This is the talk page for Timeline.
Please limit discussions to topics that go into improving the article.
If you wish to discuss matters not relevant to article upkeep, take it to the blogs, forums,
chatroom, or discussions module.
Thank you.

Talk:Timeline Archives


Timeline-worthy? Edit

I have to wonder about whether some of the new additions to the timeline really belong here. The ones I'm looking at in particular are the ones concerning Cerberus' forays into the media. Do we really need to know that "Cerberus infiltrates several human media corporations, including the Constant Times, the Scott Examiner, and the Galactic Broadcasting Organization." or "The Cerberus-owned Scott Examiner news media company destroys the credibility of Vera Safin, up until then the front-runner for the office of Prime Minister of the Systems Alliance."? Or "Cerberus' Project Doorway enables the forgery of medicards and identitags standard throughout Citadel space, allowing Cerberus operatives unrestricted movement."? I mean, we see in ME2 that it apparently isn't a huge deal for Cerberus to move around in Citadel space. The Normandy SR2, a known Cerberus vessel with Cerberus markings, is allowed complete freedom of movement. I'm just not sure some of the new additions fit the notability standard here. SpartHawg948 03:04, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

My justification is that Cerberus' activities have ramifications on a galactic level, and are thus notable. Several of their acts of sabotage have secretly affected history. Although that was a busy day when I added this all. Would you rather all of the Cerberus dossier timeline events be removed, or are there any you think have merit? -- Commdor (Talk) 03:11, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
Lemme go back and take a look. If their activities 'secretly affecting history' have any discernible ramifications in-game, they might have merit. But, at least in the ones cited above, I can't see any impact in-game. SpartHawg948 03:14, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict x2)Yeah I'd have to say some of that doesn't belong here either. Most of that Cerberus stuff should proabably stay in the Dossiers, and maybe some of it could go onto the Cerberus page, but not a lot of it. Also I thought the timeline was for major events, not to list every detail that can be easily read, or put elsewhere. The only piece of Cerberus info I can see is the publishing of the manifesto. I'd have to say, given events in the universe, that was a significant event. The rest can be easily covered/read elsewhere. Lancer1289 03:15, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

The following are the ones I don't think have any merit, as they have no impact, and concern people, places, events, etc mentioned nowhere else other than the dossier:

  • Cerberus infiltrates several human media corporations, including the Constant Times, the Scott Examiner, and the Galactic Broadcasting Organization.
  • Cerberus' Project Doorway enables the forgery of medicards and identitags standard throughout Citadel space, allowing Cerberus operatives unrestricted movement.
  • The Cerberus-owned Scott Examiner news media company destroys the credibility of Vera Safin, up until then the front-runner for the office of Prime Minister of the Systems Alliance.
  • Cerberus' Project Trapdoor develops the biotic-suppressing drug omega-enkaphalin, and begins experimenting on asari captives.
  • Asari matriarch Tilia Eraza is targeted with the drug omega-enkaphalin by Cerberus, causing her biotic powers to diminish. Her claims that biotics are superior to non-biotics are subsequently deflated, and the matriarch fades into the political background.
  • Cerberus operatives sabotage the MSV Anixara, a ship carrying the turian war hawk politician Raherix Ursivus. The ship breaks apart during FTL, killing everyone aboard. The incident is publicly attributed to faulty engineering.

I can't really see a reason to include these. SpartHawg948 03:19, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

After looking through them myself, I'd have to agree. The rest are good additions to the timeline, but those should have probably stayed in the Dossiers. Lancer1289 03:25, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
And dates removed. Or, as my edit summary says, "Reomved". -- Commdor (Talk) 03:26, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

The manifesto publication, killing the pope and anything relating to game/novel characters is notable enough for me, anything else, not so much.JakePT 04:52, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Those are still up there, along with a few others. I'd fight for the Pope mention if it wasn't considered significant enough. Although since I'm Catholic, I might a little biased on that one. Lancer1289 04:57, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I left the Pope one alone because it was already there prior to the DLC, it just got more info added to it afterward. SpartHawg948 05:08, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
Good to know. I didn't realize it was there before and info got added. I figured it got added along with the rest of the Cerberus stuff. Lancer1289 05:12, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
NVM. Looks like I was wrong. It was added two days ago, fleshed out later that day. Still, that one has carried over a little into other stuff, as the new Pope, Leo XIV, has been mentioned in CDN. SpartHawg948 05:14, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Just to be sure, you're alright with the mention of how Cerberus funded the guy who killed two leaders on Earth (2175 CE) too? I kind of want it up there since Kasumi's Codex entries also discuss that event, but I'll remove it if necessary. -- Commdor (Talk) 05:18, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. That's (in my mind, anyways) undoubtedly the most major event that was added, and I wouldn't dream of removing it. SpartHawg948 05:21, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Criteria for Inclusion?Edit

Not that I mind terrably that my additions were removed, but could we get a firm consensus on what constitutes relevant data, worth including in this article? Personally with these things I'm usually in favour of an all inclusive policy, so events can be placed in context of whatever else is taking place at the time (that's what a timeline is for, no?) but I understand that can lead to either very lengthy subsections or the necessity of breaking the timeline up into several smaller, more manageable articles (not that I'm proposing that, of course.) Perhaps a better option would be to include a mini-timeline with the individual species articles, with dates and events relevant only that given species? Either way it doesn't seam a good idea to scatter some of this information across dozens of articles. To me a timeline should act as a sort of reference index, hence my aforementioned preference for all inclusiveness. Blind Wolf 00:01, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Binthu and Teltin Edit

First, my mistake for not checking every detail of items already removed from the history. I based the decision (to add) partly on the fact that neither were mentioned in the recent discussion section. That said, I fail to see why these are removed, especially without any discussion on the talk page first. When multiple, obviously irrelevant items were added, Sparthawg himself discussed their (ir)relevance before jumping right to removal. His is a model that, in my opinion at least, is worthy of imitation.

The reasons these two items seem relevant (to game and galaxy) are: 1st and most obviously, they are in and affect the games, and in no small ways. This has several branches (a few examples: the research on Binthu influences the news, Miranda, Tali, Garrus, and Vesir. Teltin: Jack and everything that entails). 2nd, they are of galactic significance (Teltin was forerunner to Cerberus' Ascension plans; Teltin produced Jack in most of her power, and it is possible for Jack, e.g., to be of enormous importance in the fate of the galaxy, by being a member of Shepard's squad. Binthu is the home of research into the development of "shock troopers" to engage the Reapers, and anyone else in humanity's way; not to mention the death of an Alliance Admiral). 3rd, there is precedent ("the BAaT program is set up on Gagarin Station to train potential candidates and develop biotic implants" for humans only, with Kaiden being the most important to the galaxy [as far as I know]. Pragia's Teltin is the same kind of program, but backed by Cerberus instead of the Alliance, with Jack being etc. Also, Teltin is mentioned already in the timeline: it would be fitting if its origin were mentioned). These are a few reasons that suggest themselves to me regarding the relevance of Binthu and Teltin, unlike much other Cerberus history, to the Timeline. --AnotherRho 21:09, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Those facilities may factor somewhat into galactic history, but the dates they were built are ultimately unimportant. Same reason we took out all the colony dates, they take up space without adding anything notable or useful. I believe the only exception for colonies at present is the founding of human colonies on Demeter, Terra Nova, and Eden Prime in 2152, as they are humanity's first extrasolar colonies and thus represent a significant milestone in humanity's advancement into the galaxy; if we had the dates when other races made their first colonies, we'd add those too. Now, as for the dates when other facilities were constructed, such as Arcturus Station and Gagarin Station, those are in the timeline because they were included in the Codex timeline of major events in humanity's recent history. -- Commdor (Talk) 21:50, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
I see. Thank you Commdor for responding. - The reason for exclusion that you just gave wasn't in the preceding discussion (unless I missed it). And the exception you mentioned, I called a "precedent"; and Binthu/Teltin seem to be exceptions if your exception were a rule, since Binthu and Teltin facilities are not colonies. For the record, the criteria of significance were drawn from reason and from these speeches:
  1. "Cerberus' activities have ramifications on a galactic level" (yourself) - Binthu/Teltin: (arguments already given)
  2. "The manifesto publication, killing the pope and anything relating to game/novel characters is notable enough for me," (Jake) - B/T: (obvious)
  3. "that one [i.e. the Pope's assassination] has carried over a little into other stuff, as the new Pope, Leo XIV, has been mentioned in CDN." (Spart) -- B/T carry over much more in comparison with this assassination, since the consequences are many and in-game.
  4. "If their activities 'secretly affecting history' have any discernible ramifications in-game, they might have merit." (Spart) - B/T: all that pertains to these has clear and distinct ramifications in-game.
  5. "the ones I don't think have any merit, as they have no impact, and concern people, places, events, etc mentioned nowhere else other than the dossier" (Spart) -- B/T: have much impact, and concern people, places, events, etc., mentioned elsewhere than the dossier.

--AnotherRho 22:32, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe I ever added the Binthu and Teltin dates to begin with (for the reasons we're discussing), so they wouldn't have been brought up in that particular discussion. And yes, while Binthu and Teltin are not colonies per se, I meant founding dates in general (the bulk of which happen to be colony dates) are not worthy of inclusion, save the exceptions I pointed out. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:29, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
That explains their absence then. And now I see that you meant founding dates in general; of course, the Council has a founding date, the Alliance too, etc. In any case, the Binthu and Teltin dates still appear to be exceptional (even if the timeline didn't report founding dates in general) for the reasons listed; and also since no founding dates could be reasonably added for colonies (for example), except in the cases of Eden Prime and Terra Nova--which are of course in the timeline already. Since this discussion concerns about 15 words of text, I'd say it was overdone; unless one were to mistake these 2 small additions for precedent to (wrongly) add dozens of colony and planet discovery dates, etc., to the timeline; for which reason it's good that the discussion is here. --AnotherRho 01:54, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

The Council's fate after ME:Retribution Edit

Hello, not owning the novel ME:Retribution, I have to ask: what happened to the council according to ME:Retribution?

Did they survive? If they didn't, how's the composition of the Council? What did Anderson become?

Thanks for your info.

Pepoluan 07:35, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I was *sure* I was typing into Talk:Citadel Council. I'm going to post the question there. Feel free to ignore this or delete this section. — Pepoluan 07:38, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Shepard as a Biotic Edit

Is there a source for the entries about Shepard's biotic abilities? Does it only apply to biotic classes like the vanguard? Ninsegtari 03:27, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

The source is developer documents we were made privy to. You can check it out at Talk:Biotics, at the top in the big jumble of text w/out a headline. Stormwaltz is the developer in question. And yes, the info about Shepard's biotic abilities only applies if Shepard is a biotic (i.e. a class w/ biotics). SpartHawg948 03:31, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
Should subjective player experience be entered on the timeline? Having a date for Shepard's various pre-game experiences is good, but applying them to a canonical timeline is subjective being entirely based on whether the player chooses a biotic class for shepard in the original Mass Effect game. ME2 allows character's transferred from ME1 to be respecialized as a biotic class even if the imported ME1 character was non-biotic, presumably because Cerberus had to extensively rebuild his entire body from a slab of overcooked meat. If that were the case, the dates for his exposure to element zero and fitting with implants would be later, after his first encounter with the collector ship. The universally relevant entries or Shepard would be his birth, joining the alliance military, Eden Prime, Promotion to Specter, taking command of Normandy SR1, killing Saren, immolation during first encounter with collectors, involvement with Cerberus, Project Lazarus, and taking command of Normandy SR2, Defeating collectors, Relief from duty following service with Cerberus, Reinstatement into Alliance Navy , Relief of command by Adm Anderson of Normandy SR2 and Reinstatement as Specter. After that, player choice plays a much larger role even in priority story missions, and the end of ME3 is also has the four possible endings that have no basis on previous decisions (except gaining minimum support during the playthrough to unlock additional options) in addition to having no canonical relevance to Mass Effect Andromeda as that project launches pre-reaper invasion and takes place in a galaxy unaffected by the reaper harvest cycle or the impact of the Crucible relay signal device. -- 02:52, March 10, 2017 (UTC)AgileWarmind

Character Birth Dates Edit

1. Do they really need to clog the reading here, even though most of them are inaccurate (+/- a year, at least)?

2. If so, do the birth dates based on that inaccurate promo page qualify as canon, even though Grunt's, Mordin's and Zaeed's age so obviously don't, that nobody dares to put them here?

3. If so, how does Miranda's age qualify, even though it is in direct violation of the canon timeline, according to which the first natural/accidental humans with biotic abilities were infants, and therefore the Miranda's dad could not possess the understanding of biotics necessary to successfully engineer her?

All these answers and more can be found literally all over this wiki. Some of them are found on this very page, for some others I would recommend seeing Talk:Zaeed Massani and Talk:Mordin Solus. SpartHawg948 20:56, January 15, 2011 (UTC)

Where does Arrival fit on the timeline? Edit

I saw the issue of the CDN timeline being 1:1 with our time and DLC timeline raised somewhere else before. Arrival could occur in 2185, at any time after horizon, but it could also occur in 2186, the same thing with LotSB, if post-ME2 content is to be taken to occur then. Should it just be placed under the ME2 2185 section where Lair currently is? Arbiter099 04:29, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

I understand I'm the better part of a year late on this, but I think someone should address this question. Frankly, it's hard to answer this question accurately. There isn't, to my knowledge, any exact date given. Two things are certain; It happened between the dates of the attack on Horizon and Commander Shepard's incarceration. We don't have these exact dates. What we have are the years of the Horizon attack and Shepard's trial. That only leaves the latter half of 2185 and the early months of 2186. The decision to place it in 2186 is probably based on educated guessing. --FoxtrotZero 20:03, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
Actually it has been stated by the devs that Arrival takes place after the Suicide mission, although the exact amount of time after it is a bit hazy. Considering that ME3 takes place about 4 months after Arrival, not the end of ME2. Allowing it to be playable during the story made it available after horizon and that’s really the only reason. Lancer1289 20:09, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

I have been researching heavily into mass effect lore in the past months and its important to correct the errors here. arrival can only occur after 27.1.2186 since during that time the bahak system still exist. arrival can take place anywhere after horizon. it is logical to assume that the events of mass effect 2 take place at the end of 2185 and beginning of 2186. retribution must occur after arrival since Anderson remain councilor or advisor during the events of mass effect 2. I am aware some devs said arrival was meant to be played after sucide mission. but bottom of line it can be played after horizon and they even made harbinger image look like the collector general. the only true timeline is the one you played and not an after thought of some dev. best regards from the reimagined project Erezike 20:29, November 20, 2013 (UTC)

According to the developers the canon timeline is that ME2, including Shadow Broker, comes first in 2185, followed by Retribution and Deception in quick succession (although someone on the wikia had a theory about Infiltrator and Retribution being concurrent I believe), followed by Arrival leading into Conviction in early 2186. Yes it can be played at any point after Horizon, as can Shadow Broker, but it was the full intention of the developers that they take place afterwards. - Garhdo.

I have hard time seeing how that makes sense, mass effect is a player directed computer game. the only events set in canon are those in the books, comics, Cerberus-alliance network. the developers decided to allow players to have different timelines they enabled it in game. by not blurring the sequence of events such as arrival. the timeline presented here become irrelevant for many players. it is my belief that in order to maintain consistency in the timeline, the events of mass effect 2, arrival and the shadow broker must be blurred in order for them to be able to fit 2185&2186. it is even more problematic for arrival to take place after retribution. since the events of retribution cannot escape shepard attention(Cerberus raid, omega, Anderson.) it creates too many inconsistencies with mass effect 2. I am sorry but the devs who made the statement are wrong with this topic. Erezike 03:29, November 24, 2013 (UTC)

Mass Effect: Revelation Edit

I just recently started rereading Revelation and the first 6 pages and top of the 7th all seem to take place before the first contact war started. Since Mass Effect 2 is split up from the point the collectors kill Shepard should this also be split up? Tivis014 17:49, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

Done. -- Commdor (Talk) 18:04, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

First contact sources. Edit

What's the source for the information under the 200 BCE - 1 CE section? I've gone through about every official Mass Effect source, and have never seen this. I did a google search for it, and the only thing I dug up was on a roleplaying board, which makes it wonder if someone mistook fan information for official information. This question was asked in the archive, and it went unanswered.-- 13:45, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

The source is most likely the Galactic Codex: Essentials Edition 2183. -- Commdor (Talk) 14:10, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
No, “Galactic Codex: Essentials Edition 2183” didn’t mention these events.--Alexpolt (talk) 07:45, October 25, 2013 (UTC)

Question about Second American Civil War Edit

From the Codex, it references not only the destruction of the Statue of Liberty but how that was a catalyst for the Second American Civil War. The date of the attack on the statue was November 1st 2096, but no length is given for the civil war which was the result of that action.

Should this be added to the timeline as it is a significant (yet poorly document) event in history. - (Lone Hunter 18:35, January 31, 2012 (UTC))

First please remove the header as it will interrupt page flow in the future. it's quote obvious what is being discussed without it. Second. The timeline is more for big impactful universe events, not small ones like this which are noted elsewhere. Lancer1289 18:44, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't recall the wiki automatically using my change summary as a header. Anyway, what makes Manswell Expedition a "big impactful universe" event? Or the first sightings of the Collectors. Yes the Collectors make an impact later, but that event in and of itself is not a "big impactful universe" event. I would say the same for the birthdays of characters as those events are not ""big impactful universe" events.
But I will focus on the Second American Civil War. Which occurs just 50 years prior to the discovery of the Mass Relays. That is impactful as it has shaped humanity's mind frame as the last known huge conflict humanity has before their conflict with the turians 60 years later. The same that Yuri Gagarin is impactful as it shows humanity's progress prior to becoming apart of the Galactic community. - ( 22:53, February 3, 2012 (UTC))
The Manswell Expedition and Yuri Gagarin represent major milestones in humanity's development of spaceflight technology and advances in space exploration. The sightings of the Collectors are equable to a first contact event.
The Second American Civil War is only important in the context of human history like WWII or the Black Plague. It has nothing to do with humanity's rise on the galactic stage, and the Codex entries do not imply that the war impacted Earth significantly beyond the UNAS itself or that it somehow shaped humanity's mindset going into the First Contact War as you claim. There's also plenty of room in that period for other conflicts to have arisen on Earth that we don't know about, so the idea that this was the last war on Earth before galactic contact is very much debatable. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:16, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
"The Second American Civil War" says it all is an american war not World War III, and yes the time frame leaves a lot of room for some type of conflict on Mother Earth or one of it's colonies and so we can say if it was or not "The big Conflict" for now as this is still a new franchice of which is growing on other media. on a different note do you all copy & paste the date and time or do you people use some command of which I don't know of just for future refference. -Jey8000 7:29 AM Monday, February 06, 2012 (UTC)

Enlistment dates Edit

Does anyone know the source for Shepard's enlistment date?

I know that for spacer and earth born backgrounds, it's assumed on his eighteenth birthday, but under the colonist background the official description is that he enlisted "a few years" after the attack on Mindoir.

Do we know for certain that even under the colonist background he joined precisely at eighteen? 19:07, August 29, 2012 (UTC) Jordan

The date was shown in the official announcement trailer for Mass Effect 2. There's currently no evidence to suggest that despite the vagueness of the Colonist background, a Colonist Shepard enlisted on a different date than in the Spacer and Earth backgrounds. -- Commdor (Talk) 19:19, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

6000 BCE Edit

Looking through the timeline I was intrigued by the 6000 BCE entry. It suggested that this ship appeared again around the time of Mass Effect, but it's not something I remember seeing anything about in the game. The story of these spacefarers is not picked up again later in the timeline and I'm curious about the origin of this entry and the conclusion of its story.Onlinej (talk) 15:43, September 1, 2012 (UTC)

See August 11th, 2185. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 15:48, September 1, 2012 (UTC)

Human contact with VorchaEdit

The entry for 2184 includes the line "The freighter MSV Estevanico is attacked by Blood Pack mercenaries and crashes into the planet Zanethu. The Alliance crew on board were among the first humans to encounter the vorcha race." Is it confirmed that no humans encountered the vorcha for 27 years after the First Contact War and 22 years after the establishment of the human embassy on the Citadel?

Danimals847 - 8-May-2013

The wording is looser than that: the Alliance crew were "among the first humans" to encounter the vorcha, not the first. The email received after completing the assignment states that the Estevanico's crew was the first Alliance crew to encounter the vorcha, and not all humans are affiliated with the Alliance, so it is possible that other humans encountered vorcha before the Estevanico. We don't know how many did (if any), however, and the email indicates that the Estevanico incident is a fairly notable event, so it is safe to say with the info we currently have that the Estevanico's crew were among the first humans to encounter the vorcha. -- Commdor (Talk) 19:17, May 8, 2013 (UTC)
Mass Effect: Paragon Lost: vega and company, clearly alliance grunts, battling blood pack goons composed of krogan, varren, some tanks and vorcha on fehl prime circa 2183. erm, yep. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 19:26, May 8, 2013 (UTC)

Volus and batarian embassies Edit

Wiki: The volus were the third race to post an embassy to the Citadel after the asari and salarians, in exactly 200 BCE (according to Citadel records accessed through Avina, outside the Embassies).

2183-2348 = 200 BCE

Avina: “The volus were the first non-Council species to be granted an embassy, roughly 2,384 galactic standard years ago”.

ME Revelation: “The galactic standard year—an average of the asari, salarian, and turian years—was only 1.09 times longer than Earth’s.


2183-2187= 5 BCE

Is it correct?

Wiki: The Citadel Council made first contact with the batarians in approximately 200 BCE, and granted the batarians an embassy on the Citadel a century later. (100 BCE)

Then it’s impossoble. Is Council first contact with the batarians linked to date of volus embassy or first contact with batarians was exactly in 200 BCE? What Galactic Codex Essentials said about that? Is it possible to find somewhere a «Galactic Codex Essentials 2183»? --Alexpolt (talk) 10:23, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

Interresting point that you raised ! Is Avina making a mistake about it ? Or is this an error ? I will look into it --DeldiRe (talk) 09:51, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

Another moment:

Codex: «2165 - Humans establish embassy on Citadel».

Avina (2183): «The most recently added embassy belongs to your own species: humanity. It was added nineteen galactic standard years ago, despite some rather vocal opposition."»

2183-19=2164 (mistake).


Now 2183-17.4=2165.6 (correct). --Alexpolt (talk) 10:25, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

In fact you catched a mistake but your calculation is wrong, If a galactic year (G) is longer than an earth year (E), then your calcul is false. Some math :

1 G = 1.09 E
(1 G)/1.09 = (1.09 E)/1.09
0,917 G = 1 E


1) Volus embassy

2384/0,917 = 2598

2183-2598 = 415 BCE

2) Human embassy

19/0,917 = 20,7

2183-20,7 = 2162 BCE

In fact, #G * 1,09 = #E is also correct (and easier).

--DeldiRe (talk) 14:03, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

The year of the volus embassy establishment would be
2183 - (2384 x 1,09) = - 415,56.
So 416 or 415 BCE. I'd like to have more sources, because these galactic/earth year mixups seem worryingly common... Will try to investigate. Elseweyr (talk) 14:12, October 8, 2013 (UTC)
On no! My mistake, what a shame! :) I rely on Avina and quickly turn 19 years into needed 17,6 for human embassy, and do the same with volus.
But dates 2162 and 415 BCE are wrong. Humans establish embassy exactly in 2165. And great volus exploration began in 300 BCE:
Atos Irn was claimed, along with the rest of its system, after the volus learned FTL travel. In the great volus exploration push of 300 BCE, the species found only a few planets capable of supporting their colonies. They did, however, discover many planets teeming with valuable elements. The orbiting robo-mining platforms of Atos Irn have since been shot through by the Reapers. --Alexpolt (talk) 17:19, October 8, 2013 (UTC)
Actually that says that nothing like that. Chances are the volus had explored before gaining their embassy, however we know the volus have less fleet resources than most other races, and we also know that they have very specific planetary requirements. As a result 300BCE could simply have been what it said - a great exploration push, trying to get more colonies to perhaps sustain a greater population, similar almost to Horizon being a recent human colony. Garhdo (talk) 18:36, October 8, 2013 (UTC)
It’s possible, but we need to read a context. Atos Irn located near Irune, in the same cluster. And more volus planets here without colonies, but with valuable elements. FTL drives – Great exploration 300 BCE – many planets with elements – Atos Irn with robo-mining platforms is near Irune. And all this (and great explorations) describes in the description of this one planet. (Sorry for my English). --Alexpolt (talk) 19:24, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Investigation results. It would appear Alexpolt sort of accidentally got the right numbers, but props, regardless (;

  • Avina's information conflicts with that of the turian Codex entry: Avina says the turians were invited to join the Council 1,304 galactic standard years ago, while the Codex says it was "roughly 1200" (presumably Earth) years ago. This is suspicious because the incorrect calculation gives 1200 x 1.09 = 1308, which is very close to Avina's number. In this case, the correct number of galactic years would have to be about 1100.
  • If we assume Avina's numbers are incorrect, we do get the possibility of the human embassy having been established in 2165, which agrees with the Council Codex entry. This pretty much affirms that Avina's numbers might well have been calculated by erroneously multiplying the number of Earth years by 1.09 instead of dividing.
  • Now, if Avina's volus embassy number is given the same treatment, it should be about 2007 galactic years ago instead, which is indeed closer to 4 or 5 BCE:
    2183 − (2384 ÷ 1.09 ) ≈ −4,156

It is clear that for the volus article – which explicitly states that the information is based on Avina – the 2,384 galactic years have simply been subtracted from the 2183 Earth years. (And that would be 201 BCE, not "exactly 200".) This needs to be corrected; the question is whether we recognise Avina's numbers as false or not. In any event, some note should be made about this discrepancy. Elseweyr (talk) 21:12, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. And what about first contact with batarians and their embassy? «The Citadel Council made first contact with the batarians in approximately 200 BCE, and granted the batarians an embassy on the Citadel a century later». First contact was made near 200 BCE or soon after volus established their embassy? What «Galactic Code Essentials» says about that? If volus embassy was established in 5 BCE, then batarians can’t establish their in 100 BCE.
P.S. 5 BCE, not 4 BCE. Or 202 BCE, not 201 BCE because there is no 0 BCE. 1 BCE – 1 CE. --Alexpolt (talk) 04:44, October 9, 2013 (UTC)
When you calculate with years this way, 2183 is 2183.0. If the events of Mass Effect took place later in the year, say 2183.3, we'd get a result of about −3.86, i.e. 4 BCE for the volus embassy. (But since it could also be "X.something" years ago, you are right in that we should probably disregard potential decimals, in which case 5 BCE would be correct.)
I don't know what sources have been used for the batarian dates, but there doesn't seem to be anything in the Codex. I'll keep an eye out for clues on my next thorough ME playthrough (and novels readthrough). Good catch, anyways! Elseweyr (talk) 07:09, October 9, 2013 (UTC)
Quote: “What's the source for the information under the 200 BCE - 1 CE section?” “The source is most likely the Galactic Codex: Essentials Edition 2183. -- Commdor (Talk) 14:10, May 16, 2011 (UTC)”
And looks like SpartHawg948 have a copy of this booklet :) --Alexpolt (talk) 08:19, October 9, 2013 (UTC)

I found the “Galactic Codex Essentials edition 2183” and it doesn't mention batarians at all. Then what the source of the line “The Citadel Council made first contact with the batarians in approximately 200 BCE, and granted the batarians an embassy on the Citadel a century later.”? I didn’t found confirmation in the Codex, books, comics, game texts etc. :( --Alexpolt (talk) 07:50, October 21, 2013 (UTC)

Side-Story / Origin / Shepard Influence Problems Edit

Well for one, all information on the timeline of Shepard assume that he is definite biotic of which is very inaccurate and is in fact against wiki rules as they are incomplete facts not even stating an if or something otherwise. The only exception that I have found that states that he is not biotic is his date of birth is unrecognized as having any involvement with the ezzo exposure even though if he is biotic then he would have been involved but nothing states that at all. Also when ever the origin plots of the timeline like Colonist or Spacer as well as the notoriety plots of the timeline either give odd definite statements that Shepard was involved or don't even mention him even though that is a player choice of which should include Shepard but say "if" and "or" statements that tell you that "if" or "or" Shepard chose this or that as Origin or whatever then this is what happen. And also this timeline doesn't even mention if you don't have DLC like the Shadow Broker's Lair that the events happen differently like in the Arival DLC where if you don't do it (either not having or just not doing it) it is not Shepard that opens the situation but instead one of Admiral Hackets Squads who die and Shepard is instead arrested for working with Cerberus. Can any one fix this Spartan3222 (talk) 16:49, November 22, 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Shepard as a biotic, see Talk:Biotics. Shepard's eezo-exposure is canonical and should be vague enough to apply to any of the 9 background-profile combinations. As for the contingency of the DLC missions, I have to say I agree with you a little bit: although Liara becomes the new Shadow Broker and the batarian system is destroyed in any case, it is perfectly possible that Shepard weren't present for the events of either LotSB or Arrival.
An admin added (or managed) those entries at the time, but if the timeline is supposed to be general, Shepard's involvement in a couple of cases should probably be removed altogether. Unless "what is considered canon by the devs" takes precedence here. Elseweyr (talk) 19:58, November 22, 2013 (UTC)
The addition of the dates regarding Shepard as a biotic were also debated further up this talk page, and were agreed on by admin. Also within the lore some eezo exposures do simply have no biotic effect - Shepard is one of those in that case. I agree the mention of Shepard's involvement in optional events such as Akuze, The Blitz, and Arrival should be treated as they are in-game - namely that the events are listed in broad strokes, without mentioning Shepard's involvement but also not mentioning Hackett's squads for example. - Garhdo
I believe even with canon, there is suppose to be an explanation about Shepard if he didn't chose that canon as that is what I read about the rules. This timeline is a little absent on certain things like if it is going to mention Shepard then it can't be very vague but if it is going to be vague then if shouldn't mention Shepard although I believe the timeline should state what happens due to certain choices like not doing Arrival or not doing Overlord (even though that doesn't seem to appear here (not that I really think it should) from what I saw but if it was or would have then) it should state what happened or what happens without Shepard in all circumstances. I just find that this timeline should be in depth about mentioning and including all his choices or not mentioning him at all. The biotic thing was something I was wondering for some reason the first couple times I looked for anything on biotics it said that it would either hurt someone or give them biotics. It now says it a little different but that doesn't matter since that was a while ago. Also not to be annoying but you guys should sign your signatures Spartan3222 (talk) 22:16, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

Retribution And Jon Grissom death timeline. Edit

Retribution And jon grissom death timeline. On page 69 in retribution it is mentioned that six months ago jon grissom died of natural causes. it is mentioned the events of the retribution take place three years after paul grayson left Cerberus. the events of the book themselves have to take place after arrival and suicide mission. arrival mission can only be completed after 1.2.2186(Cerberus news) placing arrival mission after retribution causes inconsistencies with mass effect 2. The current time line implies that jon grissom died after 12.1.2186 and that events of retribution take place 12.6.2186 or more. Is there more information regarding the date of grissom death?

Erezike 11:29, November 25, 2013 (UTC)
Where are you getting the idea that placing Arrival after Retribution creates inconsistencies with Mass Effect 2? There is a lot of time between Arrival and the Suicide Mission that Retribution could have occurred in, such as parallel to LotSB. Also where did you get the date for Grissom's death? - Garhdo.

After you do arrival, omega will act like business as usual, you will hear no news of turian persecution against alliance personal and human companies . and most important if you visit the citadel Anderson is still councilor/advisor. retribution had to occur after the events of mass effect 2 & dlcs. -------A few more nuggets: in retriubtion anderson states that shepard is on an off grid mission . during the game, shepard always appears to be available with the exception of a short cruise beyond the omega 4 relay.

Its very unlikely for retribution to occur anywhere during the events of mass effect 2 since it has too much influence on the places shepard visits and people he/she come in contact with. these problems are still there, even if we delay arrival to the last mission we do in mass effect 2. if we don't postponed arrival, it can be done as mission number eight out of 50, cerberus wouldn't have time to process the collector information gained from horizon, capture grayson and implant him in tech during the few days it takes for Shepard to complete arrival after horizon. ----Retribution taking place after arrival is the only way any of the events in the book don't collide with what the players experience in mass effect 2+dlcs. The devs who published the statement about the timeline were simply wrong. probably due to change in the writing staff between me2 and me3. (Erezike)
You are reading FAR too much into it all. Could the lack of news reports on Omega or Anderson remaining in position not simply be because ME2 was developed and released before Retribution was, or that they didnt want to create a 'false lead' for gamers who simply only play the games? Could Anderson describing Shepard as 'off the grid' not simply be referring to Shepard's association with Cerberus in general, as Anderson cannot order Shepard directly? And never mind the fact that Arrival, using simply the timeline from CDN takes place over six months after the Suicide Mission - are we to believe that during that whole time Anderson never moved from the balcony? Hell, even during ME2, while whole colonies like Ferris Fields disappear during the time between missions are we to believe he simply stays there, never attending any meetings or even going for a piss? You are taking artistic liscence and gameplay mechanics as evidence to support your own interpretation of the timeline. Basically Retribution happens during the gap between the Suicide Mission and Arrival as described by Bioware's official sources. If nothing else just take its events as having occurred on the corresponding day of its release, ala the CDN. - Garhdo

I don't think that is too far. i have obviously delved very deep into the game lore as part of my rewrite efforts for mass effect 3. but you cannot simply hand wave the examples i have put forward here. there are something you can cope with. most of what people believe to be plot holes i can fill in with little effort. but there is no way arrival was before retribution. in doesn't work with the game no matter how you look at it. you mentioned false leads. we should avoid assuming what the developers wanted and focus only on we know and experienced in the story. -off the grid. shepard already mentioned shepard was involved with Cerberus- there is no way Anderson off the grid was referred to working with Cerberus. it means Anderson didn't hear or couldn't reach shepard in quite a while. Anderson say in the book that if he could reach shepard. then shepard would be the perfect person to turn to with such problem. retribution. page 103 " the ideal solution woulb be to call on shepard for help' but that wasn't an option. the commander was off the grid' doing god knows what' god knows where"

Arrival using cdn timeline takes place after 27.1 that's the last report of alliance ships retreating from the alpha relay system. however we do not have any idea when the suicide mission took place. that's entirely up to the player. some players finished the suicide mission in mid 2185. others in the end of 2185. others in the middle of 2186. suicide fit in all of those timelines perfectly.

- we are to believe that shepard visits Anderson during Anderson worktime(day) and that Anderson make an effort to meet shepard in his office. in retribution however Anderson was away for a long period of time. and following retribution Anderson was no longer councilor or advisor. after retribution any encounter of Shepard with Anderson simply wont work. all i wrote here is based on game and books information timelines. if the developers wanted to put arrival after retribution they should have worked to to fit it by using books, games, or news breaks. they did the exact opposite. there is simply no evidence supporting arrival occurring before retribution. while there are plenty of evidence that retribution never happened during me2 timeline.

Erezike 21:29, November 28, 2013 (UTC)

Conviction tells us that Shepard was arrested days after Arrival. In TV news we can see Udina’s statements etc. Yes, Anderson says in Retribution “The ideal solution would be to call on Shepard for help”. But if Shepard arrested its impossible! And Anderson knew about that. Then Retribution was before Conviction and Arrival. Arrival takes place in 28-29 March 2186 (Cerberus Daily News). And “Flood of batarian traffic brings rumors of war” by Alliance News Network - September 21, 2186. March + six month to ME3 = September. So, if Grissom dies “six month ago” in Retribution, then it was in second half of 2185 or earlier, not in 2186. (March 2186 - six months)

P.S. “He had passed away from natural causes six months ago, at seventy-five” Grissom was born in 2110 (2185-75) --Alexpolt (talk) 03:28, November 29, 2013 (UTC)

ok, i never read conviction. there obviously seem to be two timelines. one is the writers canon timelines. the other is the timelines for the players who played the games. there is no way you can fit shepard being arrested three days after arrival inside the players timeline. unless arrival is the last mission you do. and that is even before mentioning. that the comics released by walters which mentioned shepard are in conflict with mass effect 1 & mass effect 2 since they railroad shepard for many players. the best solution would be to mention that above the arrival timeline in the main wiki page. is that the timeline is only relevant to mac walters vision of shepard. and that the orders of arrival could vary greatly depending on the players. Right now i am leading a project to rewrite mass effect 3 so it streamlines with mass effect 2. and people seeing the inaccuracy of arrival taking place after retribution could become confuse. The obvious conflict between sources of information in games, books and comics have to be adressed with a higher priority given to the games.

Erezike 21:29, November 28, 2013 (UTC)

Mass effect galaxy Edit

Due to revelations from MEF#5 is it safe to assume that MEG occured during the events of ME1 Jwgray1985 (talk) 00:22, December 31, 2013 (UTC)

Well good question. Here are the facts we know of:
  • MEG happens before the events of MEF 5/6
  • Geth attack of the citadel happened somewhere in 2183
  • the beginning of MEF 5/6 happened one month after the geth attack of the citadel
  • Jacob is no more an alliance marine during MEG
  • Jacob is in the Alliance in the beginning of MEF 5/6
  • Jacob left the Alliance after the geth attack on eden prime in 2183

So I think that MEG occurs during ME1 or shortly after the attack of the citadel some interesting infos : --DeldiRe (talk) 01:56, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

Shepard refers to when after Jacob "left the Alliance," but Jacob himself implies he was on "leave" during the mission to stop the batarian terrorists and says he was "sidelined" after Eden Prime. He also gives the impression that it was the cover-up of the attack that prompted his permanent departure from the Alliance, which is line with ME:F5.
MEG's section was added to Storyline II even prior to the release of Mass Effect 2, and I agree with Jwgray1985 in that only ME:F5 definitively pushes the events of MEG further back than previously believed (or intended). If it didn't happen before the battle of the Citadel, as of ME:F5's release there's a time span of less than a month in which MEG could take place – during which the Presidium also happens to be a pile of rubble.
As far as I can tell, if MEG happened between Eden Prime and the attack on the Citadel, it doesn't flat-out contradict anything else we know so far. Elseweyr (talk | stalk) 13:50, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

Agreed you also have to consider the fact that the Citadel is clearly intact in MEG so I think we can conclude that MEG occurs before the BotC Jwgray1985 (talk) 23:15, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

So, do we move the point? Should we go for a vote? --DeldiRe (talk) 15:37, November 28, 2016 (UTC)

Conviction and Inquisition Edit

It makes no sense that Conviction happened after Retribution and Deception. Conviction takes place days after Arrival. You're telling me that in those few day, two novels that take place about 3 months apart occurred? Shepard was incarcerated for six months. Makes WAY more sense that he/she was incarcerated and while that was happening, Retribution and Deception happened. Also..Inquisition sets the foundation for what would later turn into the Citadel Coup in ME3. But, the human councilor in Deception...which is clearly meant to be Udina, was acting as anti-Cerberus as it gets....his behavior wouldn't have made sense if he had dealings with Cerberus...Thus I believe the order should be as follows in the timeline: Mass Effect: Conviction Mass Effect: Retribution Mass Effect: Deception Mass Effect: Inquisition Thoughts?--AdmiralPedro1stFleet (talk) 19:07, October 4, 2014 (UTC)

we got something from mac posted years back: . if you want a more updated/comprehensive reply you may have to ask him again.
no mention of retribution, but given that it is set at 2186 but opens "half a year earlier" with grissom's death (which may even be sometime in mid/late 2185) we roll with what's available and what started first, not what finished first. as for the rest, walters' tweet is devconfirmation and nothing would be changed unless explicitly overridden. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 19:39, October 4, 2014 (UTC)

Ok then. I get that you must adhere to what the writers say to the letter. But you do see the issue right?--AdmiralPedro1stFleet (talk) 02:00, October 6, 2014 (UTC)

Good points. I acknowledge them. But I gotta ask then. Has BIOWARE disowned Deception? Have the devs disowned it? Everything else you said...I can see from your viewpoint. But can't argue that certain things like Gillian and Nick dying didn't happen. Sure, they can't be 18. Fine. The story happened, but the details of the story are sketchy. Wouldn't not acknowledging a dev's lack of disowning go against the very thing you're trying to enforce? Just trying to understand where the line is and if and when it blurs.--AdmiralPedro1stFleet (talk) 01:55, October 7, 2014 (UTC)

the decision to ignore deception was pretty unanimous way before i even started editing on this wiki. follow supporting bioware statements there (essentially apologizing for deception and promising a corrected reprint that may never see the light of day given how much time has passed). in this manner, information from deception is to be taken with a huge boulder of salt and not meant to be factored into "serious" consideration when it comes to the larger issues.
noting deception information generally means disclaimer first on a discrete subheader, but integrating them into a cohesive whole (like the timeline) just wouldn't work. the only thing allowable is a short synopsis acknowledging the work's place in the chain of events - in short, it's already on the page. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 03:11, October 7, 2014 (UTC)

Andromeda InitiativeEdit

It might be too early to include this , but the Andromeda initiative was scheduled to launch in 2185: Randuir (talk) 22:40, November 7, 2016 (UTC)

it's already added ;). We could also maybe add the date for enrolment (07/25/2184). But I think it's too soon for that.--DeldiRe (talk) 22:49, November 7, 2016 (UTC)

SpaceX in 2015 Edit

How is this related to Mass Effect? This should be removed, unless there is an in universe source that shows this took place in the Mass Effect universe. -- 22:32, February 19, 2017 (UTC)

the pertinent information was disclosed on the official site months ago. removal not allowed. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 23:26, February 19, 2017 (UTC)

Mass Effect Andromeda: Hyperion Arrival Date Edit

I'm not sure if it's too early to be adding Andromeda details but for future reference; the confirmed year the Hyperion Ark arrives in the Heleus Cluster in Andromeda is 2819 CE, given the Nexus and Arks left in 2185 CE and the journey for Hyperion in particular takes 634 years. The date in game is simply referred to as 0 Hour, 0 Day. Source is from an early build play through on IGN's YouTube channel.

There is also some confusion over the spelling of the Cluster; as the gameplay video has it spelt Heleus, but Andromeda Initiative videos had the spelling Helius. JohnShepard1918 (talk) 04:30, March 7, 2017 (UTC)JohnShepard1918JohnShepard1918 (talk) 04:30, March 7, 2017 (UTC)

Mass Effect: Foundation? Edit

So, why isn't Mass Effect: Foundation added here? Side question: Are there any other comics/other not added? --Theh5 (talk) 20:50, April 15, 2017 (UTC)

bits and pieces from foundation are already in the page whenever explicitly stated and if significant enough. it's an anthology series set across multiple time periods. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 13:38, April 16, 2017 (UTC)

Could we make it more apparent perhaps? For example: I skimmed through the timeline to find find comic books, novels, etc. but didn't see Foundation which caused me to overlook it. Even doing ctrl + f and searching ¨Foundation¨ doesn't come up any results.--Theh5 (talk) 13:43, April 16, 2017 (UTC)

no. again, grouping together all of foundation is an exercise in futility because of its very nature. not to mention the few specific mentions of timeframe aside from the year are defined in vague "days/weeks/months". T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 13:53, April 16, 2017 (UTC)

An exercise I would gladly undertake, its futility is irrelevant. But I see the difficulty without exact dates but even in the current timeline article there are mentions of events and works that aren't specified, time-wise. ¨1600BC - (Estimated date) In the Andromeda galaxy, the Jardaan begin deploying Remnant machines to the Heleus Cluster to terraform barren planets into life-supporting worlds.¨ - one notable example. Then there are few other mentions of works that start without an exact date, Mass Effect & Evolution being one of them. I just think it's wasted to not have the Foundation comic at least mentioned, even if it is treated as some semi-flashback comic for Brooks (Shepard's clone's friend). Even Homeworld, is screwed over here. Neither, not as much as a mention. Your word is law, administrator.... --Theh5 (talk) 19:40, April 16, 2017 (UTC)

Jardaan timeline is probably wrong. Edit

Some-thing said that the Helius cluster was chosen because it had an *unusually* large number of habitable planets but I lack verification on that specific line, regardless: The Helius cluster has a large number of habitable-worlds and we do know that they were created by the Jardaan with their fancy terraforming technology.

Now, the Suvi mentions that the Andromeda Initative used a geth-modified Mass Relay to view the galaxy, as the light we see from the other galaxies moves so slow so we are seeing the state of the Andromeda galaxy about two millions years ago. If it was destroyed 50,000 years ago by aliens we won't notice that until a couple million years. But the geth-modified Relay changed that to 'recent' - exact date isn't told but it is irrelevant.

The Andromeda Initative watched the Andromeda galaxy back in 2180-ish so that means that they saw the state of the Andromeda galaxay earlier than that time and that means, since they saw a large amount of golder worlds, that the Jardaan where alive and terraforming long before the estimated date in the time-line.

Should this be changed? (Estimated date) The final Remnant structures are built on Habitat 7 before the Scourge hits - 2419 CE Also the above could be valuable on the Jardaan article too, to be incorporated or expanded on since it is a stub. Should I post it there too? --Theh5 (talk) 02:54, August 2, 2017 (UTC)

Because there is no reply to this, and I frankly have no idea where to begin with editing this into the time-line, I assume that this idea above is wrong some-how. Maybe it will still be useful on the Jardaan page so I'll paste it over there, given that it at least lower the time-table for when the Scourge took over the vaults and all. I'll give the copy and paste some time if anyone want's to stop me, other-wise just ignore this. --Theh5 (talk) 00:19, August 3, 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, the (somewhat fuzzy) points did not exactly tell why the date is wrong nor you did not mention what date it should be changed into.
Furthermore, if my memory serves me correctly, the Scourge only hit sometime between the Initiative's observation of Andromeda and their arrival based on info gathered during the mission in Meridian and from angaran history. So the date seems more or less right.  teugeneTalkContr 15:19, August 3, 2017 (UTC)
I made the above believing that the timeline was mistaken but I disproved that theory myself and used the points to argue for a new point, I'll try to elaborate: Final Remnant structures are built on Habitat 7 - the implication being that those structures are the last possible because the Scourge then hits. For all we know, they stopped building on Habitat 7 way back before the Andromeda Initative even launched.
I can only to suggest that Jardaan have been building stuff way back since before 2180-ish when the Andromeda Initative used the geth relay to watch the Andromeda galaxy (and saw those habitable planets). What I mean with this is that we have an estimate on when they were active, before 2180-ish to 2500-ish. The final Remnant structures could have been finished at any time, the article should really just say that the Scourge hits in 2419 CE. That and it does tell us that the Jardaan was exploring space since before 2180, which could be incorporated either here or as trivia in the Jardaan article. I think I was confused at one point when making this but it still has some points, unless I'm wrong. --Theh5 (talk) 20:49, August 3, 2017 (UTC)
In that case, yes, I agree on that point.  teugeneTalkContr 06:01, August 4, 2017 (UTC)

L4 implants invention date - is there a source for that? Edit

Here I am again with a new issue. If you know the answer to this question then you can skip reading the rest: Is there a soure on *when* the L4 implants were developed? If yes then, given that the date is in 2183, it should be added to in the section about implants as it does not contain this.

If not then read: If the L4 implant is just assumed to have been created on 2183 then that is contradictory, actually it is contradictory regardless. In the Ascencion Project it is mentioned that it has one of the goals to develope the L4 implants and the Ascension Project started in 2176 which meanas the L4 implant should have been invented around there, given that it's development is one of the primary goals of the program. If the L4 implant was invented in 2183 then this article seems weird and potentially even the official Mass Effect works.

Can any-one clear this up for me so I can move onto finding other stuff? --Theh5 (talk) 12:37, August 10, 2017 (UTC)

read the ascension book.
apparently there's a language/comprehension barrier issue here, again, so let me make this clear.
the ascension project began 2176. the l4 implants rolled out by 2183, the setting of the book. for all intents and purposes "developed" here simply means that the product is already available in a completed state by that year, not that the r&d for it actually started (and ended) in 2183. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 13:11, August 10, 2017 (UTC)
Sarcastic but grateful: Thank you. --Theh5 (talk) 13:16, August 10, 2017 (UTC)

You can skip this part; the math of it, so to speak. Project Ascension has the goals to create the L4 implant which starts in 2176 so assumingly the L4 implants exist in some state during that time. They are first referred to in 2183, just after Mass Effect (1) in Mass Effect: Ascension so in 2183 we have a clear date of when they exist. Then in 2184 the L5 implants is released to the market - that limits the construction date also. So the L4 implants were made between before or at 2176 or 2183. What is interesting is that Kahlee Sanders still refer to the students on Grissom Academy to be ¨prototype tech'¨ which suggests that the L4 implants are still considered prototypes even by 2186, and there is already the L5 variants such as L5x and L5n, seemingly the L4 should be out-dated but I suppose they are unique implants that are still under testing to some degree before the Reaper War.

Either way, the date in the wiki has the L4 implant ¨developed¨ in 2183 but that might not be the case, even if they are widely used by that date. What I'm suggesting is simply that the wording of the L4 implant in the wiki is changed, from developed to, maybe, widely used or any alternative. That is all. --Theh5 (talk) 21:45, August 10, 2017 (UTC)

leave the "suggestions" out and work with what's actually on the table.
there's nothing in the fiction (or the real world even) prohibiting people from concurrently developing iterations of the same tech. what, you thought research is done on a cleanly sequential basis?
l4 implants developed by 2183. clearly referenced on the ascension novel. that is all you need to know, everything else is irrelevant (and speculation) to the timeline page. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 22:10, August 10, 2017 (UTC)