Talk:Earth

can u land on earth

2 Meters?!
The sea level!

I thought 6 inches would be nuts... 4 feet (1.21m), and most the Netherlands are under water... Just how much of the Earth should be left visible from 2 frickin meters?


 * A) please tag your posts.
 * B) most of the earth is about 2 meters sea level. Not all rivers would suddenly be 2 meters deeper. Humans just like settaling near the ocian MPS Biotic 01:57, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that the post you replied to is just shy of two years old and the user who posted hasn't made any edits in about a year and a half, I don't think you're going to get too far with your point A! :P SpartHawg948 02:02, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * SUN of a ... GUN... damn how was i to know that this was a 2 year old post! Lol MPS Biotic 21:00, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Same way I did, the page history! :P (on a side note though, please mind the language. we do have a policy about not using "offensive language") SpartHawg948 21:02, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * (can i use "crap"?) I'm sorry i didn't mean for that one word to get through.MPS Biotic 05:46, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Crap is completely acceptable, and if you really want to say it, dam would also be cool, as it conveys the meaning but is, in fact, a completely non-obscene word! :) SpartHawg948 06:48, January 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't the point of using "offensive language" be conveying the meaning? The fact that "dam" conveys the same meaning as "damn" would therefore make "dam" an obscene word 76.169.175.221 21:27, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to say no, because using that logic, any word could be deemed offensive. For example, what if I were to call you a gentleman? Fine, right? Now, what if I generally use gentleman in a derogatory or offensive manner? Can we no longer use the word gentleman? There's a fine line between restricting offensive language, and policing thought. And I for one want no part in thought police. It's why I don't like the idea of strict censorship like was suggested above, and (coming out of left field), why I also don't like the idea of hate crimes. As such, when we say 'offensive language', it's within the realm of common usage. Damn is commonly accepted as an obscenity. Dam is a large structure to regulate the flow of water, and sometimes to generate power. The point of the 'offensive language' restriction is not to crack down on meaning, as that's policing thought. SpartHawg948 21:54, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with your views on censorship and thought-policing. That's not what I'm getting at, however. You've both defined "Dam" as a structural term and suggested replacing that very same definition with that of an obscenity, thereby omitting any notion of using "dam" as a structural term. Your arguments against thought-policing would be more appropriate if you had suggested substituting in a word spelled much differently (such as "pancake", i.e.: "pancake how was I supposed to know..."). In this particular case, though, you've suggested a word spelled so similarly that it has the capacity to be misread as a common typo. Obscenities are all relative. As long as one word is used by the author to convey an obscene meaning, it is an obscenity, regardless of the reader's thoughts on it. 98.148.4.9 21:42, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * So, my A Christmas Story T-shirt with a picture of Ralphie yelling "Fudge!" is obscene? After all, fudge is used in place of an obscenity. All I did was suggest replacing an obscene word with a non-obscene word. Dam and pancake are equally non-obscene. I never suggested replacing the definition of dam (a structural term) with an obscene definition. If you can find where I suggested any such thing, please enlighten me. I proposed using a similar, non-offensive word in its place because the similar spellings would naturally allow readers to reach their own conclusion on what was meant. Same as the 'fudge' thing I mentioned earlier. "As long as one word is used by the author to convey an obscene meaning, it is an obscenity, regardless of the reader's thoughts on it." is thought policing. It looks at intent, and I don't buy into that philosophy at all. Results are what matters, not the thought that went into them. In this case, it is not the thought that counts. Again, I can use all sorts of non-offensive words in an offensive manner- for a classic example, please see the following. I see no need to prohibit the creative use on non-obscene language. No need whatsoever. SpartHawg948 22:12, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * "dam would also be cool, as it conveys the meaning but is, in fact, a completely non-obscene word! :) SpartHawg948 06:48, January 21, 2010 (UTC)" - This is where you suggested replacing the definition of "dam" (a structural term) with an obscene definition. More specifically, with these words: "... as it conveys the meaning..." And not to bring up an ill-related point, but your allowance of the word "crap" and not "damn" is, in a way, thought-policing. If all you did was suggest using a similarly-spelled word that would naturally allow readers to reach their own conclusion, then what's the point of doing so in the first place? What's the difference between using "dam" and "damn" if they both convey the same meaning? 98.148.4.9 22:47, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, no. When I said "dam would also be cool, as it conveys the meaning but is, in fact, a completely non-obscene word! :)", I was not suggesting "replacing that very same definition with that of an obscenity". As I said, I merely proposed using a similarly spelled word that can be commonly construed (as it is often used in this manner in common parlance) as having the same meaning as an obscenity. And once again, I could give a rats behind about the intent of the word or the meaning it conveys. The policy is against obscene language. That is what all. Not non-obscene words that can convey the same meaning. The difference between damn and dam is that one is considered an obscenity, and the other is not. Therefore, one is forbidden, the other is not. Looking any further into it (i.e. looking at the meaning conveyed) is policing thought. It's my job to watch for obscene language, not language which may be used with obscene intent but is in and of itself not obscene. For someone who agrees with me on censorship and thought-policing, you sure do seem to be a lot more concerned with intent and meaning then I am. SpartHawg948 23:19, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * My concern is that you are, in fact, censoring. Regardless of your views on censorship and thought-policing, that is what you are effectively doing here. You're telling him what he can and cannot say here. He can say "crap" but not "damn," even though both are considered obscenities (as evidenced by the fact that he asked if it was okay to say "crap" due to his being unsure of its allowance). If keeping the site clear of offensive language was that important, even offensive intent would need to be prohibited. After all, obscene language is only obscene if a) malicious intent was used AND/OR b) malicious intent was inferred. Might I also point out that this is a site for a Mature-rated game, which contains usage of the f-word, so who are you really protecting? My overall point is this: either offensive language -- language that is used offensively or causes an offended effect in a reader -- should either be allowed or not, regardless of spelling or personal philosophy, and should be enforced thusly and without subjective feeling on what is an obscenity (damn) and what isn't (crap). SlayerEGO1342 23:56, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly what I've been doing. I'm basically playing FCC here. If the FCC considers it obscene, well, then so do I. Your comment also strikes me as contradictory. You state at one point that "After all, obscene language is only obscene if a) malicious intent was used AND/OR b) malicious intent was inferred." Now, deeming intent, and inferring intent are both highly subjective affairs. Everyone can agree on that. Then you say "My overall point is this: either offensive language -- language that is used offensively or causes an offended effect in a reader -- should either be allowed or not, regardless of spelling or personal philosophy, and should be enforced thusly and without subjective feeling on what is an obscenity (damn) and what isn't (crap)." So which is it? Should I continue to do things objectively using generally accepted norms and practices (note that these are U.S. norms, as I am an American) when enforcing the language policy, or should I, as you say, look for whether or not I feel a word was used offensively or could cause offense (as it's my job to enforce the policy whether or not the intended target expresses offense) and decide things on a case-by-case, subjective basis? It can't be both objective and subjective. Having a list of words deemed obscene, and enforcing that policy across the board is objective. Gleaning intent and whether or not it caused offense is subjective, as anything can cause offense. I was offended earlier when a British citizen called Northern Ireland a bunch of 'sponging gits'. No offense was intended, and it wasn't obscene, but I was offended. Should I have enforced the language policy in that case? SpartHawg948 00:06, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you should have enforced the language policy if you were offended, as the word would then be considered offensive. My "contradictory" comment referred to your subjective view that "crap" is somehow less obscene than "damn." A word/phrase is either obscene or not, and is not subject to gradation. My issue isn't just that you're enforcing this policy somewhat subjectively, although that is the majority of it, but also that you're advocating the use of "workaround" speech, effectively saying "That's offensive the way you said it, but if you say it this way it means the exact same offensive thing but is perfectly fine." I do see the contradictions in what I've been saying about objectivity and subjectivity, but the best way I can explain my meaning is by using your example of the list of words deemed obscene: Given a list of words deemed obscene, words must then be added to that list if conidered offensive. Again, this is only my suggested solution to one so inclined to enforce an offensive language policy regarding the use of obscenities and NOT racial/social/religious insults. I, personally, don't think the use of obscenities in common parlayance should be forbidden. SlayerEGO1342 00:21, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I never applied gradation though. I never said crap was 'less obscene' then damn. I said "Crap is completely acceptable". So again, it wasn't a subjective system of grading, it was literally 'damn is obscene, crap is not'. This is completely consistent with your comment that "A word/phrase is either obscene or not, and is not subject to gradation." As someone who hasn't ever used gradation in determining obscenity (as this page reflects), I wholeheartedly agree. I understand your point, but a majority of administrators have agreed to banning use of commonly deemed obscene words, and judging based solely on whether a word or phrase can be deemed offensive is a fool's errand, as there is pretty much no phrase or sentence or word that everyone will deem inoffensive all the time. Intent and reception are subjective in the extreme, which is why they are disregarded in this case. Again, if there was no offense whatsoever intended and no obscenity, it's fine in my book regardless of whether or not it could possibly offend someone. And again, I do practice what I preach here, which is why I didn't apply the language policy to the 'sponging gits' statement someone made on my talk page, which I personally found extremely offensive and objectionable. SpartHawg948 00:28, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. I see your points and I agree with them now. I was thinking you were acting from a personal standpoint and enforcing a personal totalitarian agenda, not working from an administrative standpoint. However, my one outlying issue is your advocation of workaround speech. I still don't think such advocation is appropriate given your administrative status and the preceding enforcement of the language policy. SlayerEGO1342 00:35, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * And I will admit, when you put it that way, I can't help but agree. It really isn't my place to suggest ways to circumvent the rules. Having considered your words, I am now in complete agreement that it was inappropriate of me to suggest alternatives. I stand by saying that crap was acceptable, as it in answer to someone asking 'can i use "crap"?', but going on to suggest dam was inappropriate, given my role and responsibility as an admin. SpartHawg948 00:40, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad this has come to a peaceful, completely-unrelated-to-the-topic-of-this-page conclusion :) SlayerEGO1342 00:43, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It's funny how conversations on talk pages seem to take on a life of their own. SpartHawg948 00:44, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I admire the tenacious, albeit misinformed, spirit of this guy below here, bringing the coversation back to the related topic. Good show SlayerEGO1342 00:49, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

I was giving hte original topic some thought, the amount of water that this world is supposed to have is the amount that is on it now, no water is lost and it is unlikely we are gaining water. But in an intersteller society thousands upons thousands of ships coming and going every day, flushing their toilets, taking showers, bringing water through various means to the world. It would definitly create an imbalance, and potentially raise sea levels. Blah blah blah blah blah ralok 00:22, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

It's a refernce to global warming. Ice caps melt, releasing the stored water into the ocean, raising the sea level. SlayerEGO1342 00:26, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Prothean cities / Earth skyscrapers
The Earth arcologies look an awful lot like the Prothean city from Shepard's vision (see pic below). --Tullis 00:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually Tullis the Earth arcologies as well as the Eden Prime arcologies are very similar to the Feros arcologies, but it's logical to assume that after finding Prothean technology and the outpost on Mars that structural architecture was adapted and then modified to Human similar-style as a way to survive and expand on the planet, especially if the water truly has risen to such a degree.

When comparing the image you've presented with that of Eden Prime, Feros, or Earth, it is radically different.

Humanity has always been one to adapt architecture over-time. --Delsana 23:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Tokyo?
There is no indication, or suggestion for that matter, that Tokyo is the capital of Earth. A couple reasons for this... 1) Every Alliance world/moon/whatever states the capital city in it's information except... you guessed it! Earth! Seems like, if they had wanted to pick a capital for Earth, they could easily have done so. 2) The first book (Mass Effect: Revelation) makes clear that Earth still has independent nations. The codex entry for Earth says "Earth is still divided among nation-states", and goes on to point out that there are still vast differences between developed and developing nations. Now, how likely does it seem that planet Earth, which is "still divided among nation-states," has one world capital? Answer- Not bloody likely! :P SpartHawg948 01:02, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * garbled words Throwback 01:25, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * But stating it's Earth's capital does contradict what is in the game. For all we know, in light of the fact that Earth obviously doesn't have one capital city, Tokyo was selected just because it's a large city with a very large population. For all we know, by this point Tokyo could be the most populous city on Earth. There is exactly as much data supporting that idea as there is that Tokyo is the "new New York" and hosts a new UN- which is to say, none. SpartHawg948 01:30, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * I've heard the quote you're referring to. If you're extrapolating this from a throwaway comment without solid evidence other than "it's mentioned in the same sentence as somewhere important and somewhere that MAY be a capital", it's an opinion. It doesn't matter if it's "not contradicted" - it's not contradicted that the capital of Earth isn't the Emerald City, either.
 * As a side note, it is extremely unlikely that there is a "capital of Earth". Earth is still divided into nation-states and doesn't have a world government. The Alliance--not the same thing, as not all Earth nations are involved in the Alliance, and the Alliance is specifically tasked with taking care of colonies outside Earth--has its capital at Arcturus Station. --Tullis 01:46, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * What! Are you somehow implying that the Emerald City isn't the capital of Earth?!? I refuse to believe that! If true, my entire worldview would be shattered! :P
 * Good catch though on the President Huerta thing. Even though I had just pointed out that there is no united Earth government, I apparently couldn't put 2 and 2 together and realize that this would also mean it's pretty gosh-darn unlikely Huerta is president of Earth. Silly me! SpartHawg948 01:55, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * I should point out right quick though, that contrary to the statement that "not all Earth nations are involved in the Alliance", the Codex entry on Earth does state "Earth is still divided among nation-states, though all are affiliated beneath the overarching banner of the Systems Alliance." Just figured I'd point that out. SpartHawg948 02:09, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * True. I was thinking of "Earth's eighteen largest nations had drafted and ratified the Systems Alliance charter," which implies not everyone was rich enough to join the party. Though, that was only at its founding when the Alliance was yet unproven to Earth, and "affiliation" can mean anything. Maybe it means that the Alliance doesn't discriminate by member nations when helping colonists off world, lends aid to any colony regardless of what nation founded it, something like that? *shrug* Who knows.
 * Also: and in the future, not only is the Emerald City NOT the capital of Earth, I bet those lazy bums haven't even invented inhale-able chocolate yet. Priorities, people! : ) --Tullis 02:22, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * That line is being over-interpreted. First, remember that it's no more than a flippant, sarcastic retort. Second, remember it's coming from the mouth an asari who's never been to Earth and is generally hostile to humans. This is akin to inferring lessons on British Parliamentary procedure from the japes of a street vendor in Buenos Aires. She's heard of a "President Huerta" and knows he somehow represents Earth. I don't recall my precise thinking at the time, but I'd intended Huerta to be either the chief executive of the Systems Alliance (in which case he probably should have been titled "Prime Minister") or the United States (which is still one of the most powerful nations on Earth in 2183).
 * So says the guy who wrote the ME1 Codex entries, and wrote all of Noveria. -- Stormwaltz 02:42, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Shazzam! So, quick question... at the risk of over-interpreting, does this then mean that the SA does (or was originally intended to) operate as a parliamentary democracy, with a Prime Minister as the head of an executive branch? I'd suggested that a while back, but the in-game material is a little vague on the specifics. SpartHawg948 02:49, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * I could see that, although on the "helping any colony, even non SA member colonies", I find it hard to imagine an interstellar colony founded by, say, Côte d'Ivoire or Azerbaijan. Maybe it just means all nations on Earth, regardless of their membership in the SA, fall under the protective umbrella of the Alliance. I find it hard to believe that the Alliance Fleet wouldn't still defend Earth against an enemy fleet just because they learned the enemy fleet was going after Cambodia and not Germany. SpartHawg948 02:28, January 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * garbled words Throwback 02:52, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Where to begin. Wow... how about this- Dhaka, Manila, Bogor. What's the pattern? Well, Dhaka and Manila are capitals. Does that mean, then, that Bogor is a capital? Nope. Those three cities have something else in common- Population density. Comparing three WWII fighters to the situation described here is a straw man, as there are many reasons these three locales could be grouped, such as population density. And the Citadel is not a capital. It's a space station home to an international organization. It's no more a capital than New York City, home to the UN, or Lyon, the headquarters of Interpol. So there's that.
 * Next, it has been stated (and demonstrated) that Earth is made up of multiple sovereign states, thereby proving that there is no unified Earth capital. Pretty straightforward. If you have a source that supersedes the Codex, I would love to see it.
 * As for Huerta, if you didn't notice, the (former) BioWare writer who wrote the material in question says himself that Huerta is not president of Earth, and that the person saying it was in no position to be taken seriously/at face value. Again, if you have a source that supersedes the person who wrote the material you are talking about, I'd love to see it.
 * Finally, why didn't I rewrite what was there, rather than removing it and then providing the rationale for the removal? Because it was pure speculation with no basis in fact, as I made clear in my reasoning. It has been stated that Earth does not have a unified capital, as there is no unified Earth government. There are many reasons why cities can be lumped together other than status as capitals, as I have demonstrated. Simple as that. SpartHawg948 03:09, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * And hey! Garbled words aside, we now have definitive proof that, as the majority of users here were saying all along, President Huerta is, in point of fact, not the President of Earth, but of one nation-state on Earth, which also lends further credence to Earth not having one unified government, and therefor, no unified capital, Tokyo or otherwise. SpartHawg948 00:01, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Nations
I've added a list of known nations. These come from a description from a planet in ME2 (can't remember the name of the planet but its the one with the mission where you have to choose which of two disruptor rockets to detonante). A list of whats on the main page is below along with some speculation on my part.
 * Chinese People's Federation - This seems to be a imply a democratic capitalist reform has occured in China.
 * United North American States - This could imply one of three things: a) that there was a second Civil War which ended the USA spliting; b) the USA expanded to cover all of North America (e.g. Canada and Mexico) and was therefore renamed or; c) the countries in South America have come together in a USA like federation.
 * European Union - It seems the EU is no longer an allience but an actual nations, probably a federation; a United States of Europe if you will.

-- Looq 01:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a quick comment- I have no issue with these being in the article, but as for your speculation, how would "the countries in South America" coming together in a "USA like federation" (emphasis added) result in a United North American States? :P SpartHawg948 01:28, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * To differentiate itself from the United South Armican States? -- Looq 02:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think I get you (although I don't really think it makes any sense). The way you worded it originally made it sound like you were suggesting the South American countries would unite and call themselves the United North American States. Even if they did call themselves the United South American States, I don't see the USA needing to change it's name, seeing as the actual name of the country is the United States of America, and also seeing as how when names conflict, (especially when the country who had the name first is larger and more powerful) the burden usually lies on the newer country to change it's name. Just ask Macedonia! They're having all kinds of trouble trying to make Greece happy. These days I believe they usually have to refer to themselves as the "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". SpartHawg948 02:18, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Option b is probably the most likely anyway. Matt 2108 02:21, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing explicitly stating that the European Union is one nation in the Mass Effect Universe.Lord Saren101 02:22, February 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * This quote is from the planetary codex for Watson - Watson is known in human media for two things - its spectacular tides brought on by a large moon and the bureaucratic snafu over which Earth nations got to settle there first. Watson is a garden world first discovered in 2165 CE wtih credit claimed by the Chinese People's Federation, the United North American States, and the European Union. Without wading into the murky waters of grammar, I think the United North American States may be the three nations of Canada, Mexico, and the United States. This political concept may be similar to the North American Union.Throwback 03:23, February 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that'd be my guess as well. NAFTA does kind of pave the way for further integration between the three nations, so it's not really far-fetched to suggest the UNAS might be some future North American counter to the EU. SpartHawg948 03:38, February 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * The EU claim could be because all of Europe has one space agency, the ESA, assuming it still exists. If so, then it doesn't necessarily mean Europe transformed into a singular nation.
 * As for China, I don't think a capitalist reform would've kept the term "People's" in the official name, so I think more means that either China expanded to include other nations, to which they grant a degree of autonomy, or China remained the same, but restructured its provincial system. Or, perhaps both events happened, an expansion caused a review of the entire national structure, or maybe even neither, and it's simply a name change because it's technically considered a federation in its current state.
 * And just to state my interpretation of what happened to North America, I guess it's most similar to option C, of the top post here. The nations of Canada, the US, and Mexico united into a federation of three member republics. -Tajik24 08:38, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to point out, in regards to the China statement that "I don't think a capitalist reform would've kept the term "People's" in the official name"... well, it has so far! They've implemented all sorts of capitalist reforms (economically speaking the PRC is no longer communist and is probably very nearly as capitalist as we are) and they still call themselves the People's Republic. There's no law stating that a country has to live up to the words in it's name, which is why North Korea can call itself the Democratic People's Republic of Korea with a straight face. Likewise for the German Democratic Republic (aka East Germany) and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (aka North Vietnam). Communist countries love to call themselves "Democratic". So you can't read too much into a country based on name alone. SpartHawg948 08:47, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm, good point. I completely overlooked that. -Tajik24 10:20, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Refrences
"Huerta is controversial for having 'died' from a stroke a year before his term was scheduled to end, only to continue governing after his brain functions were transfered into a computer." Does anyone think this is a slight refrence to John Henry Eden from Fallout 3?--UNCxTrinity 03:26, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/John_Henry_Eden


 * I was thinking it as well, but dismissed it because if it a reference, it's really, really slight. After all, President Eden was an artifical intelligence whose personality was based on an amalgamation of past presidents. Huerta, on the other hand, was an actual human being who simply had his brain transferred into a computer. So the similarity would be that a computer was president. The differences would be the nature of the computer president (AI vs human brain downloaded into a computer), length or presidency (or in Huerta's case, length of presidency while in a computer, public knowledge of the fact that the president is a computer (common knowledge in ME, not so much in Fallout), etc. All these differences led me to dismiss it. SpartHawg948 03:57, March 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's also remember that ME 1 was released in 2007, a year BEFORE the release of Fallout 3 in 2008. --M.C.Tales 18:01, July 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Wait, nevermind. I didn't read the Cereberus Daily News thing. --M.C.Tales 23:26, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Trivia "Fact check"
Someone has apparently flagged the first trivial entry (that the earth, viewed from the moon, appears to be reversed) as needing a citation (or fact check). I do not know what the flagger thought, but the "fact" in question can only be checked by going to our moon in Mass Effect 1, looking up, and viewing the earth. The reversal is then self-evident. I suppose someone could post an image here, but... I move that the flag be removed. Thoughts?
 * Until it is checked and verified, we can't remove it because it would be very interesting trivia if it was. I am working towards it on my currenlt ME playthough, but it may be the end of the week before I can get to Luna. Lancer1289 18:46, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh ok. I could forward you a save from Luna if you wished (PC version; I've noticed it a number of times). Also, sorry about omitting the signature before. AnotherRho 20:23, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally I don't play the PC version, I prefer 360. Also I don't take saves form other people because I don't know what choices were made, and other things. I prefer to do it myself. Lancer1289 20:29, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well said. - As an aside, I mentioned "PC version" just in case any 360 users (such as yourself) did not find the earth's image to be reversed (as I recall, it is a mirror image of North America. Also, just to be clear, I suggested that the flag "citation needed" be removed, i.e., my playthroughs agree with the trivia). AnotherRho 21:21, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * So when you land on Luna, the Earth appears as a mirror image? Lancer1289 21:34, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. I just double-checked last night, and took some .bmp screenshots. None of my basic pic programs can open the files though, and so I'm trying to get a trial version of something more serious. Anyway, the earth is mirrored, but it's not a typical north is "up" south is "down" image; rather, it looks like a view of North America (north being up, south down) was mirrored, then tilted about 90 degrees or so (counterclockwise). If I can get a small version of a screenshot, I'll post it on here. AnotherRho 18:39, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes a screenshot would be good for two reasons, it would settle debate, and it would prevent this from coming up again. Lancer1289 18:46, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Done: the view of the earth. Also, one which includes Shepard and some HUD writing, to confirm that the image is as the player sees it.
 * One can clearly see the Western seaboard of North America (near the terminator is Central America and Baja California). AnotherRho 19:41, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Lunas_earth.jpg
 * Lunas_earth_wShep.jpg

Well this would be confirmed that Earth appears as a mirror image. Not sure if that was intentional or not, but either way that's funny. Fixing article. Lancer1289 19:48, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Earth spins backwards in ME2
I don't see how our planet spinning the wrong way in a game could possibly not be considered trivia because "all planets in the game spin that way." Who cares? Earth is going the wrong way. And if other planets in Sol are going the wrong way, trivia should note that as well. -- Dammej ( talk ) 17:43, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

I virtually never visit the earth in ME2, but that's somewhat funny. In the case of our planet, its reversed spin seems just as much trivia as its mirrored-surface image in the first game. --AnotherRho 18:47, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * I just found another couple of nails in this coffin. 1) Since all the planets rotate the same way, it was probably done out of convinence, not a big one, but that just needed to be said. 2) The precieved Rotation of a planet is also dependent on the craft orbiting it and what direction it is traveling. If the Normandy is traveling in the opposite direction of the Earth's rotation, then it would appear that the sun rises in the opposite direction. The Normandy could simply be traveling in the opposite direction, which could be normal in the 22nd centry. IIRC spacecraft today travel with the Earth's rotation, but I may be incorrect on that so don't quote me. Lancer1289 20:36, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's only a 'nail in the coffin' if it's definitive proof that it's not trivia. On something subjective like this, there can be no such definitive proof. I already dismissed your first point as irrelevent (to me), so bringing it up again won't help to convince me that it's any better of a reason. To address your second point: If the camera facing earth were really moving fast enough to make the earth appear to move backward, the starfield in the background would also be rotating. It is not. The trivia isn't designed to say "Hey the earth spins the wrong way in ME2! Something awful must have happened!", that's idiotic. It's just pointing out that there was a goof, and the planet is spinning the wrong direction. -- Dammej ( talk ) 20:45, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * And since when was one comment enough to end a disucssion? Because even Spart usually lets these things go on a bit longer. However I have to rebuttle your point about hte starfield. Does any of starfields behind a planet rotate when in orbit? That seems to be one of your key issues. This is more like trivial than trivia, and trivial =/= trivia. Every other planet has a similar, if not the same, non-rotating starfield and they all rotate the same way. Again this seems like trivial matters than trivia. The ME trivia is valid because that is a obvious goof and counter to that anyone sees. This has more trivial matters attached than anything. Lancer1289 20:57, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's just as big a goof as the mirror image of Earth as seen from the Moon. That it rotates the same direction as every other planet in ME2 doesn't matter. Earth, a very recognizable sphere whose direction of rotation is well known to its inhabitants, is shown rotating in a direction that is not normal. Pointing out that the starfield doesn't rotate behind any planets only helps to show that it's a goof, and not caused by a real-world ship that's moving in the opposite direction of the planet's natural rotation. -- Dammej ( talk ) 21:01, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree that it is a noteworthy trivia. I mean, it wouldn't make sense to anyone on earth when it is spinning the wrong way! For a compromise, may I suggest that we add that it could probably be a developer's goof or convenience to have all planets spin in one direction (if all planets actually spin in one direction) — Teugene (Talk) 01:14, October 11, 2010 (UTC)