Bot Rot

There are many unit and building pages that lack information in their Overview section (information like when to use the unit, how to use the unit properly, etc.). Just make sure to use proper spelling and grammar. For starters, head towards the Warturtle page.

However, if by any chance you are completely new to Mental Omega (or even Red Alert 2), I suggest you play the entire campaign first (in any order) before starting to edit here.

I do have Yuri's Revenge. Not to mention i had trouble installing Mental Omega APYR.

Well that's a relief that the calculations are right. As for the other game modes, I'll consider fixing them some other time, once I'm finished with the interlinking with Chinese MO wiki (only Allied, Campaign and Neutral pages remain)

"Fixing" means we'll have to add a new build time row for every single unit/structure. Please consider twice before doing this.

Speeder: Mental AI BuildSpeed boost is intended :/

Guess we'll have to work on it anyway.

That explains why I didn't see any changes, which I thought was a network problem too. Alrighty then, it's no big deal, just be more careful next time.

My absence from the wiki is due to mostly real life problems and on a smaller scale, contributing to another wiki and of course, vacation time leading to gaming. I'll return to contributing on my free time.

I'll be honest, that to-do list was intended to be more of a personal matter, since I wanted to show others what are my intentions for the wiki, rather than a message for all active wiki contributors. But it doesn't mean that I don't appreciate the effort done to the wiki; it's stellar to see that the wiki is not completely left behind.

"8 - Still awaiting word about the fate of the alleged official Mental Omega wiki
Speeder gave a conclusion some time ago: he does not intend to officialize our wiki."

He also said on the forums that he doesn't plan to make a wiki in the end. Why not officialize this? I don't get Speeder's logic?

It's not official as Speeder and the other Mentalmeisters don't directly contribute in the wiki. Currently, only Ollerus (maker of Tainted Empire and other maps) has directly contributed in the wiki.

Pages can only be deleted by admins, so I did it for you. 

Thanks!

One weapon for 1 basic infantry sure is a headache, I'd have to admit.

As for the armor type terminoligies, they are used by the website and sometimes changelog, so it would be more understandable.

Oh-ho, by mentioning how complicated Garrisoning is, I may have to omit ROF for garrisoning completely. 

Overall, I personally think that adding and calculating all these ROF and damage values is a huge undertaking for one contributor. 

1. Since the Character subpage was quite empty at the time, I removed it because there's the possibility that a "fanfic" sort of writing would appear there. Besides, any character development/background is already somewhat explained in official description, while the appearances section clears out the status of those characters, whether they're dead imprisoned or whatsoever (e.g. Morales dies canonically in Thread of Dread.

Also, the changelog and gallery subpages should be kept, so the main page won't feel overloaded with information.

BUT, if you want to continue with this Character subpage, I'd give you a second chance. However, if it is too similar to other sections (Appearances especially) or it reaches the point of becoming fanfic material, I'd flip the switch. For now, type it in the main page.

2. I see your point. Considering a slight tweak on that Appearance section on some units that have this issue later.

I see, thanks.

I feel like the only appropriate division is one between challenges and missions (and, optionally, single player and co-op among the latter). Further division between individual acts is rather unnecessary and engenders more problems with listing.

Late response, but anyways...

The addition of individual acts was partly for the sake of the Table of Contents section to recognize the separation, and the other half being to make the Appearances section less of a mesmerizing wall of bulleted text. Perhaps I'd find a more appropriate way of organizing these missions, but for now it will suffice.

tbh, most of the additions are simply directly copied from your blog about AI behaviors. If those AI behavior sections can be further expanded, it would be much appreciated (such as if A.I. deploys reinforcement powers like Tank Drop more likely on undefended areas than those with stationary defenses.)

Obsolete they might be in the upcoming patch, but if it means improvement on how the A.I. uses support powers (especially Overcharge and similar support powers; whether or not they will use  support powers that they currently don't like Risen Inferno and Chronoshift), it would be fantastic.

I am happy with most of the removals because many of them are unnecessary and it feels untidy.

However, I agree that Rashidi, Terror Drone prototype and Rocket Launchpad (epsilon dance of blood) should be included. They are worthy of inclusion due to their significance in the mission and rather exclusive.

Also I would say keep: Statue of Liberty, Pentagon, Airforce Chapel, Port Authority Building, American Embassy, SteinsTech Laboratory (all allied), Congress of Singapore (soviet)

And remove: Rocket Launch Bay (allied), Rocket Launchpad, Kamaz, V3 Launcher (soviets), Heavy Kamaz (epsilon).

Perhaps content moderators can create a new campaign units/buildings template to completely separate them from the arsenal template, but I'll leave that to you guys.

Agree with you. As I am concerned, part of these pages are still useful, but removing something like CIA and the faction units & structures that plays few role is reasonable. In addition, what also needs to remove is the Skirmish maps (too hard to finish all of them), only leave the list in "Maps" is sufficient.

Perhaps the two editors want to deal with this issue with reference to the C&C Wiki model. However, MOAPYR Wiki only focuses on one game (MOD), so perfecting more detailed content can be considered. Nevertheless, I will wait for the answers.

I only did so because some users claimed that the Campaign units/buildings section was too cluttered. Then again, perhaps I've gone overboard with the removal. I'll add back the essential ones.  

P.S. I don't think a separate campaign units/buildings template would be necessary. What we (more importantly I) do need is some criteria for considering what's a significant campaign unit/building and what's not.

No, I don't think such a separate template is needed either. What I was proposing was a forum thread where a given unit has to be discussed and given a stamp of approval before being added to the templates.

On another note, it seems that trying to please some particular people in the community is quite impossible for this wiki.

On top of that, I've been thinking of a list of obvious inclusions/exclusions upon which most of us agree.

• Inclusions
  • Campaign-exclusive utility structures. Structures useful in campaigns (has triggers/actions attached to it), but don't appear in skirmish or only as scenery props.
  • Campaign-exclusive units. Units that appear only in campaigns and play major roles (directly associated with mission success/failure).
• Exclusions
  • Units and structures buildable in Skirmish.
  • Tech buildings.
  • Structures and units that serve solely as decorations.
  • Structures, however unique, that appears too frequently (Barrels etc.).

That is what I've been thinking of, although units and structures buildable for a certain faction in skirmish can sometimes be treated as campaign-exclusive ones for another faction if there's a sufficient reason (this will have to be evaluated on a case by case basis though).

And for the record, the Tech Refinery is a textbook example of a campaign-exclusive tech building.

We know not whether the Tech Refinery will be placed in Skirmish maps in the future. On Miners in the Sun for instance.

The Terror Drone Prototype mentioned above is a prototype. As a result it can be considered as a campaign-exclusive unit which must be handled carefully (since it insta-kills either heroes resulting in mission failure)

In the 3.3.3 changelog it's said that the Tech Refinery is supposed to be only placed on campaign maps.

Back on topic, here's an incomplete list of units that (IMO) should be included in the arsenals but currently are not:

• Ranger: I think this should be a no-brainer and I saw absolutely no reason to remove them from the template at all. They were a RA1 Allied unit and they also appear as such in Archetype.
• V3 Launcher: This unit appears in Archetype exclusively as an Allied unit, and nowhere (in MO itself) as a Soviet unit.
• PsiCorps Trooper: An Epsilon unit in skirmish yes, but also one that happens to be buildable (not just controllable) in the Act 1 Soviet campaign with Soviet tech, and even has its own cameo as a Soviet unit that is distinct from the skirmish cameo.
• Lasher Tank: Mostly by virtue of having different graphics as a PsiCorps skirmish unit and as a campaign-exclusive Soviet unit in Human Shield.
• Kamaz: Technically a civilian unit, but it appears too many times as mission objectives to deserve being added to the templates themselves.
• Heavy Kamaz: AFAIK not a civilian unit (unless if it appears anywhere other than Stone Cold Crazy, where it is an important mission objective).
• Cosmonaut: Both Russia and PsiCorps use this unit with equal frequency in the campaign, I see no reason to include it in only the Soviet arsenal template instead of the Epsilon one (I'm aware of this unit's presence in the Revolution Challenge, but this is a rather thin excuse for the exclusion).
• Yuri: He appears in the Purgatory Challenge as a very dangerous enemy hero (in addition to his appearances as cinematic units in the campaign), unless if you want to discount challenges altogether.
• Yunru: Technically a Chinese hero, but in the campaign she appears more times in Foehn colours, she's only controllable in the Foehn campaign and not the Soviet one (excluding a co-op) and she's also the founder of Foehn. Not listing her seems to downplay her importance.

(Note that this list is not exhaustive and just because I don't include a unit there doesn't mean that I think it should not be included at all.)

• V3s are no more than decorations as neither side controls them in Archetype.
• Lashers' presence in the Soviet Arsenal is adequately explained in its unit description. Apocs and Mantis also have Campaign-exclusive cameos, but they are not in the list.
• Despite Epsilon's extensive use of it, Kamaz itself is a civilian vehicle. Adding it to the template might potentially confuse the player ("Why are the Kamazes in Godsend not under my control?").
• Heavy Kamaz: agreed.
• Unit page with additional category tags should solve Yuri and Yunru's affilation problems well. In the case of Yunru, appending her to the Foehn template will only lead to confusion.
• Appearances in Challenges are never and won't ever be considered canon. Especially the Eiffel Tower in Leang's base.

• These particular V3s in Archetype are unarmed, but Boris still automatically attacks them while enemy units do not, so they're still under Allied control.
• The difference is that the Mantis and Apocalypse are only part of one faction; the same can't be said for the Lasher. A closer analogy would be the Jackal, a Foehn unit that originated within the Allies.
• Confusion... eh? What do you mean by that? I don't really how adding Yunru as a campaign-exclusive Foehn hero would confuse people.
• It's obvious that challenges are not canon, in the same way that skirmish games aren't. They are still part of the game however, and currently challenge-exclusive units are put in the same section as campaign-exclusive ones in the template, as they are too few in number.

• In vanilla RA2 A12 Chrono Storm, your units even auto-attack Russian flags...
• The Wiki is for newbies too. We better not to risk confusing them with the same hero in two factions. Just write a little more on Yunru's page instead.
• Since they are too few in number to cause any potential conflict, how about completely removing them from the template?

Maybe I should undo this mass removal once and for all, to end this debating. After all, this is entirely my fault.

Edit: I've considered your points, Arya Snow and PACERRECAP regarding the inclusions of units/buildings. Guess I'll only undo as a last resort.

Since that's the case in Soviet General's and Yuri's page, I say that in-game unit is the way to go.

Also on Einstein too since he never appears in the campaign but his in-game unit only appeared in one Skirmish map which is Circuit Board.