User talk:SlayerEGO1342

Hi, welcome to Mass Effect Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Talk:Earth page.

Be sure to check out our Style Guide and Community Guidelines to help you get started, and please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- SpartHawg948 (Talk) 23:57, July 8, 2010

SpartHawg948, help me!!!
I've looked at several pages and talk pages and I can't find anything that mentions the inconsistency in the Mass Effect 2 Codex entry for the Battle of the Citadel. So I don't know if anyone's noticed that or I just can't find it. I figured you'd know where it is... so can you help me out?
 * Two things. 1) Appeals for my help generally get my attention faster when left on my talk page. It's a fluke that I saw this one as quickly as I did. 2) In order to help, I need a grasp of the situation. What "inconsistency in the Mass Effect 2 Codex entry for the Battle of the Citadel" are you referring to? SpartHawg948 23:35, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think he was refering to the discussion on the Talk:Codex/Citadel and Galactic Government page when I discovered an inconsistency in the Paragon Entry. That's my guess. Lancer1289 23:38, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

My talk page was looking bare so I decided to spruce it up with a utilitarian post. Anyway... The ME2 Codex entry says that the Destiny Ascension was INSIDE the Citadel Arms with Sovereign, and that the Arcturus Fleet saved it from Sovereign when the arms opened. SlayerEGO1342 23:39, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any inconsistency. I assume that the line that is the issue is "In the battle that followed, the Destiny Ascension dreadnought evacuated the Citadel Council, but ordered the wards' arms closed, sealing them and the geth inside an impregnable shell, cutting off any reinforcements or escape.", with them being the word in contention. However, it seems obvious to me that them refers to the wards. After all, they ordered the wards' arms closed, sealing them (the wards) in with Sovereign. And then, when the ward arms opened, the Fifth Fleet was able to attack Sovereign. At least, that's how I read it. If it's actually something else that is the issue, please let me know. SpartHawg948 23:44, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * "Them" can't refer to the Wards because the impregnable shell is the Wards. SlayerEGO1342 23:47, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * No... it isn't. The impregnable shell is the outside, and the wards are the inside. They're on opposite sides of the same arm, but they are not one and the same. SpartHawg948 23:49, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to back that up, the shell refers to the Citadel's hull, not the wards themselves. The wards are again inside the hull, not a part of it. The Wards may be built into them, but they aren't the same thing. Lancer1289 23:50, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would BioWare bother mentioning that the Wards are sealed inside, "cutting off reinforcements or escape"? Why would the Geth need to escape, or need reinforcements inside the Citadel? The only thing that would need those is the Destiny Ascension. SlayerEGO1342 23:54, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, at the end of ME, we see the DA (outside of the citadel) being shot up by the geth fleet, so clearly there's -some- inconsistency in the codex entry. The fleet can't be both shooting up the DA outside of the citadel, while being sealed inside of it. I guess you could say "well only a portion of the fleet got sealed inside", but that still makes the codex entry confusingly worded at best. I also happen to agree that "them" seems to be referring to the council on the destiny ascension, not the wards. Dammej 23:56, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) They wouldn't. If 'them' refers to the wards, it'd be the wards (and the C-Sec forces battling the geth, as well as the civilians) who would be cut off from escape (civilians) or reinforcement (C-Sec). SpartHawg948 23:57, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict x2) Reinforcements and escape probly refers to reinforcements for C-Sec and the various forces fighting the geth inside the Citadel. Likewise escape, probably refers to the citizens of the Citadel, trying to escape from the attack. It is pretty obvious from ME that the Ascension was outside the arms, not inside. Lancer1289 23:59, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * The rest of the sentence talks about the Ascension as the main subject of the sentence, so switching at the end to talk about the Wards just doesn't seem feasible. SlayerEGO1342 00:00, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the first part of the sentence talks about the Ascension (remember, no italics, as none are used in-game), but the second part switches to the Wards. Perfectly feasible. Much more so than assuming BioWare got so much of the continuity right, but flubbed this one glaringly obvious bit. SpartHawg948 00:06, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * The name of this ship doesn't get italics? If none were used in-game, that seems like more of a grammatical fault on the developers' behalf than intentionality. It just doesn't sit right. Grammatically, "them" should refer to the Council or the ship, not the Wards. SlayerEGO1342 00:09, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's one of the norms of the ME galaxy. No italics for ship names, alien race names don't get capitalized (i.e. 'geth', not 'Geth')e. If it's a fault, it's one they've made in two games now. And again, 'them' referring to the Wards makes perfect grammatical sense. You asked for my opinion, I'm giving it. SpartHawg948 00:12, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Or maybe the lack of italics is the way BioWare wanted that. Its BioWare's game and their universe, they can do anything they want with it. Them refers to the wards, and by extension, the people in them. From the srtucture of the sentence, it seems that BioWare was refering to C-Sec and the Citadel defenders, and the civilians trying to escape. Lancer1289 00:13, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Support for my argument: "The Normandy defended the Destiny Ascension as it fled, saving the lives of the Citadel Council." I don't recall the DA fleeing at all. I recall it standing its ground as the dreadnought that it is. This sentence would support my belief, as it would be fleeing the Citadel once the arms were opened. And, with all due respect, I didn't ask for your opinion; I asked for you to help me find where this inconsistency was discussed on this Wiki. SlayerEGO1342 00:15, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm maybe the reason the Ascension wasn't fleeing was becuase its engines/main drives were out, as stated by the Commander of the Ascension during the battle. So that really isn;t support as it is contridicted in game. Lancer1289 00:19, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * If the Ascension wasn't fleeing because its drives were out, why would the Codex entry say it fled? In-game contradictions (more specifically, inconsistensies) are what I'm pointing out here. SlayerEGO1342 00:21, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) About 5:40 in. The Ascension is clearly moving away from the Citadel, and is much farther from it than she was when she started. Remember, they were evacuating the Council, not 'getting the Council onboard and then sitting tight in the middle of an enemy fleet'. Finally, you 'asked' "The ME2 Codex entry says that the Destiny Ascension was INSIDE the Citadel Arms with Sovereign, and that the Arcturus Fleet saved it from Sovereign when the arms opened.". Where in there did you ask me where you could find the place this inconsistency was discussed? Since you didn't actually ask for anything specific, I assumed my input was what was desired. SpartHawg948 00:22, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * My VERY first post on this page. That's where. SlayerEGO1342 00:23, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * No disrespect intended. SlayerEGO1342 00:24, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) Maybe because it was fleeing when its drives were disabled, and it was moving in inerta. Either way it was trying to get away. Lancer1289 00:24, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflicted four times)Because it was attempting to flee, fleeing unsuccessfully can still be technically counted as fleeing. Bastian964 00:25, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. However, I overlooked this, or misread it, which is why I asked you to specify. You specified without mentioning anything about simply looking for a location. I admit that I apparently overlooked it, but that again is why I asked for clarification as to what you were asking, clarification where you failed to explain what you were asking. SpartHawg948 00:27, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion there; I was extremely vague. My apologies.
 * Sorry for the confusion there; I was extremely vague. My apologies.


 * However, I still believe that the Codex entry says the DA was trapped inside the closed Citadel with Sovereign and the Geth, then was saved by the Arcturus Fleet when Shepard opened the arms, allowing it to escape Sovereign's sights. SlayerEGO1342 00:29, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * And I still have to disagree. Apart from the fact that, were it to read that, there would be no logical way for the DA to escape (and this is the Paragon ending, where the DA does escape) destruction at the hands of Sovereign and the geth (again, BioWare specifies it is geth, not Geth), grammatically, 'them' seems to refer to the Wards, the last subject used before 'them'. SpartHawg948 00:31, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for capitalizing geth, that was just a slip-up in keyboarding habit. But no, no, no, the last subject used before "them" isn't the Wards; it's the Ward Arms, which is why "them" cannot refer to anything but the Council/Destiny Ascension, as no other logical subject exists in the sentence. SlayerEGO1342 00:35, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * You say so. It still seems painfully obvious to me that them is in reference to the wards (aka the ward arms) which appeared right before 'them', as opposed to the Citadel Council and the DA, which didn't. And it seems simply inconceivable to me that they would write a Codex entry that directly contradicts itself and flies in the face of logic. If your interpretation is correct, canonical inconsistency should be the least of your concerns. SpartHawg948 00:39, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, I should be more concerned about the Reaper threat. I don't remember where I read this (I think it's somewhere on thi Wiki), but something said that there was little communication between BioWare's codex writing staff (or the writing staff in general, i don't remember the exact wording) and some other department, and this led to quite a few in-game inconsistencies, one of which was, if memory serves, the Graybox release date. SlayerEGO1342 00:44, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * The only thing I can think of is on Talk:Alliance Navy, where a writer says, concerning the Alliance cruisers at the Citadel "Dirty Little Secrets time. The cruisers in the battle of the Citadel are using a model intended to be an Alliance dreadnought. The cinematics department didn't read the Codexes specifying that humanity only has six, and only uses them for long ranged combat. When we saw shots showing up to 15 "dreadnoughts" on screen at a time, we had to re-designate the model as a cruiser." But that only describes one incident, and would hardly explain a glaring discrepancy between what is seen in ME and how it is described in ME2, some time later. I don't think that lack of communication between departments could possibly explain this. ME2 came out over two years later, leaving little chance that there was a disconnect or lack of familiarity with the ending of ME. SpartHawg948 00:50, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Another User's Comments
Yeah, removing other people's comments is kind of counter to site policy, and you kind of removed one of my comments in the "Interregnum" section on the "Talk:Timeline" page. No hard feelings, I just put my comment back and put your comment below mine, but please don't do this again, okay? Arbington 18:45, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out also that Arbington is correct, removal or tampering with comments made by other users is a bannable offense. Please do not do this again. Lancer1289 18:52, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know I had removed your comment. I tried to add my own comment, got edit-conflicted, clicked back, copied my comment so I could hit forward and paste it without having to re-type it, then clicked "save page", and it didn't edit-conflict me again. I didn't think that was supposed to happen, but I didn't think anything of it until, well, now... So Lancer, I didn't remove anyone's comment. The site did. SlayerEGO1342 19:48, July 31, 2010 (UTC)