Talk:Mass Effect/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Mass Effect. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

I think it should be a little more condensed. It's more or less a tempest in a teapot, and doesn't deserve that many paragraphs - just a single paragraph stating the who/what/why. JAF1970 (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconding this. Peptuck (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2008

(UTC)

Mabey but if the .....untrue facts of Fox and the bloger arn't cleared it may become something people beleive

That makes no sense. JAF1970 (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe he's saying that the controversy has drawn attention, and it does take some space to adequately present the facts of the matter. --Kizor 02:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This section has grown far in disproportion to the event. Please see WP:WEIGHT -- this section is now spending significant space representing viewpoints that received no major media coverage, or is single or self-sourced only. This needs to be trimmed way back to just the bits about Fox News and EA's responses -- the meat of the controversy. All of the commentary around it is immaterial unless you can source that this commentary is important (i.e. via multiple RS.) For example, placing Adam Sessler's viewpoint alongside the New York times really belongs in a blog, not on Wikipedia. regards, --guyzero | talk 06:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It still needs a bit more copyediting. I agree with User:JAF1970, above. One or two paragraphs with who/what/why is all the space needed for this 'controversy' within the larger article on the videogame. thanks! --guyzero | talk 07:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Looking back over the edit history, I'm of the opinion that far far too much attention has been given to the event compared to the rest of the article and it's bording on being a farce now, if it's not there already. Petrarch 18:30 5 February 2008 (GMT)

There should be more about how the weapons in the game work, especially the small arms. The in game explanation of why the small arms don't need to be reloaded by the player is very interesting. I'll try to get around to adding it if i can, though i do not object to others having a go at it.
Mullhawk (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

if it gets too large it may need its own site to avoid the article getting too clutterd(211.31.189.93 (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC))

Kudos to the author(s) of the "Weapons and equipment" section. I couldn't have done it better myself. No, seriously, I couldn't have.
Mullhawk (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this belongs in the article at all - one retailer claiming a release date for a PC version falls far short of conclusive proof it's on the way or even exists at all. Unless it's directly stated by Bioware, Microsoft or EA I feel it should be removed. Any thoughts? (Petrarch 13:37 10 January 2008 (GMT)

Yes it would be an inclusion of undue weight. It's a speck of speculation at best, for the moment. Chensiyuan (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed it, the link was in Czech (I assume, it wasn't english) and therefore non-verifiable, and even if it was in English its still not reliable at this point.Mad031683 (talk) 06:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Not that I think this shouldn't have been removed, but a link being in a foreign language certainly does not make it non-verifiable... -Elmer Clark (talk) 10:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I do think the current proof is quite conclussive. It would seem that the retailer who intialy released information might have had inside information. Alyeska (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There isn't just one retailer reporting this. FileFront has an article on it, though I have to agree that it's not exactly verifiable. --clpo13_(talk) 20:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The yahoo link looks fine as an RS. cheers, --guyzero | talk 20:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

At this point the PC version is fully confirmed. Bioware themselves have stated a PC release and they created a forum just for the PC version with PC screenshots. Alyeska (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed in most major video games articles there is a critical reception section which includes information on scores, awards and reviews from trusted sources such as Gamespot, IGN, Game Rankings, Gamespy, etc. I suggest we do the same here, Eatspie (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(couldn't get this to save in the right place, somebody screwed up the discussion page)

The moment EA issued a letter asking FOX for a public apology, this event became a solid controversy and deserved mention with as much detail as possible. It's neutral, notable, and not original research. It could have it's own article but then there would be complaints about that being a problem, I'm sure. How much more discussion does there have to be? First it was, it doesn't deserve mention at all and now it's the same clique arguing undue weight. Losing the first arguement doesn't add merit to a second arguement to achieve the same end result with a different policy. While no one should fault trying a new tactic to win a battle already lost, discretion truly is often the better part of valor.

However, trimming a few sentences and condensing wouldn't hurt, but the controversy does deserve to be mentioned and explained sufficiently. (Given the length of discussion on this, there's no need to erase the whole controversy section so keep that in mind when unilaterally making "your" Bold textWikipedia conform to yourBold text standards.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KeeperOTD (talk • contribs)

I fixed the talkpage, there was a loose ref that blanked a couple sections. The paragraphs directly were correctly signed by keeperotd but his sig was lost due to the talkpage error. I don't know how to subst in the correct signature other than using the unsigned template. Regards, guyzero | talk 01:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In response to KeeperOTD, above, nobody has tried to delete the controversy section. AFAIK all discussion has been around how far back to trim it. thanks, --guyzero | talk 01:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That was pretty weird. I have seen an article where something sim. happened during an edit war and someone found a way to edit without leaving digital "fingerprints" (pun intended). Unfortunately their stealth edit pooched how new legit edits went in. Not sure how they did it but it was a mess. Anyway, glad no one was trying to obliterate discussion topics. Get's bad enough with regular articles having unexplained, unjustified section deletions as is (and typically of things that others agreed on being kept). - KeeperOTD (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Street date was violated in canada too, I bought my copy of mass effect from a local roger's video store, atleast a good for or 5 days before the release date. Don't have any evidence though. I kepy my sticker saying 'do not sell before whenever' but forgot to keep the reset, heh.. Anyone have solid evidence of this violation to add to the article's section on Street date violations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.84.7 (talk) 07:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that it should be mentioned that the sequal will also be on the PS3? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.190.109 (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Source? Peptuck (talk) 06:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

He may be referencing some articles from late last year by a guy called Patcher who said Mass Effect would come to PS3 - the key point to note however is that Patcher doesn't work for either EA or Bioware, and Bioware themselves have stated several times (including after the EA takeover) that there was no plans to port the franchise over to the PS3. I believe EA and Microsoft also signed an agreement over the future titles and publishing duties but neither has commented on the issue of exclusive rights. So while the Xbox 360 version of Mass Effect 2 has been confirmed as in development, a PS3 version remains in the realms of speculation for now with no official word either way. Petrarch 12:55, 25 February (GMT)

Pachter is an industry analyst. He knows the gaming industry in and out. However Mass Effect (the first one) is pretty much assured that it won't be released on PS3. At least it seems that way, even though the first could always go the dual-publisher route (MS publishes the 360 versoin, Sony publishes the PS3 version.. it's happened before). The fact MS is so quiet about exclusivity rights probably means the "contract" I keep hearing about is either null or never existed. Personally, I think this whole contract talk is bull and that Bioware chose the 360 for the first title due to the userbase, meaning more chance of success. Meh.. back on topic.. though there is a big chance of a PS3 version with EA at the wheel, the 360 version is the only version "confirmed" so far, so it's the only version which deserves a mention. Leave the article as it is. 12.205.224.183 (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

NOT A FORUM JAF1970 (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It has been announced that the PC version of Mass Effect will contain the SecuROM DRM technology, sparking uproar in various communities:

http://masseffect.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=628724&forum=125 http://masseffect.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=628375&forum=125 http://games.slashdot.org/games/08/05/07/1523242.shtml 47.248.0.45 (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Forums are not a verifiable source for this sort of information King Zeal (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have to disagree, considering that those initial forum posts were official Bioware communications from an authorized Bioware representative. 164.111.208.15 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

True, the confirmation of the use of SecuROM is verifiable from a Bioware representative on the forum but the "uproar" you speak of is not verifiable from forums. You would have to wait until a reputable game site writes an article about this outrage. 65.12.253.21 (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

In that case then, this implementation of SecuRom requiring repeated contact is new, novel and a notable change. 164.111.208.15 (talk)

The Plot section is a bit long winded and mainly represents the paragon side of game play. Should it be cut down or given its own page? Campin hobo (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Someone added far too much detail to the plot section. I've reverted back to a prior version per WP:Brevity. Peptuck (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Changed the title, since it's a DRM issue - the software could change so its best to have the type of software. JAF1970 (talk) _Digital_rights_management" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">22:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

there should be more depth on these apparant differences —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.209.183 (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The plot "summary" for this page is atrociously long; there is no need for an encyclopaedia entry to have a scene by scene retelling of the entire story for a video game. It should definitely be summarized, pointing out only key points and not going in to extreme detail, as it currently does.

I would do it myself, but I don't really have the time at the moment, and, quite frankly, I don't think I'm capable of being eloquent enough to provide tone appropriate for an encyclopaedic article.

Is anyone up to the challenge? Woahdude (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it even possible to tone down the length of the plot section without cutting out details necessary to the plot? Peptuck (talk) 04:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: did as much trimming as I think I can without really compromising the plot of the game. Mass Effect has a pretty complex plot that would be hard to cut down without leaving a reader stranded. Peptuck (talk) 04:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"Customers having to reinstall due to reformats, hard drive crashes, new computers, etc. will only be able to install and activate the game three times. After that, customers will have to speak to a customer service respresentitive who will decide on a case-by-case basis whether the customer will be able to play the game again."

This seems somehow really biassed, like they plan on not letting you reactivate and whatnot. I dunno it just seems wrong to me somehow, could do with being rewritten TheGreatZorko (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed the sentence entirely, as its completely unnecessary. Peptuck (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It does say in the citation that it will be decided on a case-by-case basis. That means by definition that they can choose to not let you play any more. Also what happens when/if EA decides to stop supporting this game. Will you be able to even play it five years from now? People DO reformat, sometimes every 12 to 18 months. They may be unable to play after three years--less if they also put the game on a laptop as well.

I reformat almost ever 2-3 months. Glad to have this game on my 360 in this care. 91.178.25.251 (talk) 10:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it was strongly worded, but people should know about these things before they buy the game.

69.20.226.218 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If it is biased, it is the bias put on it by Bioware's employees. "Case-by-case basis" is word for word what multiple Bioware/EA employees said repeatedly on their forums would be the way they would decide whether to reactivate a customer's game. They have been asked to elaborate, but have not done so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.118.89.109 (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This is just my two cents here, but as long as people are commenting on this, I have to say that the sentence in question is the least biased that I've yet to come across regarding the controversial DRM issue. Every word of it is fact, confirmed by Bioware, and any article about Mass Effect would be doing a disservice to its readers by not mentioning it. I don't want to sound confrontational here, but really, where's the bias? I just don't see it. Deimos1313 (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest changing the first sentence from "and Microsoft Windows" to simply "and the PC"? Microsoft hasn't fenced the entire PC, just the operating system. Even if not right now, eventually this game will be able to run on linux.76.180.55.81 (talk) 07:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as it is only avaible on Microsoft Windows, the sentence will stay. bladez (talk) 10:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The Asari aren't just blue, there are also red and green ones. Should the article be changed? Mogmiester (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Where are the red ones? If you mean the ones in Chora's Den, those are red from the lighting, not skin color. Peptuck (talk)

The green asari that appears on Feros isn't a "real" one either, rather it's a clone generated by the Thorian so it can communicate with Shepard verbally. Petrarch 11:43 15 August 2008 (GMT)

No, the clones were green because of the original's color. The one you saved was just naturally green. King Zeal (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to jump into this speculation fit, but my understanding is that all asari are born blue and the one the character meets on Feros has been physically changed by the interaction with the Thorian (during the cloning process, plants and green chlorophyl or something like that). Since I don't believe there is any official, definitive explanation from BioWare (or in game), all we can do is speculate. Aside from the asari on Feros, however, all asari in game are blue. (144.92.84.206 (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC))

All asari are some shade of blue. The Feros ones were creations of the Thorian, most likely it took the asari's DNA and merged it with its own to create some special genus of asari. That's what I think.

Anyways, this discussion should be closed per this rule, because Wikipedia isn't a discussion forum. --Starstriker7(^{Say hi}_{or see my works}) 22:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Did some verification of Shiala, the asari on Feros. All of her clones are green, but Shiala herself is a distinctly dark shade of blue. Peptuck (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, could someone confirm this, but I would suggest that we include a new version to "editions" headline, the newly released Classics -edition. What do you think?, Here's some links: Kotaku [1], its been sold (for example, as a proof of what it has and whatnot) here[2] and another article about the edition [3].

Fileri (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

A recent IP edit classified Mass Effect as being a space opera. I'm unsure if this is really the case, so I reverted the edit pending discussion. Can the game be labeled a space opera? Should an independent source be used to verify that? I figured some discussion of the issue wouldn't hurt. If anyone thinks my removal of the phrase was in error, feel free to revert and leave me a note. --clpo13_(talk) 07:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to fit, there is only 2 or so large scale encounters in the game, and the Tech is posable to a point.(124.179.20.97 (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC))

Well, let's look at the space opera page...Just look at it! Just because the only huge battle is in the climax doesn't mean that the story, the characters, and the feel aren't large scale all throughout the game.

I, in my personal experience and online experience through the Mass Effect forums has shown that the PC version has a very large amount of issues including crashing and such. I think this should be included in the article, simply because the PC version is mentioned and it is an important fact. Seeing as how the game was ported by another company can mean these issues may take a long time to be fixed or may never be fixed. I believe it is a good idea to add this type of information to anyone reading the article that is interested in such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polantaris (talk • contribs) 01:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal experiences aren't enough to justify adding in material about gameplay issues. I played the game and had no technical problems. However, if someone can find reliable sources that show that such issues are widespread, then adding the information would be justified. --clpo13_(talk) 02:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes if it were personal experience. But its not really personal experience, check the bioware forums, its so full of GPF error threads that its just plain proof of the game's numerous compatibility issues. At this date its not a question of personal experience, its just plain denial. Its just like Polantaris said its an important issue wich hasn't been resolved in over 12 months, it should be covered in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.18.128.22 (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

As soon as you find a reliable source (and web forums are not reliable sources) that would be perfectly acceptable. Peptuck (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

So, in other words, even if everyone experiences the GPF issues, if Mass Effect doesn't do a press release apologizing for the problems, wikipedia won't have information on the (universal) problem? Or is there some third-party source that can be considered reliable? tinlv7 [Please copy a response here] —Preceding undated comment added 02:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC).

Also keep in mind that forums are always full of problem reports simply because it's where I go to report problems in the first place. With that said, Mass Effect does not have a reputation of being buggy at all right now. Nikos (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Mass Effects is buggy - desparately needs a patch on the Xbox 360 too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.227.21 (talk) 08:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Its my fault (was 190.18.128.22), I expected anyone to be editing this page to check that link has if they owned the game, but the forums are the official bioware forums, it has a bug report sub-forum, so i dont think sarcassm is necesary to point out responses are expected. But if you are suggesting that all those persons are boycotting bioware for some reason... anyway, my point is that these issues of the mass effect compatibility and whatnot have been around for a year and that they didnt get fixed yet, (in a year..) whats more all user-reports are being completly ignored.

I remember that when I was diggin for solutions for my compatibility issues I couldn't find a single instance of a reply from the administrators for a long time, until I found a few. An admin posted a few workarounds for some bugs... the problem is it was for some minor bugs and they didn't adress any other issues (for wich there's a distressing amount of threads asking for the admins to appear and reply with solutions or at least comment). Funny thing is its been a year with just a few couple of posts from the admins assesing those minor issues, but completly ignoring the rest (I can count the replies with 1 hand, and when they posted they did so once in the whole thread).

Dont you all find that funny? If we really want to contribute to the page some more check the forums out and you'll find Im not lying, whatever anyone says about the validity of complains or reports, I dont mind because Its true, I know Im playing hardball here but ignoring that number of reports Is proof enought for me, at least someone should write about the administrators ignoring the complaints and reports, Im not saying its legitimate proof, just saying it should be noted in the frontpage that the administrators arent dismissing or even comenting those bug complains/reports, just ignoring them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.126.199.99 (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The current picture of the box-art of the game seems a bit outdated, as it marks the rating as "RP," although now that the game has been released the rating should be "M." This picture should be changed with a more up-to-date image. I wouldn't know how to go about doing such a thing, as I am a newb. 69.112.252.69 (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Scifidownbeat

Just as a note, there is the possibility of more than one supposed "sex scene" within this game, hence the pluralisation of the title. "The Sex Scene" implies that there is one sex scene. If this refers to fox news / media perception of the event, so far as I am aware the overwhelming misconception was that there was more than one sex scene, and that they were graphic and interactive; invalidating the pretext for the singular. J O R D A N ^[talk ] 23:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The controversy mostly centered around the one actual sex scene... The one with the sideboob. –xeno (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The 'sideboob', as you put it, is in every sex scene (Male!Shepard/Liara, Male!Shepard/Ashley, Female!Shepard/Liara, Female!Shepard/Kaidan). I've played through with all these combinations. It's in all of them. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to be picky but a hand for less than 5 seconds hardly counts as a "Sex scene", and to be more picky we don't even know that sex occures. So lets keep it simple so those who haven't played the game understand(124.179.20.97 (talk) 08:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC))

What do you mean by "we don't even know that sex occurs"? Anyway, it is still a sex scene regardless of the length. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A hand on glass does not equal sex, so unless you can provide a relible source that it is a sex scene I can't see a reason to include something so trival, if hand refers to the scene with the consort. (58.107.136.2 (talk) 08:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

I think the strategy guide claimed that it was sex, but that's not reliable. It was highly hinted that it was sex though. ... How did we get from the Fox controversy to the Consort? --Thejadefalcon (talk) 11:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Will it be fine if I would be able to obtain info on Japanese release in the article (not Infobox)? Ominae (talk) 10:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The link in reference 103 doesn't work. I assume the topic has been deleted from the forums. Does it need to be removed?

82.95.216.22 (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a mention of this new version, in addition to the regular and limited versions? What comes with this one that didn't with the others, etc.76.226.117.178 (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a new 360 version? Never seen it. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What about the Games on Demand version for the 360? --76.126.5.170 (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't those go on the Games on Demand page (if there is one)? After all, if it is expanding as quickly as I've been told it is, soon there'll be hundreds of game to download. Not very noteworthy to say that you can download them on every page (but then, I'm probably wrong). --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 09:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't this count as spam, even if it is relevant? --Thejadefalcon (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Good question, and one I don't know the answer for; so I will just put it on Mass Efect 2 as well until someone tells me, may have to ask at the Village pump. 'The Ninjalemming' 12:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this article contains no development section. As noted in the NYTimes article, 120 people worked 3 years on this game. Surely something notable must have occurred during the 3 years before the game's release, at which point the Marketing/DLC/Reception sections can take over. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I propose moving this page to Mass Effect (video game) and moving the current page Mass Effect (series) to Mass Effect. Since it's becoming a large series, the franchise might be more important than the game itself.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Peptuck (talk) 04:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Minor oppose: I don't think that the Mass Effect series article has enough on it yet to be the front page for the series. Also, Gears of War is a big series, but 'Gears of War' just sends you to the first game. 'Halo' sends you to a disambiguation page, but I'd imagine it'd send you to the series page, but only because the first game had a subtitle. So, basically, what I'm saying is work on the ME series article before moving and then force Gears to do the same. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Arguing that a page isn't notable due solely to its content on Wikipedia is illogical. Conversely, making it the main page will probably cause expansion._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe so, but right now, it's tiny. Compared to this page, it's nothing much. If it looked like the Gears of War series page, maybe. Right now, though, I think that such a move would backfire on us. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how. If the link to the game is right on the page, it's no different from any disambiguation page.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine, go ahead. Just chucking in my two pence here. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hm I actually just performed this db-move thinking there was more discussion than this and when I didn't like the way it looked, came to see this (fairly light) discussion. I don't particularly see this is a good idea for a move, it's actually more confusing by moving "Mass Effect (series)" here and the first game in the series to "Mass Effect (video game)". That being said, perhaps throw up a proper WP:RM discussion? Has there been anything at WT:VG on this? –xeno^talk 01:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean you agree with me, or is there another reason for your moving (and un-moving)? --Thejadefalcon (talk) 10:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Your reasoning (that the series article is pretty light on the content side) wasn't the main reason for my reversal, the main reason is that in their current locations, it's far less ambiguous. The same way "Gears of War" holds the first game, I think "Mass Effect" should hold the first game. "Mass Effect (series)" is a good location for the series. In other words, I think the status quo is the ideal location for the articles, which is why I reverted my performing the db-move request. However, this is without prejudice to a discussion with greater involvement listed at WP:RM and/or WT:VG. –xeno^talk 12:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"Also, Gears of War is a big series, but 'Gears of War' just sends you to the first game." Woo. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes... and I daresay that in a series with only a handful of titles, that's appropriate. Even "The Legend of Zelda" a very mature series with many, many titles still has the first game there at the primary use. I think WT:VG has discussed this before, it may be useful to drum up a link from the archives (i.e. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 22#Should the main article be for the series or the first game?, where support seems to be to keep the game in place at the primary use) . –xeno^talk 17:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, that archived discussion seems to have flimsy reasoning. For example, when someone mentions "Legend of Zelda" by itself they're usually talking about the series, and yet the series page is still disambiguated. I think that the series article should always be the non-disambiguated one if possible, since it acts as a mini-disambig-page for the other articles and gives more information about the series than just the first game. The naming guideline should be clarified, if possible.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Continued at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Title vs. First Game disambiguation. Let me know if a consensus emerges to perform the move and I'll do it. –xeno^talk 16:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Just thought I should note here that I was pinged, but I still don't see a good reason to move this from its current location. So this should be taken as me moving from "uninvolved admin" to "editor with an opinion": I think the article should stay in place, but invite an uninvolved admin to make the ultimate call. For convenience, I have reproduced the conversation from my talk page below. –xeno^talk 21:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Consensus was reached at WP:VG that if a series is large enough (at least 3 games and 1 media item/game) the series page shouldn't be disambiguated. (See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (video games)#Disambiguation).Since Mass Effect has more than 3 games, it is large enough to have a non-disambiguated series article, so you should go ahead and perform the move.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I still don't think this is a good idea. I don't really see much consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 72#Title vs. First Game disambiguation either. You could either file a WP:RM or try to do a bold move. There's only one revision in "Mass Effect (video game)", so you should be able to do it. While I disagree with the move, I won't revert.

Yes, Mass Effect is meeting the bare minimum of the criteria you wrote into the guideline, but I still feel that under the circumstances, the status quo is ideal. Mass Effect was viewed over 90,000 times in September [4] while Mass Effect (series) less than 9000 [5]. Presently, the first game remains the primary topic. –xeno^talk 03:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, the low page views could be due to the fact that the series page is, in fact, not placed in the main namespace, and is under-developed. That doesn't prove that Mass Effect the game is more popular. In fact, Mass Effect 2 is more popular now than Mass Effect, so it makes no sense that Mass Effect should be in the main namespace instead of the series page.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If people were really looking for the (series) article, you would see the page views for the (series) article trending close to the views for the Mass Effect 1 article - as people would reach the VG article and then click the hatnote at the top to get to the series. This is not at all the case, we are still seeing hundred-thousand+ views for the game article and barely breaking 10k for the series. –xeno^talk 22:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That could be because they are typing in "Mass Effect" or clicking it in Google, when they might want the series instead. Lo and behold! The page Mass Effect is all that comes up when the term "Mass Effect" is searched for in Google. No series page anywhere. The fact that there are less visitors to the series article doesn't prove that less people would still visit it if it was moved to the main namespace.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

In the game, the names of alien races aren't capitalized; however, that doesn't necessarily mean that they shouldn't be when referred to by an outside source. The purpose of non-capitalization was plot immersion, but since Wikipedia isn't part of the game, I think that all the alien races should be capitalized according to the MOS:CAPS sentence on ethnicities in fantasy fiction.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

They're not ethnicities, they're species. We don't capitalize "human" or "wolf" or "elephant," so why should we capitalize a species' name if it isn't a proper noun? Peptuck (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that while they may be species in the game universe, they're not actual species. Historically, alien names have always been capitalized when speaking about them from an outside perspective. While we might say "he is a human", we would not say "he is a turian" because it's not a real species. Unless you could prove otherwise?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the MOS:CAPS that says we're required to refer to fictional species with capitalization. Peptuck (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither do I. I believe that we should stick to how the game did it. I've always wondered why all alien races were capitalised, but humans weren't and I think BioWare were very sensible for capitalising only the Reapers and the Protheans. Just because historically alien names have been capitalised doesn't mean that they should be in this case. An elf isn't a real species. Neither are dwarves or orcs or hobbits or succubi or incubi or zombies. Those aren't capitalised. Why should turians or asari or salarians? --Thejadefalcon (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You have a point - I suppose it should depend on how the name appears in game because there's no strict guideline.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I always have a point. Whether the point is any good or not is another matter. I'm glad it was in this case. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 10:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

also says "The sequel, Mass Effect 2, was released on January 26, 2010." when its not even the 26th —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.248.188 (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged this talk page with {{Canadian English}} because I've noticed some spelling changes in the recent article history. Canadian English is to be used on this article because the game was developed by Bioware, a Canadian company. The publisher is not relevant in this case because that information could vary by country or platform/system. I did this per WP:ENGVAR, a policy that enables consistant use of grammar and spelling throughout an article. For those unaware, Canadian English is much more similar to American English than it is to British English. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

And I've deleted the template. I can't remember exactly where (it might be in this page's archives), but this has been discussed before. It was decided that, since the game itself uses American English, so would the article. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 10:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I found in the archives was this which didn't really go into regional varieties. If you take Grand Theft Auto, for example, the series features almost entirely American locations and language, but since the developer is British, the articles go by BrE. –xeno^talk 14:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... no idea where it was then. I know I've seen a discussion about this somewhere, but... (shrugs helplessly) --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads-up that I used the poster version of the cover artwork to represent the article. It was specially made by Bioware for their store, and I think it feels a little more epic and less cramped than the more cube-ish boxes. Normally I like to use original box art, but considering how the game is multi-platform and has had 2 different publishers, I think this will provide a more neutral presentation. --F Zero QQQ GX (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Uh, so it looks like someone deleted the link to the external wiki page, and did it without mentioning it here. I think it's relevant, and was pretty handy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.21.152 (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears this link is being deleted by IP 61.86.6.17 with the message "this link clearly goes against WP:ELNO. readding it without explanation shows clear intent to promote it." I assume they're referring to point 12: "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked." Given the exception, I would be for adding the link back to the article, the wiki being linked to has over 1,200 editors as of January and a steady increase in edits per month (up to 1.1K edits in January from 800+ in September and not lower than 620 since January 2008). The wiki has been up for two and a half years (three in July). Does this not qualify as "history of stability and a substantial number of editors" per the WP:ELNO requirements? The website contains a much greater wealth of information than is reasonable to include on Wikipedia, is it at all harmful to the community to include a link to it? I would contend that it is immensely helpful. ialsoagree (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Slight number error, the edits in January for the external wiki were 3.1K, the low between Jan 2010 and Jan 2008 was 337 in October 2008. ialsoagree (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I made another slight error, the link was only added here once and removed once. It was also added to the Mass Effect 2 article and removed from there for the same reason. It was brought up on the WikiProject Video Games talk page that #4 of the WP:ELNO may apply, but I believe that the external wiki's content speaks for itself. It is beneficial content that is not practical to include on Wikipedia making it's primary purpose to provide content to Wikipedia users looking for information on Mass Effect and not to promote a website. ialsoagree (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This definitely falls under WP:ELNO, criteria #12. "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." There are only 65 users with over 100 edits on masseffect.wikia.com, which is not enough to justify it. You could have 10,000 members, but if only a small percentage do any real contributing it doesn't matter. Compare the Mass Effect Wiki with something like starwars.wikia.com, dc.wikia.com or marvel.wikia.com and you'll get a better picture of what "substantial" is. --Teancum (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll certainly concede that point, but I will beg the question, is it fair to compare an IP that's been around for less than 5 years to IP's that have been around for multiple decades? Star Wars was made in the 80's, has 6 movies, has dozens (possibly hundreds) of books, has dozens of games, and has generated billions in revenue. Mass Effect has 0 movies, 1 book, and 3 games. Should its links have to qualify to the standards of Star Wars in order to be placed on the Wikipedia site? Or should the standards be compared to the size of the articles fan base and whether it contributes useful information to Wikipedia as a whole? ialsoagree (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to reiterate my thinking above, the Metroid series has been around much longer than Mass Effect, with more games. It has a link to an external wiki with very much the same statistics as the Mass Effect wiki being linked to (1.1K editors with only 64 editors above 100 edits for the Metroid link). I realize under WP:ELNO that another inappropriate link is not a valid reason to keep a different inappropriate link, however, I believe that the Metroid external link displays good reasoning why it is there, and the same good reasoning can be applied to this link. ialsoagree (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree on your assertion that it takes a certain percentage to justify an active wiki (I'll also note your deliberate misinterpretation of a fairly ambiguous portion of the relevant guideline). I'm fairly certain WoWWiki has only about 50ish active contributors who work on article content (by my estimates; feel free to attempt to check), but it is undeniably the go-to reference wiki for Warcraft and its ilk. That is certainly far fewer than the number of actual contributors by percentage. Mass Effect in this case obviously has people working on it (actively as well), a substantial enough number of articles to be considered established (I think 1k is a fair number at the maximum, wouldn't you agree?; as well, the wiki is 2 and a half years old), and because of the number of editors who work to maintain the site, the wiki is certainly stable, which I daresay covers the entirety of #12 (though I'll note that you haven't disputed its history of stability…).
The link serves the purpose also of sending people along to gather more information about the subject, which is the point of an external link; as well, those people may become editors at that wiki, and by extension, editors here (I originally edited and now have admin tools on WoWWiki). That's a net gain for the wiki world, either which way about it. The double purpose of this is that these editors leave what would be considered WP:FANCRUFT to the Wikia wiki, allowing the contributors to this article and its fellow series articles to thrive in a spirit compatible with WP:WAF, which is the ideal for Wikipedia. --Izno (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I consulted the Special:Statistics page for each some of the above wikis to determine the number of active contributors (those who have "performed an action" in the last 30 days). Then I went to Special:ListUsers and searched using the same query as the one specified earlier (those with over 100 edits). Here are the results.

Site	Special:Statistics	Special:ListUsers
Mass Effect Wiki	812	65
Wikitroid	104	64
WoWWiki	1900	1338

Mass Effect Wiki and Wikitroid are just about identical in the number of users with over 100 edits, but Mass Effect Wiki has more user currently active. Neither of them come close to WoWWiki though, so it doesn't really work well for comparison here. On a side note, I really like Wikia's ListUser's page. :) Reach Out to the Truth 19:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think there are two real issues at play here. One, what exactly is meant by a "substantial number of editors"? Is each external wiki link meant to be compared to other wiki links, and only those with the greatest number of contributors with at least 100 edits remain as external links? This hardly seems like the spirit of the exception to me, but if you disagree please say so. If not, then how is this arbitrary qualification judged? Should be judged based on the size of those interested in the subject (and more popular subjects need more contributors)? Should it be compared to external wiki links of a similar genre? In my opinion all of these questions distract from the other real issue taking place here, and that's whether the content of the link is expansive enough to be beneficial to the wikipedia community if it were linked to. Does "lack of" contributors to the Mass Effect wikia have a negative impact on the quality of the content? Almost certainly not. As I've stated previously, I believe the content of the external wiki speaks for itself. Should whether it has as many contributors as some other wikia really matter more than whether the content is worth making accessible via the Mass Effect wikipedia article? ialsoagree (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know either, so I tried not to pass judgment on whether the links should go or stay. The guidelines are very vague about how many editors make a "substantial number", and that may be intentional. What could be considered substantial for one wiki may be insignificant for another, but I don't know what kind of numbers we should be looking for in this case. Reach Out to the Truth 01:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I consider it pointless to debate this much about a single link that is also a useful resource. You have to agree that although there are not that many editors, it helps reduce fancruft and could be useful as a reference.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I also think the debate, especially over something so subjective as editor quantity, seems a bit silly. But if there's actually precedence for removing links based on this criteria, I certainly won't argue with it (assuming there's good reasoning behind it). I'm of the opinion that there doesn't seem to be a strong objection to the addition of the link but just wanted to give it a few days to see if something developed. If there's no further clarification on the editor count issue, and there's no other objections, I'll add the link to the article tomorrow. ialsoagree (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The vagueness in the guideline is deliberate: mindlessness and one-size-fits-all are deprecated. When it's been discussed (repeatedly), the most common conversation concludes that any 100 (non-bot) editors during the last month almost always clears the "substantial number of editors", although no one wants to put that in the guideline, because 101 editors may have produced a far worse website than 99, or even 50 editors. It's also generally accepted that a single-digit number of editors does not clear the bar set by the guideline.

It is also helpful to consider two other points:

• Are these editors (however few or many they are) getting the job done? Based on the product, do there seem to be enough of them to find and revert vandalism? One hundred editors might be overkill for a relatively unpopular video game's wiki, and it wouldn't be even close to enough to deal with the level of vandalism that Wikipedia attracts.
• If this wasn't an open wiki -- if it was just some website or another, maybe published by a Video Gaming for Dummies company -- would you want to link it?

Based on what I see, this link is not actually prohibited by the guideline. Whether it is the best possible link or produces an appropriate balance of links in the article is beyond my scope, but overall I might weakly support its inclusion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)