User talk:EsTeR

Hey there :) Great work on the Apocalypse pages, it's nice to see editors giving love to my first XCOM game. Hobbes (talk) 02:59, 29 April 2022 (CEST)

cheers! EsTeR (talk)

Toes stepped on

Since you asked: yes, I've been quite irritated at your rewrites of several of the pages I'd previously rewritten (I noticed UFO Incursions and Tactical Combat Missions; I don't know if there were others). I appreciate your enthusiasm, but your excited, rambling tone makes the pages much less readable than my more clinical format. I originally thought this might be just bias on my part, so I had a friend compare the versions blind (i.e. without telling him that I wrote one of them or what to look for); he said "1A [your Tactical Combat Missions] reads like a poorly compiled strategy guide, whereas 1B [my Tactical Combat Missions] reads like a wiki".

I've been strongly considering mass reverts, but I haven't been on much recently and didn't particularly want to start a giant fight (was also concerned that reverting some of your edits without tracking down all of them might leave information out, if you'd moved it from one article to another). But since you asked - this is where I sit.

(I have no issue with adding information or moving it around, to be clear; it's the prose issue that's driving me nuts.) Magic9mushroom (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2022 (CEST)

Criticism

I've had a look at the Organizations page and noticed you have given it a comprehensive re-write. While you were right to remove the Relations section because it has it's own page, I'm not cool with some of the other edits. Especially the section about guards - your edits have made it *less* accurate.

1. Most glaringly, the "guards" don't just defend the organizations' buildings, but are also used to raid others, including X-COM.

2. There is no unit that's actually called "Guard" in the game. "Building Security" is a specific type of unit used by most organizations (all except Megapol, the Cult, and the Gangs) to defend their buildings. You seem to have confused this. Look at the Population page, it clearly states which unit appears in which mission.

3. More generally, some of the section titles aren't good - for example, "mercantile services" - "mercantile" means something that pertains to merchants or trading. Government funding or taxi services, for example, don't fit.

4. Avoid writing like this:

"Note:

Note:

Note:

Special note:"

If there are so many things you have to "note", either re-write the section and incorporate the notes into the text, or use a separate section for the notes.

I'll re-write the page when I find the time. But, in the future, please don't do this sort of major surgery if you're not absolutely certain that the information you are removing/changing is actually wrong.

The only other pages I've looked at are a few of the weapons. These edits seem better, at least at first glance, so here's just a few observations:

1. "Explode-on-impact when thrown. RMB on grenade image in agent's hand." I assume the first full stop was supposed to be a colon? In any case, this information is placed in an awkward place, and writing it as a full sentence would make it easier to understand. It may also be better to place it on the Controls page rather than listing it under every single explosive weapon.

2. "Flame Time Effective = burning well, will damage units, set fire to torso, spreads if possible.

Flame Time Extingushed = flames are dying down until no more.

On Fire Time = flames on torso."

I have no idea what most of this means, and the way its stuck at the end of the article makes it even less understandable. Again, it would certainly help if you used full sentences.

3. Descriptions that are directly quoted from the in-game UFOpaedia and other official sources should be clearly marked as such (Source: X-COM Apocalypse Ufopedia). Darkpast (talk) 09:57, 5 July 2022 (CEST)

YES... I agree with you Darkpast. Those weapon equip articles are a bit repeatative text, which was going to be changed. Looking at my quick jotted down list, there was on there.

I have seem to have gotten two at once: Darkpast and Magic9Mushroom.

Replies will be forthcoming.

General Reply

Most of the pages written are formatted in such a way to have a:
1. relevant but humerous bolded one-liner at the start.
2. a basic definition/description of what it is, using (mostly) the article title as the first heading (or "In General", which i'm avoiding).
3. a step further in description 'working our way' through to get to the proper 'meat and bones'.
4. detailed description in a template format style which will look similar to other pages.
5. if needed, highly detailed information relevant (facts) to the specific article.
6. cautions, warnings and notes to get the readers attention as something important.
7. and any other wip version since no page is ever finished 100%.

The Hive

logical format for each page, uniform layout, removing fluff, pub-talk, weasle-words, incorrect stuff.

I generally agree that these should be removed. I don't think Trivia sections are bad, however - I mean things like "this alien is likely inspired by the Creature from the Black Lagoon". However, I do think they could be moved to a separate, combined page. Something like this: https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_pop_culture_references_in_Warcraft

Darkpast (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2022 (CEST)

The thing about copywrite.

If every 'official text' needs the disclaimer: "Source: in-game Ufopedia", then every single picture, word-for-word text, no matter how acquired, must have the disclaimer immediately after (something like this): "Source: in-game asset illegally de-compiled from insert filename using editing programs, displayed/copied here without exclusive permission".
Is that silly? of course it is!

I agree that it's not necessary for every single bit of "official" material. But I do think it should be done for those quotes at the beginning of many articles. Not because of copyright reasons, but to clearly mark it as in-game text. This is important because the in-game text is sometimes vague or misleading. Darkpast (talk) 12:54, 5 July 2022 (CEST)

The thing about "reads like a strategy guide"

(Which I think is pertaining to "Tactics" section in some pages).
Well, if a subjective description for, (eg:) tactical battle, is prohitited because it is not 'facts', then it will only ever read like this:
eg:
1. Land at crashed UFO.
2. Find aliens.
3. Netralise aliens.
4. End Turn(TB) or Wait(RT).
Thats it! That is the absolute maximum that can be on the page according to you because it is only fact.
I know its ridiculous, you know its ridiculous.

excited, rambling tone

ooh ok!

"...my more clinical format."

don't make me laugh, I not in the mood.