This is the talk page for Normandy SR-2/Archive2.
Please limit discussions to topics that go into improving the article.
If you wish to discuss matters not relevant to article upkeep, take it to the blogs, forums,
Discord chat, or discussions module.
Thank you.

Name Edit

should it be mentioned that Cerberus didn't name it Normandy, but the commander and Jeff do.Paladin cross 17:25, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

I do recall that the sr-2 did not carry 'Normandy' painted onto the hull, when it first appeared. once they were launched however, it did have the name. 17:31, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my point, the SR-2 with the name Normandy appears after the commander says something like "now we need to give it a name." Paladin cross 17:33, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

But Cerberus still named it the Normandy, didn't they? Or did Joker and Shep paint the hull themselves? I mean, Shepard could have demanded to name it the "All powerful super-shitstorm", or the "Cerberus is a bunch of murdering d-bags". I'm fairly certain the Illusive Man had the final say in what it was named, and would have vetoed names he didn't approve of. And, at the end of the day, the game didn't show Shepard and Joker deciding to name it the Normandy, and then implementing this themselves. SpartHawg948 18:10, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

You are probably right, but it never shows the commander and Jeff NOT painting it, right?

But either way it is speculation. We don't know if Cerberus named it, or the Illusive Man just took Shepard and Joker's advice on the name. Again speculation either way. Lancer1289 18:15, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

It didn't not show them painting it, but we don't base factual articles on what was not 'not shown'. We base them off of what was shown. Something that wasn't 'not shown' still was not shown, meaning that it's speculation. Also, given that the rank is being used to refer to one commander in particular, it's 'the Commander and Jeff'. SpartHawg948 18:26, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, also I was in a hurry to type so I didn't hit shift, my bad. Paladin cross 18:30, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

I certainly would have liked it if Shepard called it "All powerful super-shitstorm"--Ironreaper 14:49, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

From  : "Strictly speaking, as I understand the conventional rules of capitalization, "commander" should be capitalized when it is the nickname of a particular officer" -- For example, when Joker calls Shepard 'Commander' but not 'Commander Shepard' -- "but not in the more general context." -- Like if I were to write, "The commander walked tiredly to the elevator." -- "Both I and my editor were concerned that readers who did not pick up on that distinction would assume we had simply been careless and inconsistent about when to capitalize. We ended up going with "commander," uncapitalized, in both cases." | I like to think of it in the same rules as 'god.' When I write, "God said, "And let there be light," god is capitalized. When I am saying a noun, it is not capitalized: "The god watched over his people." Basically: capitalize when it is used as a name (Commander Shepard, "Hey, Commander"), do not capitalize if it used as a noun (like PaladinCross' sentence). To make this edit on-topic, I agree with Paladin Cross. I think TIM would have totally allowed Shepard to name it him/herself. In fact, that's what I assumed. If TIM had wanted it named something else, he would have done so before Joker was shown it. DrScarecrow 21:01, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Camera Bug Edit

The camera will sometimes freeze when exiting conversations with Mordin if you skip dialogue using the (Y) button in the Xbox 360 version of the game. This prevents you from continuing until you reload a previous save. Mictlantecuhtli 10:16, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the old 'put the brand new post at the very top' maneuver. Take that, chronological order which allows for easy reference and archiving! So, getting on point here, how often is 'sometimes'? Once in 1000 playthroughs? Once in 100? Once in a million? I'm asking because I've played the game extensively, as have quite a few people I know, and this is the first I've heard of this bug, which leads me to suspect its an issue with either the 360 itself, or the game disc. It's not outside the realm of the possible that there is a game glitch I'm unaware of, just trying to rule out some of the variables first. SpartHawg948 10:25, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
It's a brand new 360, and copy of Mass Effect 2 I received for my birthday. It has happened twice in a single playthrough, and once when I started an engineer. It's the second game stopping bug I encountered within three hours of playing (the other is in Freedom's Progress where a rocket knocked me back through a closed door). I can repeat it if I try, but mostly I ignore Mordin now. Feel free to move the post to the bottom, I only put it here because it was the most recent. Mictlantecuhtli 11:19, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
Game is unpatched (except the patch it installed when I put it in the 360), with no DLC. Mictlantecuhtli 11:21, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Rog. It generally works the other way though... most recent to the bottom, sort of like a line. The later you get here, the farther back you are. I should point out that just because a 360 is new doesn't really mean anything. I love the 360, but some of them can be pretty damn glitchy. If it were a problem with the game, that'd likely be obvious, as you could look at the disc and see a problem, or it would manifest itself in other ways. Hmmm... it would really help if someone else could pop up and say 'hey, yeah! that happened to me too!', but at this point that might be a bit of a deus ex machina. It strikes me as odd that this would be the first time a purported glitch like this would come up, but then again, stranger things have happened. The two glitches in fairly rapid succession also seems a bit odd to me, and possibly suggestive of the problem lying elsewhere, but honestly, I'm just spitballing here. SpartHawg948 11:29, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Well I can force it by rapidly pressing (Y), and if the conversation ends by me skipping conversation and by me hitting (Y) on the "Goodbye" option it happens about 1 in 4 times. If I slow down and let him speak a few words from each sentence before skipping slowly ahead it doesn't happen. This could be a disc speed issue maybe, but disc speed wouldn't really account for the clipping issue in Freedom's Progress when you get knocked back by rockets, if I had made it to anyplace else in the game yet with rockets and locked doors I would try to recreate it elsewhere. As to the undiscovered aspect of it, I recently found an undiscovered exploit in Oblivion and it's been out alot longer than this one and it took my curiosity in Dragon Age Origins to discover what exactly was wrong with Nugbane, Dwarven Defender, etc unobtainable weapons. So if you want to check here you can see I don't pull stuff out of a hat. Mictlantecuhtli 11:38, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no worries, I never doubted that you were being genuine. And I must say, your taste in games is impeccable. I haven't played Oblivion in quite some time, and I may have to now. Oblivion was one of two reasons I had to have a 360, the other being Halo 3 (as Mass Effect was just barely starting to make the rumor mills sometime after I got mine). I still have a few lingering doubts about this bug, but honestly that's just because I myself haven't seen it, which isn't really a rational/reasonable standard to have regarding these things. The old 'if I haven't seen it, it doesn't exist!' routine... :P SpartHawg948 11:57, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

The reason for my reversion is the same reasons listed above. Just before I logged off last night I completed by 18th playthough of ME2. Yes I have too much time on my hands. I had never ecountered this bug before as well. The major reason that I can think of is that becuase your game is unpatched it came up. BioWare has been pretty good about patching little problems like that, so that may bre the reason. The patch that it installed on you 360 was for the 360 itself, a title update that comes with any game that is purchased in case you can't hook up to Xbox Live. This is also coming from someone that has played through only one on the PC, just got it, and 15 on the 360. Just wanted to say way I did as well. Lancer1289 16:52, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Fuel Trick Edit

The Extended Fuel Cells trick works in the Xbox 360 version of the game, but I cannot say for certain it works in any other version or anything besides the base version of the game. Mictlantecuhtli 16:26, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Number of Crew MembersEdit

After the mission on Korlus, doesn't Shepard have the option to ask EDI how many crew members are aboard the Normandy and she answers? Correct me if Im wrong AdmiralPedro1stFleet 04:22, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

I also got the chance to ask EDI how many members were on the Normandy; she answered 24. It was a renegade conversation option in which Shepard then responds that they are expendable since backups are available. Atemporal 11:36, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

So, what does that mean exactly? Does that mean that the number of active crew at any one time is 24? Or does that mean there are 24 crewmembers and some backups on-board, which do not do anything (very unbelievable)? Or does that mean there are only 24 crewmembers in addition to Shepard et al? -- Pepoluan 16:34, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
It means that we don't know. This issue has some up many, many times in the past and it is the same every time. Check the history. Even counting the crew isn't really a good idea as the number of crew can fluctuate based on how many squadmates you recruit. Lancer1289 17:40, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

While my modification got rejected, I wish to point out that there are precisely 24 bunks in the Crew Quarters, and each individual Squad member has its own quarters and bedding. It is thus OBVIOUS that the reference to 24 crew members by EDI refers to the crew complement - excluding squad members. My only gripe (thinking it's simply an oversight by Bioware) is that it would seem the crew is awake 24/7 as there is no hot-bunking, which would then mean 48 maximum crew (which would make sense given the large number of unoccupied workstations throughout the CIC). Do what you will with this logical conclusion, but I consider the Normandy Crew Complement to have 24 crew + Squad. Foetus 03:57, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

I do have to ask what the source is for stating that hot bunking is not in effect. I can't recall hearing anything of the sort in-game, and saying that "well we never see anyone in the beds" is no more evidence for the claim that there is no hot-bunking than it is for the claim that Cerberus crew-members never sleep. SpartHawg948 04:01, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
Also I feel that I have to state this, what about the eight sleeper pods leading to the Main Battery where Garrus is? Do we just leave those out as well? And no there isn’t a source for that in game. It is never stated if the SR-2 uses hot bunking or not. Lancer1289 04:06, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
Regarding hot-bunking, there is a Codex entry in ME1 regarding its use by the Alliance. My own assumption (because this is what it is) is based on the fact that there are 24 empty beds in the crew quarters - while every single crew member is up and about. I simply wish to have ME facts stated here however and can simply forget about the hot bunking issue (which I believe is simple oversight by Bioware as it does break "suspension of disbelief" when you notice the impossibility of having 100% of the crew woken up at any one time other than when on Batttlestations (which is not the case when patrolling the ship). What is obvious however is that the ship is designed for at least 24 crew, given the number of beds in the Crew Quarters. This is why I posted on the page in the first place as it serves as corroborating evidence to EDI's claim. Foetus 04:09, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
But there we have the problem of assuming that Cerberus operates under the same guidelines as the Alliance in this matter. Unlike the SSV Normandy, where Alliance rules as listed in the ME Codex apply, the Normandy SR-2 is a Cerberus vessel. We have no reason to assume that the same rules apply. We've seen instances where Cerberus procedures deviate from those of the Alliance (such as the mere presence of EDI, an AI, on the ship, which would never happen on an Alliance ship), so this seems to be using an assumption to justify another assumption. And if there are only two shifts, not three, there would be times when the bunks would be empty. SpartHawg948 04:14, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)However, remember that that the SR-2 isn't an Alliance ship. It is a Cerberus frigate with no relation to the Alliance as far as we know. Cerberus may not use hot-bunking, and then maybe they do as they may follow only certain Alliance guidelines for standard operating procedure onboard a frigate. Assumptions are also guesses, and given the evidence that your assumption can be refuted very easily with other evidence. The other problem is that you ignored the sleeping pods that I brought up. Do we just ignore those? You are using one theory to prop up another and it can be refuted with other conflicting evidence. Lancer1289 04:19, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, hadn't noticed your remark of the sleeper pods. Honestly I don't know what to make of them. As for the hot bunking issue, I have already dropped it as being circumstantial and anecdotal - merely being a probable oversight by Bioware. All I am arguing is that there is seemingly enough evidence to suggest there are effectively 24 crew members, excluding Shepard's Squad. Also of note is that there are 8 squad members if we exclude the DLC-added characters, and Legion. So again, this is *supposition* - but if Shepard's quarters are isolated and using a different atmosphere, in case the ship lost its air supply all 8 "planned for" crew members could be placed in pods and Shepard could still be in his quarters - with EDI controlling the ship once "unlocked". Bear in mind this is all supposition and I do not wish to integrate any of this as "fact". Foetus 04:32, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

Jack's Location Edit

I have moved the section refering to Jacks location from Deck 4 to Deck 5. When playing as Joker, during the loading screen between the moment Joker enters the crawlways in the AI Core and exits them in Jacks Room, it is clearly shown to be Deck 5. Looq 12:02, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Yea no, the loading screen shows the location of the elevator, not where the engineering SUB-deck is. In reality a sub deck would be more like deck 4 1/2. I found a video that says it is still deck four. Here is the video, go to about 1:58 and it says "Crawl to Deck 4", not deck 5. Again the loading screen shows the position of the Normandy's elevator, not the deck Joker is on. It only shows it on the normal loading screens because Shepard is in the elevator and whatever deck is selected. In that same video, go to 0:52 and it will show Deck 5, when Joker is in the life support section, and I'm pretty sure that the life support isn't on deck 5, unless the SR-2 internal structure changed when I wasn't looking. Lancer1289 16:25, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Ideas to improve the article. Edit

I have a picture where the two Normandy (ssv and SR2) are together for comparison. I Don't want to mess up the article with inserting a picture, so if you would like to use it write it here.

If you could provide a link to the picture so we could look it over first, I'm curious, and a quick once over would be good first before a final decion can be made. Again a link would be great first, thanks. Lancer1289 16:15, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
There it is:
I hope it's usable.
It does look good but a few more opinions on this matter can't hurt. Actually It would be a good idea to get some more opinions about whether or not the picture should go in or not. My vote is yes, and we'll just have to figure out a place for it. Lancer1289 17:00, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
How do we know that that picture is actually to scale? Bastian964 17:36, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
I'd have to say we don't. Particularly since it doesn't really look like one image, so much as two that have been combined. Note that the Normandy SR-2 casts a shadow, while the SSV Normandy does not. SpartHawg948 17:41, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
My point exactly. Since it likely isn't to scale we can't in good conscience use it. Bastian964 17:58, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. The more I look at it, the less I like the idea of including it. SpartHawg948 18:08, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hm, I didn't even see the shadow, shows sometimes how well I look at things. However I found the source for the picture, and its an official source, the Collectors' Edition Art book, I'm looking at it right now. The image crops out the page numbering, page 41 in case any of you have it, and the subtext at the bottom. I still think that it should be in there. Lancer1289 18:09, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
I have the book... just not quite sure where it is at the moment. That's actually pretty disappointing. You'd think BioWare could do much better than this. After all, it looks like they just photoshopped an image of the SSV Normandy from the game or promotional material or something onto a concept image of the SR-2. They didn't even take the time to remove the SR-2's shadow (or add one to the SSV) or to rotate the SSV so they're both oriented the same way. I suppose it could go in, at a bottom in the trivia section or something as, given the shoddy nature of the image I'm still not convinced this is accurately scaled. SpartHawg948 18:15, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
Hm, when you do put it that way, I guess putting it in may be a bad idea. It does look photoshopped, and when I dropped my initial comment I knew I'd seen that image before, and it took me until now to find it, exaclty where I left it no less. Anyway I guess with that reasoning above it really shouldn't go in. After all the SR-2 doesn't have a trivia section, and to create one just for a picture, doesn't seem right. And in my opinion, it doesn't need a trivia section becuase everything is either covered where it should be in the article, or on the SR-1's page. Lancer1289 18:20, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Switch on model display case. Edit

I have noticed a switch on the ship model display case but mine's busted. I have all the models but can't seem to make the thing work. Does anybody know how to fix it? 21:10, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

The switch is used for some of the romance scenes and nothing else IIRC. I know Garrus' off hand, but I can't remember anyone else's. It isn't busted, its just a non-useable graphic that seems to be there for show more than anything. It would be nice if they did something with it, but it's just there for show. Lancer1289 21:14, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Lancer1289, now I will stop trying to activate the switch. Is there any chance that this switch is associated for a secret ship model that has not been found by anybody yet? 20:39, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm something tells me no, but I honestly can't say. Maybe it will have another purpose as the DLC train doesn't seem to be slowing down any time soon. Again who knows. Lancer1289 20:47, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

Is it really the SR3 Normandy or are there two SR2s? Edit

As heard in a news broadcast a ship named the SSV Ain Jalut attacked a batarian colony world in 2185, this ship is called a Normandy class vessel. Being a Normandy class vessel it would have the same stealth systems as the Normandy and in all intensive purposes be the same ship just different name. So with this in mind it should, like the SSV Normandy SR1, carry the classification SR (Stealth Reconnaissance) making it the SSV Ain Jalut SR-2, as no other ships of this class have ever been named, shown, or mentioned. Even if Cerberus’ Normandy was finished before the SSV Ain Jalut, as it is not an Alliance ship, it would not be recognized by the Alliance so its name would not affect the classification of SSV Ain Jalut and even more pressing is the fact Cerberus’ Normandy was built in total secret so there’s no way the Alliance would even know of its existence. So either both parties didn’t know of the others new SR type ship (which is unlikely for Cerberus to not know), the SSV Ain Jalut and the Cerberus Normandy, which in that case means there are two SR-2s out there or the SSV Ain Jalut is classified as SR-3 which means the Alliance knew of the Cerberus Normandy and recognizes it. More likely it is a developer oversight.NightsKnight 03:50, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

Just to point out a couple of things. Your statement is presupposed on a few ideas that are unproven. Namely that ships are numbered in a linear fashion (i.e. SR1, SR2, SR3) in the Alliance Navy, and that numbers are not reused. Neither of these is a safe assumption. Military numbering schemes vary greatly based on individual nations, services, and time periods, and we have no idea how the Alliance handles this. And we have absolutely no info to suggest that they wouldn't just re-use SR1. Even supposing that there are two SR2s, how would this in any way be a developer oversight? It could very well be intentional. Oversight suggests a mistake, and there is absolutely nothing to suggest that there is a mistake here. SpartHawg948 03:12, July 24, 2010 (UTC)
The style however, an alphabetic hull classification code, dash, then a number, is identical to the United States Navy hull classification system and is very similar to that the Canadian and British Navies use. In those systems ships are numbered in numeric order and if a ship is lost or retired its classification code is never reused for record purposes and as a manner of respect. And as it is not a major point as only the Normandys’ hull classification codes are ever shown. They likely never put any though in into classifying other Alliance ships, shown by the fact that the only other known classes are the two human dreadnought classes and their hull classifications along with that of any other Alliance vessels are never shown, as they are rarely ever seen. In addition having SR-1 for Mass Effect 1 and SR-2 for Mass Effect 2 makes design/story sense, I was simply pointing out that there is a possibility of there being an Alliance SR-2 and a Cerberus SR-2 or some other arrangement, though having two SR-2s is more likely. NightsKnight 03:50, July 24, 2010 (UTC)
True, although I fail to see the relevance. Although you have to factor in that, while the system the Alliance uses appears similar to that used by the USN and other NATO navies, it is also (as you described it) identical to that used by the USAF, which is not nearly as linear. This is why I raised the objections I did. SpartHawg948 03:52, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

Just to throw my two cents in: the SSV Ain Jalut is a Normandy-Class ship, logically making it the SSV Ain Jalut SR-1; to put it in other terms: If two foreign planes are both given the designation FM-1 (Foreign Military One) then they would be differentiated in terms of country; for instance: Spanish FM-1 vs French FM-1. Both are Foreign Military craft, and each have the designation FM-1 which implies they carry a political leader (US Air Force One is reserved for non-civilian flights that carry the US President) Thus a pair of Normandy-Class Vessels with different NAMES (Normandy vs Ain Jalut) can both have the designation SR-1 because they are both the first in the line of that name. my understanding of the naming convention is that each name given to a ship is treated as a subset within that class of ship. this is a very long and drawn out way of saying, the Normandy and the Ain Jalut are completely separate despite being the same class. The Normandy was the prototype as well and thus any following ships of its class would have modifications like more escape pods, improved fire-suppression systems etc. --Burkenation 20:23, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Silaris Heavy Ship Armour Edit

Hey, I need a little help here, I understand the inportance of the normandy upgrades, and have them all installed except for the Silaris Armour. The problem is, I cannot seem to find the dialouge option in any conversations with Jacob that allows him to reccomend a technology. If there is a specific conversation path I need to take to get to this, or anything else, a tip would be appriciated. 19:19, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Well it depends on a few things, one you need to recruit Mordin Solus first because you can't research anything with out him. Once you get him, use the "Investigate" conversation option when talking to him, when you open dialogue with him, then the "[UPGRADES]" (Caps?) conversation option. Jacob will then tell you that he has a few ideas about the Normandy's armor. Lancer1289 19:25, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
Well, I have Mordin already, I am on the verge of the final mission, and I have done his loyalty mission (his and Mordin's). I tried doing exactly what you described, by the "upgrades" option does not appear on the investigate conversation wheel. 19:51, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
Hmm very interesting. To be honest I have no idea why it isn't showing up. The only things think I can think of is you don't have updates, or more likely it is a glitch. Also just to be sure the "investgate" wheel comes up with four options, "upgrades", "Thoughts on the mission", "Opinions of the crew", and "Service with the Alliance". If those three final options aren't coming up then you aren't in the right wheel. If they are then I think its a glitch or you are missing an update. Lancer1289 20:17, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I get the wheel with opinions on the crew, thoughts on the mission, and service with the alliance, but upgrades is not there, all the others seem to be perfectly comfortable on the wheel, like nothing is missing. 21:19, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
Well then I can only guess that it is a glitch or something. I'm sorry I really have no other explanation as to this freak thing. However there is another way to check, I think. If you have the Siaris Codex entry, Primary Codex, Ships and Vehicles, which IIRC you only get after researching it, then you have equipped the armor. Lancer1289 21:27, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, it must have been a glitch, but it does not matter, as after checking, I do have the codex entry. 21:54, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
Again I fell that I must say that I don't remember if you get it after you research it or not. However I think that you get it afterwards. Just felt I needed to say that. Lancer1289 21:58, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
You might consider checking the status hologram in the CIC as well. The armor will be displayed in blue around the bow part only after you purchase it. 12:29, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to add to this: if you've done Jacob's loyalty mission I've found (now this is on the PC, no idea about the 360) that the Silaris armour option is automatically unlocked without you ever mentioning it to Jacob. I have no idea if I glitch or not, but it does this for every team member, Samara, Thane, Miranda...and Jacob. Herecomethecalvary 18:49, January 12, 2011 (UTC)Herecomethecalvary

I'm 99% sure it isn't a glitch. It happens for me every time, and not just for the squad members with ship upgrades. SpartHawg948 18:52, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to throw it out there, even though I know this was all mentioned a while ago. I was trying to think of what you meant by that last sentence, but then it was like hey, lightbulb! Mordin, Jack. Also, I want to apologise for my poor grammar and spelling. You'd never think I passed my English exams with flying colours.Herecomethecalvary 19:11, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

Spacing issue Edit

I am having an issue with when I try to make edits to my sandbox (which I copied everything from this page) and every time I do so it makes a HUGE amount of space occur between the words squad members and Commander Shepard. Is there an issue with that piece of.....crap rich text editor (which always never does what I want), adding the spacing? And if anyone feels so inclined, please provide a list of things the RTE does so I know what to look for when it pulls stunts like this. Thanks so much in advance and sorry if this comes across as a bit hostile. I just hate unnecessary issues and then having to fix them. GrandMoffVixen 18:05, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Yes its the RTE, and I am currently in the process of fixing the thing to not use the code. I think it will look better. Give me about ten minutes. I don't know what the RTE does, but I really have half a mind to open a policy about it to ban the thing since all it does is cause nothing but trouble. Oh and it wasn't hostile, I hate the thing and have a growing list of reasons why. Lancer1289 18:10, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
Would you consider posting some of the most common things for me so I know what to look for when they happen? I have some knowledge of HTML and the RTE seems to act counter to how HTML works. GrandMoffVixen 18:17, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
Some common things, ignoring HTML and Wiki code, putting images in articles in the middle of paragraphs and by default as thumbs no caption, messing up formatting in ordinary articles, putting images in the middle of headlines, messing up formatting on talk pages, ignoring things like : for indentation, bold, and italics markers, and messing up headlines. There are many things but those are the most common things that I come across. Again I really do think from time to time about getting a policy forum up about it to ban it from this wiki, as it usually causes nothing but ill, usually. Lancer1289 18:25, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

The security GaurdEdit

If you keep having conversation with Kasumi Goto, she would mention the Security guard's name which is Burt. Shadowhawk27 20:46, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

And she also says that she may have to start cloaking through the CIC. Unless the AI core suddenly relocated to the CIC deck when I wasn't looking, no. What proof do you have that the guard is actually named Burt, because dialogue isn't enough in this case as again Kausmi mentions the CIC, not the AI core. And again those two things are on completely separate decks. Lancer1289 20:50, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

The Burt thing with could just be in there for humor as we never see a guard on deck 2. its not like that one security dude's running the whole ship's security (his job would suck). But then again, why NOT call him Burt? Theres no official name for him anyway, and it's doubtful that he will pop up again in ME3.

Normandy Deck Diagram Edit

Just wanted to point out this handy little picture I found looking for deck information for the SR-2. I use this wikia a lot for information for my fanfictions, and I think that this picture would be helpful for authors and players. Someone would have to write a description to go along with it (like the Avatar: The Last Airbender World Map on the ATLA wiki).

New here, so I'd like to hear from more seasoned members. If you think it's superfluous, okay. I'm just disappointed with the pictures here detailing the Normandy. They don't always have what I need. DrScarecrow 19:34, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

stealth systems Edit

I was under the impression that part of the original Normandy's stealth systems included not having traditional thrusters for propulsion but ME fields that pulled the ship along with gravity, and considering its a copy with improvements, I assumed the SR2 shared this characteristic, but both the in-game depiction and this article appear otherwise, but the ship is still described as sharing the SR1's stealth systems. Anyone have an explanation?

Sure. The drive system on the SR-1 factored into its stealth capabilities, but at the end of the day, it wasn't a stealth system. It was a propulsion system with stealthy features. Same as the B-2, the F-117, and the F-22. Their engines and exhaust systems have features that help with the overall stealthiness of the aircraft, but at the end of the day, they're still considered propulsion systems. That'd be my guess. Anywho, while it is known that the SR2 improves upon the SR-1 in many areas, we don't know that all systems are improved upon. At the end of the day, an assumption that the SR2 shares the same drive system as the SR-1 is just that, an assumption. We can look at the ship and see it obviously doesn't have the same systems. The SR-1 was a prototype, and prototypes often have features that don't make it into production models or upgraded versions. This could easily be one of those. SpartHawg948 04:34, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, but specifically what I meant was that the original had no thrusters, emitting no heat and helping to hide the ship while the successor appears to have thrusters which would emit heat and at least hinder the overall point of the heat-sink stealth system. Maybe it was cheaper, or maybe Bioware thinks it looks better, but I don't get it.-- 04:59, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but where does it state that the SSV Normandy doesn't have thrusters? The SSV Normandy has tech to allow it to move without them, but I seriously doubt that they wouldn't have equipped the ship without standard thrusters, and I'm pretty sure that we see them used at the Battle of the Citadel. Both ships have drive cores that allow them to "fall into" mass pockets created by their cores, used while they are in stealth mode to avoid detection, but I don't remember a statement where it specifically says the Normandy, either one, doesn't have thrusters. Lancer1289 05:07, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You also have to factor in that the new Normandy wasn't supposed to be a carbon copy of the first one. It didn't have the same mission, so it didn't need the same level of stealth systems. It was made to be bigger and more formidable, with better defenses and heavier firepower. You don't put all sorts of stealth systems into a ship whose intended mission doesn't call for them, and you do put better and faster engines into a ship designed to get places fast. Remember, time was of the essence in ME2, so it stands to reason that they would dispense with some of the more frivilous aspects of the original engines in favor of speed. SpartHawg948 05:10, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

@Lancer1289 - lead/leads Edit

I'm sorry, but I simply don't get why 'leads' would be right in this context. The phrase "Instead, the rows of cryogenic pods lead to the Main Battery Room- where Garrus Vakarian can be found" is very similar to.. say.. "Hundreds of people visit this wikia for information." - Both have a subject in plural form. Now you wouldn't change it to "Hundreds of people visits...", would you? So why "Rows of (...) pods leads"? English isn't my mother tongue so maybe you'd be so kind as to shed some light over your decision? 22:24, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

Because there are many rules to English and this is one of those situation where both are equally acceptable. And just throwing this out there, I plugged both into Microsoft Word and I didn't get a grammatical change for either. This is just a needless wording change where both forms are equally acceptable. Now we do have a rule about that with spelling and that does carry over to wording changes as well. Both are equally acceptable so no change is warranted. Lancer1289 22:53, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any rule here, except that it may be colloquially acceptable to say "leads" in the context, but certainly not in correct grammar, I ask you to prove me wrong. Changing visit to visits in my example sentence didn't give me any grammatical changes neither, but you don't want to defend that sentence, do you? 23:01, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
Except your sentence doesn’t make sense with visits, this one makes sense with lead or leads so your example is mute. Both are equally acceptable and both make sense grammatically as well. It may not be correct grammar to you, but it is correct grammar in this case, and so is lead for that matter. Both say the same thing, both are grammatically correct, and you can put either in and it would be acceptable. Changing one to the other is a needless wording change when they again say the exact same thing and both are correct grammatically. Lancer1289 23:07, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
I so want to believe you, but you seem to be unable to find a rule for it. Of course my example doesn't make sense with "visits". It shouldn't, as only he, she or it need 's' when the verb is conjugated. It's "The row leads" and "The rows lead", find me something other than your gut that says different. 23:15, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
The rules are extremely flexible in English, unlike some other languages, and while I don't have an English textbook next to me, I do know that either one would be acceptable in this case. Right now you are arguing for a needless wording change that shouldn't happen. Do armor and armour say the exact same thing? Yes they do, and switching one to the other isn't allowed. You have already stated that English isn't your first language, while English is my first language. You do realize that in English there is a rule, then there are about 30 exceptions to it, and there are many cases where subject verb agreement gets extremely hazy. This is one of those cases where either one would be acceptable and frankly neither is more correct than the other. Lancer1289 23:36, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
And it looks like none of it matters anyway. Lancer1289 01:20, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
I do agree with you that this is not an important matter at all, but it isn't a case of being a native speaker. More importantly you'll never know the grammar of your mother tongue as well as if you've had to learn it from scratch. Of course there are rules and there are exceptions for them, I speak four languages, I should know - but this isn't a difficult rule, quite the contrary, it may be one of the first I've learnt. Comparing armor with armour doesn't say anything about verb conjugation neither, these are regional differences. Additionally I've asked several native speakers today who couldn't agree with me more, suggesting it may be a regional thing for your case as well. Don't get me wrong, this really isn't that important, but I understand you have high standards for this wiki and correcting a (in my opinion obvious) mistake shouldn't be asking too much. 13:55, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with the first anonymous user. I'm 99.9% sure that, while lead is correct and works just fine, "leads" is an example of horrible grammar at work. SpartHawg948 23:59, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

Tali: Chief Engineer Edit

Where in the game is this stated? sorry, I dont have the game installed at the moment (playing a completionist game of the first, then I'll install and play through the second.) --AlexMcpherson 17:06, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

After you recruit Tali, upon walking into the engine room one time Ken will ask Gabby, "So Gabby, what do you think of our new quarian boss?" (emphasis added). Because Ken refers to Tali as their boss, and as Ken and Gabby are engineers, this means she is the Chief Engineer. Video of conversation. Lancer1289 17:14, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Lancer. --AlexMcpherson 17:55, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

Conference Room/Cryo Pods Edit

Okay, who else found the original text to Deck 3 - Cryo pods, odd? I've changed, but I'll put the original text here:

One major difference is that the SR-2 lacks the large conference room that the SR-1 had. Instead, the rows of cryogenic pods lead to the Main Battery Room- where Garrus Vakarian can be found.

I've changed to

One major difference is that the SR-1 lacks the Main Battery room, which on the SR-2 is located forward of the Cryogenic Pods, where Garrus Vakarian can be found.

If anyone has any issues with the change itself, speak up. If you only do with the wording, well, if you can think of better, go ahead. But the point still stands. What the heck does the Conference Room on the SR-1, have to do with the addition of the MBR on the SR-2? On the SR-1, the conference room is located above/behind where the port/starboard stairs meet on the Crew Deck, and has it been included without changes on the SR-2, it would be, ahm... 'clipping' into the Crew Quarters and Life Support, and most probably into the Tantalus Core Room, too. Where the wall is on the SR-1, is the elevator door on the SR-2. Where the door into the conference room is on the SR-1, is the back wall of the SR-2. and the Sr-1's room seems bigger to me than the SR-s', and has that sloping path versus open the door and you're there for the SR-2's conference room, so yes, it would be clipping into the tantalus core room. Sorry, meandered a bit. Anyway, so yeah. --AlexMcpherson 17:34, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

Ok here's is an obvious question, rather than just delete relevant information, why not move it to the correct deck and reword it to fit it in? I really can't see why valid information was just deleted because it was in the wrong place. Anyway "the Main Battery Room" is sloppy grammar as it should have said "a Main Battery Room" unless there was only one Main Battery Room in the entire ME universe.
And I'm seriously getting tired of edit conflicts. Lancer1289 17:49, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

Completely Unimportant Bug Edit

Has anyone else noticed that when you research the mineral scanner, the Normandy hologram in the CIC indicates the wrong upgrade(the extended fuel cells)? Only after you research the extended fuel cells, the mineral scanner is shown. Is this important enough to be noted somewher in the article? Tali's no.1 fan 22:18, March 25, 2011 (UTC)

You mean the one in the engine nacelles? I have yet to see any proof that those are the fuel cells. Every game I have see shows that the scanner is in the nacelles while the fuel cells are in the upper stabilization fins on the hull. I really don't see how this is a bug as you yourself questioned what it is. Where's the proof that it is something else? Where's the proof that the hologram displays the wrong upgrade? And where's the proof that the hologram only displays the correct upgrade after researching the fuel cells? Lancer1289 22:27, March 25, 2011 (UTC)
I'll try and explain a bit better. The stabilisation fins on the hull are labelled by the hologram as "sensors", so they must be the mineral scanners. However, this is only shown after you research the fuel cells. Whereas after you research the scanner, the engines are displayed by the hologram as upgraded. I just thought it weird when I saw it. I don't know whether it has anything to do with the order in which you research the upgrades, or whether you've imported a save, or whether it's just my game. Tali's no.1 fan 22:41, March 25, 2011 (UTC)
I managed to find a very good image of the hologram and that is interesting. As to whether or not it is a bug, I'm not willing to say for certain. I can easily see extra fuel cells in the stabilizers, and I can also see scanners in the nacelles. That's the thing about scifi, there are so many things that are open to interpretation, some don't even have to make sense. As to mentioning it, I'm saying no right now as we don't know what is actually going on here. Lancer1289 23:01, March 25, 2011 (UTC)

Cryogenic Pods Edit

Are they actually called this in-game? They appear to be the same as the regular sleeper pods found in the SR1, in which case they should be referred to as sleeper pods in the article. RS89 23:31, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

System Alliance livery. Edit

This pic couldn't get added. Why??
First it was inserted in a badly formatted section. Second it isn't an official image and it would fall into the category of fan art. Appropriate in the blogs or forums, but not the main articles. Also the quality isn't as good when put next to a few other images, just look at the bow section, blurry. We can wait for something official, currently there is no official image, and of better quality. Lancer1289 01:19, April 29, 2011 (UTC)
If I may interject, I think the fact that it's in the Bioware store, and on the official Mass Effect 2 Facebook page, validates it as more than just fan art, though it does say that it is a prototype in the picture, and shipped models may look different. -- 17:21, May 6, 2011 (UTC)
Very well then, but the images are not the best and we can wait for more official images. As you pointed out, even the sites state that the mockup is a prototype and the final product may be different. We can wait for some actual in game footage of it, and no doubt we'll get some before the game comes out. Lancer1289 17:24, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

If I might interject, there is a mostly official image of the Normandy SR-2 in Systems Alliance Livery. Bioware has pictures of a model for sale in their store. I would assume that's as close to a cannon source as we will get prior to release of the game, or actual screenshots of it.--Allurade Dendra 23:52, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

Key words there would be "mostly official". We've known about the change for a while now, but this really isn't official yet, and a picture of a real world model would not be allowed in the article. We would prefer in-game screenshots over trailer footage, but failing to get that, we will wait for the images. A canon source in this case is a better image from in-game footage, and not a picture of a model. We present articles from an in-universe perspective, and a real world model image, just wouldn't fit anywhere outside the trivia section. And even that's debatable. Lancer1289 00:57, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

How about this one instead, for a full-view placeholder until a higher-resolution image can be found? --Kainzorus Prime Walkie-talkie 15:57, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that has horrible lighting to say the least. If that is what will be a placeholder, then I'd rather go without the image. Just because we have an image, doesn't mean we have to use it. Lancer1289 16:53, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Crew Number Edit

When asking about venting Grunt from the hold after the Okeer mission, EDI states there are a total of 24 permenant crew members (likely not including squadmates)

In which case, the total would likely be more than 24, would it not? At least three members of Shepard and Co. are, after all, crew members of the Normandy. (Shepard is the CO, Miranda is the XO, and Jacob mans the armory.) There's also ambiguity in the issue of "contractors". Some of the people on the Normandy aren't really members of Cerberus. For example, Joker and Doctor Chakwas (and to a lesser extent the two engineers) are there for Shepard, not for Cerberus. Are they considered permanent crew? And what of the aliens who become crew members? The science lab seems to have been built expressly for Dr. Solus. Is he permanent crew? What I'm driving at is that there is a good deal of ambiguity here, some of which you yourself actually point out with your post. SpartHawg948 23:46, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure if someone FAQ'ed Bioware's folks about it they could probably clarify on what EDI was referring to. Or, if anyone wants to just run a literal in-game head count, (with the inclusion of the mystery soldier guarding Legion) this could be figured out once and for all. -- 01:11, May 18, 2011 (UTC)Killerkirk91

Space Hamster Edit

Given that the space hamster is a nod to another Bioware game, there should probably be a trivia entry somewhere for it. Any ideas on where we can put that? --Snicker 03:22, June 7, 2011 (UTC)

There's actually an article for it. -- Commdor (Talk) 03:27, June 7, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - that's why I asked. Sometimes when I search the wiki, nothing comes up, not sure why. And it's not linked in the article. I'll fix that right now. --Snicker 04:25, June 7, 2011 (UTC)

Size Edit

Gather around, children, it's science-time!

The SR-2 isn't twice the SIZE of the SR-1, EDI says it's almost twice the MASS of the SR-1. Assuming the density of both ships is about the same, then the cube law relationship would predict the dimensions of the SR-2 to be about 25% greater than the SR-1. As the SR-1 is about 160m long, or there abouts (measured using Mass Effect's mini-map of the Normandy, where the internal section is about 80m from cockpit to drive core) the SR-2 would be about 200m long.

And that concludes todays mathemagics lecture.

While this is interesting, it is speculation and in all honesty, this really belongs in the forums or a blog post. Lancer1289 18:28, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
Gather round again kids, it's canon time. While the first post here is based largely on assumptions and on mini-maps, which in BioWare games tend to be inaccurate (the SR-1 Normandy article actually noted at one time that the mini-map was larger than the ship itself). On the other hand, the Codex, a canon source, says quite explicitly that "The vehicle's many alterations produced a craft nearly double the original size, requiring an even larger Tantalus drive core to compensate." Even if the assumptions in the first argument are proved correct, suspension of disbelief still applies, as this is sci-fi. Long story short, the SR-2 is twice the size of the SR-1. It's canon. SpartHawg948 19:37, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

One little remark : when the Normandy SR-2 arrives at Illium, it lands. Why in this case the article mentions this "However unlike the SR-1, the SR-2 cannot land on every planet—due to its increased mass—requiring shore parties to use a shuttle to get to a planet's surface. " ? -- 19:42, November 2, 2011 (UTC)Ben

Incorrect. At Illium, the Normandy docks. It does not land. At no point in the game do we see the Normandy land anywhere. Not unless you count the suicide mission, where it crash lands. On Illium, we can clearly see that the Normandy is docked, but has not landed. In order to land, the Normandy would have to be resting on a surface, which it is not. SpartHawg948 19:55, November 2, 2011 (UTC)

[1] Here are the 2 Normandys compared. The Normandy is simultaneously twice the mass and twice the size. The increased size is not the length however, but the volume, which is why it would not appear that much bigger on first glance. I did a number of calculations and guestimates based on differing sources and they tend to generally fit with this size. The SR-1 is roughly 75m long. Phalanx-a-pedian 17:20, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

First please remove the image as it is causing massive formatting issues. Second, it doesn’t do anything. This is a fan-generated image, therefore non-canon, therefore anything gained from it is irrelevant. "I did a number of calculations and guestimates based on differing sources" (emphasis added). Guestimates are not canon, not fact. We don't have an accurate length of the SR-1 or the SR-2 for that matter. Therefore saying it is 75m is nothing more or less than speculation and therefore irrelevant. Get some facts, i.e. an actual length, then we can talk. Lancer1289 17:28, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
I have corrected the issue by linking to the image instead, as had been my original intention, my mistake, sorry. It does do something, it shows the relative sizes of the ships, as the SR-2 is twice the size (read volume) of the SR-1. I know the guestimates are not canon, and was not trying to suggest that they are. I can't remember the original source but I am sure that somewhere it was said that the SR-1 was the length of a 747, which range from 70 to 76 meters in length. This is supported by looking at the size of the door on the SR-1 and determining it's size, and thus that of the rest of the ship, amongst other things. I was not trying to give exact values, just the scale we are working with, and the comparative size of the SR-1 and SR-2, which that image show's as actually as can be expected. I concluded from the research I did a little while back that we are unlikely to ever have a figure more accurate then the "around 75m long" which I gave above. This is in no small part because the developers never seem to have gotten further then "about the size of a Boeing 747" and the fact that the interior and exterior don't match up. If you wan't an exact size the you'll have to look at the size of the ship when docked somewhere like the Citadel (for the SR-1) or Omega (for the SR-2) using something more accurate then a guestimate. Phalanx-a-pedian 18:26, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
Again though you don't have any canon sources. You site without sourcing your information, and that is a problem. "About the size of a 747" is ambiguous to begin with. Does that mean larger? Smaller? Everyone's definition of size is different. The other problem is we don't know how high the door on the Normandy is, nor, for that matter, a lot of other things on the Citadel or any other place you mention. You have nothing but guesses and speculation based on a fan generated image, which we don't even know the accuracy of it. Lancer1289 19:04, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

[[2]] Image shows Normandy SR-2 docked with dreadnought. Geth dreadnought is said to be one third larger than Systems Alliance dreadnought; assumng 888 meters for the latter (Everest-class), Geth Dreadnought would be 1184 meters long, which would make SR-2 296 meters long. 09:35, June 22, 2012 (UTC)

Please take speculation to the proper place as this isn't it. Lancer1289 10:08, June 22, 2012 (UTC)

First, made that picture a link. It was breaking the page and doesn't need to load. Second, I just found out the model ship display case in the Captain's cabin has models of both the SSV and the SR-2. While the other ships are not built on the same scale as those models, the difference in size between the two makes it appear that they are built on the same scale relative to each other. While no definite conclusions can be made of this, it might be useful to have a high quality screenshot of these two models. BrentNewland (talk) 23:47, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

ME Conviction? Edit

Could it be mentioned that the Normandy is the one that seems to take Shepard to earth for his trial? --Jono R 12:00, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

We don't know that it will be and we don't know the circumstances of what will actually happen. Anderson may have just been escorting Vega to the Normandy to get Shepard for transfer to a different vessel. We need more information and anything we put in now is just speculation. Lancer1289 15:28, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

Just my two cents: To me, it would seem logical that if Shepard was being brought to Earth to stand trial for his crimes regardless of how understandable/for the greater good they were, the Systems Alliance wouldn't want him to be on the ship where the crew is fiercely loyal to him (i.e. the Normandy SR-2). So I don't think it would be the Normandy, but as Lancer said above until we know more it's really just speculation. --Burkenation 15:47, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

I'm just going on my interpretation the article on this wiki, it seems to suggest that he's in the SR-2's brig? --Jono R 19:20, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
And interpertations are not allowed in articles because they are speculation. If Shepard is in the brig, then they may have been detained because they were ordered to be detained. We don't know the specifics and until we do, it can't go in the article. Lancer1289 19:26, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a section for Conviction would fit in here. Like the article on the Normandy SR-1, this article focuses on the design and capabilities of the Normandy SR-2. It's not a list of appearances the ship makes. We have separate sections for the Normandy SR-2 in ME2 and ME3 because we know that in ME3 the ship will be redesigned significantly, and those changes will need to be documented. -- Commdor (Talk) 19:49, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

So I take it there won't be a new page for the Normandy in ME3. User:JediSpectre117 20:54, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
No there won't be. It's still the SR-2, it just has some new odds and ends. Lancer1289 19:59, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
Aye, I thought so, it makes sense. User:JediSpectre117 21:03, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

New information about Mass Effect 3 Normandy SR-2 Edit

This document [3] contains information about the new Normandy. It's very basic information but it lists the areas in the Normandy-Captain's Cabin, Shuttle (possibly new) Combat Information Center, Crew Deck, Locker Decks (new), hanger (possibly new). Can any of this be added to the article?, even in the form of a list? --Burkenation 16:56, February 6, 2012 (UTC)

Not unless you can find their sources. I know they have them, as I occasionally follow what they're doing, but in this case I don't know as they haven't got footnotes. Ultimately this Normandy will get a new article (Either 'Alliance Normandy SR-2' or 'SSV Normandy SR-2', if it gets that designation) anyway and it will go there.JakePT 17:06, February 6, 2012 (UTC)
That's fair. I just thought I'd put it out there so I didn't get shouted down if I added it. I'm already extremely on edge right now so I figured I'd attempt to avoid arguments. haha. --Burkenation 22:01, February 6, 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed that the drive core in ME3 sounds like the message from Vega in the movie Contact? Possible Trivia note? 20:02, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

Mass Effect 3 Edit

I'm wondering if we should make another article for the Mass Effect 3 iteration of the ship. This article is pretty long as it is, and if there's as much fluff and other stuff rolling around the ship in ME3, it might push this article to absurd lengths. As it stands, the only other articles that reach this length are walkthrough articles. Just throwing it out there... Also, this talk page is getting kinda long too... Tanooki1432 19:12, February 13, 2012 (UTC)

until we know the ship's official name, we gotta leave it here unless we add (Mass Effect 2) and (Mass Effect 3) at the end Burkenation 19:48, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
Why should we create a seperate article to begin with? The ship is still the Normandy SR-2 so there is no reason to create an entirely seperate article for the same thing. We will just expand this one. Lancer1289 19:52, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Lancer on this one, however, as stated the article is quite bloated at this point and although it's still technically the SR-2, there will be new areas, new crew, new features, etc, and adding in the new information on the redesigned sections (we'll still have the Captain's cabin, CIC, etc but the engineering section seems to have been replaced with 'lower decks', and the hanger is at least apparently open at all times. That will make the article even larger. It's something to consider, at least in my view. But as you're the admin I must defer to your wisdom, even if I disagree with it. --Burkenation 20:03, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
But again, is this a new ship? The answer to that is obviously no. We are not going to separate the article because it is actually against site policy, see Mos on Splitting articles along game lines. I need to update actually because of the trove of ME3 information we have. But either way, we won't be splitting now under any circumstances as I just remembered this. The Normandy just got an overhaul, that is all, it didn’t get renamed, and Shepard didn't get a new ship. It's the same one, it may just have a few different bits. Lancer1289 20:08, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
And again I am agreeing with you. I was simply trying to clarify what I see as the rationale for the other side of the argument. Also--it did get renamed I think, to SSV Normandy SR-2. It's standard naming convention for SSV to precede Alliance warships. I definitely agree with you (even went out of my way to state that) but the other side has a valid argument. However the Manual of Style obviously trumps all else. --Burkenation 20:22, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
Also look at the section above this one on the page. JakePT states it will get a new article. I guess that's partially why Tanookie suggested it, ppossibly. --Burkenation 20:25, February 13, 2012 (UTC)

I'm on the fence: while I agree that the Cerberus Normandy and the Alliance Normandy are the same ship and thus one entity entitled to only one article, a split might be appropriate given the need to differentiate between the two "eras" of its history, and how large this article will become once ME3 info is fully added. Either way, any discussion of a potential split would be best served after ME3 releases and we can account for the totality of information on the Normandy SR-2. Right now, we simply don't have the full picture. -- Commdor (Talk) 20:33, February 13, 2012 (UTC)

Bugger the Manual of Style. The length of this article will be absurd, not to mention confusing, without a split, just as Burkenation suggests. Matt 2108 05:12, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

We're never going to solve whether or not it's the same ship. That kind of question has been on philosopher's minds for 2000 years. The fact is there are changes, and the ship will function differently from a gameplay and story perspective and will have enough information that a new article would simply be pragmatic.JakePT 07:09, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

I would like to again approach the subject of creating a new Article for the Normandy SR-2 featured in the third game. Much of the ship is radically changed, such as the research lab and armory on the command deck being ripped out and replaced with the war room. It also seems to have been renamed. Specifically, on approach to Grissom Academy Kahlee Sanders specifically refers to it as "SSV Normandy," which to me at least indicates it has been named as such to be in-agreement with System Alliance ship naming conventions. --Go Bruins! 00:26, March 7, 2012 (UTC)
There are pros and cons on both sides. On one hand, creating a separate "Normandy SR-2 (Mass Effect 3)" page would make both pages much easier to navigate. On the other hand, you'd have to disambiguate. My 2¢ is that the benefit outweighs the drawback, though: The longer a page is, the less likely people are to scroll all the way to the bottom of it. PhoenixBlue 22:53, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated Ranks Edit

Originally I had those ranks for Chakwas and Adams, but JakePT took them down, so I was only following in what he did after someone else added them back. I also think that it is a bit redundant seeing Doctor Chakwas - Doctor, Engineer Adams - Engineer. ClerkBosker 21:52, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Still, what else could they be. We have everything else listed, so those should follow those conventions. There is only one person in Engineering, and only one person in the med bay, so who else could they be. Leaving them keeps to the conventions, and while it may seem redundant, consistency is better in this situation. Lancer1289 21:56, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
Okay, then why not Chief Medical Officer or Chief Engineer? Then to keep to the conventions, wouldn't Garrus also be Gunnery Officer? This would stay in line with the crew section for ME2. ClerkBosker 22:00, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
I could see the change for Chakwas, I'll make it once I'm done here. For Adams, not yet. The recent edit brought to light a possible issue with him. We know Tali will be a full squadmate, but we don't know if she will be aboard the Normandy and we don't know what her role will be so, we'll hold off on Adams for now. For Garrus, I'll probably throw Gunnery Officer back in there since that is still where he is. Lancer1289 22:04, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
Alright I'm satisfied, but what about Allers? Couldn't it say War Correspondent to the Alliance News Network. I just think that War Correspondent alone seems kind of vague. ClerkBosker 22:14, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
Well she may not just sumbit her stories to the ANN, she can submit them elsewhere. For now, leaving it as it stands is probably the best option. Lancer1289 22:21, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
That's true. Okay, won't bother you further. ClerkBosker 22:23, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

ME3 Crew Edit

To Lancer. Why is it everybody else is allowed to have their rank in front of their name except Joker? PNCHNOUT 01:57, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

I think it's because Joker is a nickname. MisterBazinga 02:07, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

His name is not listed as Joker. It is listed as Jeff "Joker" Moreau. His rank, as confirmed in ME3, is Flight Lieutenant. So as everyone else whose rank is known has their rank in front of their name, my question is why is Lancer not allowing it to be listed as Flight Lieutenant Jeff "Joker" Moreau? PNCHNOUT 02:15, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

Oh! Sorry mate, misunderstood the question. MisterBazinga 14:20, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

SSV Normandy SR-2? Edit

According to multiple lines of dialog the Normandy SR-2 has been renamed the SSV Normandy SR-2. The specific lines I am referencing are: Kahlee Sanders: "SSV Normandy, this is Grissom Academy..." and Joker: "Citadel Control, this is SSV Normandy..." during Priority: The Citadel II. The first (Kahlee) could have been an mistake on her part the writers included because she'd be unfamiliar with the SR-2's origins (Cerberus). The second, Joker, is a obvious hint that the ship was renamed; why would the helmsman not be familiar with the ship's name. If this isn't a discussion for a Talk Page...apologies. --Go Bruins! 19:49, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

ME2 Crew Edit

Note regarding Cerberus crewmen names; first names are not a spoiler, as-per Dr. Karin Chakwas and Greg Adams. - Goldenboy666 23:03, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

All well and good but...where did you get their first names? --Go Bruins! 23:14, March 21, 2012 (UTC)
The 'name' crewmembers appear on the Memorial Wall in ME3 if they weren't rescued. - Goldenboy666 19:11, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Update main picture Edit

So now that the Normandy has been yanked out of TIM's greedy little hands, is it time that we update the main picture at the beginning of the article to one of the Alliance version of the Normandy??? I think it would just make more sense that way.--BrewCrew4Life21 05:02, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

No because that is spoilers above a spoiler tag and forbidden under site policy. Lancer1289 05:04, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Split Vote Edit

We've already had all the arguments, so why wait around? Who approves and who disapproves? I vote for split. Matt 2108 20:29, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Support I'd argue that the article is somewhat unwieldy with both iterations being on a single page. Yes, the chassis & engineering are the same, but the entire ship has been re-purposed, renovated and, in some places, totally redesigned. Is it a brand new ship? No, but for practical terms, I'd recommend a split. "SSV Normandy SR-2" seems as good a way to go as any. - Goldenboy666 00:37, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
I agree. They are 2 completely different ships now, just with the same name. I support the split! --BrewCrew4Life21 01:40, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
@BrewCrew: It is stated multiple times by multiple characters that it is the same ship. It has just been renamed when the Alliance took it over. As for whether to split the page, I am undecided. As a practical length matter it might be useful but without considering practical considerations, creating two different article for the same ship is a little ridiculous. Thus I'm likely going to have to Oppose.Bastian964 15:10, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Lancer1289 18:28, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
Undecided. Bastian pretty much summed up my thoughts on the matter. As of right now, I say leave it as one article (one, because I think they are the same ship and two, the ME3 section is pretty skimpy), but if the article does reach huge lengths, we should take another look. Tanooki1432 20:09, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. It would simply be confusing and unnecessary. --This text has been approved by Murfitizer 22:01, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
Support. PNCHNOUT 05:49, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
Completely oppose. It is the same hull, same hull number, with a few modifications and an "SSV" in front of a name that is still otherwise unchanged. All relevant information regarding these details has been provided on this page, and splitting it on to a new page might confuse people. People already seem confused, some going as far as to think that the ship is brand new, particularly those that haven't experienced ME2. And yes, believe it or not, there are people who have not played ME2, but have only played ME3. It's important to keep it on one page so that there is clarity that this is, in fact, one ship, not two completely different ones. --Martolives 09:26, March 29, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. It's the same ship, and we can just mention the designation change in the ME3 section of the article. Mr. Mittens 17:28, April 1, 2012 (UTC)
Support. In game and promo materials, it is said that when the Alliance got hold of the Normandy, they took it apart to learn how it worked (given it's substantial differences from the SR-1) then put it back together again, but more in line with alliance regs. (does this mean joker's chair isn't leather anymore?) Not only that, but there are numerous changes. The cabin is slightly different, the rear-end of deck one is very different, lacking the dedicated research lab and armoury, the conference room is gone, the table from that is (as far as I can tell, upto but not including Priority: perseus veil) no longer a QEC device. They've got a war-room showing it's position in war. Deck 3 is now home to the Shadow Broker, oh and those windows from the crew quarters/life support rooms are blocked off btw. Deck 4 isn't much different, no one in the subdeck, though the DLC squad member is on the other side of the deck, with a reporter where previous game DLC squadmember was. The hanger deck is now *accessible*. it's obvious that construction work was still going on when it left drydock throughout the ship. Yeah It's the same ship alright. The page is unwieldy, and it would be better, (once the work is done) with SR-2 (mass effect 2) and SR-2 (mass effect 3) or whatever () convention you'll be using. It's no different than that the weapons are also split by game - there's not that much difference from ME2, just extra stuff. Same with the normandy. extra stuff. AlexMcpherson 23:14, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

The split proposal fails 5-1-5. The article will not be split. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:32, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to the party and won't argue for or against the split, but the Combat Information Center is designed vastly different from its Mass Effect 2 counterpart. I made this quick comparison image of all decks to prove it. There are also some minor differences, but just look at the airlock for example. --ShardofTruth 22:54, April 12, 2012 (UTC)

Doctor or Major Edit

This should probably go on Dr. Karin Chakwas page, but there seems to be some question over the title used. Military medical personnel are more often referred to as specialists, using their title instead of their rank. Ie, Dr instead of Major, but either is acceptable. The codex lists Chakwas as a major, but everyone knows her well as Dr... it's also what her page is called. And how people usually refer to her. I think that pointing out she's a major would be more suitable for her page, and the codex entries.

It is a military ship, major is her military rank. Dr. is a professional CIVILIAN title, not a military one. She is referred to as Dr. as a courtesy, not as a formality. Everyone else has their rank listed with their name. For example, Joker is listed just as Jeff "Joker" Moreau in the ME2 section, because it is a civilian ship and that is his civilian style. In the ME3 section, he is listed as Flight Lieutenant Jeff "Joker" Moreau because by ME3 it is a military ship and that is his military style. Chakwas should be listed as Major Karin Chakwas for the sake of continuity. PNCHNOUT 03:26, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

Doctor isn't a military or civilian one. It's a professional one. Did you know there are professions within the military? In the US, many of these people are referred to as specialists, and there is even a rank for it, with a sergeant's paygrade. In Australia, doctors in the military are referred to as "Doctor."

And in the US, "one is allowed to address doctors by either their military rank or "doctor." Address Chaplains by either their military rank or professional title (i.e. Chaplain, Father, Rabbi, Reverend, etc.)."

"Doctor" is just as proper as "Major" for a military ship, and since that's the title she is commonly known by, even in ME1 when the Normandy was a military ship, then why change it? --Martolives 05:30, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't know that the Systems Alliance was Australian or American, so that's irrelevant. The precedent for this section is to list everyone by their military rank. If they have no military rank, then we list them by their professional title. If they don't have a professional title, we don't give them a prefix. That is the precedent, and that is why it should be listed as Major Karin Chakwas. PNCHNOUT 06:22, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

No, the precedent is set by what's accepted in real life. We've known her as Dr since ME1. That's another precedent. Why change it? Martolives 06:41, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

Since ME1, we have known her as just Dr. Chakwas. In ME3 we found out that her first name was Karin and that her rank was major. We changed her page to Dr. Karin Chakwas. So we should, by precedent, change her listing on this page to Major Karin Chakwas. When we found out that Cortez's first name was Steven, we changed his page to Steven Cortez. When we found out that he was a lieutenant, we changed his listing on this page to Lieutenant Steven Cortez. So unless you want to undo that, the precedent should follow. PNCHNOUT 07:14, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

But not without discussion. --Martolives 08:38, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

And the discussions set the precedent. PNCHNOUT 08:44, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, she's always been known as Doctor, and there is no harm in using that, even as an official military title, because that is what is done in the military anyway. And not in just the two I mentioned. Considering everyone in the game calls her Doctor, and no one actually calls her major, I think that's the only real precedent that matters. --Martolives 08:51, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

No one calls her Karin either, and yet... As far as I'm concerned it should either be all or none. Major Karin Chakwas or Doctor Chakwas. PNCHNOUT 09:01, April 1, 2012 (UTC)
Actually, she is referred two in game by both Shepard and Engineer Adams as Karin, whereas she's never been referred to as Major outside of the Codex. I think for continuity's sake, we should keep it at Doctor. Mr. Mittens 17:24, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

Doctor Karin Chakwas is just as acceptable as Major Karin Chakwas. This is fact, in any military of the free world. Any doctor in the military will be referred to as Doctor more often then their rank. It's reasonable to assume that this fictional military, designed by Canadians, is a reflection of free-world real life military policies, routines, doctrines, etc. Hence the ranks in the first place. Why would they make up something new if they already have a baseline to work with? The question is, which one do we use for this page? The one that's already established, or change it to something completely ambiguous except for a codex entry that not everyone is going to care about? Ever since ME1, she's been Doctor. Never Major. And there is no other reason to change it except that you want to because of a codex entry. --Martolives 17:31, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, the codex tells us she's a major, but it uses the title "Dr Karin Chakwas" to list her. The codex entry is under Known Associates, where she is introduced vocally with, "Dr Karin Chakwas is a trauma surgeon and a major in the Alliance Navy." It's the only reference to her rank in the entire game, ever. --Martolives 17:37, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

We can mention that Chakwas was a Major on her own page, but leave it off of this one. Mr. Mittens 22:18, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

In real life, Medical personnel are typically referred to by their professional title - Doctor or Nurse. other Doctors in the military whose title does not refer to anything medical tends to be referred to by their rank. One example from a TV show that directl reflects convention in the Us Air Force, is with Sam Carter on Stargate SG-1. She's an Astrophysicist, and earned the title 'Doctor', yet it is proper for her to be referred to by rank, not 'salutation', as the episode calls it. However, medical side of things is different. Afterall, a Chief Medical Officer on a military base has higher authority than the Base CO where medical matters come into play, unlike the physicists on a base, say, in a situation where they know that a weapons test will bite them in the ass (Sg-1 episode chain reaction) but can't do sod-all because they don't have that same 'higher authority' within their profession... it is for THIS reason, that medical personnel are referred to by their salutation... to make people remember that unlike those other majors and captains that have phd's in non-medical fields, this doctor or nurse do have that higher authority, and to remember that when they insist that you get back into bed or I'll stick you with this big needle, phobia be damned you'll not get blood all over my infirmary, you goddamn will get back in bed. Ergo, Doctor Chakwas, who has medical authority over anyone assigned to the same command as her, and anyone who is a patient in her infirmary.... so in summary...

There is valid reasons in the constant referring to her as a Doctor to the point that most don't even know her actual military rank. and, game wise, it's only mentioned in the goddamn codex. Dr. Chakwas it is. AlexMcpherson 23:28, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

The Normandy's Pickups Edit

How is it that the Normandy itself is able to pick up people in ME3 (twice on Earth and once on Mars). In ME2, didn't EDI say something to the effect of "The Normandy's too big to do dropoffs and pickups, so therefore we have a shuttle." In ME3, the Normandy was at several points within only feet of touching the surface of a planet. How is this possible? ShermTank7272 13:21, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

You're half right here, the Normandy SR2 being twice as big as the SR1 makes it more difficult to land or enter on a few worlds... and those are high gravity worlds, Earth has a surface gravity of 1G, while Mars has a surface gravity of 0.38G, I wouldn't consider those as high-gravity, not as Dekuuna (the Elcor homeworld), anyway, which has a surface gravity of 4G. Not to mention, EDI says it is 'difficult' to land, not 'impossible', and Joker has already proved his worth as a pilot quite a few times so I wouldn't worry about him. -- 13:52, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

Memorial Wall/Jenkins Edit

I'm not sure if this has been talked about before, but the wall shows the names of all the SR1 and SR2 deceased crew members, correct? Does anyone know why Corporal Jenkins is not put on it? Jenkins is the redshirt in the Prolouge in mass effect 1, BTW. Should it be put under the memroial wall sub heading or not?Phoenix96 (talk) 19:42, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

Okay Ignore me. I just double checked and he is on there. Sorry, my mistake.Phoenix96 (talk) 19:45, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

Why are GARDIAN lasers classified as "defense" and not "armament"? Edit

This is just a matter of simple English. Armament means any weapon. The GARDIANs are used to kill other ships. If you want to classify them as "defense" because they keep fighters off the Normandy, then you'd have to classify every single weapon the Normandy has as "defense" as well, which would be ridiculous.--RandomGuy96 (talk) 22:01, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

And you do not understand military terminology in this instance which is what the article uses. A point defense system, also called a close-in weapon system, is not classified as armament, it is classified as a defensive feature.
The every fact that you think that all weapons should be put into this category shows that you do not understand the underlying terminology in this instance. Not to mention that you are attempting to confuse the issue. The issue is the GARDIAN system, not the other weapon systems. Lancer1289 (talk) 22:05, February 4, 2013 (UTC)
Cite a source for why a weapon that is used to kill other warships should not be classified as armament and instead should be classified in the same category as the shields. It's not even exclusively a point-defense system.--RandomGuy96 (talk) 22:07, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

I...have to agree. The other two items in that category are passive defenses, while the GARDIAN is both an active defense and a weapon in its own right. Arguing for the preservation of clear delineation between defense and offense, I'm going to have to support the move unless we can pull something from the codex that says otherwise. Lksdjf (talk) 22:10, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

And that will not be permitted because it is clear that neither of you understand the terminology behind what it is, and it is the terminology that will be respected here, not what you think it should be based on your limited knowledge and interpretations.
In terms of weapons, the Normandy's main armament, torpedoes, main cannon, and Thanix are classified as armament because they are there specifically designed to destroy other ships. The GARDIAN system is a purely defensive system for when things get to close and when every other system fails. Their very nature is to defend the ship from projectiles and other objects. Not to destroy other ships, which is the purpose of their armament. A good open example of this is one my favorite series, Battlestar Galactica. The large number of point defense turrets are not designed to engage Cylon basestars, they are to defend the ship from missiles, and if necessary enemy fighters.
Contrary to what you seem to believe, they are not designed to kill other warships, they are deigned to defend the ship from small targets and projectiles. Even in the description it says "Defense". Listing it as armament is confusing the issue and will not be permitted. Defensive technologies are, again contrary to belief, active and passive.
A Phalanx is not always active but when a missile approaches a ship, you bet someone has turned it on. They are called point defense systems for a reason. Lancer1289 (talk) 22:26, February 4, 2013 (UTC)
I agree with lancer on this. One way to help confuse you less is if you think about how likely you are to seek out a target to fire this system at them, In the case of torpedoes and thanix, you would. Guardian, you would not. Besides they are specced for killing fighters rather than killing full size ships. Midnightpiranha (talk) 23:18, February 4, 2013 (UTC)
^ A less wordy, yes that is a word, response to what I was trying to say. "Simple but accurate." Lancer1289 (talk) 23:36, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

Private Campbell's Favorite Mug? Edit

Is it positive that this item shows up in Shepard's cabin as a souvenir after you pick it up during the "Citadel Docks: Retake the Normandy" mission? There apparently have been numerous reports of it not appearing at all in the cabin after the mission is over.

Armament Update Edit

Should the Armament for the ship be updated? Because, playing through The Citadel DLC, I can't help but notice that when it's trying to shoot down the skycar Joker and Cortez are in, the merc pilot keeps firing off multiple shots. They were different enough from the Javelin missiles we saw back on the Collector base in both color (it was orange instead of blue) and the location of the shots' origins (the nose instead of the wings), which makes me think that these are the SR2's mass accelerator cannons. --{{SUBST:User:GodzillaMaster/signature}} 05:54, May 8, 2013 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.