Mass Effect Wiki
Register
Advertisement
Mass Effect Wiki
Forums: Index > Watercooler > "Properties" in location articles


I was wondering what the policy was regarding the "Properties" section of location articles. I'm asking because they seem to include information that is not given in the game, but has been either calculated using game-given values, or included as speculation. This information may also appear under other sections, such as "Satellites".

Examples:

Presrop -- "The albedo comes out to −0.74 if one disregards the greenhouse effect."

Amaranthine and Klensal -- "A silicate moon is visible from the landing site." (The specific word 'silicate' is what I am objecting to.)

Chohe -- Most of the Properties section.

Could someone please confirm that either the information is given in an official place, or that it's okay to include this kind of derived and speculated-upon information? If not, does there need to be a project to clean up the location articles? -Sophia (talk) 21:29, April 12, 2015 (UTC)

most of the properties blurbs were extrapolations by User:Zimriel (with frequent consultations with former ME dev Chris L'Etoile) in an attempt to portray realworld science within the mass effect franchise. while in the early days it may have had some legitimacy due to the attention to worldbuilding detail, subsequent games simply relegated the pseudoscience stuff to the background as more and more fantastical locations were added in addition to the focus on things elsewhere. trying to come up with theories on why planet so-and-so behaves in-universe simply became an exercise in bootless speculation even professional scientists among us are ill-suited to authoritatively assert anything on. game writers are, after all, game writers.
i'm all for cutting the cruft to what can be directly observed in the games and relegating any discrepancies with "real" science to trivia, but that is hardly my focus at the moment. since the issue is endemic to the early site materials, though, i'd recommend a policy forum for amending the MoS on planets concerning its properties for more in-depth discussion. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 12:06, April 13, 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the detailed response. I'll try to post something coherent in the policy forum soon. Also, that's the first time I've seen it called "cruft". :D -Sophia (talk) 13:15, April 13, 2015 (UTC)
Advertisement