Why are you not allowing a comparison of Aklex Prime to Lex Prime? It seems like a more relevant comparison than Aklex to Aklex Prime. As it was the first thing I wanted to know when looking at the page. Given that when considering the merits of the weapon, I wanted to know how much more reload time I was going to get and how many bullets I would get for that time and whether there were any pitfalls as with Bronco Prime and Akbronco Prime.
I see, though I still think it is an important comparison. Given that they use some of the same parts, and that choosing between them requires comparison. I was specifically interested in the differences of reload speed and magazine size given that it is the main tradeoff.
Thank you for your quick reply, and I understand the need for adherence page rules.
for a long time that page was in dire need of renewal, however due to the excessive amount of content on the page, it would have been quite an extensive overhaul for any 1 person to undertake, to remove irrelevant content and reformat everything, which is why for the longest time no one attempted, while more and more content was added to the mess, making it more difficult for anyone to start
the speculation and dark sector reference did not belong, since dark sectors story has nothing to do with Warframe, and speculation has no place on a page pertaining to the backstory of the game
I'm going to personally document the compilation of everyone's work then. I understand at what your getting at and the concrete statement of the wiki's "strictly known knowledge". However if anything is proven directly within a quest in game I will reinsert at somepoint a piece of the knowledge that was made by many members of the wikipedia.
I don't agree that the quality was the same, furthermore that the changes were needed. While I could understand if the information needed to be shortened or condensed, which is why I changed some things around
The page was also fine after my changes. At least provide a reason in your revert summary in the future, because it's frustrating to have good-faith work on a public resource casually dismissed by a stranger.
My name is Mieh, and i'm a budding contributor =). I've looked at your wall and you seem to have a history of good retractions. A good chunk of my work on Atlas/Main was recently retracted by you, and I can see where most of it would be warranted. I'm learning from reading up on the wiki rules that articles are no place for fluff, comedy, and unknowns.
That said, one retracted point in particular, the one about Atlas' overdeveloped trapezius muscle (repeated below), was not meant as fluff or comedy, but as artistic discussion. I'm a firm believer in symbolism, and I don't believe Atlas' hulking upper back muscles are a coincidence. Is this point not at all suitable for the wiki? Does it simply need to be revised? Why or why not? Please help me understand. =)
Original Point (Revised): ". . . [Atlas'] overdeveloped trapezius muscle relates to the upper back stress experienced after extended hours of persistent computer use, a prevalent frustration of the PC gaming community."
it simply didnt belong, nor would it be considered true, I myself have never experienced sore back muscles, and I play quite alot
if a mention is needed, make sure it has something to do with the frame itself, Atlas possesses huge traps to make him appear more muscular, that and the function of said muscles are for supporting the arm
The tigris' damage isn't low by any means- to state that the other two damage categories are low because slash damage is exponentially higher is asine. I wish to know why you continue to persist when their damage values are literally higher than some weapons are capable of dealing with their primary stats.
It's less effective, but the weapon still represents an advantage for the absurdly high damage figures it can obtain. There's no way to define when the weapon's damage values become a disadvantage over any other weapon, however, defining a lower damage score out of all the damage scores as an inherant disadvantage is a misnomer. The current status of being moved to tips works better than the disadvantage misnomer.