars, given a) the host star's relative mass and b) the orbital period of the companion planet (in Earth-years). Obviously, ME doesn't show the planets' orbital speeds, so let's take that out of the picture. This leaves the orbital distance. I remember using my software to calculate Tharopto's orbital distance myself and posting it here on the Wiki a while back (before ME2 came out). The value I came up with was exactly 23.58 AU, which I rounded off and posted as 23.6 AU on the planet's page here on the Wiki (remember that ME1 didn't show the said planet's distance for some reason.) Anyway, now ME2 seems to display Tharopto's orbital distance as 29.4 AU, which is a 5.8-AU difference between the value I came up with, and this is something I can hardly get over.

All I'm asking for is your opinion on the issue. I have verified the orbital distance of every single other planet in the Century system using the same program, and the results I got were exactly, and I mean EXACTLY, the same as the ones in-game. With Tharopto as an exception.

I could change the value from 29.4 to 23.6 and add a Trivia explanation as to why it's different from the in-game value right now, but like I said earlier, your opinion is what matters - even though I can quite confidently say that it's an obvious math error on BioWare's part.

Awaiting your good feedback... Fiery Phoenix 15:40, May 09, 2010 (UTC)

Our policy is to use only the "canonical" values in the infoboxes, no matter how nutty. You are, of course, welcome to add an explanation of the discrepancy you've discovered. By convention, this is done in a section titled "Properties" (see MEW:MOS/Planets). A number of similar inconsistencies have been noted in the past; in this case it is possible that Tharopto was moved from a different system at some point in the development process but the data was not updated — but that is only speculation on my part. --DRY 18:07, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Does this look good? --Fiery Phoenix 19:30, May 09, 2010 (UTC)

Sure, seems fine. --DRY 21:20, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Unique Dialogue Style Guide

Hey DRY, since you do a lot of editing to the style guide here, I would like your opinion on something I'm working on for the style guide. Becuase I am getting tired of policing the Unique Dialogue pages, I wrote a style guide page for them, I would like to see them brought into some kind of order and I would like your inputs and approval before inserting it into the style guide. Currently it is in my sandbox, Unique Dialogue Pages, and I would like your inputs on the page. While I know it is usually forbidden to modify another user's sanboxes, I really would like to get this up quickly so I hereby give you, SpartHawg948, and Tullis permission to modify the page to get it in line with current standards, so it can go up quickly. I'll be dropping SpartHawg948 and Tullis a line as well. Thanks in advance. Lancer1289 04:51, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry just one more thing, if you need to contact me, then leave me a message on my talk page, or on the article's talk page. Thanks. Lancer1289 04:55, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Hey DRY, I don't know if you have been around recently or had a change to take a look at the style guid, but I would really like your input on the matter. Thanks in advance. Lancer1289 03:04, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, things are extremely busy at work at the moment (our software just underwent a safety audit and a new release is out in June) so I haven't been around much. I'll try to get to it sometime next week, if I can. --DRY 05:22, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for responding and get to it when you are able to. Lancer1289 05:25, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Menu Bar

Hey DRY, Spart suggested that we take this up with you so here it goes. After talking with some users, we were wondering if we could change the Menu bar on the left side of the screen. Most of the links there are good, but the whole thing is in dire need of an update. Spart suggested that we also take this up with JoePlay so I'll be leaving a message on his talk page as well. Lancer1289 19:25, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. I know that User:Tullis was doing some work on it too; maybe check out User talk:Tullis too. --DRY 20:31, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
Sorry it took so long to reply, had to do things, but after reading the discussion on Tullis' talk page, it seems that she and Silverstrike were on the same path that we were. However we need more discussion on this to proceed. I am in favor of hosting it in my sandbox with a discussion page for changes. Does that seem like a good idea? Lancer1289 21:20, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
What I just found might peak your interest. Apparenty before Silverstrike left and Tullis went on a Haitaus, they managed to get a working new menu that is now just rotting in Silverstrike's sandbox. User:Silverstrike/Monaco-sidebar, that is the link to the new menu and it seems good. However I will email Silverstike and leave a message on his talk page asking if we could take it and modify it further, if needed, and why it wansn't implemend. Lancer1289 22:08, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
OK some answers. Apparently Tullis and Silverstrike managed to finish the new menu but it was never implemented becuase Tullis hasn't been around lately. Or she problaby just forgot about it, I really can't say for sure. However I told Silverstrike that I'd talk to you about implementing it, I provided the link above however I do think there needs to be some chagnes. I'll talk with him about it. Lancer1289 18:20, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
I'm happy to help out where I can. Unfortunately, work is very, very busy (haven't had a day off for weeks) and will remain so for at least another month — so my ability to help substantively is rather reduced. But I'll do what I can. --DRY 18:34, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
Well, under those cirsumstances then, just come when you can. I don't want you stress out, and just out of curiouity where do you work anyway? Respond or not, I really am just curious. Anyway me and Silverstirke have a new section on his talk page that is about the sidebar and we would like an admins input. Again, respond when you can. I'll drop Spart and Tullis a line as well and see wif we can get this up soon. Lancer1289 19:07, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
I'm a software engineer on the kernel team for a company involved in real-time operating systems. We're in the process of being certified to a safety standard informally referred to as Safety Integrity Level 3 (SIL3), which will open up the medical and human-rated control systems markets to us. I won't bore you with the formal details, but as you might imagine, it's a fair bit of work.... For the sidebar, I can certainly drop the bits into place: I just don't have time to do any development on them. --DRY 19:46, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, anyway we might just need you to implement it, Silverstirke seems to have done most of the work already and maybe we just have a few small changes before implementing it. Anyway just changing the code might be all that we need. And now I can really put it inot prespective why you are so busy. I know a little about coding, motly Java, a little C++, Visual Basic, but I've seen the code for operating systems, and man that is complicated. Good luck with developing that system. Lancer1289 19:50, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

(reset indent)Hey DRY, after some discussion, the new menu is ready to go. It would work and is much better than the current one. All you basically need to do is copy/past the info from User:Silverstrike/Monaco-sidebar into the MediaWiki:Monaco-sidebar page. The only thing is to remove some imbedded text that silverstirke added under the Mass Effect 2 section and change the text so it reads:

  • Missions#Mass Effect 2 | Missions
  • Assignments#Mass Effect 2 | Assignments

That is the only change, and it is just mainly for navagaion purposes. Apart form that the menu is good to go, can you just let me know when you do, a news update would be appropiate. Unless you don't think that it does. Anyway could you at least imform me fo when you do, thanks. Lancer1289 18:35, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

DRY, after explaining to Spart what needed to be done, he managed to get it done and the new menu is up, if you didn't notice already. Just firgured I'd let you know. Lancer1289 16:47, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Class Guides

Hey DRY, after talking with Spart, the individual class guides, i.e. Engineer Guide, Vanguard Guide (Mass Effect 2), etc, have a massive problem with consistency. After some discussion, see Spart's talk page for more, we agreed that the Vanguard Guide for ME2 was one of the best, if not the best. I wrote another section for our style guide for the Class Specific guides. Feel free to take a look and feel free to modify what you see as necessary. The Class Guide Style Guide Proposal. Thanks in advance. Lancer1289 17:44, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Hey DRY, I don't know if you took a look but I have finished it except for one thing which I expect to be resolved in the next few days. I'd really like your opinion and any changes you think are relevant. Also I'd like your opinion on the adept guide on that issue that is still unresolved. I still have the image that Dammej made but I'd like some opinions on it and the placement of Table of Contents. I know you are busy, but if you can get around to it, I'd appriciate it. Thanks in advance. Lancer1289 04:29, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

ME/ME2 Split

Hey DRY, after reading the conversation about the ME/ME2 split, and only one page at this point split, Assignments and Assignments (Mass Effect 2), I think that policy has been made in the last 4 months, no split. Personally because we only have one page out of, 5+ split, we don't need a split and we should turn the Assignments ME2 page into a redirect to the ME section of that article. Personally I am gettting annoyed seeing the split tags on top of articles. However I really want your opinion because 1 vs, 5+, I think that is the community's opinion. Also pages divoted to ME2 have been deleted in the past because teh community doesn't see a need. Again redirect and no split. Lancer1289 06:13, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

I certainly would prefer not to split the key navigation pages (Assignments and so forth). It simplifies a number of things. --DRY 17:23, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
I talked with Spart the other day, and he agreed as well. I removed the split tags from the affected articles, and I think I got them all. Also I created a section for the style guide to hopefully prevent this from coming up again. I haven't added it yet, and it is currently in my sandbox, fell free to modify it: Splitting Articles Along Game Lines. Only Yourself, Spart, Tullis, and myself have permission to modify it. Lancer1289 17:40, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

Style Guide Logos

DRY, currently I am rewritting the Class Style guides and I was hoping that you would help with something that relates to the rewrite. Currently there are two images that are good for a picture for the guides. Both images have a modificaion of the image currenlty on the Sentinel Guide (Mass Effect 2) page.

Style One: Has the image along with the codex image from ME behind it.
Style Two: Has an image just the class title is switched.

Please take a look and comment on my talk page, under the heading Class Guide Logos, subheading Style One Vs Style Two. I will have a seperate section set up for each style. Thanks in advance. Lancer1289 23:16, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for voting, however Dammej was working on another project that turned out great. I'd like ask you to check it out in his sandbox and comment on whether we should go with just the standard image, or the new ones on the article's talk page. Thanks again in advance. Lancer1289 04:48, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Hey there, I just changed the images to attempt to make the text more readable. I feel like I was successful. I'd appreciate your opinion. You can find them at them at my sandbox. Thanks! Dammej 00:29, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Universal Powers template.

Hello there. Recently I've been working on creating a new template for displaying a class's powers on their page. Currently, 4 different templates exist which all do (nearly) the same thing. This new template would replace all 4 uses, and would make the look of these templates consistent. I'd appreciate if you could check it out at User:Dammej/Sandbox/TestClassPage and give your comments/concerns/suggestions on the talk page. I'd like to get to work replacing it as soon as possible, so I'd appreciate your feedback. Thanks! Dammej 01:20, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

Request to Fix Broken Links

Hello. I am attempting to embark upon a project of clearing broken links from the Mass Effect Wikia. It is, however, against MEwiki rules for me to modify another user's posts on Talk Pages, and Wiki Staff have asked me to call upon the post creators to fix the error. If you have recieved this message, it is because you are the creator of a post that now contains a broken link. You can find out where these broken links are here, as well as what to do about it. It would be greatly appreciated if you could remedy the situation. I apologize if this message appears impersonal, but it was to be recieved by multiple people. Thanks again. --FoxtrotZero 02:16, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Categories

Hey DRY, I figured I should come to you with both of the issues that I came across. Spart When I was digging though the Special:Categories page, I noticed that some of the clusters have categories and some systems even have categories. I put a few delete tags up, but after looking at all of them, I figured I should talk to you about this first. Are these categories necessary, a result of them slipping though the housekeeping cracks, or a result of the templates we use? I am really curious about this one.

I also noticed that the categories Category:Cluster Views, Category:System Views, and Category:Planet Views categories are either unnecessary or incomplete. I am curious what to do with those categories, propose a delete on them, or add the remaining images.

I am at a loss about what to do here and I really could use some advice here on this two things. As always, thanks in advance. Lancer1289 05:56, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing. The "Views" categories should be merged into their relevant counterparts (Category:Clusters, Category:Systems, and Category:Planets) - they only list images. --silverstrike 06:07, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
They serve as a means to easily check which views are still missing. They are added by templates like {{ClusterView}}, which are supposed to be added to the image pages themselves. --DRY 14:35, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
Ok thanks, however I still have a question that you may have answered or not but I just want to be clear. The ClusterView template adds the cluster and system categories to the various images and pages right? Lancer1289 14:38, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
They are intended for use primarily as the image description on the image pages (i.e. they generate text). I don't think they've ever been used in any other context, but I could easily be wrong about that (check "What links here"). --DRY 14:39, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
Ok I guess this one is my bad, I should have been clearer. Categories like Category:Local Cluster that just redirect in this case to the main page Local Cluster, are those categories necessary or not. Sorry I should have been more clear. Also categories for the various systems, Category: Sol that redirect to the Milky Way page, are those categories necessary or not? Lancer1289 14:46, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) No category should ever be a redirect outside of the Category namespace; very few, if any, should be redirects at all. --DRY 14:56, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
The ClusterView template is only transcluded on 17 images and linked from two pages (this talk page and Category:Mass Effect Wiki templates). I don't think I understand how categorizing into the ClusterViews category helps in finding missing images/pages (apologies, I'm a bit slow today). --silverstrike 14:53, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
The images are all intended to have used {{ClusterView}}, {{SystemView}}, or {{PlanetView}} as their descriptions. It is unfortunate that they don't, but it is the image pages which should be fixed, not the categories. --DRY 14:56, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I will note here as well that the purpose of the "*" (asterisk) category entries on a template is to include the template in a prominent place in categories to which they are relevant (but not necessarily a normal member, per se). I would ask that editors not proceed with haste in removal of apparently innocuous details like this: they often do serve a purpose. At a minimum, the text of the category should be changed to refer to the template before the asterisk link is removed. --DRY 14:56, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

Ok then, I just wanted to clear that up I'll go and remove the delete tags from those categories. Lancer1289 14:58, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
May I query as to why they are there? If the reason is just a link to the template page, then wouldn't it be clearer to place the link on the category page description/content? --silverstrike 15:03, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
It provides easy bi-directional linking. It would also be possible, as you mention and as I mentioned above, to include links in the category and template descriptions. That seemed unnecessarily intrusive and labour intensive, hence the use of the category mechanism. --DRY 15:06, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
One final question, for the Cluster/System/Planet views categories, should we add the ME2 ones to those categories or not? Lancer1289 15:13, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
Under the "One Universe" doctrine (i.e. that we don't differentiate between episodes in cluster, system, or planet articles), yes. Note that the addition of the category should be done by including the relevant template, not by manually adding the category. See Image:Argos Rho.jpg for an example of the summary and license condition sections. --DRY 15:22, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
Ok roger that. And thanks for providing an example for the clusters. What about sytems and plantes follow the same examples like, Systems: Image:Sol.jpg, and Planets: Image:Alsages.jpg. I just want to make this clear so you don't come along and fix something I messed up. 15:30, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
Those are reasonable examples. I'm not certain if we ever added any notation for screenshots and associated licensing; if so, we should probably use that in addition or instead. --DRY 15:33, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
Ok then I'll get on those images a bit later. I can just see my edit counter clicking over now. As to the screenshots, I alos don't think it ever was. I took a look at a few screenshots, and all the ones I saw don't have that licencing thing at all. So would that mean adding the licencing to every image? Lancer1289 15:38, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't bother editing them just for that. The rule of thumb is only to add administrivia if you're making some substantial change as well. --DRY 15:43, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, so just modify the various planet, system, and cluster images with the tempaltes. Got it. Lancer1289 15:44, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Regarding the "one universe" bit, should the auto-categorization be removed from planetary pages (for Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 categories)? --silverstrike 16:07, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

I think the general consensus was to continue to categorize articles by episode. Although shared articles are not split, it's probably still useful to categorize them into both episodes. --DRY 16:14, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
The only issue with this approach is that it makes the Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 categories completely useless (in my opinion, anyhow). I made allot of changes to the categories today and it seems that we were lax when creating and ordering the categories. When expanding the Browse category to view sub-categories, it's hard to see a clear branches for the tree or any apparent reason the category reside where it is (most of the categories are under 'game info' and 'gameplay'). I've done some work, but there's still allot more to be done. --silverstrike 16:32, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
Concerning the episode categories, I personally tend to agree, but I think that's the way folks wanted it. (I may be wrong about that, though.) Feel free to open a debate on the Forums (or tack it on to Forum:ME1 and ME2). The categories could undoubtedly use some work — it's been on the todo list for ages. I would suggest moving slowly and with caution, though. Sometimes things are the way they are for a reason (and sometimes not). --DRY 16:39, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to just jump in here, but after looking though that massive conversation, it seems that people wanted seperate categories for the games to put certain articles into one game rather than just a massive category. While I do tend to agree, to a point, i.e. no split main articles liek assignmetns, missions, etc., having two seperate categories for the games really don't seem as bad as that. The main reason seems to have been to keep characters, enemies, equipment (especially), and other items that are specific to one game to a category for that game rather than the massive category. Just as a side note, most other wikis that cover multiple games follow the same president, and in my opinion, we should do the same here as we have no president for this. Lancer1289 16:44, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean "precedent", Lancer? Anyway, I agree on Lancer's point, though, the only main thing I don't like with this approach is the same problem as described by Silverstrike above. The categories mess are something that has bothered me for a while but too many to fix alone. Teugene 16:56, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
Yes I did, curse typing way too fast. Anyway, while I know each wiki is allowed to make its own policies, I think we should follow the trend that is followed across other wikis. If only to be consistsent. Lancer1289 17:03, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I published a post that summarizes some of the issues brought up in this discussion (Forum:Categories Organization). And, for some good news, for an unknown reason the new forum is working as it should (although, this specific post is without the {{CommunityBoard}} template - so it's possible that this is why it now works :/ --silverstrike 17:18, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

The discussion of the categories was in various places, at various times. I no longer recall any of the details, but searching might yield some insight (or not). IIRC, part of one discussion focused on how to handle the union of categories (e.g. show me all planets which are in Mass Effect 2). --DRY 18:04, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
This brings me back to the idea about the 'category filter' that I seemed to be the only one who liked it. I actually referred to the discussion on this page. We had so many discussion none of us have any chance finding them all - tomorrow I'll go and try to find at least some of the old discussions and update the topic. I would appreciate if you could comment on something in that post, just to get things rolling. --silverstrike 18:12, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Hey DRY, I noticed you put a delete tag on the category Argos Rho. If you will look at this history, I added then removed it when you reset the indent for the first time. I guess I misunderstood you, or I worded my first postvery badly. This is what I was asking in my first post on this section. What do we do about those categories that are like the Category:Argos Rho? Lancer1289 19:02, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

Or at least the ones that show up on the Special:Categories page. Lancer1289 19:05, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) As I mentioned above, "No category should ever be a redirect outside of the Category namespace; very few, if any, should be redirects at all." These "Universe navigation" ones are a bit of a special case, though, since they were first created by User:Tullis. I can no longer remember what exactly she had planned for them. Before they're deleted, I'll be consulting her. Either way, they shouldn't redirect outside of the Category namespace. --DRY 19:09, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I missed that earlier, or I can't read, probably the latter just going to fast. Anyway I'll leave this matter with you because I have no idea what to do with this, and you do. Also just to note that I am just starting the planets to get them into the Category:Planet Views category. I have finished the Cluster and System views, and as predicted my edit count has skyrocketed. I'll inform you when I have finished. Lancer1289 19:12, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

Image Categories

Hey DRY I just finished with adding those templates to the images. I have also discovered how may planets, systems, and clusters are in ME2, 316, well in total. My edit count shot up more than I expected and as I said, I am letting you know that I have just finished. I also found two ME planets that weren't in the category. Lancer1289 21:15, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

I think you can strike off of your list of things to do now. I just noticed it on your user page. 21:20, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

Earth

Hey DRY, I'm just curious what suggestions you can make to bring the Earth article inline with the Manual of Style. The only thing I can suggest is combining the Known Nations, Moons, and the Notable Locations into one section, but by the Manual, there isn't an appropiate section, and eliminating the information I know would cause problems. Putting that info into the trivia section would just overlong that section as well. I am just curious what to do with this article. Lancer1289 19:17, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

Uh DRY I am still trying to figure it out, but another user is modifying the article and I am trying to figure out if all the moves are necessary. Moving all of the info to the trivia section seems like it is unnecessary and would just generate an overly long trivia section. Also I thought we still put mineral depsosits heading in even on non-minable planets like Korlus, Pragia, Mars. I really could use an admin's opinion here on this one. Thanks. Lancer1289 19:31, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for a third message, but I have been playing around with the information all day, using preview, and I was thinking moving those things into the Properties subheading, however I want to know what you think about that before I do anything with this. Lancer1289 01:35, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
For my part, I'd just leave it as trivia. The Properties section was introduced primarily to hold information being added by a user who was apparently an astronomer or astrophysicist and is intended really only for that sort of information. I believe that the de facto standard for ME2 is to retain the Mineral Deposits section, even if the planet cannot be mined. --DRY 16:56, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
Ok then, I'll work the information into the trivia section and put back the mineral deposits section. I'll leave the cleanup tag there and I'll give you a heads up when I finish so you can take a look over and hopefully remove the cleanup tag. Sorry for all the messages. Lancer1289 17:32, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
DRY, I have just finished moving the info and I'd like you to just take a quick once over and see if I missed anything. I think I got it right, but I left the cleanup tag just as a precaution. Lancer1289 18:12, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Overlord Release Date

DRY, I think I am going in circles here. It was my impression that we only take the BioWare site as the official source for DLC release dates, or am I wrong here. I have been shutting it down all day, but JoePlay just added it to the news bar on the main page. Um, I am at a loss on this one, so I'd like your opinion on this. Lancer1289 00:02, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

Missions

Hey DRY, I am currenlty putting in the entry text most of the mission for ME2, or at least the ones that need it. I was noticing that they have a dossier subheading under the Acquisition subheading. I was wondering if that was ok or should we admit that altogether? I made an example on Tali's recruitment mission, Dossier: Tali, for an example. I think it is ok, but I'd like a second opinion here. I left the rest as is until I have a second opinion. Thanks. Lancer1289 18:12, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

Self links

Hey there. I asked User:Lancer1289 this same question, and he said you might be able to give a more thorough answer, so I'm asking. :) Here's the question I asked him:

What is the purpose of intentionally using self-links in an article? It's my understanding that the self-link feature only exists to keep one from accidentally creating a link from a page back to itself. In fact, wikipedia recommends -not- using self links to make the article name bold in the first paragraph of an article: wikipedia:Help:Self link. I know this isn't wikipedia, so the policy could be different here, but I'm just curious what the motivation behind intentionally self-linking an article is. Thanks! Dammej 23:44, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

We tend to prefer self-links as it makes cut-n-paste editing from one article to another more straightforward. As the wikipedia article notes, this is applicable in the case of transclusion in general, and with DPL in particular. --DRY 01:18, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I understood very little of what you said (I have no idea what DPL means). Am I correct in assuming that the page self link helps with page editing on a bulk scale? If it's not too much trouble, I'd appreciate an example. I'm genuinely curious about how it helps. Thanks in advance! Dammej 02:00, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
I realize now that this request may have come off as a bit rude. I apologize if that's the case. I'm just trying to learn more about editing wikis, and was curious about methodologies in general. I wasn't attempting to judge you or your methods. Sorry about that. Dammej 23:47, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
Not at all; I did not in any way find your request rude — quite to the contrary. It is I who should apologize for the lengthy delay in answering. (Things are very, very busy at work at the moment and will remain that way for the foreseeable future.) The simplest case to explain is just cut-and-paste: imagine that someone copies an article section containing a self-link to a new page: what was once a self-link is now a real link on the new page. Transclusion and DynamicPageList (DPL) are just two mechanisms provided by the wiki which allow one page to automatically display content from another (automatic cut-n-paste, if you like). I've never properly understood Wikipedia's stance against self-links and have yet to locate their technical justification but I assume that they have their reasons. As with many of these "low-level" details, the policy here is formed primarily by prior art. In the case of self-links, it's not even a policy, just a preference similar to the British/American spelling policy: we tend to discourage changes of existing links and, in this case, prefer that new links are self-links. --DRY 16:45, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the information! Yes that makes a lot of sense. I appreciate your patience. :) Dammej 18:54, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

Customizing the <gallery> tag?

Another question for you if you wouldn't mind. I recently added a gallery to the Armor#Casual Outfits article. I noticed that the way the gallery is displayed doesn't really seem to fit the theme that the rest of the wiki has. Is there a way to customize the way that the gallery tag gets displayed (perhaps through a template?), or is the gallery tag stuck the way we have it? I'm assuming that, like many things with wikia, the gallery tag can be customized on a per-wiki basis. I just have no idea how one would go about doing that. Is this even possible? Dammej 23:47, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

The gallery tag has fairly limited customization options (although there is probably some CSS or skinning that could be done). In general we've simply been using templates to build up things like this. --DRY 17:19, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
I should clarify that by "customize" I did in fact mean changing the CSS/skinning the tag. Mostly, I just wanted to change the white background behind the images to something darker, and if possible, change the background of the "Add a picture to this gallery" button to something darker in order to make the text more readable. Any idea how to accomplish this, short of emulating the behavior with a template?
I'm reluctant to just make a template for two reasons:
  1. The "Insert a photo gallery" button won't use this template, so it won't have the same exposure that the gallery tag has
  2. Similarly, the gallery tag has some nifty javascript that makes it incredibly simple to modify a gallery on a page using a WYSIWYG editor provided by wikia. The template wouldn't have that (Unless I'm vastly underestimating the power of templates)
If it starts to look impossible to change the gallery tag, then I'll just make a template and be done with it, but I'd like to explore other options first. Any ideas? Dammej 18:54, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

Request for comments RE: ME2 Enemies template

Hey, I'm working on making a common "Enemies" footer for pages which have enemies that appear in Mass Effect 2. This type of footer is seen on many game wikis. The one I'm trying to emulate in particular is the one on the fallout wiki, e.g., the footer seen at the bottom of this article. Ideally, this footer would be collapsible (especially since it is so large), but I'm not quite sure how I'd accomplish this yet. If you could take a look at the template in my sandbox, and leave any comments/suggestions/criticism you have at the talk page there, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks! Dammej 02:09, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

Determining Star Masses

DRY,

It has come to my attention that the stellar masses in the ME2 version of the Milky Way are not determined, but are rather set as N/A. Since the game gives the orbital distances and periods of planets, the stars' masses can be easily determined by some simple formula-rearrangement. I am aware that the number of stars in ME2's galaxy is very large, so for this reason I have decided to write my own software that will allow me to calculate the masses of each star in the easiest way possible.

Just thought I'd let you know, because once I'm done writing the program and doing the calculations, I'm going to edit the mass of every star whose mass is set as N/A. It's not too difficult a task, but it may take some time. Fiery Phoenix 09:31, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I am done writing the program. Done testing. Done everything. All that is left is processing the data and submitting the correct value of the respective mass of every star. However, I'm not going to touch anything until I hear from you first. Fiery Phoenix 11:40, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

I know I'm not the guy you're waiting to hear from, but it looks like you've been working on this a while ([1]). :) If I may offer a piece of advice -- double check the calculations using more than one planet in each system where you can. I trust your science, but I can't be so sure about Bioware's. It may end up giving you a range of stellar masses, though that could work well. PhoenixBlue 14:17, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

That was months ago, and it's hardly relevant to what I'm doing right now. ME2 does give you the orbital distance AND the orbital period. Kepler's Third Law is all you need to figure out the mass of the star. Trust me, this isn't the first time I've done something like this. I put a great deal of work towards the planetary database of ME1 back in the day. That being said, I'll double check the calculations. But you need to realize that I won't be doing the calculations myself this time; it's the software that will do the computations. And I've written the program in a way so it gives me the mass of EVERY star in the game in a single run. Fiery Phoenix 14:50, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Before sinking a lot of effort into this, you should be aware that we are seriously considering removing all non-canonical information from the planet infoboxes. (Canonical in this context means explicitly recorded in the games.) No formal proposal has been made as yet, but it has been discussed informally. --DRY 00:02, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

So what's the bottom line? Fiery Phoenix 07:12, July 1, 2010 (UTC))

I would check with User:SpartHawg948 to see what his opinion is. The last time we spoke of it was some months ago, but he was in favour of removing non-canonical information at that time. It was around the time of the planet type debacle, but I simply haven't had time to do anything about it since. In any case he may have changed his mind, so check in with him. Regardless of our opinions, it is not if course a fait acompli. As with all major decisions, a discussion should be had and a community consensus ought to be reached. I just wanted to warn you that such a debate was in the offing before you put a lot of effort in. --DRY 16:14, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Writing software that does some task isn't particularly "a lot of effort". In fact, it's more work to actually use said software and gather all the data then submit it where it belongs. As I said earlier, the program has already been written and is 100% ready for use. I'm just waiting for the okay here.

In any case, you got it. I'll see what Hawg has to say about this. Thanks. Fiery Phoenix 17:09, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Oooohhh... Orbital distances, stellar masses, I can already feel my head spinning. I'm just a simple mechanic from Ohio, not one of you high-falootin' sciency-types! :P And honestly, I don't recall ever discussing this before, but if DRY says there was a discussion, and I took part in it, well, it's his word against mine, and I for one am inclined to believe his word over mine! :P On this one, I'm inclined to favor consistency over anything else. We already have stellar masses for the ME systems, so it's either add them for the ME2 ones as well, or ditch them all and change the template. And frankly, as of now I'm inclined to favor just adding them for the ME2 systems. I mean, we have someone willing to do it, so why not? Pending community-type approval, of course. SpartHawg948 22:12, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
I believe that it was in an email exchange at around the time of the worldtype nonsense, but I can no longer find it. The gist of it was that the infobox would contain only canonical information; anything extra-canonical would be moved to the Properties section. The prime motivator at the time was to remove the remaining worldtype parameter uses and to reduce the number of "corrections" being made to admittedly nutty but canonical values. That being said, if the community is strongly in favour of keeping them in the infobox, I won't raise any further objections. --DRY 02:10, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll do it. Fiery Phoenix 04:26, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.