Talk: Legion/Archive2

Accidental content deletion?

I'm really not sure if I did this, but I very recently edited the Trivia section of this page, under the "humourous dialogue" subsection. I added a little anecdote about bringing Legion to the Council meeting. A few minutes later, I went back and tried to link the word "Council" to the actual page, but it didn't work, and I ended up canceling the changes. All of a sudden, all the of the examples of humourous dialogue with Legion in the party is gone. I don't think I caused this, but if I did, I'm sorry.

68.146.242.92 06:27, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Nope. If you take a look at the history, and read the edit summary I left when I removed that content, you will find it was most certainly not deleted accidentally, nor was it deleted by you. SpartHawg948 06:29, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

On that subject, how about a Legion\Unique Dialog page that details the locations of unique dialog? Or perhaps promote it to a section that can be added to any character with unique dialog? (Tali, Zaede, etc.) I don't know about anyone else, but I want to have a record of where all the unique interactions are.—ErzengelLichtes (Contribs) 01:59, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

As I've said before many times in many places, at this time the admins are pretty adamantly opposed to "dialogue articles", but if you want to start a Legion quotes page in the Forums, feel free. SpartHawg948 02:05, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Please calm down. I was simply making a suggestion. It is not possible to read everything you write, that is why I suggested it and did not create it. I do not feel that "forums" would be the proper place for informational articles, Forums should be places for discussion. It was my understanding that Wikis were places where information would be stored and disseminated. If the admins feel differently, that is their purgative. Also, just in an attempt to dissuade you from additional tirades towards me, I want to make it clear that I was simply explaining my suggestion. I do not mean to provoke you.—ErzengelLichtes (Contribs) 02:18, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Calm down? I'm afraid that's impossible, as I'd first have to be agitated in order to calm down. I was merely stating that this is something I've said before (and I don't doubt I'll have to say it again). Please do not attempt to read too deeply into comments. I would, however, appreciate not being accused of going on "tirades" towards anybody when nothing could be further from the truth. If you would like me to go on a tirade so you can see what one looks like, I'll see if I can't work up some righteous indignation, but as you A) didn't provoke me in the least, and B) I didn't get worked up at all, thereby negating the need for me to "calm down", I think we can put this matter to bed. In the future, please don't read too much into my comments. I mean my statements to be taken at face value, so if I were to go on a tirade, you would know. SpartHawg948 02:24, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Just a note: One who is not agitated usually does not spend almost 1,000 characters explaining that they are not agitated. I will say nothing more on the issue.—ErzengelLichtes (Contribs) 02:29, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Now, as for the substantive part of your comment (and I will be dissecting your points and offering my own, dissenting, opinion. I hope this too is not misinterpreted as a tirade! :P) Any useful information from the dialogue is extracted and inserted into the relevant sections of the articles. Displaying the quotes in their entirety is, therefor, what I refer to as "gee-whiz information" (not sure if there are other common terms that are synonymous). It's presented solely for entertainment value, as the relevant information is already in the article. It is also opinion driven, as everyone has their own favorite quotes. Eventually, with everyone adding their own favorite quotes the page becomes rather large and unwieldy. Add to this the fact that Mass Effect does not have a "dialogue transcript" system, like many other games (example- Dragon Age: Origins) have, meaning that many quotes will be transcribed from memory, and it will therefor be difficult, at best, to ensure accuracy. As for the purpose of Forums, they are places for discussion and for opinions, and dialogue pages do tend to become opinion-driven rather quickly. Hope this breakdown helped. SpartHawg948 02:36, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

I see you have misinterprited what I am suggesting. I do not suggest quotes, as those are, as you put it, "gee wiz information". I suggest locations only. As in, "Legion has unique dialog when talking to Captain Anderson." No statements as to what that unique quote is, simply that it exists in that location. This will allow viewers to visit these sections with these characters to view the actual scene. For example, I was not aware it was possible to obtain Legion without recruiting Tali until I saw that you could bring Legion for unique dialog. I therefore went and figured out how to obtain Legion prior to Tali, and did so to view the unique dialog. Thus I believe this to be valuable information that should be included in the Wiki itself in some way, shape, or form. That is my suggestion, and accompanying explanation.—ErzengelLichtes (Contribs) 02:44, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

But again, that is "gee whiz information". It doesn't contribute anything factual to this article, which is a character bio and plot summary. Telling people that there are unique dialogue options at such-and-such a place with such-and-such a person may be interesting, but contributes nothing factual, and will still result in the trivia sections getting unwieldy. It's perfect material for the forums though. Being included in the forums is still being included in the wiki, as the forums are part of this wiki. SpartHawg948 02:55, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Then I have a question regarding that: Is it acceptable to link to the forum page from the article itself? ie, "There are (link|unique conversations) for Legion".—ErzengelLichtes (Contribs) 02:59, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

How 'bout this? There is already a note in the trivia section that bringing Legion along results in some different/unique conversation options. What about linking to the forum site, and using an alias so it shows up in that sentence as the words "unique conversation options" or something? SpartHawg948 03:03, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

...That's exactly what I asked about immediately above your post. I asked if that precise suggestion would be acceptable in this wiki. Am I to assume that, since you're suggesting it, it is?—ErzengelLichtes (Contribs) 03:09, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Yup. The reason it's exactly what you suggested is b/c when I wrote it, all your comment said was "Then I have a question regarding that: Is it acceptable to link to the forum page from the article itself?". I tried to save it, was told I couldn't due to a conflicting edit (which was you adding "ie, "There are (link|unique conversations) for Legion".", and then went back and re-added it w/out reading what you had added. Intermediate editing conflicts do make me a bit agitated. :) Yes, that's acceptable. SpartHawg948 03:12, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Done. So long as we can have this "gee wiz" information someplace visible, I'm fine with it. I'd just prefer it in a more article format than a forum format with signatures and such. But if that's how it is to be, I shan't argue.—ErzengelLichtes (Contribs) 03:33, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Just took a gander at it, and it looks pretty good! :) SpartHawg948 03:52, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

• Also, I'm not agitated, I just don't appreciate being accused of going off on tirades towards people when I've done nothing of the sort. Sorry if I want my words and positions represented accurately. Apparently, my disliking being misrepresented is something of a character flaw. SpartHawg948 02:36, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) This is one admin who sees no reason why there should not be dialogue articles. In fact, I'd much prefer it to outlinks from the Main: space to the (ephemeral) Forum: space. After all, it's just as in-game as planet descriptions, codex entries, and mission summaries. --DRY 04:23, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I'm not proposing putting the dialogue on the main character page, but rather that there can be separate Main: space unique dialogue articles. Sub-pages would be ideal for this. --DRY 04:26, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly what I would prefer, myself. Should I do this, or wait until we have some form of consensus with others?—ErzengelLichtes (Contribs) 04:30, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

My stock answer is that I would wait twenty-four hours so as to get feedback from other time zones. --DRY 04:32, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't have nice things dialog transcripts. Seriously, I loved the Dragon Age dialog transcripts so that I don't need to play for a 6th time (I've logged enough hours) or keep reloading areas to hit dialog nodes (with increasing load times per area transition) just so I can see the one dialog I missed. Similiarly, I'm being obsessive about the dialog in ME2. My next playthrough, I'll be using Gibbed's save editor so I can bring in characters early for conversations such as Mordin's recruitment dialog with Tali, or with Thane - all of which are actually voiced and in the game. While my those two examples certainly aren't part of the standard game, anyone who wants to romance Tali is certainly going to have trouble with bringing Legion to her Loyalty quest. Essentially, I don't see why we're denying those who don't want to play for the nth time the one or two lines that ME2 has. I mean, in DA:O, they have entire conversations. Here, we only get a line or two, and we have to replay entire areas just to locate them? This also applies to the random "Talk with X" dialog triggers, which are impossible to know ahead of time. Really? We're against letting people know where/who those are? They have to run through each area with each character if they want to see? --DarkJeff 05:05, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

I too would prefer to have unique dialogue recorded somewhere on the main wiki and not on the forum. As has been pointed out with the Legion on Tali's loyalty quest, there is a bunch of dialogue a player might not normally encounter because it's a rather unorthodox situation. And in that case, it's just not an additional line or two. I would like to be able to read the lines again on the wiki, instead of having to load up the saved game and make sure it has the right combination of characters. It is a lot of effort for what maybe a single line or two, albeit sometimes very amusing. An earlier point was that any quotes would be written down from memory and transcribed inaccurately. There's subtitles which clearly show what the characters are saying. It might take a few tries to transcribe it, but quite doable. —Seburo 05:42, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

I would like to note that I have a HDMI video capture card and am capturing all these scenes from my 360 as I find them. Easily freeze-framed and transcribed, if that is desired. Or uploaded, if there's someplace I can do that without incurring anyone's wrath for uploading single lines of dialog.—ErzengelLichtes (Contribs) 05:54, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, if you want to see some of the reasons that two of the three admins (myself and Tullis), as well as several other users, opposed dialogue articles last time this came up, refer to Talk:Elevator conversations. Plenty of reasons against having them, no real good reasons for. For the record, I'm still adamantly opposed. SpartHawg948 06:25, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

What's the problem with having them on their own Main: space page if it's OK to have them on a Forum: page? I, for one, don't particularly want – or have time to – play through all of the possible combinations, but I would like to know what would have been said. These are also not quite the same thing as elevator conversations in that they trigger under certain well defined, fixed circumstances. --DRY 16:20, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

It has been 24 hours since DRY contested SpartHawg's instructions. The total stands thusly: 1 Admin (SpartHawg948) and 0 Users are for Forum links and against sub-pages. 1 Admin (DRY) and 3 users (DarkJeff, Seburo, ErzengelLichtes) stand for Sub-pages. Note that I do not stand against Forum links, merely for Sub-Pages. Unique Dialog is significantly different from Elevator Conversations so I cannot accept Tullis's comments in that talk page as a vote either way. I feel we should provide another 24 hours before undergoing any changes, but based on this day's vote, it would appear that this wiki community feels that sub-pages would be fitting for this particular topic.—ErzengelLichtes (Contribs) 04:41, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

I had actually already gone ahead and set up the sub-pages and fixed at least some of the main space links. --DRY 05:16, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. If this is what the people want, who am I to stand in the way? :) (although I would point out that distinguishing admins from regular users in the counting of votes does concern me, though I'm sure nothing was meant by it. The vote of an admin carries no more weight than that of any other user in a straight up-and-down vote, so I'd have just said one user opposed, 4 users supporting. But again, I'm sure nothing was meant by it.) And ErzengelLichtes, I do appreciate you taking the time/attention to spell my user name correctly. So many people seem to get it wrong, especially on talk pages, which I always find odd and slightly insulting. So thanks for not being one of them! :) SpartHawg948 06:51, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

It's our way of saying we love ya, SportHawk. *snicker* ;^) AlexMcpherson 10:23, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, not seeing subpages for Jack or Garrus, there... you know, just saying. And SpartHawg, I just meant that in a 'friendly teasing' way. AlexMcpherson 10:35, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Okay I'm seeing Special:CreatePage… you know, just saying. Seriously though, I only created sub-pages for characters for whom a Forum thread already existed. There is little point in creating empty pages. --DRY 14:58, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with creating empty pages? All kinds of other people around here seem to be doing it, what's one more? :P SpartHawg948 22:10, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Looking at that linked page, it's clear that the objection seems to be "I don't want to know, so that it doesn't ruin the game." Which is fine. Some people don't like to know how movies end, or a book ends, and their enjoyment is lessened by it. They complain when people tell them the Titanic sinks. (Seriously.) Other people don't care. They know what happens at the end of Hamlet, but enjoy watching the play again all the same. One group doesn't want to know. The other group does. The dialog shouldn't be a part of the main page anyways as it would be unnecessary clutter, but there's no reason not to have it on another page. Some people (like me, *cough*) will bring Legion and Tali along to recruit Mordin to watch the new lines, but some people can't (not on PC) or won't - but want to know anyways. If someone finds his enjoyment marred by knowing dialog ahead of time - don't load that page. Having the option (when somebody's willing to make it) is certainly superior to enforced ignorance.
On a slightly unrelated issue, is this the reason why the Gold Build guides for ME1 are gone now? The reason I ever popped into this wiki, back when ME1 was out, was precisely for build information and such, which tends to be one of the major use for game wikis. In-Universe, for details you missed, and Mechanics if you can't decide how to level up, or are getting massacred at higher difficulty levels. When I did my ME1 speedrun for ME2 (after a gap of what, 2 years?), I couldn't find the build advice/calculations again. --DarkJeff 18:25, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Build advice is objective though, what works for one player may not work for another. I think you're likely to find such guides on gamefaqs. Vegnas 18:29, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Certain things aren't. Perhaps I'm used to my D&D background, but in 4e, when you hit a level you get a power. When you hit level 3, you get to choose one level 3 Encounter Power from a choice of six powers, for example. What happens in Character Optimization boards is an analysis of the powers - hit ratio vs damage for DPS, debuff utility, that sort of thing. ME2, the powers are mostly equal, but back in ME1? It was worked out here that the largest DPS in ME1 was an Inflitrator-Commando with a Pistol when Marksman is active. That sort of information is certainly objective. The Immunity/Barrier = Invulnerability ME1 builds are common knowledge to us regulars now, but someone new to the game and looking to the wiki for information won't know. Basically, it's the difference between raw data in a textbook, and a good professor teaching you out of the textbook. The latter is far more useful, and valuable. --DarkJeff 03:30, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Legion sole Geth in Main Plot

Basically, someone removed that piece of trivia because of the geth on Haestrom.

But haestrom is the planet where you go to recruit tali, and some of us (not me, I went for completionist/no one left behind) didn't even go there to recruit Tali. The triggers for the Collector ship are after recruiting just two of the three of: Tali, Samara and Thane.

If you have the Zaeed DLC, this is changed to one.

I recruited Tali, and have the DLC. If I decided to not include Tali, I would have gone either samara or thane.

Due to this 'pick and choose' none of the second set of characters are integral to the plot. Because Horizon does only trigger after recruiting Mordin, Garrus, Jack and Grunt (in the place of Okeer) I would guess they are. Zaeed, despite being the possible first member of the team, would go with the others due to the optional nature with him. i.e. Two of those four to trigger the Collector ship. AlexMcpherson 21:51, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

A previous edit (now fixed)

By '99.162.230.2' ... I'd just like to ask, wtf? I mean the user cut down sections to one or two letters, and that was it. Props to Sunova for fixing it, o'course. Would like this user to explain what he or she had tried to do, or something, rather than it simply put it firmly in our minds as an attempt at web-vandalism. -AlexMcpherson 01:20, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

In all probability it was vandalism (and carrying hallmarks of similar previous vandalism). Blocked now. --DRY 03:13, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

NOT doing a robot

I stood before him in the AI Core for about 10 minutes, not even touching the mouse - nothing happened. He just tests his joints and turns around occasionally (I wonder why), then turns back and keeps looking at me. Just how much time should pass before he does the robot? --44 Magnum 00:08, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

I suspect it's at random; I've only ever seen it once, and that wasn't a time when I'd left it idle but when entering the AI room, IIRC. --vom 00:36, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

Try not to have that use-action-square active on him. Just keep him in a peripherial view. Prismvg 06:29, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

Well, he never did it on my first playthrough, but when I played my second Shep, he did it twice just fine =) Kiadony 10:35, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

Try taking him on a mission or to the citadel or something. I've only seen him dance when he's been in my party but that may just be my luck.

Lights on the sides of its head.

Legion has three small lights - two to the right of his 'headlight', and one to the left (or the other way around depending on how you look at it). Do these represent eyes? And in this vid: http://www.gametrailers.com/video/enemies-developer-mass-effect/58665 at 3:10 it only has one light where there should be two. Kiadony 10:43, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

Early-build shot? AlexMcpherson 11:37, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but it looks like the scene in which it deactivates the barrier before the Reaper core. I may check it in-game later, but I don't think I have a save anywhere near it. In the same video, those lights turn red sometimes, do they do this in game? Kiadony 14:43, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

Don't know. Hence my speculation that it was a shot from an earlier build of ME2. AlexMcpherson 20:46, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

Multicore Shielding

"During the suicide mission, if Tali's Multicore Shielding upgrade was not researched, and Tali herself is with Shepard for the Oculus fight, Legion will be vaporized in her place"

I actually just got done messing around with this, and it seems Legion is above Tali in the kill order for that part of the suicide mission. If neither Tali or Legion is in your Oculus party, Legion will die. If just Legion is, Tali will. If both are, Thane dies there. Then for the weapons part it seems Thane will always be the one to die, unless he died at the shields, then Garrus dies. The only loyal person on that save was Thane if that matters. 24.153.112.180 11:22, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

What if Thane wasn't recruited? And Legion was sold to cerberus? Mmm, Crispy... 16:35, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

I had no idea it was an option to not recruit Thane...TheFedExPope 22:58, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

You ony need to recruit 6 squadmates to continue the story. Jack, Grunt, Garrus, and Mordin. Since Miranda and Jacob are auto recruited, that makes 6. The others are complely optional, but recommended. Lancer1289 23:01, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Then it selects a random squadmember. I've had Garrus, Grunt, even Jack in the engine room by bringing Tali and Legion to the fight. I always however do the research and use just reload to test these things. Lancer1289 16:45, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. On my most recent playthrough, Kasumi was in the engine core for that scene. Of course I had the shield upgrade so she survived. 132.33.132.18 04:33, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Early recruitment glitch

I have seen numerous pages on this site stating that through some type of glitch, Legion can be obtained a lot earlier in the game, but I am unable to find the page stating how this is done. Can someone guide me? --Thunderstream328 Talk

It requires hacking the game using a save file editor. Therefore we have no page on it, however I think there are somethings about it on the PC Tweaks (Mass Effect 2) page. As to getting Legion early, apparently he was supposed to be recruited earlier in the game, however it was changed so we only guess. Lancer1289 18:47, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

Is it only available for the PC version? Oh well. Thanks anyway! --Thunderstream328 Talk

Yes it is only on the PC version because the way PC games are made. Anyway happy to be of help. Lancer1289 18:53, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

Actually. The 360 save files can be edited with the right software now that the Xbox 360 has USB support. 24.14.216.60 02:43, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

But is it really a glitch? I've seen talk about being able to do infinite number of missions after getting legion if you activate him, unlock the loyalty-mission and then don't do it until after ther other missions you want to do, the boarding of the normandy apparently doesn't activate until after his loyalty-mission if you activate it immediately, can anyone confirm this? this would mean that they would have to have dialogue for him on the missions you get earlier as well or am I missing something? Nizzemancer 19:56, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Legion's resemblance to Star Trek character?

I'm surprised no one on here pointed this out but I know alot of people that play Mass Effect 2 on various forums that have brought this up. Legion's background is extremely similar to Seven of Nine's background on Star Trek Voyager. They are both cyborg type species that were took from there robot counterparts and joined the crew of the human/protagonist in the storyline. If anyone here ever watched that show and played Mass Effect 2 the resemblance is extremely obvious just as the Scottish engineer on Normandy.

I added this under Trivia and apparently no one agrees on here. Wikia never used to be strict like this (or maybe it's just the self obsessed people on the Mass Effect 2 wikia that love to delete changes you make instantly). There is no factual evidence between the two but your telling me that's not considered Trivia? What a waste of time adding that little note to contribute to the site. Guess Wikia is turning to much into Wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sedativechunk (talk · contr).

Legion is a cyborg? Where is the organic part? Ditto for the geth as a whole. They are not cyborgs. They are synthetic life forms. Next, Legion was not taken from anywhere. It was sent to investigate, and willingly joined the crew with the express consent of the rest of its race. Finally, Wikia is not a monolithic organization. Each wiki makes its own policy, and circumstantial similarities and unfounded speculation ('it is said'... by whom?) do not meet the standards of this site. Where clear parallels exist, they are noted. For example, the similarity between Kenneth Donnelly and Soctty is noted, even though the developers have stated clearly that this similarity is unintentional. In this case, there really aren't any parallels. SpartHawg948 00:53, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And how is their background similar. The only two passing similarities between Seven and Legion is that they are/were part of a collective. However Seven has since been severed from the Borg collective, while Legion can still communicate with the geth, a big hole. The other is the fact they joined a crew, however Seven was forced to while Legion wasn't, so there's another hole. Also the geth don't seek to end organic life, like the Borg do, they just seek to understand and find their place, which is something the Borg don't. Also note that cyborgs and robots are to completely separate entities. Cyborgs require both organic and mechanical components to survive, while robots are completly mechanical and don't require organic components. The two similarities are passing at best, and aren't trivia worthy, see the style guide on that one. Also just because it is on a forum, doesn't instantly mean that it deserves a place here. Most of what is on the forums is speculation and people's opinions, which is exactly what this was. Voyager is my absolute favorite ST series and the only things I saw between Seven and Legion was what I listed above, which are passing and are full of holes. This isn't trivia, and each wiki has different rules about what is trivia, and this doesn't meet ours based on the fact that it is opinionated and the "theory" itself is full of holes. Also the way it was worded was speculation and we have a very low tolerance for that here. Again see our style guide for more. Lancer1289 01:01, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

And I'm proven right on both counts. Lancer1289 01:02, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the dig about the removal of this trivia being too strict. It was clearly in violation of policy, which has been in place for quite some time. By your own admission, there's absolutely no reason to suggest a link between Legion and Seven of Nine. So why even mention it? We're an encyclopedia of all things Mass Effect, not a catalogue of every thought everyone has ever had in relation to Mass Effect. Your theory may well be a topic of lively and interesting discussion on a forum, but it would not belong in an encyclopdia claiming to be a definitive source of information about a subject, wouldn't you agree? -- Dammej (talk) 01:12, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

Spelling issue

In the main article, there are two versions of the word armor. The first is British and the second is American. "If questioned about specifically using Shepard's N7 armour" & "Shepard's N7 armor was originally added to the design concept just for fun".

Now both of those are not solely the American or British spelling which is why I changed one to match the other. Please read the article again for clarity. Just letting you know Lancer. GrandMoffVixen 20:47, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Well then I missed one becuase there is another right above that. "Eventually it found the Normandy's crash site on the planet Alchera, salvaging a piece of Shepard's N7 armor and incorporating it into itself to repair damage sustained on Eden Prime after being shot by Alliance soldiers.". Again I really don't care because they both say the same thing and we have had instances where both are used in the same sentence. I do think this falls under the whole UK vs US spelling is ok. Lancer1289 20:50, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I was just remembering other times that people had made articles in question constistent by making the spelling one or the other. This was why I mentioned it. Thanks! GrandMoffVixen 20:53, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Usually there is a mix of US and UK spelling anyway in most articles to begin with. Lancer1289 20:57, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Saren

Has anyone noticed that Legion looks a bit like Saren? They both have wiring on their torsos, a large shoulder pad and only one arm has synthetic muscles present in all geth.

No, look at the images on the Lagion page. Both of its arms have the synthetic muscles. SpartHawg948 19:51, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Dancing is faulse

Okay the section in the trivia regarding the dancing has to be changed. It does not happen after staying idle for "a few seconds" not even close to seconds. More like minutes or hours. Even at random. I ran into the AI Core and when I got there he was already dancing! How do you explain that? And so far he has not danced on missions. No. I stood there literally for a full fucking hour and he did not make the least bit attempt to move!

We have policies for language here, and that just violated it. And this has happened to me both on missions and in the core after about ten seconds. I don't know about you, but a lot of other people have confirmed it. Lancer1289 22:45, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Take your policies and shove 'em. This is a website dedicated to a video game that contains course language. I doubt you will find any minors or pussies on this site who will be offended by cursing. Rules were always meant to be broken. Further more... never mind I finally got it to work actually. Thank you for your time :D

Rules are always meant to be broken, eh? Like the rule that I'm supposed to be nice and give you a chance to reform and follow the rules before I ban you? Or the rule that, when I do ban you, it should be for only a short period of time the first time, like two weeks, as opposed to five years? I'm all for breaking those rules. Look, we have rules, they are posted in an easily accessible place, and we are well within the Constitutional rights laid out for organizations (backed by several US Supreme Court rulings) in enforcing those rules and speech codes. SpartHawg948 20:10, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

I have already left him a message about that and if this happens again, he will suffer the consequences of his actions. Lancer1289 20:12, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Why wait? "Rules were always meant to be broken", remember? He'd obviously therefore be fine with us breaking the rules even when it doesn't work out in his favor. After all, we're just following his own policy. SpartHawg948 20:13, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I guess we could do that, after all "Rules are always meant to be broken". Lancer1289 20:18, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead! Ban me! I have a like 3 accounts for wikis. And you will never know it's me. It's just pathetic that no wiki I have ever visited doesn't have stuck up admins. Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. You people need to lighten up!

Sorry if asking you to abide by the rules that everybody else has to follow is too 'stuck up'. I forgot who I'm talking to, Your Majesty. Maybe, just maybe, if you're having issues on all sorts of wikis, the problem isn't everybody else. Maybe it's you. Just throwing that out there. SpartHawg948 08:02, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, all we asked if for you to abide by the rules and I really don't see what is too hard about that. That has never been an unreasonable request, but apparenlty with you it is. 12:36, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

I have something for you mr "Unregistred User". Take a couple of B.B. King's albums, grab a drink, switch off the lights and enjoy. Your life will be way better after that, trust me. SoulRipper 15:28, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

It's just so funny how you guys are still talking to me. And I thought you spectre--- I mean 'admins' were always so stuck up. Nice to see you guys finally let loose a little. Anyway, I have already registered a new account. You can't touch me. As Sovereign would say "this exchange is over". Goodbye

Oh, we can still touch you. An IP ban will also prevent any registered user with that IP from editing. Trust me, we've got plenty of experience dealing with people who thought they were untouchable or invincible. Not a one of them yet was right. We're not asking anything unreasonable, just that you contribute productively while at the same time following the same rules that everybody else follows. That's really not asking anything unreasonable, is it? SpartHawg948 20:13, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

WoW, glad your gonna ban this guy Legionwrex 22:47, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Now, I didn't say that. I said it might happen. Despite all the talk of rebellion and breaking rules, the user in question hasn't actually broken any more rules or anything since being asked not to. And I can live with that. SpartHawg948 22:49, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Rodger that Legionwrex 22:52, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen him doing it either, even after waiting for maybe 10 minutes, both at the AI core, and ashore somewhere (unarmed). Has anyone seen the dance on PC? And maybe give a detail or two about it (to distinguish it from Legion's just turning around or cocking his head like a robot), please. --AnotherRho 20:14, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwzoedQ_ZQ8. Saw it myself lots of times in my playthroughs. In my most recent one, I simply walked into him doing it, didn't even have to wait :P. Prismvg 20:26, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Prism (and the tuber also said it was on PC, so you answered all my questions). That's hilarious! --AnotherRho 20:37, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Weird Glitch

So I headed to the Citadel and chose Legion as one of my party members. When we spawned at the parking bay, he was stuck in the air above me. I moved out of the way and whenever a walked further away from him he would begin the falling animation over and over again in one place. Even getting really far away from him didn't work. He was still there. Is this common? 174.3.9.125 06:52, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes such glitches happen when Shepard or party members suddenly get out of bounds. These are caused by level design oversights that affect on rare occasions. Just board the Normandy and return back to the Citadel and you should be fine. SkyBon 09:12, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Legion'sREAL Name

OK, from the Shadow Broker DLC I learned that Legions real namme is "Geth Platform 2A93," I think that this should be included in the article on Legion.

Not sure if that qualifies as his real name. Geth platforms are interchangeable after all. The programs within that particular platform are what's important, and those programs are content to be called Legion. -- Commdor (Talk) 04:48, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And that may be the Shadow Broker's designation for Legion. We have no proof that is Legion's name, and actually it probably isn't based on the fact that, when Shepard asks "What is the Individual in front of me called?", Legion refers to itself as "geth". It only takes the title Legion after EDI's suggestion and acknowledging it as an appropriate metaphor. I can't ever remembering Legion referring to itself by "Geth Platform 2A93". So I'd have to say that is most likely the Shadow Broker's designation for Legion rather than anything official. Lancer1289 04:51, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so, Legion never referred to himself that way. And a little off topic but do Geth even have what we would consider "names?" --The Shadow User 17:57, October 25, 2010 (UTC)The Shadow User

Legion Romance Rumour?

Is there any truth in the rumour that Legion will be a romance option in the 3rd game? I read it somewhere and I know it sounds absolutely ludicrous so just checking if anyone else has heard the same

No and that content would have required a source to be put into the article. Lancer1289 20:06, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Lol, romance with Geth... you serious? That's for Joker, perhaps, since he "takes the human-machine interface a bit too far" :P - Wait, he's got EDI already. (JohnSkywalker93 02:16, November 6, 2010 (UTC))

Legion will have a romance with EDI, while Joker will have one with either Kelly or Dr. Chakwas.

Remember: You first heard that from me!! (LOL) —— Pepoluan 12:25, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

We anticipate the exchange of data.

Hail reader and take heed; I recently reverted the revision of my previous edit to the page. While I am certain that the expertise of the one responsible is beyond question, I was rather fond of the changes I made. For one, a machine cannot be "knocked out". Therefore I have created this new section, wherein I expect a compromise shall be made. Having done so, I feel that I have complied with site policy and cannot be held accountable for any hostilities that would inevitably stem from an unexpostulated revision. TheEnigmaticMan 22:45, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

You didn't comply with the site policy about bringing things up on a talk page first before reverting. As you made the changes, then they got reverted, it is your job to bring it up on the talk page before reverting, and only after a discussion.

As tot he revisions, I stand by what I said. You replaced perfectly acceptable words with other ones that are also acceptable. That is what is called needless changing. Both versions are completely acceptable and we don't tolerate switching one acceptable version to another that is equally acceptable. We have that rule about spelling, and that usually extends to wording as well. Your revisions are, to use your own words, "superior" in your eyes, but I can't see the difference. Both versions say the same thing, they just use different wording. Also part of your edit violates the naming conventions for alien races, "Geth" vs. the proper from "geth". I still don't see any reason for the switching as again both say the exact same thing, just using different words. Lancer1289 23:02, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

"You didn't comply with the site policy about bringing things up on a talk page first before reverting". I was not the one who reverted; it was you. I adjusted several cases of poor grammar (raising - rising, for example) and you indiscriminately reverted them all. If the norm is to avoid capitals when writing alien races, then it is right and proper that you should revise that, but your action was apparently born of laziness.

Now the page will suffer because of your indignation. Every one of those adjustments are effectively black-listed, regardless of their individual merit.

TheEnigmaticMan 23:10, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

No I was well within my rights to revert and bring up no discussion. However since you made the initial edit, and then had a problem with the undo, it is your job, not mine, to bring it up on the talk page and not revert the edit, then bring it up on the talk page. That is not only the policy, it is also rude and disrespectful, and as it since it came up again recently, you can't take one sentence out of context and expect it to say the same thing. You have to read everything, and not just bits and pieces.

And I can your comment about my apparently laziness as an insult and I'm sure that there are quite a few people who would say that I am most certainly not lazy. I reviewed all of the edits, apparently contrary to your belief, before reverting. I make sure to review all of my undoes before I take action. I am also a fast reader, but that's beside the point. I'm not lazy and I reviewed the edits and I still stand by my edit. And this will probably be my last post for a few hours as I have to attend a concert tonight.Lancer1289 23:22, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

The dubious grammar I can readily detect in your responses ("And I can your comment about my apparently laziness as an insult") grants some stock of insight into your revision. It is evident that this discussion has strayed far from the intended topic; the merit of the revisions. I do not expect you to bother, but I would appreciate it if you could account for your aversion to each and every change I made.

As for your site's policy, it seems a most bastard and degenerate perversion of reality. Why should one man undo the work of another without giving account, and then force the man whose work he undid to present reason for its existence? It seems rather obvious that the gentleman who shows proclivity for undoing the work of others should be the one to present first reason; why the work should be undone at all. Furthermore, I would have undone the changes myself had you taken the time to message me, a new member, with the details.

My most profound and sincere gratitude is extended to you for the patience and diligence you have shown in antagonising me.

TheEnigmaticMan 23:36, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Just to interject here, as I literally just got here and haven't even read all this yet. But I can comment on the protocol. If a change was made and then undone, and you want to discuss it on the talk page, the best course of action is to start the discussion on the talk page, see if you can reach an agreement or compromise, and then implement it in the article. On the other hand, reverting an undo (especially one made by an admin) with the edit summary "Let us discuss this on the talk page. I am certain that we can come to an arrangement" is not the best course of action. It's essentially saying "I was right and you were wrong. My edit was good the way it was, and doesn't need any modification. You need to accept this, and we'll agree about that on the talk page." I mean, if you are certain we can come to an agreement, shouldn't you wait for said agreement to materialize before taking unilateral action and undoing? Just saying...

• Additionally, please, TheEnigmaticMan (nifty name, BTW), do be mindful of language. We do have site language and conduct policies, after all. Thanks, SpartHawg948 01:17, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

Ah the things you miss when you leave for a concert. Anyway back to this.

So I messed up on the typing and forgot the "take" between "can" and "your" however I still stand by my edit and your violation now of multiple site policies, which I missed due to said concert. Violating site policies, and insulting others, isn't the best way to introduce yourself, especially as a gentleman, to a community. Lancer1289 05:33, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

Sirs,

As I have already apologised, I shall herein respond chiefly to the prevailing issue; the edits themselves. You have yet to defend the maintenance of improper grammar on the page in question. If you can by some miracle produce a credible reason why Legion's eyebrows should "raise" (opposing "rise") to indicate surprise etc, then I shall concede the entire point. I do not anticipate that you will be able to do so, but I leave the correction of said to your own discretion, as I would undoubtedly be in violation of several policies if I were to personally insert the correct word.

No slander is meant in the afore stated; as is readily apparent, I remain ignorant of the cast majority (vast being the operating word) of your policies regarding grammar.

And one brief word on my language, I can detect no instance of inappropriate or vulgar usage. If you refer to the word "bastard", then you shall understand that when used to describe an apparently sound but actually inauspicious matter it is not considered offensive.

TheEnigmaticMan 01:50, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

Speaking purely to the last point, yes, it still falls under the list of proscribed words per site language policy. Words that, taken at face value, devoid of context, can be considered offensive, are considered offensive. I would also have objected if you had described a female dog using a word that, in other usage, is vulgar/obscene. I'm not asking much, but what little I am asking is that you not continue using words you have been asked not to (as you just did in your most recent reply), and simply attempt to abide by site policy in the future. Thanks, SpartHawg948 02:05, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

Yes any word that is not "G" rated is something that has no place on this site. I had one very long discussion about this, and that didn't turn out well. Any words that aren't "G" rated by the MPAA again has no place on this site. Words can be pulled out of context to mean something completely different, and those words can be seen as offensive and I most certainly would have taken them that way if I had not read them in context.

As to the edits, it appears only improper to you. Just because something seems improper to you, doesn't mean that it doesn't for others. Rising to me sounds a lot worse and after checking, either word is equally acceptable, but raising is more appropriate given the wording of the sentence. You just replaced a lot of equally acceptable words, with equally acceptable ones, and that really is a no-no. Just because something seems wrong to you, doesn't mean that it doesn't look right to others. We have the spelling policy against US and UK spelling edits, because one word, like armour, looks correct to someone in parts of the world, while armor looks correct to others, and vice versa. Both versions are equally correct, they just use different, equally acceptable words, to describe the same thing. Lancer1289 16:08, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

Sirs,

It seems an impossible thing to conduct the prevalence of proper grammar here. If that is indeed the case, then I shall never exist here without sparking further conflict. Therefore, I shall at once strike myself from your midst. You shall thereafter be free to exercise your inalienable right to entertain such errors as you fancy, coupled with you ridiculous system of meting justice and accountability. Farewell. Live long, prosper and leave behind such edifice as most resembles the image you wish to impart to posterity.

TheEnigmaticMan 16:58, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

No that is your opinion that it is proper grammar. I've talked to a few others and both seem them as equally correct. It isn't an error, it's an error to you, and yet it is also correct. Replacing things that are perfectly acceptable, with other things that are also equally acceptable, is something that really doesn't look good.

I can also take your entire last comment as a insult to both myself and everyone who edits this wiki, which includes you since you edited here. First you say that you are trying to educate us on proper grammar, when what is already there is also perfectly acceptable. Then you say that we can continue along our present source of a wiki that is full of errors, when they only appear so to you, and out "ridiculous system" of "justice and accountability" when it seems to have worked so far and while it isn't perfect, nothing ever is, it does work. Which is more than I can say for some other things, but that's a different story.

Then you finish with nothing more or less than a direct insult to everyone here. Because you stated clearly that the wiki is full of errors, again that only appear to you, then you are saying that it is not up to your, and IMO, ridiculous standards, so you don't like it and say that it resembles something that isn't maintained or is something that is presentable. However many people we have both visiting and editing here, have commented that it is a great and well maintained wiki. Some users have left comments on Spart's and my talk page commenting on how well the wiki is. Also we have had BioWare writers, developers, and staff comment here before, and Mac Walters, a.k.a. the lead writer for Mass Effect has said and I quote, "But I have to be honest with you, I need to thank the fans. One of the best sources of information on Mass Effect is the Mass Effect Wiki. I often use it myself." Now that is what I'd consider high praise, considering he come here, granted though we don't know how often.

Finally, I'll end with saying this again. Replacing something that is equally acceptable with something else that is also equally acceptable, isn't really a good idea. Armor and armour are both equally acceptable, because, like this instance, they are both equally acceptable. Lancer1289 20:27, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

If you don't mind my asking, what is meant by "you[r] ridiculous system of meting justice and accountability"? If something about our system truly does appear ridiculous, it'd be nice to hear it. After all, we can't fix problems if we aren't aware of them. Personally, I can't see anything ridiculous about holding people accountable based on their actions, and holding them accountable to a posted set of rules, but that's just me. As for "meting justice"... that one I draw a blank on. Near as I can tell, no "justice" (i.e. a ban) has been doled out to you. You have been asked to follow the same site policies everyone else does, but that doesn't fit my definition of "justice". Any feedback would be appreciated. SpartHawg948 22:24, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

Given his comments, I believe that he was referring to the policy where if there is an undo, it is the person who has a problem with the undo to bring it up on the talk page before reverting the undo. I personally find that is a good policy, but that's me and I'm only guessing at what policy he finds ridiculous. However I'm also very confused about the justice part. That left me scratching my head. Lancer1289 00:17, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

I am unaware as to the identities of these "others" to whom you refer, but I shall bow before your position that when more than one person agrees, the premise is correct. However it remains my opinion that one "raises oneself", which is the act of "rising". It is impossible, in my eyes, for one to "rise oneself", or for that action to be referred to as "raising". So much for that.

As for the perceived insult, it cannot refer to myself, as I stated quite explicitly that I was in opposition to the errors I took issue with (indeed, it is implied). That seems quite obvious to me. Next, I must protest to your misinterpretation of my comment. I stated merely that it was impossible to "conduct the prevalence of proper grammar here"; that I saw no hope of any future adjustment being supported. I did not say that the wiki was "full of errors", as you believe. It is quite annoying to be forced to reiterate one's statements because their readers see in them such sentiments as fit their preconceptions of myself. I have no doubt that you have brain enough to penetrate my sentences, so that is the only conclusion open to me.

As to calling my standards "ridiculous"; that is in itself a ridiculous notion. Correcting grammatical errors is not a ridiculous thing to do; it is in fact quite a sensible thing.

I shall elaborate. The system appears ridiculous to me because the first person to undo a revision is not required to discuss it. He simply acts and fie upon the consequences. If I want to undo that undo, however, I must present a case. Why does this rule only apply to the injured party, rather than the aggressor? As such, I am seen as the criminal, thus justice in whatever form it may deign to take will direct its aggression towards myself.

TheEnigmaticMan 21:35, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

Requiring the first person to undo an edit to comment is itself a ridiculous standard. There are many, many cases in which a simple undo is the best course of action. Vandalism and speculation, improper placement of material, etc. You also have to consider that the majority of undos such as this are done by either the admins or "senior editors" (i.e. editors who have been here for quite some time, and have been granted rights above and beyond those of the "average" user). Many of these undos are judgement calls, and they tend to be made for a reason. This "[h]e simply acts and fie upon the consequences" notion is ludicrous. Any undo can be challenged, and in many cases they are overridden by community consensus.

As for the notion that there is an "aggressor" and an "injured party"... well, I'm really at a loss for words that anyone could look at this situation and see a simple edit made by an admin as an act of "aggression". This is literally a first in over three years of editing... SpartHawg948 21:47, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

My edit was neither speculation nor vandalism. It was chiefly the revision of A) improper grammar and B) inappropriate language. I am fully sensible of the possibility of challenging an undo, as that is quite obviously what I am doing. What I do not understand is why the opinion of a user who frequently makes grammatical errors in his responses to me should be valued above my own.

As to the word "aggressor", I once again encounter pedantry. It does not necessarily imply focused aggression. It merely implies that his actions were retrograde to my desires. It is a profound irony that persons who are wont to display incredulity in so basic a concept as dual meanings think themselves capable of correcting my grammar!

TheEnigmaticMan 21:57, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

Did I say (ever, at any time?) that your edit was speculation or vandalism? No. I was merely providing examples as to why the current rules exist. Surely someone as educated as yourself can understand so simple a concept, as well as realizing that at no time did I state or imply that your edit was speculative or vandalism. You questioned an existing policy, I provided examples of why said policy exists. I mean, this is a much more basic concept than "dual meanings", yet for some reason I'm the one being lectured to here.

As for aggressor... I must confess, I'm not seeing the dual meaning here. All the meanings I can find in the dictionary state that an aggressor is someone who attacks or harms, generally in a hostile manner. None of this "his actions were retrograde to my desires" nonsense. Let's see... "a person, group, or nation that attacks first or initiates hostilities; an assailant or invader." (from Random House), "an attack or harmful action, esp an unprovoked attack by one country against another" "any offensive activity, practice, etc: an aggression against personal liberty" "a hostile or destructive mental attitude or behaviour" (from Collins English dictionary). My point was that it was ridiculously strong language for the situation. Lancer's behavior was in no way aggressive, nor were you "injured" in any sense of the word (save maybe your pride). Aggrieved would work better than injured, and instigator better than aggressor, but those still seem a bit much. As for "persons who are wont to display incredulity in so basic a concept as dual meanings think themselves capable of correcting my grammar" (which I assume means me)< I will point out again that I had to explain the concept of examples, which is about as basic as it gets, to you, and leave it at that. SpartHawg948 22:19, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

Sudo Unix reference

Why someone deleted the "sudo" command reference to Unix that legion does on the Heretic Station? It is a very known Unix command that, as a trivia. I know its a joke that 1 of 15 people will giggle when they hear but I think it is interesting (and true) enough to be listed as Trivia.

Probably because it is listed in the Legion: A House Divided article where it is much more relevant? Also it has been noted there for quite some time and I don't think it was every listed in this article because of the relevance issue I mentioned. Also, there is no need to repeat information in a less relevant place. Lancer1289 00:54, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

legion seems a bit game breaking to me

what i mean is i can take him anywhere i go and i seem to get no reaction from people as i walk around with a Geth.

just walk right through the security checkpoint at citadel and noone even cares there is a Geth walking by... like the attack 2 years prior never happened.

i dont mind the Geth being in the party, but they should have made it a big deal. like you constantly get stopped and have to defend Legions intentions and what have you.

This is the kind of thing that belongs in a blog or in the Forums. Also race name caps, it's geth not Geth. Lancer1289 02:18, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

so that title at the top saying this is a talk page is a lie?

anyways, pull the stick out if capitalization causes you mental stress.

No but talk pages are for discussing improvemets to the article. Pulled from the Community Guidelines. "Each article's Talk page exists to: comment on that article, ask questions about the article, draw attention to a particular edit or explain why a particular edit was made, communicate with another user (to answer their questions, query an edit etc), suggest improvements to the article structure (i.e. posting a new table format), notify users of major changes to the article." Also pulled from the Community Guidelines "Talk pages are not: a substitute forum, a space to post theories without fear of deletion, used to harass other users." This kind of comment belongs in the forums or a blog where it is much more appropiate. I can not also modify your comment and do watch your langauge, we have a policy about that too. Lancer1289 03:03, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

Different anon here. People do not stop you all the time if you have Legion in your party because that would be a disaster. That would be the fastest way in gaming history to make everyone hate Legion. If everyone nagged you and stopped you for having a geth in your party, the game is pretty much punishing you for using that party member. You'd use him once just to hear the dialogue and then never take him out of the ship again because after the first time, being stopped everywhere while your other party members are not would just get annoying. Besides which, who says everyone would actually know what a geth looks like?

Also, there are at least two instances where someone notices Legion's a geth (Haelstrom and Migrant Fleet) and one where the game jokes about how oblivious everyone is to Legion (talk to the lady at the front desk on the citadel).

Seems like a reasonable assumption. Lancer1289 15:27, April 22, 2011 (UTC)

Infiltrator

Geth Infiltrator should be removed under his picture thing. Because he can also be a Geth Trooper. So it should be Geth. That may sound silly, but it's true. Some people will disagree cause thy don't like the sound of it, but this is a wiki not who says what.--BriNg iN DeR FLAmeS?! 04:00, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah the thing is that second line of the character template if for the class name. See Miranda Lawson (Cerberus Officer), Mordin Solus (Salarian Scientist), Zaeed Massani (Mercenary Veteran), and Urdnot Wrex (Krogan Battlemaster (class)). In fact, the parameter for the class is even called "class". They can all be different things through the class power, but that is the name of the class power and because of that, it stays. I do hope that explains things. Lancer1289 04:11, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou.--BriNg iN DeR FLAmeS?! 03:35, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

Gender pronouns and Legion

Is it appropriate to refer to EDI as a female -- as far as grammar goes? Yes, she sounds like a synthesized female voice, BUT she's no more female than Legion is male.

Furthermore, Legion, in this article, is correctly referred to as "it."

And further beyond that, I am going out on a limb to say that EDI and Legion would have no/few problems being called "it" because they are both definitely not hes or shes. They both fully realize and accept that they are not organic, have no gender, and don't even reproduce in any manner similar to organics. Can EDI reproduce at all? Besides copying itself that is?

That being said, I think EDI might prefer ze instead of he, she, or it because he or she doesn't apply and "it", in a connotative manner, is degrading in English when referring to someone because objects/beasts are called "it". EDI seems to have a much more "human" ego than Legion and I think she might not like being called a thing.

On the other hand, Legion initially doesn't even care that it (ze?) doesn't have a name, so I don't think it would really care one way or the other what "its" pronoun is. Legion makes it 99% clear that it is okay with being a collective being and there's only very circumspect evidence to think otherwise.

And how about no. It is acceptable to call EDI she, while Legion is referred to as it. Ze isn't appropriate given the dialogue, and other facts, in the game. Ze just doesn't fit as well as she, her, and other female pronouns that are correctly used, while Legion, like the Reapers, are referred to as it. Also you are making assumptions about what EDI might think and be conformable with, and assumptions aren't allowed in articles. It and she are much more appropriate for Legion and EDI respectively. If you want to talk about EDI, then take up on the Talk:EDI page, but it is more appropriate than ze for Legion. Not to mention that ze isn’t even used in modern English because it is the accepted gender-neutral pronoun. Lancer1289 14:38, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

By the way (as to the topic), in the Overlord when Shepard tells Archer that Legion can't be brainwashed, he/she refers to it as "he" (something like, "If there's a geth in the galaxy that can't be brainwashed, it's him. Don't worry."). I know it's a small thing, and probably is a writing error, but should it be noted, for example, on the UD page where the line is mentioned? --Kiadony 14:52, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

Well Legion also refers to itself as "I" more than a few times, which is noted in the trivia section. This is also more than likely a writing error, but since that it noted, then I really don't see why this shouldn't be. The UD page would be inappropriate since it isn't something that Legion says, but rather Shepard does, so the trivia section here would be more appropriate. I also did some searching on this subject, the main topic that is, and found that ze isn’t even accepted by some of the biggest authorities on the English Language, like the Oxford English Dictionary. Lancer1289 14:57, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: Also according to the article on gender-neutral pronouns at Wikipedia, it is an invented pronoun. Meaning that it is improper grammar as it isn't recognized by any authority on the English Language. So that would be a big no on "ze" as it is improper grammar and inappropriate to use with the common and accepted gender neutral pronoun already in the article and being used appropriately. Even MS Word doesn't recognize "ze" as a word. Lancer1289 15:03, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

Legion vs One of Many

The trivia section containing a reference to Neverwinter Night's "One of Many" is a stretch and should probably be removed. One of Many was made up of a collection of evil souls, all individuals with their own unique personalities, which had been trapped in a crematorium's furnace. Certain personalities take over and change the character's class as the game moves on and the player's character develops influence with One of Many.

Legion is not a collection of individuals in one body. Legion is Geth, and is essentially the same as all other non-heretical Geth. This is explained by Legion himself when he talks of how all Geth are each copies of the same software program that gets downloaded into a mobile platform when the need arises. The reference to being made up of many different programs, as personalities, was about Sovereign and the other Reapers, not about the Geth.

There's just no way that Legion is a reference to One of Many.

Meddlesom 17:36, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, NWN2 was made by Obsidian Entertainment, not BioWare. Tanooki1432 17:38, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

In-game Spoiler

Have anyone noticed that during IFF mission, when Legion is first heard, subtitles name it Legion already, before being named by EDI on-board normandy.[1] While when spoken first time on normandy it's correctly refered by game as "Geth" 83.24.89.162 23:57, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Yes people have noticed it and I believe it is noted somewhere. It is most likely an error because of the rewrite with Legion's part. Lancer1289 00:11, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

I've been dying to ask this

I don't know if this has been discussed before. As we all know, Legion calls Shepard, "Shepard Commander". So that's "name" first and then "rank". However, Legion refers to Tali as "Creator Tali'Zorah", which is "rank" (if you could call it that) and then "name". WHY?? And how would he refer to other characters, e.g, those who have no rank? Tali's no.1 fan 17:16, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

These are questions we probably won't have the answers to any time soon. All we can do is guess. The best place to probably get this answer is the BioWare forums as I have no idea why. Quarian influence on their programming maybe, I again have no idea. Lancer1289 17:44, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps he thinks that Commander is actually Shepard's first name, and that Shepard is his Rank Title. As such, the Tali'Zorah thing makes sense. She is a "Creator", so that's her rank, and Tali'Zorah is her name. Since people generally refer to Shepard as "Commander", I can see why Legion might take that title as Shepard's actual name. Plus, Shepard sounds like ""Shepherd", which is a humorously accurate description of Shep's job. (Shepherding all those individual team members into a herd of dangerous killers.) Either that, or it's just a writing error on Bioware's part, which is more likely.

Please take things like this to the appropriate places as talk pages are not forums. And posting your own theories here is not the point of a talk page. Lancer1289 20:29, October 10, 2011 (UTC)

Gethpocalypse

So, if you sell Legion for scrap, his loyalty mission by definition cannot happen. Consequently, can it be presumed that the heretics proceed with their plan and infect all the geth? Renegade Shep might be extra-screwed in ME3...--Zyne 18:19, February 25, 2011 (UTC)

That's making some assumptions but the bottom line is we won't know until ME3 comes out later this year. Lancer1289 18:21, February 25, 2011 (UTC)

I so very hope for that to happen, that would show those damn Renegades they should have played the nice --TakeruDavis 20:35, February 26, 2012 (UTC)

Language. Lancer1289 20:37, February 26, 2012 (UTC)

interfacing

direct quote from dialogue, "how do you maintain stability without other minds to interact with" link: [2]. noting only the first half of the question in the article text is ambiguous. Asdf1239^talk 04:53, March 5, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I have a problem with that. Legion says minds, so he could be referring to organics, VIs, or AIs. The wording of the sentence makes it a little vague who exactly Legion is referring to. Also Legions says "minds" which is also vague as minds could refer to an AI or an organic. You are speculating that it means AI, which isn't solid fact. You are twisting the words of a quote to suit your speculation which means you are interpreting the words, and I just interpreted something else. Lancer1289 04:58, March 5, 2011 (UTC)

it couldn't possibly be referring to organics because edi interacts with the crew on a regular basis. vis, as stated on their article, are not actually self aware so really cannot be described as "minds". in the same sequence, legion describes itself as a "single gestalt intellect" formed by programs that are individually equivalent to a vi. it doesn't view the individuals as "minds", only the resulting collective as one. in another dialogue sequence, it refers to the geth as a whole as a "shattered mind". Asdf1239^talk 05:23, March 5, 2011 (UTC)

And what exaclty are you talking about exactly because you just lost me as that entire comment is very confusing. Who isn't self aware exactly? And what does vis stand for as I've never seen it used alone? Lancer1289 05:30, March 5, 2011 (UTC)

vis=VIs, virtual intelligences. I don't what what drugs you guys are on. All Legion is asking is how EDI isn't lonely by itself. EDI has no one like itself to talk to and keep itself 'sane'.

Legion not in ME3

I remember reading in some Magazine that Legion will not be in ME3 so shouldn't that be noted lastly how is that possible if legion is geth?

I don't know which magazine you read that says Legion won't be in ME3. I for one am positive it will appear to some extent. Here's the Game Informer hub. [3] You can click on "Creating Legion's Voice" for a little snippet that should confirm its appearance. That and the fact that there's even mention of it on that page should be enough. Freakium 22:33, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

Well not that he wont appear but it will be minimal and that he might die. Which the point being is can Legion die if he is geth?

We have no real confirmation in any way apart from BioWare saying that any squadmate who survives ME2 will return in some capacity for ME3. Also don't forget Legion can die on the Collector Base as he can't upload to the geth network. We have no confirmation what its role will be yet. We only have confirmation on Mordin (returning if not dead), Ashley/Kaidan (squadmate depending on Virmire decision), Liara (squadmate), James Sanders (new character squadmate), Jack (returning), Garrus (squadmate if not dead), Tali (returning if not dead), Legion (returning if not dead), Wrex (returning if not dead). This is all we have and that can be viewed on their various pages. Lancer1289 23:10, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

He is definitely making a return, proof is in this recent vid here. [4]LakanDiamsun 06:24, June 9, 2011 (UTC)LakanDiamsun

Seems obvious to me but...

Could Legion be a reference to Anonymous?

• The name Legion itself

• The fact that he doesn't have a name directly associated to him

• The Geth are computer constructs that can hack things

Jdcoolha 03:36, May 20, 2011 (UTC)

That's based on a lot of stretching and this is literally the first I've heard of this supposed connection. I just think this one is just really far out there, but that's me. Lancer1289 03:49, May 20, 2011 (UTC)

The only reason I'm here is because I was going to add a section about that as well. Legion does seem to be a reference to Hackers Anonymous. "We are anonymous. We are Legion". Nobody knows who organizes Anonymous. A lot of them do their own thing. They say "We are one of many". "We are Legion". I sense a connection. Legion IS a hacker, and has various hacking capabilities, like the Geth do. Jdcoolha brought up the same point I was about to make. And except for those several occurrences, Legion refers to himself as "we", especially after Shepherd wakes him up. This is like Anonymous as well.

If this is the only reason you're here, this won't end well. The link here is incredibly tenuous. In fact, the link you've described isn't a link at all just a trivial coincidence. The name "Legion" is based on the Bible, and the idea of the computer/artificial intelligence/cyborg race with the hive mind is so common in sci-fi it is literally won of the most common tropes in fiction. In this light, the fact that Legion refers to itself as 'we' is not only unsurprising it is to be expected. I would be surprised if it used 'I' instead since that would break with the trope. There just isn't anything even circumstantial to support you here.--Captainhu 05:37, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

Proper pronoun for Legion

Hi there,

It strikes me that if Legion self references as 'we', then the proper pronoun when referring to Legion should be 'they', not 'it/he/she'.

Opinions?

Cheers, StirB

"It" should suffice, since when you speak to it/refer to it, you are generally addressing/referring to the singular platform in which the multiple programs or whatever are housed. It seems to me that we can treat Legion the same in this respect as someone who refers to themselves in the third person or some such. After all, you wouldn't refer to (for example) Queen Victoria as "they" instead of "she" just because she used the royal "we", would you? SpartHawg948 10:06, September 7, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, when writing or speaking about the Monarch of the UK, one should never use 'he/she', rather his/her Majesty.

I think the Legion point is different though...Legion is not using 'we' as an affectation, as her Majesty does, but as a point that Legion is composed of many individuals - see this line from your wiki page:

"Legion regards itself not as a single being, but as a gestalt entity which must achieve consensus to act".

If it does not regard itself(sic) as a single being, it therefore follows that Legion regards theirselves as multiple beings. It would make sense when talking about the gestalt form that houses Legion to use 'it', as it is one body, but when talking about the beings inside, the correct pronoun must be 'they'.

Think of it as a beehive full of bees. The beehive is an 'it', but the bees inside are 'they'. Legion are the bees, not the beehive.

Cheers, StirB

You have a point, StirB, that Legion does refer to itself as "we" because it feels it is many, but in game this is due to a lack of understanding of what individuality means. The conversations during Legion's loyalty missions make it clear that Legion doesn't understand the entire concept of "I", hence the "we". However since Shepard makes it a point to give Legion a name to assert it's individuality and separate it from the Geth, I think the singular "it" is more appropriate.--Captainhu 12:15, September 7, 2011 (UTC)

At the end of Priority Rannoch Legion refers to itself as "I". EDI makes note of this and talks about Legion finally feeling it was an individual if you talk to Joker immediately after Priortity Rannoch when you manage to broker peace between the Quarians and Geth. Just an interesting conversation that bookmarks Legions story.--Snake241079 18:09, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

Ok...this conversation was dead for almost a year, and was about Legion before it became self aware. Lancer1289 18:30, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

Video Archive

It's worth mentioning somewhere in the article. In an encyclopedia, there is never such a thing as too much information. Plus, the video archive information for Grunt is there, so its also a consistency issue. Your insistence on deleting is a sign that yes, you DO have a Napoleon/Captain Queeg complex. Be a man and own up to it.--Darth Something 04:42, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

Do we really need to throw insults around? Is it possible to have a mature conversation anymore? Judging by "[y]our insistence on deleting is a sign that yes, you DO have a Napoleon/Captain Queeg complex", I guess not.

As to the trivia itself, it isn't worth mentioning because we don't have context and it is already irrelevant with the link to the Video Archive. There is a thing as too much information, but to put information into an article, when it is already present elsewhere, is redundant to say the least. This isn't trivia for multiple reasons, and redundancy is one of them. Lancer1289 04:46, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

Anthem Inspiration?

Could Legion's tendency to replace the pronoun 'I' with 'We' derive from Ayn Rand's novella Anthem? For those who have not read it, the protagonist of the plot belongs to a collective society in which the word 'I' does not exist. Like Legion, Equality 7-2521 refers to himself as we rather than I, symbolising their collectivised way of life. I am going to work this into the Trivia section. Feel free to do what you will with the information I provide. --The Milkman 05:44, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah there are many issues with that. Legion refers to itself that way because of what it is, not because that is how society works. The only similarity is they use "we" instead of "I" and that is not enough to draw trivia. The biggest issue being that they aren't used for the same reasons. Lancer1289 05:49, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I would refrain from calling the Geth a society anyway. I will leave it out of the trivia. And damn that was a fast reply. --The Milkman 05:53, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

Please watch the language, and you happened to catch me when the RC just updated. Lancer1289 05:58, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry was unaware that was frowned upon here. Thought there would be more leniency with profanity on a wiki regarding an M rated game. --The Milkman 06:02, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

If you want to discuss that, then please take it elsewhere as this has been beaten to death already. Lancer1289 06:06, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to sound as if I wanted to spark a debate. I shall check the rules and policies then. --The Milkman 06:11, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

Mass Effect 3 spoiler below

Legion's Death

It seems as though Legion did not actually 'die' the programs inside him left his mobile platform to manually distribute the Reaper Code to the rest of the Geth. Therefor, why can Legion not simply put himself in another mobile unit?

I agree on that... well, it is possible and some fanfics may be written about it...--TakeruDavis 16:38, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

From what I understand, the programs are not really programs anymore. Because Legion is now an individual, removing one part of whatever software he's running on doesn't make him Legion anymore. So, in order for him to distribute the upgrade, he has to take the master copy of his software and upload it to the Geth Consensus (since copying didn't work). Lksdjf

Mass Effect 3

Does anybody know whether or not dialogues with Quarians in ME3 differ if Legion was there while doing Tali's Loyalty Mission (Tali:Treason) in ME2? In other words, if it is not the first time they've seen Legion. / Goekhan 195.174.142.145 02:27, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

Legions origin

I just finished the great mission where Shep enters the server.

Based on the historical data you see in there, might it be possible, that his platform and most programms are(one of) the first geth?

I had this idea when Shep comments: "That sniper looks a lot like the one you used to have" and Legion replies, a little hesistating: "Yes... It's a very... good model"(something like that)

Legion as Enemy Character in ME3.

Apparently if in ME2 you made the decision to not bring reactive Legion but instead hand the body over to Cerberus, Legion appears as an enemy during the final assault on Cerberus HQ in Mass Effect 3, similar to how Jack and Morinth did if certain events occurred or did not occur. Can anyone confirm? 70.160.90.237 03:42, March 16, 2012 (UTC) JoeMorgue

Yes. Legion appears as an enemy called Legion Assassin. Lksdjf

Origin of Legion's name.

I agree with "Byakkougan" that the extraneous trivia about the "herd of pigs" in the New Testament should be removed. After the phrase "My name is Legion, for we are many" the rest doesn't add anything useful about the origin of Legion's name. I know this is possibly sacrilege, but if the passage had gone on to say "The demons asked Jesus to punch their frequent possession card" it wouldn't have added anything to the rationale behind Legion's name. Blindman25 16:45, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

Need a search term/redirect for "Geth VI"

Searching for the name of the squad mate that appears if Legion is not in an imported game should lead to this page. GRPeng 23:48, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

Details of Upload to Geth

This does not seem to be correct: "After such, Legion states that it is going to attempt to transfer the Reaper upgrades from the deceased Reaper to the geth."

The article also lacks mention of Legion retaining the Reaper upgrades even after the upgrades have been wiped from rest of Geth collective. If one were to take a wild guess one would assume the same user who left that detail out was the same user who wrote the previously quoted line.

Back to the first issue, Legion seem to have uploaded the Reaper upgrades from itself instead of the deceased Reaper. I do not recall if he stated this outright, but it would make sense because he had to initiate a dissemination of its own "personality", which contained the Reaper code.

I hesitate the make the possibly necessary correction before going back to that point in game and check, and I do not have a save game at that specific point. reinhart_menken 08:02, April 28, 2012 (EST)

How about instead of berating people over things, fix them. Contrary to what you seem to believe, not everyone is perfect. Lancer1289 15:23, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

It was an observation mixed with a little guessing, instead of reproach or condemnation. You seem to either not have read the entirety of my post or did not absorb it.

I quote, "I hesitate the make the possibly necessary correction before going back to that point in game and check, and I do not have a save game at that specific point."

Perhaps I should apologize for exercising caution for the sake of accuracy, or that I did not anticipate to make a save conveniently near that plot point.

My main "sticking point" was with where the code was uploaded from, not the omission of other information. reinhart_menken 18:45, April 28, 2012 (EST)

Overlord DLC

In the Overlord DLC, Legion can be seen glowing bright green sometimes. I think it would be correct to assume that those are signs of the rogue VI(David)' s attempts at hacking it.

maegliorn--The Great Biotic Wind... 11:46, May 28, 2012 (UTC)

And I'm calling bollocks on that. It's the Geth Shield Boost ability. --Kainzorus Prime ^{Walkie-talkie} 13:10, May 28, 2012 (UTC)

That would be the case if i' d secured the legion's trust in me before the dlc... Besides, it mostly happens in non-combat situations... maegliorn--The Great Biotic Wind... 12:58, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

small note about legion's origin.

I dont know if anyone has noticed, but in the videos that the data clusters reveal, shepard to makes a comment about the sniper rifle the geth in the video picks up. legion hesitates before mentioning "it is a good rifle." implying that he was the geth that was at the beginning of the Morning War. 173.10.242.105 00:50, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

That's the same kind of half-said, half-speculated info as Legion being Shepard's no.1 fanboy. --Kainzorus Prime ^{Walkie-talkie} 00:58, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

I noticed the same, also notice how both units have an antenna on their shoulders, and Legion's outer shell appears very old and torn, whereas all other Geth appear almost completely new. In addition you can hear tension in Legion's voice when he talks about the rifle, as if he/it was hiding something. 98.14.123.40 05:52, November 30, 2012 (UTC)

Peace after death

I want to broker peace between Legion and the Quarian fleet in ME3 but Legion died in my ME2 import and Prima's game guide say peace is impossible if he died. Since they have been wrong before, I ask: Can there be peace between the geth VI and Tali if Legion died? --Red X 14:30, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

I believe the Prima guide is actually right for once here.

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 15:38, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

Geth can be inconsistent?

During Legion's loyalty mission he first describes the difference between the Heretics and Geth.

They [heretics] feel it's more important to end the schism than allow individuals to choose. The method - a virus that rewrites a mind. The result - choice is taken away.

Geth believe in the ablity to self-determinate (Legion's words - he means to preserve the right to make choices).

Later in the mission, Legion tells Shepard he's found a way to reverse the virus and re-write all the Heretics. Since Geth are all about logic...anybody have a logical explanation to resolve this obvious discrepancy? Or is Legion just another Heretic... ~J~

Legion, like the rest of the geth, is a massive hypocrite. See also its speech on technological shrotcuts being bad and its willingness to Reaper-ify its people in the third game.--RandomGuy96 (talk) 06:40, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

Things like this belong in the forums or a blog post as this isn’t what talk pages are for. Lancer1289 (talk) 20:38, September 28, 2012 (UTC)

Legion calling itself I in "several places" during ME2

Are we sure about that? I just finished a play through and the only time it called itself "I" was during the Suicide Mission, as the vent specialist ("I am unable to continue without your assistance, Shepard" - it also did not say "Shepard-Commander").

What are the others, if indeed there are several? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Youmademesignup (talk · contr).

"We think at the speed of light. In the time it takes you to voice a question, I could review all my time aboard Normandy."

at least two examples already count as "several". T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 08:25, March 3, 2013 (UTC)

Seriously man, what the hell is up with your name. I guess if two count as several (I sure wouldn't say that) then fine.

216 reference in Geth recording

I believe the statement of "216 references to a soul" in the sample geth recording could possibly be a reference to the movie Pi by Aronofsky. In that movie, that number was cited as being religiously significant. Could someone look more fully into this? 69.171.141.47 07:13, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

It's just a number, and what's stopping you looking into it more fully? Phylarion (talk) 07:57, April 11, 2013 (UTC)