Forum:Project Planet Data

Forums: Index > Projects > Project Planet Data

The form below serves as a tool to describe the project. The form is intended to be as specific as possible to what the project is to accomplish.

• Please place all comments under the Comments heading.
• If there is a discussion page linked, then be sure to check it out as well.
• Also please do not create any articles unless all the details have been worked out, or at least the majority of them.
• Once the article/project has been created/finished, please put a mention that the article/project is completed and provide a redirect to the relevant article/s and talk page/s.

If any new things come up after the project proposal's passing, then please shift the discussion to the relevant article talk page/s.

If you have any questions on how to fill out the form, or any other question, please refer to the Project Forum talk page.

Project:

Bring MOS and reality of planet articles closer to each other

Currently developed by: Elseweyr

Developer(s) notes:

Status last updated:

Page location:
Page should contain:
Supporting links or images:
Discussion on:

Other Notes

I have been checking in-game planet data (= description and details) and compared them to the data in corresponding articles. Almost as often as they are accurate, they are not.

Correcting transcribed text is hardly difficult, if numbingly tedious, but the question of what to do with planet data that is different from one game to another has never been resolved properly – or at least the effects of such an agreement have not been carried out adequately. I have no delusions about how much people care about planet descriptions, but I'm pretty sure everyone still agrees they should be accurately transcribed ⇒ some action needs to be taken.

I apologise for the lengthiness of this post (and the tedium and frivolousness breathtaking awesomeness and unquestionable importance of this topic), but if you feel informed enough, the Background section is largely skippable.

Background

• First Overlap
• Hawking Eta: ME vs. ME2

I'll start with the beginning: overlap in the original Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2. The only cluster that is used in both games is Hawking Eta, with the sole ME system (Century) preserved and a few new ones added in ME2. There was some discussion about how this was supposed to be dealt with, and while the navigational issues were resolved, this was not true for the differences in the individual planets' data (see other tab).

The community line was apparently that it was not desirable to split the articles into separate pages, or even sections, according to game. At first it seemed that the ME2 versions were to be treated as updated information, but no real decision seems to have been made, because the ME data simply remained in the articles (and has remained to this day, which tells something about how this matter has been handled up till now: not at all, really).

Markup: removed from ME data, added to ME2 data
Note: these updates were always persistently reverted, so the old descriptions are still there.

Tharopto

Tharopto is a typical hydrogen-helium ice gas giant with traces of chlorine and sulphur sulfur in its atmosphere. It has over 100 moons and an extensive ring system composed of pulverized rock, presumably the debris from shattered moons.

Orbital Distance: 29.4 AU

Canctra Cantra

A terrestrial world of average size, Canctra's Cantra's atmosphere composed of nitrogen and argon. Its frozen surface is mainly composed of tin with deposits of calcium. Aside from some spectacular formations of water-ice at the poles, the planet has little to recommend it.

Klendagon

Klendagon is an arid terrestrial, slightly larger than Earth, but with a lower density that reflects its relative lack of heavier elements. The crust is composed of tin and aluminum, with wide deserts of dust-fine sand that are easily stirred by the wind.

Klendagon's most striking feature is, of course, the Great Rift valley that stretches across the southern hemisphere. What is most fascinating about the Rift is that it does not appear to be natural. The geological record suggests it is the result of a "glancing blow" by a mass accelerator round of unimaginable destructive power. This occurred some thirty-seven 37 million years ago.

Tamahera

(no differences)

Tamahera has a thin atmosphere of carbon dioxide and xenon. The surface is icy, and composed of sodium oxide with deposits of calcium. It contains a few unremarkable metals, but mainly consists of rock. The presence of canyons and flood plains idicates that liquid water once existed, suggesting Tamahera had a thicker insulating atmosphere in the past.

The possibility of even further updated planet data with the future ME3 was also brought up, but still no agreement was reached on how discrepancies/updates were to be treated. Subsequent attempts at inserting new information into the overlapping Hawking Eta planets' articles were reverted "for now".

Then ME3 came out – with loads of clusters and systems overlapping with both of the previous games – but by this time, most of those "in charge" at the time of ME2 were absent. The overlap issue hardly seems to have come up at all, with admins and other editors "making it up as they went along", planet data being updated or added as new sections somewhat inconsistently.

The in-game updates introduced in ME3 are of two types:

(1) minor corrections and rewordings that don't change the information

(2) clear addition of new information, mostly an extra sentence about Reaper invasion stuff at the end.

The release of ME3 was evidently a very hectic time, and it is possible that the relatively trivial planet updates drowned among the tons of other stuff that demanded attention at the time. Edits of type (2) introduced new ME3 sections, while many type (1) edits were simply "updates" based on ME3, the articles retaining a single description section. However, some type (1) updates were also made by creating new sections.

Looking at the edit history of the MOS page on Planets, the Description section was never updated in response to overlap issues. If "text from the in-game description (only)" is to be interpreted as exclusively verbatim – and that separate sections are needed whenever data differs across games, if only by a miserable comma – a lot of planet articles were updated erroneously, without being reverted or changed later.

Current situation

The background section was just me doing some detective work to figure out why things are the way they are. Since nothing was ever done about the ME/ME2 overlap, it can only be inferred that no consensus regarding a standard procedure was ever achieved.

More recently, a revert and subsequent admin instruction suggest that "descriptions were always verbatim and sectioned according to game" – a survey of the current state of the planet articles shows they are inconsistent, their data often only almost verbatim. Like I mentioned in the previous section, many of the new descriptions with minor type (1) differences were treated as updated information, not added as new ME3 sections.

Decision-making time.

1. Would we even want separate sections with two very similar descriptions, possibly just one word swapped for another? While I dislike flimsy compromises, I've only seen clear-cut cases where in-game changes indeed seem intended as updates by the devs: spelling and grammar mistakes are done away with and phrasing is made more clear. This could easily be treated as updated information by the wiki, as well.

• If that one changed word merits an additional section, why wasn't it done before, and, more to the point, who is going to do it now? Doing anything at all to verify these wretched planet descriptions is extremely time-consuming, tedious and boring – and for what? So we can have one section for Juncro that says "Like Uranus is [sic] the Sol system, ..." and another that says "Like Uranus in the Sol system, ..."? (this error, among many others, has previously been missed, btw.) This would be a nightmare, serving the sole purpose of having verbatim data for the sake of having verbatim data. In a ****load of near-duplicate description sections.

2. Alternatively, it is formally agreed that type (1) differences are to be treated as updates. This has alredy been done with planet details (the numbers) extensively, many orbital distances having been added only in a sequel game.

• This could be done for planet names, as well, specifically Cantra (the only one I know of). If it's spelled Canctra in the first game and Cantra in the next and you have to make a choice, why would the first version override any subsequent ones?
• Type (2) differences (new information) should naturally warrant new sections, in any case. Fortunately this has been done fairly consistently, with only minor basic transcription errors.

3. In any event, the MOS and the reality of the articles need to be brought closer together. It seems adjustments are needed on both ends.

Discussion

Regardless of what is (hopefully) decided here, I volunteer to check the in-game planet data and adjust the wiki's data as appropriate.
Optimistically: some input on this would be appreciated. Elseweyr (talk) 07:24, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

Badassfully - the masses will gather here to respond that topic.

More seriously, I read your investigation very carefully (as much as I could). In term of consistency we have an obvious issue on planet page even if it's a minor one. As you said, a much more clear MoS should be decided here. In the first place, I think I would go for a verbatim section for each game as a ME1 player could search info on a planet and then find he will really see in his game even if the informations are updated. But as you said, in some case it can be silly.

So I'm really not against a clear separation like you did (type 1 = update, type 2 = new content). However we need to find a compromise for a CLEAR description of what type 1 are (IMO, it should be as restrictive at possible to ensure that we still have every piece of information on the wiki). Some ideas : here a list of some updates that could be considered as type 1 :

• dev confirmed that it was a mistake in the previous version
• Grammer/spelling correction
• Clarity in the texte which does'nt change the sense (if less than a certain number of word changes)
• Number change.

Always a type 2 if :

• new informations;
• major changes (more than x words).

HOWEVER, if we do that, we need to ensure that the changes are noted in the trivia section or with a new  [sic] tag type. For example, if we have a grammer correction, we put the tag. If the name of the planet is changed, we say it in the trivia and we made a redirect (main page is the most updated one of course). Last point, for ME3 section, should we copy paste the first part of planet description if unchanged ? mmmh I think we should except if in the majority of the case (like 90%) the ME3 addition are only a new sentence and not a change in the first version of the description.--DeldiRe (talk) 08:06, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

---

we have something called case by case for those that won't conform to current layout standards.

• obviously we can't make up another page for CANTRA over a missing C. a trivia note on the page is already present anyway.
• hydrogen/ice sulfur/sulphur = significant planet composition difference. enough to warrant a mention of both versions in the page. trivia note or ME/ME2 sections, whichever is fanciable, as long as they're noted.
• you erased the data on zeth rather than preserving something of the old. it is worth pointing out the former was worded wrongly. what gave you the right? NONE. now stop sourgraping over my legit revert.
• 37 vs thirty-seven. there's no real difference. although if you have to insist on noting both versions, frankly it's easier to copypaste verbatim entries into separate sections (especially if you have the usual cheat sheets) than making a trivia note specifying the difference (and risk wording it wrongly in the process).
• TL;DR the easiest way out is just listing everything when it comes to descriptions. sections or trivia, whatever as long as the data is there. the stats however are nonnegotiable. latest/devconfirmed figures only in the planet box, always has been. significant differences if any? trivia.

the MOS has indeed been remiss because i'm practically the only guy left running things and the ones before me never really codified some things (because busy, forgot, or didn't really need it at the time). which i partially remedied. now, it is worth noting that even with ME3's release lancer and commdor weren't really averse to ME2/ME3 sectioned descriptions made during their time. and they were vigilant even in things like this. at the very least, i'm adding it to the planet MOS when i'm done phrasing out "diplomatic" replies and other irrelevant stuff elsewhere. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 09:39, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

• Erasing the data on Zeth: what exactly was legit about changing "captured" to "orbiting" for Zion without notes/separate sections? And the cases I've listed here are only examples that have come up through relatively little searching.
• I am not insisting on preserving distinctions like 37 vs. thirty-seven – quite the contrary, which is at the core of my proposed "changes".
• While I'm not easily insulted, insinuating that this is some petty revert vendetta instead of a sincere effort to improve the site and clarify guidelines is discouraging, to say the least. Elseweyr (talk) 09:59, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

i got a free pass. and over a year in mindset change. you don't. that's the difference. if you want to note it, go ahead.

although since we were talking about standardizing, might as well hold off until something's been decided. frankly i don't care much except for the points i already raised. if something doesn't fit, case by case that doesn't break anything. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 10:17, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

And still I should somehow have known better? Changes in mindset unfortunately don't automatically show in articles; one'd think you'd be a bit more humble about someone else offering to fix the stuff you just can't bother with anymore. As for sulphur/sulfur: different spellings for the same thing. I'd still argue trivia notes about stuff like that is a little ridiculous. But if it's deemed that all spelling/wording differences merit separate sections/trivia notes, so be it. Elseweyr (talk) 10:41, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

I would propose this is all finalised with a new policy proposal - namely that the most recent version of the planet description (ie ME3 in most cases) is used UNLESS it omits any previous information, which is therefore also noted. All changes in the description relative to the Reaper War are given their own heading with a spoiler tag for ME3. Any major changes in the most recent version, such as name change, or any other planetary details such as orbit or temperature differences, are then noted in trivia.
Also the arguing HAS to stop immediately. The four of us to have commented so far seem to be the ONLY active users at the minute and we need to work together - I for one want this wiki to be the best it can be, with any and all necessar7y changes finished BEFORE the next game gets a trailer - Bickering will not do that. Garhdo (talk) 14:27, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

What kind of information omission are you referring to? Updated versions rarely leave anything out, they just change "great deal" to "large amount", leave out a comma, or change "deposits of Iron" to "deposits of iron"; stuff like that. Then there's the extra Reaper sentence for some planets, and a few cases with substantial changes – those are easily dealt with. All descriptions being verbatim means dupe descriptions for most planets. If not, a line needs to be drawn:

• how much rewording/-spelling or new info would be required to warrant separate sections?
• how small differences would merit trivia notes?

Part of me still leans toward replacing old descriptions with updated ones, but I realise the value of documentation, and getting rid of the line-drawing issue would admittedly be a good thing. It just signifies an even more ungodly amount of verifying and sorting of descriptions to make sure they're accurately transcribed from each game.

And I'm not entirely sure what exactly "cheat sheets" refer to here. Elseweyr (talk) 20:41, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

I can't think of any omissions off-hand, but maybe if the importance of a planet to the Krogan Rebellions was mentioned in one game but not a later one for example. All the examples you listed are not worth mentioning at all - just replace with the Mass Effect 3 version. However this would need to be a policy change to make sure that most recent descriptions override old ones, so we don't have two or three descriptions all the same except for minor grammatical changes. And like I said anything in the descriptions relating to the Reaper War should have their own subheading and spoiler tag. Garhdo (talk) 22:54, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

---

After considering the comments posted here – thanks to each of you for valuable input! – it seems clear that we at least need to keep some record of all versions or their differences. In light of that, I think evaluating how differences should be treated and how trivia notes should be worded for every other planet would indeed be more problematic than simply slapping all versions in there, with separate sections for each game unless the descriptions are completely identical.

If there is nothing further anyone wishes to discuss, I'll formulate a proposal and open voting shortly. Elseweyr (talk) 07:10, October 3, 2013 (UTC)

• @DeldiRe, could you continue the discussion here if necessary and vote when you have an opinion?
• @Garhdo, please be aware that most clusters do not appear in three games – in fact, only the Local Cluster and Serpent Nebula do, while about a third of the clusters are exclusive to one game. Elseweyr (talk) 19:35, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps but ME3 revisits nearly every system previously featured, meaning for most planets we have two versions that, bar the odd grammatical change and a separate entry for the Reaper War, are virtually identical. I think that is just ridiculous and we should just have one concise version from the most recent game. Garhdo (talk) 19:51, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

Well, since you mentioned it, less than two thirds of the clusters are revisited, actually. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to change your mind or anything, I just want the facts displayed here to be accurate. Elseweyr (talk) 20:04, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough but two thirds of all planets listed having multiple entries is still ridiculous. Another option would be do we have to have the verbatim descriptions? Or can we write them as we would character pages, incorporating all information we have from any source, be it in-game, CDN or anything else? Garhdo (talk) 20:30, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

With hundreds of planet articles (600 in Category:Planets) that would need to be added to and possibly rewritten each time new info comes up? Future ME games and media might well overlap with previous ones even further; I'd say that is simply not a realistic option.

Plus, I personally think documenting all sorts of data is an integral part of the wiki – it's what we do. There are of course things like characters, events, missions, etc. that don't have stats or descriptions, but I think the wiki should write their stories only when there is no other choice. Elseweyr (talk) 20:52, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to oppose in part because I agree that having multiple entries that are nearly the same (either verbatim or say essentially the same thing) is only going to clutter the pages. I also oppose because I don't think making the planet pages as simple restatements of the Codex is the right way to go. Instead, I think we need to paraphrase the Codex entries along with information from other sources (e.g., the books, the games, CDN, ANN, etc.). We don't limit the species and character articles to just copying and pasting the Codex entries, and I don't see why we would do that for planet articles. TheUnknown285 (talk) 22:54, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

I'm having trouble seeing what could be gained by reforming the planet articles this way. You're suggesting we bypass the in-game descriptions altogether in favor of freely reworded ones, with more or less loosely connected bits and pieces from here and there that we already have trivia sections for? The workload that would come with outlining the framework of such a procedure, carrying it out in practice, and maintaining control over the articles in the future would be considerable – and to what point and purpose, exactly?

I mean no offense, but your suggestion seems like little more than a romantic but naïve and misinformed idea, tbh. Repeating tangential information that is already present elsewhere on the wiki – and omitting the official in-game description in the process – definitely seems like a step away from well-defined, well-organized, well-presented, and easily managed content.

Probably goes without saying, but I'm not about to change the proposal for what I'm certain is the most simple, reliable and comprehensive option, so you guys will have to bring this up in a new project. Elseweyr (talk) 19:39, October 5, 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying that we should treat planet (and, for that matter, moon, system, and cluster) articles the same way as other non-gameplay articles. For example, we don't limit the Garrus article to just a pasting of his Codex article and have no mention of his loyalty mission. We should note that Feros falls to the Reapers even if that's mentioned in an article on news stories because it's highly relevant. The Earth article should mention something about the events of the Battle of London because it's highly relevant to the subject at hand. TheUnknown285 (talk) 23:09, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

Atually Elseweyr you are portraying it as a much harder job than it really is - most of the articles could stay as they are, and any rejiggering needed would use already existing assets. I'll mock up some sandboxes. Garhdo (talk) 18:57, October 7, 2013 (UTC)

Here are 4 planets showing the sort of changes I mean - nearly every change on the page was made by reordering the information and it took ten minutes to do these four: User:Garhdo/Sandbox-Planets. Garhdo (talk) 19:21, October 7, 2013 (UTC)

The practical workload is actually the least of the concerns I voiced in the post above. If you would like to add sections with additional information, that is another another matter; I just don't see why we'd need or want to mess with the in-game descriptions themselves. Elseweyr (talk) 19:22, October 7, 2013 (UTC)

Well in that case look and the Terra Nova page and compare to my Sandbox. I have streamlined both versions and managed to remove an unnecessary trivia note, simply by 'messing' with the in-game description. The fact of the matter is the planets in the games are just like characters - They reappear and can evolve based on Shepard's actions, mission worlds especially. As a result treating Planet pages like Codex pages will not work and they should be treated like Character pages which can instead store a wealth of information in a chronological order. Garhdo (talk) 19:41, October 7, 2013 (UTC)

I'm sad to say I disagree with just about everything you just said :) The "unnecessary" trivia note you removed from Terra Nova, for example, was there for clarification. And freely breaking the descriptions up and rewording part of them with 2186 as the present? The earlier descriptions were current at the time, and new descriptions should merit new sections just like it was mostly done at the release of ME3. (Psst, if you want the Klendagon article on your sandbox page to be up-to-date, you should probably pick the ME2 version. Not all of the articles have been updated properly, so you can't assume the versions here on the wiki are currently accurate.)

I think the question of documentation is completely overlooked here. Misson-related and other information is already detailed elsewhere on the wiki, and I really don't see why we can't keep the in-game descriptions somewhere. That's what the planet articles (especially the description sections) are for! Elseweyr (talk) 14:55, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

Actually all that trivia note did was point out a discrepancy that was then explained upon the release of ME3, with the updated description, thus making it reduntant. If I had ME2 to hand I would update Klendagon, but also moved a spoilered trivia tag where it should be must count for something. And I think you are placing far to much value on the in-game descriptions - as I have said repetitive, mostly the same descriptions do not need documenting. And what about Omega and the Citadel? The structure of their pages is more what we should be aiming for. What about Noveria? Should it not have more details regarding its role in Shepard's story rather than just containing verbatim descriptions? Garhdo (talk) 18:50, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

(Reset indent) You say the differences don't need documenting, I say they do. And placing value on in-game descriptions is supposed to be a bad thing? I can't see why we would not regard them as worthy of record. The Citadel is not a planet, and Omega is obviously an exception (and Illium, and possibly a handful of others), but I'd still argue there is no reason to systematically repeat information across articles – especially not by supplanting/altering in-game planet descriptions – which is why this was done, for example. Elseweyr (talk) 21:58, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

Voting

Proposal: Planet descriptions are transcribed verbatim from each game and, unless identical, sectioned according to game. The MOS will be updated and planet articles adjusted as appropriate.

Support

1. Elseweyr (talk) 13:08, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

1. What about a tab for each game ?--DeldiRe (talk) 16:14, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Three nearly identical descriptions for most planets will look ridiculous. Have only the most recent. Garhdo (talk) 18:55, October 4, 2013 (UTC)
2. Will layout reasons for opposition shortly. TheUnknown285 (talk) 22:46, October 4, 2013 (UTC)