Topic on User talk:Rose

Instead of completely removing what I wrote ( https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Mass_Effect_Legendary_Edition&oldid=prev&diff=1075918 ), you could have edited it to be the way you want it to.

Most people won't write on the wiki because of the rules and how time-consuming it is to learn how and where to put what. If you see something that helps the game and should be included on the page (as my stuff was there, and it took a while to write everything), but you don't like how and/or where I have written it, then edit it to be right, take some minutes and make it right. That info will be lost and people will probably not know about those mods and their fixes.

Just a thought.

Hi,

You cannot make major edits that are contrary to the guidelines and expect the community to make them right. The burden of following the guidelines is on each contributor with every edit that they make.

As for your concern about information being lost, every past revision is accessible via each article's History in the top right corner, so most of the time nothing is truly lost on the wiki and you can pick up where you left off, ensuring full alignment with the guidelines as suggested in my summary.

I checked your link and I lost myself through the stuff there. I'm not that much into the wiki and have not much knowledge about doing it right. And I am not really willing to spend the time learning it, as I really find it too complex and time-consuming. I usually copy-paste the way I see it in other places, but edit it with my stuff.

That's what I did there. I only wanted to help and make sure people know about these must-needed mods for the best experience in MELE. If it isn't alright how I wrote it, then I am sorry, I did not find it ugly imo.

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to learn to do it better. As I said, I only wanted to help the others know about these mods. The mods are there, and if anyone wishes to use what I wrote and do it right, or the way you find it right, then they are free to do it.

It's not a matter of ugly or what either of us thinks. The guidelines are a framework created over years of discussions. It is very important to follow them unless we want every user to bring in their vision of how things should look or be, resulting in a lot of inconsistency and content of questionable value that each individual contributor may deem important but the rest may not. Navigating the wiki and finding information would become a hardship if the latter were the way, which is contrary to the purpose of the resource and the cause of its creation.

Putting the issue of formatting aside for a minute, your choice of mods was also problematic. For example, there are people that would not care about "Miranda's butt", and that alone would make it unacceptable to present the related mod as essential.

Probably. Then getting that one removed from the list, informing me with the reasons why, would have been acceptable. The reason why I included it is because it is a restoration mod. It restores content available in the original game. Btw the link you provided is not the mod I included.

Anyway, I did my part and tried to help. I understand your point, but I think you editing it to look and be alright would not have taken too much of your time, as you're already familiar with how the wiki works, instead of only removing it and throwing it my face with "check the guidelines". But whatever.

All is well.

https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Mass_Effect_Legendary_Edition#Mods Please tell me this is okay. ^^

Thank you for listening. The new change is definitely an improvement to the format for better alignment with the guidelines. I made a few additional tweaks to the section as well.

Personally, I think the thumb up icon is overused because of the visual presentation and lack of universal applicability of some of the mods. For example, some people may not be interested in same-sex romance, so the related mod would be completely skippable, making it a case for {{ii}} over the {{++}}. The order of the mods could be improved as well, similarly to how we treat fixes.

Thanks! The order I used was the order I installed the mods myself. Since for example ALOT MUST be installed last. But I did change the order a little bit. Have also changed the icon for some, as you said.

That's still an monstrosity, that would quickly bore (i.e. loose the attention) everyone but the most fierce completionist fans. And some of those mods aren't even using the new not-exactly-perfect-but-better-than-nothing differential modding format, and are pretty obviously incompatible with anything else.

If this was a an old/unknown/difficult game, I guess mentioning "everything and the kitchen sink" that exists regardless of quality would still make sense. After all, the very news and information that modding is possible would be killer.

But here? Just like GTA games you have hundreds (if not thousands) of mods available, with entire websites and communities fully dedicated to it. Showcasing the most famous and appreciated ones is certainly nice to do, but you should always put yourself into the shoes of the average user (and there's not even a "game is an absolute disaster to remedy anyway" excuse here)

I do think that we need changes to the Other information guidelines which now allow anything to be documented under that section as long as the format is in alignment with the rest of the wiki guidelines. We are lucky that most articles are free of mods, and the ones that are listed are usually from a single contributor having shared their limited personal selection, when there is nothing stopping one from listing 100 or 200. The community may find that excessive and remove them but there would be no clear basis for that in the guidelines.

I'd be happy to help improve a set of newly drafted guidelines for Other information. I think that in order to try and keep the choice objective, free of excess, and consistent with the goal of the wiki, which is "fixing", we should consider limiting it to mods that can be referenced from other sections, like this Cheat Table for Control that is linked from the note on FOV. That way they are always within the scope of the wiki and reliant on the already established list of game features deemed to be important for all articles.

> we should consider limiting it to mods that can be referenced from other sections

That is too extreme -- the section is intended for stuff that doesn't fall into any other section, so limiting it to stuff that can be referenced from another section would exclude too much.

I agree that random mod lists can sometimes be excessive, but a solution to that would for example be to set up a guideline that states that the mod portal itself should be listed instead of listing 10+ mods or whatever -- not remove the mentions of mods (or their sites) entirely just because they can't be references elsewhere in the article.

Other information being used for loosely everything under the sun doesn't seem wrong or bad, it is after all the "whatever is left" section (though of course it has to remain up for grabs because no other section is good, not because you forgot to check one).

But I cannot really come up with any comprehensive guideline other than "keep it simple, stupid", because it's not even about the content per se and the only priority seems to be the page look.

As I said it's no biggie if you write even the most inconsequential cruft on a game without much else "happening" anyway (in fact, adding even some "almost pointless action" to a very skinny article may still embellish it). But the very same things would be atrocious on a much more busy article like the ones above (putting even aside that if there are really so many separate "unquestionable fixes", then it comes natural to ask why nobody bothered yet to bunch them together)

Maybe the instructions should focus more on the art of succinctness and cherry-picking?

Then, mods aren't exactly the most objective things on the shelf to begin with, but I don't believe that's any fundamental obstacle... even though it's hard to word out properly just how many "70% game world HD packs" are worth a "150 hours partial conversion or "coop total conversion.

p.s. I also thought we were all about fixes, and then we started to add overview and taxonomy