Talk:Normandy SR-2

Source for Normandy?
Nominated this for deletion b/c I have yet to see a source that definitively identifies this ship as the Normandy. The text on the side of the ship is too illegible. If a legit source can be provided, cool. If not it's getting the axe. SpartHawg948 02:25, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * Read Jdunn1's talk on your page, googled Thane and came up with these images, at the very least we would know that it is SR-2 and the first image makes it hard not to say it isn't called the Normandy. Normandy? Definitely SR-2.
 * I have seen the image I believe is being referred to, and as I have stated previously, it IS obvious that the ship is SR-2, but you CANNOT make out the name, not definitively past the first letter. Also, I don't need an advisement left here to check my talk page, wikia does that already. :P SpartHawg948 06:32, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * lol not "reed" but "red" would have been better had I put "I" before the word. I read Jdunn1's talk. :P--Xaero Dumort 07:31, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh! Gotcha! :) SpartHawg948 10:56, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * The second image is not the SR-2 any way, its Pinnacle Station you can clearly see the Admiral and the ringed planet ░▒▓ Alex | Talk ▓▒░ 18:37, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * That image has now been deleted; we have a better Shepard-less image. And I don't know how it originally got misidentified. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Tullis 18:43, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

Again though, just want to make clear: The reason this is up for deletion is b/c there is no current legible/credible source to back up the claim that the name of the SR-2 is Normandy. If no evidence is forthcoming, this page will be getting axed, likely tomorrow. Once a good source is provided we can resurrect it. SpartHawg948 08:30, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

I have resized a screenshot in which thane stands in front of the SR-2 from what i can see it has Normandy written on the side, not sure whether to upload the image since it's off google images though. Mrspectre 02:22, October 30, 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, can't really count it as a source if it isn't either uploaded or linked to. Don't suppose it would happen to be the larger version of this? SpartHawg948 04:27, October 30, 2009 (UTC)



Thats the one man if you cut that up and resize you will see it has Normandy written at the rear Mrspectre 08:52, October 30, 2009 (UTC)


 * All right. It takes a good deal of blowing up and it is still a little fuzzy, but I suppose it does beyond a reasonable doubt say Normandy on the side of the ship. SpartHawg948 12:20, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

Although we appear to have proven 'SR-2' is indeed named 'Normandy', we actually have no proof of where it fits in the story line for certain. Would it be worth revising the text to reflect this? Also this may qualify as a spoiler?--LeathamGrant 11:08, October 31, 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm just wondering where (if anywhere) it has been said that the Normandy SR-2 is a "larger and more advanced ship", I relise this can just be assumed but there is an outside chance that it may not be true... The SR-2 could be the same sizes as the original. We also do not know that Commander Shepard takes command of it through out the duration of ME-2, we see the Commander die in the SR-1 in one of the trailers, confirmed by a developer. This may be unlikely too but the SR-2 could just make a cameo in ME2 and will actually become the Commanders ship in ME3. We don't know anything yet (as far as I know) and I thought that speculation wasn't welcome, especially if it is presented as fact. ░▒▓ Alex | Talk ▓▒░ 20:14, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed the cerberus symbol on the foward "blade" could this mean that the normandy sr-2 was given to commander sheppard by the oganisation for his assignment
 * Indeed. This has been mentioned on the Cerberus page, although I suppose it could also be mentioned here too. SpartHawg948 23:01, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is a Cerberus Symbol on the SR2 then there is a connection how ever minor it may be - (even if Cerberus just snuck on to the hull without shepard knowing to paint on there symboll; that is a connection).

Anyway, the fact the word "indicating" is used before, says that the connection could be minor - suggesting that it points toward the fact that Cerberus is connected with out going into any detail. If we want to use the word possible then we should remove the word indicating, or vice versa. ie have:

"indicating a connection between the group and this new vessel."

or

"meaning there is a possible connection between the group and this new vessel."

░▒▓ Alex | Talk ▓▒░ 14:35, November 15, 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean when you say the word indicating say the connection could be minor, as opposed to points to. Indicate- "to be a sign of; betoken; evidence; show: ex- His hesitation really indicates his doubt about the venture" Straight from the dictionary. So to say it indicates possible Cerberus involvement just means the insignia is a sign of possible Cerberus involvement. Weird. Also, the reason I say possible is that (unlikely as it appears even to me) there IS still a chance that Cerberus is completely uninvolved and the symbol is just there for another reason. I don't really believe that, but it is factually accurate at this time, and as an admin that is my main concern. SpartHawg948 20:19, November 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if Cerberus is totally uninvolved that fact that SSV Normandy SR-2 has the insignia of Cerberus means there IS a connection, In ME2 the builder of the ship could be a supporter of Cerberus and they thought the symbol would look good on the hull - the connection to Cerberus: the ships builder is a supporter. That is what I mean the connection could be minor, rather than the more likely major option - SR-2 being a Cerberus affiliated ship. One a major connection the other a minor connection. But since this is a quite pointless discussion as it wont be long before we know the truth and it bares little impact to the reader of the article - so i'm just gonna leave it be. ░▒▓ Alex | Talk ▓▒░ 21:19, November 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * And that's all I asked, is to leave it be till we know more details. Again, as I stated above, there could be reasons totally unrelated to Cerberus for the insignia to be there. Real-life example: Did you know that during World War Two, Finnish Air Force planes had swastikas painted on them? Now, going by your logic, the fact that A)The Finns were allied with the Germans and B)Their planes had swastikas on the side MUST mean that the Nazis had something to do with the Finnish planes, right? Wrong. The swastika was a traditional symbol used by the Finnish Air Force since 1918. It was a symbol of good luck. How do we know there isn't a similar situation here? We don't. All I ask is that we hold off judgment till we know more. Is that too much to ask? SpartHawg948 21:27, November 15, 2009 (UTC)


 * My point was that a connection didn't have to be directly in line with it. Your example is in complete reverse in support to my point. The Fins used the Swastica as there airforce symbol from 1918 - for as you said "good luck", this was years before the Nazi party adopted it as there symbol. They used it before the nazi's so there is no logic that could suggest that they were using it because they supported the Nazi's, this could be looked at in reverse (all though it is not), because the Nazi's became so commonly assosiated with the Swastika the Fins had to phase it out and adopt a symbol like the RAF's roundels. The Connection between the two: they were they were using the same symbol. The swastika is hundreds of years old and has been used by many different organisations that are connected only by there use of there symbol and very little/nothing else. As (in respoce to your final 2 points), our options of the subject do differ but both are correct, it does bare next to no difference to the reader which is there, as I did say I am perfectly prepared to just leave it be, and wait until we get something concrete to prove the connection. ░▒▓ Alex | Talk ▓▒░ 22:29, November 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, something else I thought of right after I left home (isn't that how it always works?): Cerberus was originally an Alliance organization. For all we know, the symbol they use is a holdover from their Alliance days, in which case, the symbol on the Normandy could easily be explained as an Alliance symbol on an Alliance warship. Again, this is guesswork, but this, combined with my reasoning above, states my case as to why the article should remain as is till we know more. SpartHawg948 21:55, November 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * As you added your second comment as I was writing my response - yeah, hadn't though of that (something we both failed to remember/recognize sooner) - so yeah I do somewhat agree (although its unlikely) - although we already do know that Shepperd is working with Cerberus, but then again at this point in time we don't even know if Sheppard will take possession of the SR2 in ME2 or at all. What ever you may think, I am totally against writing speculation, and I do agree that the connection to Cerberus is completely circumstantial. And repeating my self for a 3rd time, I have no problem leaving it be until evidence proves it one way or another. ░▒▓ Alex | Talk ▓▒░ 22:29, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

I read in GI magazine that the developers said it was bigger so it could operate in deep space so I added that into the discription because it was said by the developerDerekproxy
 * Needs to be properly sourced. "I read in ___" is not properly sourced. Also, is there any reason you edited the Joker link by duplicating his name, then separating the two with | ? This is not only unnecessary, it's pretty inexplicable. SpartHawg948 05:59, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall doing anything other then adding in THE SHIP IS BIGGER AND DESIGNED FOR DEEPSPACE OPERATIONSDerekproxy 17:33, January 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the history, that was added and the internal lik the Joker was changed. You can check if you'd like. Maybe it was something that happened on it's own, something like that auto-formatting crap. All I know is, it wasn't like that before your edit, and the history shows it happening during the same edit you used to insert the text you listed. SpartHawg948 20:28, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

Designation
Sure, I understand that no human ships lack a designation in the front, but we don't know what the Normandy SR2's designation is. I don't see why SSV is the default choice when clearly the ship is not Alliance (unless Cerberus and the Alliance made up). As of right now all we know about the ship's name is that it's the SR-2 and it's called the Normandy. Having the article title be pure speculation doesn't seem to fit it with past policy. JakePT 00:06, December 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * Cerberus originated as an Alliance black ops group, and still has high-ranking people in the Alliance. I'd be willing to bet that the SR-2 was secretly built by cooperation between both, and due to Cerberus' involvement got their insignia on it. Tophvision 00:23, December 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * You make a valid argument, Jake, and in the future this is how the process of moving a page (or at least proposing a move) needs to happen. I for one agree with your position on this, and now that it is being done properly, would tentatively support renaming the article till we know for sure. However, you can't just move articles willy-nilly without bringing it up like this first. So, we'll see if there is any difference of opinion and go from there. SpartHawg948 00:50, December 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * I am a little up in the air about it. The Normandy was a top-of-the-line, top-secret warship right? From that point of view, I doubt that anyone, other than the Alliance could build an SR2, and in that case it should be SSV. That being said, we aren't sure one way or another if the Alliance built it or not, so, in my eyes, it is speculation to assume its designation is SSV. We know it's called the Normandy SR2, but its designation is not concrete. From that point of view, I would say that the article should be titled Normandy SR2. Better to title the page using known, pure fact, than to use speculation. But, that's just me. What do you think? Effectofthemassvariety 04:02, December 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * You know, your last comment made me think of something. Basically, the SR-1 was the vessel's pennant number/hull classification number (or whatever the Alliance calls it), which is a designation given to warships by the service that uses them. In that case, doesn't SR-2 pretty much mean by default that the SR-2 Normandy is an Alliance vessel, and therefor an SSV? SpartHawg948 05:16, December 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right. I can't believe I missed that, and in my own argument at that! In that case, I say that the article remained titled "SSV Normandy SR-2." I wouldn't consider it speculation per se, more like an educated guess. :) Effectofthemassvariety 06:50, December 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the more I think about it the more likely it seems, especially in light of the fact that, over at Talk:SSV Normandy one of the writers of Mass Effect does confirm that SR-1 is a hull designator (or, again, whatever the Alliance calls it). SpartHawg948 08:02, December 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, I was reading that interview with Casey Hudson about the new Normandy, and he was saying that you can actually customize, and upgrade the Normandy, so maybe the Cerberus emblem is just an aesthetic that you can add. Actually, that sounds kind of stupid. Oh well, just thinkin out loud here. Effectofthemassvariety 00:41, December 8, 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the emblem is on the inside of the ship as well, so, i say that's not likely. Effectofthemassvariety 02:10, December 8, 2009 (UTC)


 * You never know, it could be a theme you buy for the ship, like the ones you get for your house/apartment in Fallout 3. :P SpartHawg948 02:24, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

Now that the game has been released and it's pretty clear that the SR-2 is not an Alliance vessel, it really shouldn't be located here at all.

Link within a link
I may be alone in this, but it is my pet peeve when an article has a link to itself. Can't we just have the link on other pages, then have standard text in the article itself? I don't understand the need for it. I don't know, maybe it's just me. :P Effectofthemassvariety 04:09, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

Twice the size, Better adventure
This link: which is at least the gist of the Game Informer article says that the Normandy SR-2 is twice as big, and more interesting. It also names Joker as the pilot, and a female named Kelly Chambers as the Normandy's administrative assistant. It also says that there is going to be a Cook. Obviously, the crew accomadations seem to have improved greatly from its predecessor. It also seems like it's going to be a more lively, and ultimately more fun environment to play in. I didn't think it was possible, but I am more excited about ME2 than I ever have been. This game better deliver!! Oh, who am I kidding? We all know it will. ;) Effectofthemassvariety 07:00, December 9, 2009 (UTC)


 * Awesome. While the first Normandy was a very cool ship, I always felt it was a little cramped on the inside. Tophvision 19:07, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if this makes the SR-2 something other then a frigate, its now too big to be a frigate but still too small to be a cruiser, or maybe it cant be classed since its one of a kind (im assuming) 85.225.160.165 13:33, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

Doctor Chakwas?
Where is it said, anywhere that Doctor Chakwas is part of the SR-2's crew? Effectofthemassvariety 01:18, December 10, 2009 (UTC)


 * Remember the google doc of the game informer article? The one you put on my talk page? Down at the very bottom. "Apparently the only people to survive the attack on the Normandy is Joker and Doctor Chakwas."During our demo, Only Jeff "Joker" Moreau and Doctor Chakwas still remain a part of Shepard's crew." SpartHawg948 03:33, December 10, 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops. Must've missed th... I mean... It, um, wasn't there when I read it initially. Yeah, that's why. :o Effectofthemassvariety 05:45, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

Squad/Crew Members
Jake was asking about whether or not Miranda and I assume the like should be in the crew where as the ME squad members weren't. My opinion is yes because in ME2 the squad members are actually performing crew functions like research and development and more.--Xaero Dumort 07:14, December 10, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's why I singled out Miranda. In the Game Informer article Mordin and Jacob have clear crew roles, whereas Miranda seems to be just chilling in the crew quarters. My first thought would be to delete her until we know if she has an actual role on the ship. At the moment Tali, Samara, Zero, Thane and Grunt are missing from the crew list, even though they, like Miranda, are on board the ship, but they don't have a roll as crew members, just like the ME1 squad. Going by that I'd say keep her off until a crew role is determined. JakePT 07:50, December 10, 2009 (UTC)
 * My take on this is that No, they should not be added to the crew list just b/c they are squad members. If, on the other hand, they are confirmed to have a role in the functioning of the ship (Jacob Taylor and Mordin Solus) then yes. So basically, keep it the way it is. If they don't seem to have a function as part of the crew, they aren't part of the crew. Simple enough. SpartHawg948 08:10, December 10, 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess it all depends on how you like to look at it. Sure Thane, Samara, Grunt, Garrus, Jack and Tali doesn't have any official responsibilites onboard but they're still a part of Commander Shepards team. And he/she calls them his/her "crew" a number of times. If anything, most of them could be labeled as "Marines" or "Ground force Units" :P --Fiskn 04:12, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Core
Obviously there's an underlying importance in this part of the ship: it was first shown in the June issue of the Official Xbox Magazine, and now the most recent Game Informer. Developers conspicuously avoiding any relevant detail, etc. I'm sure alot of people think that Cerberus reverse engineered some Sovereign debris, including the guy that wrote the article in the Game Informer. Based on the secrecy around it, I guess I would tend to agree; I can't really think of anything else that it could be. What do you guys think? --LBCCCP 17:41, December 13, 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, like you, I tend to agree with the theory, especially when they're so secretive. --Effectofthemassvariety 20:08, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

Now that the game has been played, is there more information about this new core? Or is Cerberus too tight-lipped to tell the player that? I won't be able to actually play for a bit longer, but am extremely curious. Thanks! --129.133.141.252 18:36, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the SR1 Normandy had the largest Eezo core of any (Alliance?) ship ever made. The SR2's core is clearly much larger, maybe 10-20 times as much.  I think it is encased the way it is due to the increased radiation and larger electrical charge needed for a Mass Effect reaction.  This would also account for the extra cooling.  --ArmeniusLOD 03:36, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

EDI
Anyone else notice, that EDI doesn't sound anything like VI. Anyone else think it's AI, or at least something damn near that. --LiudvikasT 10:44, December 25, 2009 (UTC)


 * Not really, as no indication of the sort has yet been given. And as for something "damn near" an AI, isn't that called a VI? :P SpartHawg948 18:09, December 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * Cerberus would be exactly the kind of organization to experiment with illegal AI research... but yeah, we won't know until the game comes out.--Matt 2108 18:21, December 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it's subtle differences in her speech, she says something like "I trust him to keep me operational, he trusts me to keep him alive", if you ask me its a sign of self preservation, thats something VI wouldn't show. --LiudvikasT 19:19, December 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * That is true, although it does bear remembering that VIs can also appear self-aware, as the entry on VIs cautions that "Though they appear to be intelligent, they aren't actually self aware: it's just clever programming." So yes, signs of apparent self-awareness are something a VI would show IF programmed to. Regardless, there is no actual proof yet that EDI is an AI, so we'll just have to wait and see for now. SpartHawg948 20:49, December 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I haven't seen VI in Mass effect 1, with such signs of apparent self-awareness. I hope EDI is AI, that would make a nice story.--LiudvikasT 21:23, December 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * Plus after Tricias role in BSG I could hardly think of her as something else than real self aware AI. --LiudvikasT 21:26, December 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * The codex's timeline refers to the Alliance actually having created a sentient AI, so it's possible that EDI is an AI. But yeah, we don't know at this point. Tophvision 00:00, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is that in the Codex timeline? The only Codex timeline that I can recall is the Systems Alliance timeline, which doesn't mention any Alliance development of AIs (unless I overlooked it all four times I just went over it. Remember that in the events of Mass Effect: Revelation it was stated that the Alliance was researching AI (researching, implying that they hadn't perfected it) and that once they made this research known they faced sever economic sanctions. Again though, mainly just looking to a reference to this "codex timeline" statement that the Alliance developed a sentient AI. SpartHawg948 00:09, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's in the Codex entry for Gagarin Station: "Humanity's first stable AI, the Alliance-sponsored "Eliza", achieved sapience at Gagarin in 2172." --Stormwaltz 18:33, January 23, 2010 (UTC) 18:31, January 23, 2010 (UTC) (edit because Wikia randomly logged me out)

Could EDI be a subtle reference to Eddy the Shipboard Computer from the Douglas Adam's Hitchhiker's Guide novels? This might go in the Trivia area, but being a new member, I'm not sure whether I should create a whole new section on the page. Luenix 19:42, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

I think that EDI deserves a page of her own. She's more of a character than just a function of the new Normandy. Daisekihan 13:11, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

I'd call EDI a VI, but a very advanced one. She seems to be able to detect and analyze emotions in organic beings and adapt to the situation - she starts calling Joker "Jeff" after all. --Fiskn 04:17, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's clearly stated during the game multiple times that EDI is an AI, not a VI. She can react to you and answer any question or inquiry you have beyond the programming of a VI.  --ArmeniusLOD 03:32, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Fate
So, what, now the SR2 is destroyed too? (Going off of the new trailer)--LBCCCP 23:42, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any indication of that. Is there a specific section of the trailer you are referring to? SpartHawg948 23:43, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't see it being destroyed... just in battle with something. Though I would bet one of the worst ends might involve it getting destroyed. Matt 2108 23:47, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, just rewatched it, and they didn't really seem to show any indication of the SR2 being destroyed. There were some shots of the SR2 interspersed with shots of the SR1 being destroyed, and what may have been the SR2 taking some severe damage (although severely damaged and destroyed are two totally different things for a warship) but it's way too early to be discussing the ships fate. SpartHawg948 23:49, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Additional Crew
By my count, there are a number of additional personnel on the SR2 not mentioned in the crew section; more specifically, 4 bridge personnel, 10 personnel in the CIC, and several more the belly of the ship - shouldn't these personnel be added? --Echo Four Delta 17:47, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

Decks
Little nitpick but during the load-screen when Shepard leaves the ship via a shuttle during the latter part of the game, the shuttle / cargo bay is clearly a 5th Deck. The main article claims they are on deck 4.

Added in a fifth deck section. As you said, the loading screen clearly shows level 5 (the movie file is 'load_f13m' for the PC version...) UERD 22:28, February 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * I always thought that it launches from the cargo bay in Deck 4 (looking out the glass when you exit the elevator). --ArmeniusLOD 03:29, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Moving to Normandy SR-2
This should probably be moved to Normandy SR-2 now we have confirmation it's the ship's true name, no designation in front. : ) --Tullis 23:48, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Ship Upgrades/Dead Teammates
It would be good to know which ship upgrades correspond to whose deaths, especially because there is apparently a random element as to exactly who dies (I hear it's one dead character for each upgrade you skip, but there are more than 3 possibilities as to exactly who dies). That would be good information. UERD 00:00, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Moving EDI
Should the EDI section be moved to its own page? Its a pretty important character in the storyline. Matt 2108 01:27, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Images
Just got this from one of the bink files.

Classification
Being twice the size of the original Normandy, would this ship be considered to be a frigate or a cruiser? 99.192.54.224 20:46, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's still a frigate. The SR-2 is no where near as heavily armed as a cruiser.  While the SR-2 is double the size of SR-1, cruisers are still substantially larger.  Think back to the cinematic from ME where the Alliance is attacking Sovereign.  There were ships fighting alongside the Normandy that were much larger, but not as large as a dreadnought like the Ascension.  The SR-2 is larger to accommodate Cerberus needs, a very large eezo core, and an AI computer.  So it's not a conventional frigate, but I still believe it is classified as such.   --ArmeniusLOD 21:16, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

CIC image
Is it just me, or is that not the CIC? Look at the spot where the galaxy map is supposed to be... it's totally different then what's actually in the game. Matt 2108 23:42, February 5, 2010 (UTC)