Talk: Galaxy Map

Fuel?[]

Has anyone else noticed that flying through nebulae and other obstructions cost more fuel than flying through empty space? Or is this just me? predcon 00:27, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate place for this discussion. Take things like this to the forums or a blog post as this isn't what talk pages are for. Lancer1289 01:51, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is. That's exactly what it's for. Or else they wouldn't be called "Talk" pages. predcon 04:02, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

Maybe on another wiki that is the case but not here. Here, "[t]alk pages are not: a substitute forum, a space to post theories without fear of deletion, used to harass other users." This topic is not appropriate on this page, and therefore I will ask again for this to reposted in one of the two places I mentioned already. Each wiki has different policies and regulations regarding different things, and what's ok on one wiki, may not be the case on another. So either take it to a place I mentioned, or refrain from commenting further. Lancer1289 06:41, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

Clusters and Reaper invasion?[]

I've been wondering about the icons in ME3 that mark which clusters are under active Reaper invasion, and whether it's worth adding any information on that (beyond the few lines here) to the wiki, particularly on at what point in the game each cluster is invaded. I'm not sure if it has any actual gameplay effect, but it seems like it might be worth keeping track of. This is, after all, supposed to be an as thorough as possible wiki.

Does anyone agree or disagree on this?--Zxjkl (talk) 01:43, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

Something like this is questionable but either way requires more than just a talk page. The projects forum is the place to bring this up. Lancer1289 (talk) 01:48, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

We could probably add a tag or note to the cluster articles mentioning when ("when" as in after a specific mission is completed, so similar in function to the Template:Prerequisite tags) they are marked as conquered with the Reaper icon on the galaxy map for the purposes of the Search and Rescue minigame. But as Lancer says, this would require a project proposal given its scale. -- Commdor (Talk) 02:23, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

It does affect Search and Rescue, then? I was never sure about that one way or another. Anyway, your idea sounds like what I was thinking of. If a project proposal is necessary, how would I create one?--Zxjkl (talk) 02:39, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

The Reaper icon just means that you'll run into Reapers in systems in that cluster if you try scanning, although I think there are a few exceptions (maybe the Ninmah Cluster, for one).
To start a project proposal, go to the Project Forum. -- Commdor (Talk) 02:47, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

Interactive Map[]

The interactive map is a good add and isn't causing any problems. We don't have to pull every single new thing down immediately if it isn't problematic. I support the edit, at least prima facie. If you have some argument why it shouldn't be there, feel free to discuss here. Or suggestions for improvement. But I'm not going to support wholesale reverts of good edits. Cattlesquat (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Definitely seconded here. This seems like an objectively positive and uncontroversial addition.--Loadingue (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

for one thing, this hasn't been attempted before. no guidelines on how maps should or should not be used, where they should or should not be, how to format/present the data there, the whole deal.

the map used is also low quality (been here since time immemorial, only covers ME1 locations, and in dire need of replacement with something that covers up to ME3 locations), but that's less of a consideration for now.

the issue here is this is a major change. project proposal, MINIMUM. no more, no less than the other new things implemented here. we like to cover our bases or have you forgotten that T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a novel change, but not necessarily major. I remind you that when you created the cryo stasis page without discussing it with anyone and I questioned you on that, your response was essentially "I know what I'm doing so I can create new pages as I please". You felt no need to seek anyone else's input to "cover our bases" even though it definitely affected multiple pages, at least in terms of links, disambiguations, etc. This is not the "uncritical acceptance" you accuse us of, nor is it "instant rejection because you're new here and didn't ask me first" that you favor, but simply a happier medium. No policy is being violated here -- you objected to a change in the status quo, which is within your rights, but you have been overruled, at least for now. Neo89515 (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree this is a "major" change, it's one little thing on one page, and it doesn't even change any existing content. Major is like changing a bunch of things on a bunch of pages, or a significant reorg of existing content. I'm not trying to say that we have to keep it -- if the consensus becomes that it needs to go or needs to change/improve, then it will go or be changed/improved, so feel free to discuss the actual merits. But I'm not going to support "gatekeeping" behavior just reflexively reverting good edits by new users. Cattlesquat (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

In instances like this, I agree. Immediate torpedoing of edits for one policy infraction or another may be within "the roolz" but the primary tool of a Wiki editing community should always be discussion, to foster new contributions and new contributors. The universe does not implode because a new addition affecting only one page is allowed to live for a while, until discussion can at least be attempted. A new editor who may not understand this Wiki's customs for discussion of new projects but who has the skills and desire to put together something like this should not be discouraged needlessly by immediate revert and told to "discuss" (which can be perverted to simply mean "ask permission", which is gatekeeping). If it's determined that this IS causing an actual problem, or there is a substantive objection to the new content, we can go from there with no harm done to anyone. Neo89515 (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

since you all have no objections, then don't mind me plopping an empty galaxy map here. i'll leave it up to you and other editors to stick pins on it and determine where is where, since this is as raw and as big as it's going to get. barring a definitive out-of-game canon map from merch or otherwise.

i remember asking fandom reps if it's possible to overlay lines between pins, say, the clusters, or maybe even boundaries, but no such luck so far, and that's one of the reasons i objected to immediate implementation. lack of necessary features. but hey, this isn't a major change, right T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, this isn't unquestioning acceptance, it's provisional acceptance pending feedback, which you seem willing to provide. By all means. I won't pretend a Map is within my area of expertise, but I do know other Wikis have them, so why not us. Edits can of course be made, as long as everyone agrees they're improvements. We've barely had any time to even see what we have here, and I'm at work now. Neo89515 (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)