|
how do we know minuteman is in the nebula?
17:22, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
- Because it says it somewhere, I just can't remember where at the moment. Lancer1289 17:24, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
The info used to be found on the official site, but was removed when the game launched and they completely redid the site. SpartHawg948 17:26, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Spart I was just digging through BioWare's site and I couldn't find it. Lancer1289 17:27, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
Anybody Noticed?[]
I was curious as to if anyone else has noticed that the Horsehead Nebula is in the wrong spot? The real nebula is visually located beside Orion's Belt, and Orion is almost, but not quite, opposite Sagittarius from our point of view. Since the galactic core is located in Sagittarius, the Horsehead Nebula should be located Rimward of the Local Cluster and certainly not beside the Galactic Core on the Galaxy Map.
SjadoJai 16:39, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
Spelling is "Horsehead Nebula" -- at least in the Galaxy Map in ME3[]
Was the Horsehead Nebula spelled as two words in one of the first two games or somewhere else in the games? It's Horsehead Nebula in ME3's Galaxy Map -- yet it's spelled as "Horse Head" here. --AC Grecor 108.69.68.145 16:56, July 27, 2013 (UTC)
- Correct. I was spelled "Horse Head" on the original Mass Effect Galaxy Map. Personally I'd support a name move since not only is "Horsehead Nebula" the correct astronomical term, but the name was in fact corrected by the BioWare writers for Mass Effect 3 (can't remember mass effect 2 sitch). So if you can get a few folks to speak up we could probably move it. Cattlesquat (talk) 18:44, July 27, 2013 (UTC)
- a note will be sufficient for our purposes. see page history. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 19:08, July 27, 2013 (UTC)
- Oh right, redirects, good point. Sometimes I'm just slow is all. Cattlesquat (talk) 21:14, July 27, 2013 (UTC)
Saw my wikipedia link got reverted and realized there was already a wikipedia link at the top of the article. BUT I will argue that the wikipedia link deserves the proper terminology, not to be recast as the incorrect spelling. Because presently we get the incorrect spelling at least 3 times (bolded) before we see the correct one (unbolded). Also - though my attempt to improve it got reverted before I could even finish adding this note, I would also like to argue that a better note is in order, and I propose:
- Note: Although Mass Effect spells the nebula's name "Horse Head Nebula", in Mass Effect 3, the same celestial object is presented as "Horsehead Nebula", without the space. The latter is the correct terminology applied to the realworld counterpart.
Would appreciate community discussion/consensus. Or an explanation of why this is inappropriate given the obvious error - and later attempt to correct it - by the developers. Cattlesquat (talk) 02:17, July 28, 2013 (UTC)
- you're not even attempting to read the entirety of the page. your changes are redundant and unacceptable. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 02:23, July 28, 2013 (UTC)
- Respectfully I have indeed read the whole page - please do assume at least an attempt at good faith. What I'm pointing out is that the current version of the page gives us the (incorrect) "Horse Head Nebula" FIVE times, all of them bolded and/or enlarged and/or linked, before it gives us the correct term even once, and that version (ironically, and in my view unacceptably) un-bolded. I'm certainly sensitive to the issue of redundancy, but how about we find a way to solve it that gets the correct terminology more prominent in the article? For example we could use the correct term most or at least some of the earlier bolded times in the article (especially where we link it to Wikipedia), and then have the note point out the earlier incorrect usage. AND/OR let's put the note nearer the top. This is different (IMHO) from the various "[sic]" situations because the developers actively corrected their earlier error. In any event I've tried a couple times to improve the accuracy of the article and had the changes reverted, so I'm respectfully appealing here. Cattlesquat (talk) 02:36, July 28, 2013 (UTC)
- And a gold star for you TE78 :-) I can count on either one hand or maybe one finger the number of times I've changed someone's mind in a wiki disagreement on any wiki without anyone else having spoken up. Happy editing! Cattlesquat (talk) 02:52, July 28, 2013 (UTC)