BattleTechWiki talk:Project Planets/Planet Overhaul

Era Specific Data[edit]

This is a great idea for a project! Is there any formal consensus on adding time periods to the displayed information, especially for the nearby planets section? With the new handbook series, a lot of the written history has been canonized with really nice maps by √ėystein Tvedten. Among the many potential periods not displayed, nearly all Inner Sphere and (near) Periphery planets (excluding the Draconis Combine, which has not been published yet) have faction info for:

The birth of the Star League (2571)
The end of the 1st Succession War (2822)
The end of the 2nd Succession War (2864)
The beginning of the Jihad (3067)

...and this list does not even mention Dark Age dates or maps at the founding of each Great House. The Succession War data may be really vital to add, since borders really change and planets disappear (albeit over the course of decades). I realize this is a huge amount of work if done by hand, but I just though I might ask.--S.gage 02:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Eeeeh, I'm afraid you may be a bit disappointed in us, S.gage. We're actually going to be doing away with those massive nearby planet/ownership tables because we know the current ones are as flawed as the coordinates and 2-jump maps also being used. The intention right now is to replace the 2-jump map with a cropped image of one of √ėystein's maps, so that neighboring worlds are easily identified in a manner that is recognizable to anyone who has ever seen an official BattleTech map. The coordinates will be using an extrapolated method that matches up with √ėystein's maps and the tables are being done awy with because we just don't have the capability to check each planet within 2 jumps and for each period. I'm not ruling out the possibility someone may want to do that work and re-add them in, but the Overhaul is going to clean up all suspicious data and either correct it or remove it.
Ownership is still being worked out: BrokenMnemonic has been doing extensive prep work for the Overhaul by reviewing (and uploading) maps, and then re-writing the Ownership section to reflect more periods of who owned what when. Ideally, we'd use concrete dates to indicate a change in ownership, so the traditional ownership list may make way for a narrative form...but we're still in the early stages on that. So, in that way, we hope to make ownership data more informative and complete.--Rev (talk|contribs) 11:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not disappointed in loosing the 2-jump maps, on the contrary I'm really happy there is a reasonable consensus on what to do with the history of planets on BTW. Ownership can get pretty complicated, so may I propose a solution (one that I don't particularly like but I'll propose anyway)? On worlds with little change in ownership (ex: El Dorado), we could just put the date of ownership change (although by the same token, a planet that never changes hands might be confusing if there is only a founding date...).--S.gage 16:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's much of a secret that many of the initial policies on here I derived directly from Wikipedia, and even now, the admins often refer to existing WP prolicies to help guide BTW. I've been looking at w:Puerto Rico, as an example. As an island, it's changed hands a number of times. Instead of a list of ownership change-overs, the article breaks up the history section into periods of control, which makes sense to me. However, as many (if not most) planets don't have canon histories, just representative maps, these sections could start out quite bare. For example, using your El Dorado) reference (not a true recounting; for example purposes only):
===Federated Suns===
El Dorado was founded prior to 2750, by which point it fell under the adminstation of the Federated Suns' Draconis March.
===Federated Commonwealth===
The system was incorporated into the Federated Commonwealth in 3040.
===Federated Suns===
The system reverted to the Federated Suns in 3067, upon the absolution of the Commonwealth.
Now, El Dorado, of course, has a lot more information to put in the three respective sections, but many systems won't. However, the presumption is that 'someday' more information will become known and included, and this format will help guide it into the respective location, right? Your comments?--Rev (talk|contribs) 16:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
With all the lost worlds I've been adding in courtesy of the new Handbooks, there are also a lot of worlds out there that have entries like the one for Conwy - which makes for sadly sparse entries. BrokenMnemonic 17:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
ETA: You can see a prototype of the kind of local region map I've been playing with on the Joyz entry. BrokenMnemonic 18:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Joyz is a great example. The red dot shows thru clearly from the thumbnail and the surrounding region, thanks to your shading, makes it clear as to its general location to all but the least familiar readers of the Inner Sphere.--Rev (talk|contribs) 19:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I think both are a great ideas, snap shots of specific dates and fleshing out the history in the text. However, I've just discovered a major problem, at least for me. It appears in the new section at the bottom of the page (for more visibility).--S.gage 04:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

System Naming[edit]

Okay, I expect ClanWolverine101 to chime in here, but I'm seeing a potential issue: in the mockup for Sarna, the existing article does not provide the star's name. As the Overhaul is primarily transferring existing data from one format to the other, it is not up to the Overhaul team to research the stars' names. So, since these are system articles, what is Sarna's star's name, if unknown?
I'm thinking that CW101 was on the right path: the default should be the famous planet's name, with the famous planet taking on its orbital number, until the star's name is determined. Once that is known, the famous planet looses the orbital number, all other unnamed planets get renamed to the star's name (with orbital number) and "bob's your uncle". For example: Unknown Star Name:

  • Sarna (star)
    • Sarna I
    • Sarna II
    • Sarna III (famous)
    • Sarna IV

Discovered Star Name:

  • Omri (star)
    • Omri I
    • Omri II
    • Sarna (Omri III)
    • Omri IV

Comments? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

This seems a good start to me. Obviously, in 97% of all cases, the planet will have the same name as the star, just with the roman numeral after it. (And usually, not even that. Luthien is called Luthien, not Luthien IV.) Heck, the vast majority of systems only have one inhabitable planet.
I know you could ARGUE that Terra, Mars and Sol could all have their own articles, but you could just as easily argue that they all be one article, called "Terra". Why? Glad you asked : Look at a map of the battletech universe. You can find them in most of the novels, and also the Solaris VII boxed set among many other products. Now look in the center of that map. What do you see? I see a place called "Terra". Not Sol. Not Mars. Not anything else that might be inhabited in the so-called "Sol" system. Just "Terra". In fact, you would be hard-pressed to find any mention of "Sol" until the Jihad era. It wasn't the "Sol Alliance", it was the "Terran Alliance". When people discuss the Dragoons' attack on Mars, they say Mars, in Terra's system.
Make sense? I'm fine with whatever the majority decides, but I've long been the guy saying "Why make three articles when you can do the same job in one?" ClanWolverine101 20:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • CW, I can't show with a citation (at the moment), but I'm certain Terra's system has been identified as Sol somewhere. I'll provide it, when I can.
Oh, its come up in the Jihad era books, I'm sure, but I think you will agree those are pretty recent. Can you find one older? ClanWolverine101 21:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
As for one article instead of three, Frabby agreed with you and he convinced me. I think this new format allows for that. In the end, especially because of the "home system" being so rich, it'd be wrong to attribute all that richness to one article on Terra, and then break Mars, Venus & Jupiter out as separate articles. In reality, it's the system that is rich with details. Redirects to Terra (the planet proper) will solve most everyone's confusion as to what is meant when the planet is referenced (in an article).--Revanche (talk|contribs) 20:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I know this is probably a bone question, but if we don't know anything about the system or the orbital number of the planet, does the system entry simply go with the planet name, with no numbers? BrokenMnemonic 20:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
That's a good question. Okay..I need to work on a flow/decision chart. Thanks (take that sincerely or sardonically...your choice. Wink.gif--Revanche (talk|contribs) 20:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes - if we don't have that information (such as number of planets in system, orbit of inhabited planet), then we cannot provide it. Frabby 20:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Revanche is spot on here. Keep in mind that System name may be different from sun name(s) which in turn may be different again from planet/moon/space station name(s). One (apocryphal) example that springs to my mind is the Weisau system: Its twin suns are named Orpheus and Eurydice, and the inhabited planet is called Brimstone, according to the Worldbook series article in BattleTechnology. Another is the Viborg system - the BattleCorps story Pirates of Penance suggests that it doesn't have any inhabited planets; its key colony is a massive space habitat named Penance in the Viborg asteroid belt. Wernke/Talon is another well-known example.
How many canon sources can you find where that is the case, not counting Sol/Terra? ClanWolverine101 21:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
It is incorrect that "the vast majority of systems only have one inhabitable planet" - HB:Liao states the CC as of 3025 has 217 systems with an average of two populated worlds in them (426 worlds in the 217 systems); similarly, the Duchy of Fenestere mentioned in HB:Davion encompasses 18 planets in (only) 5 systems. Keep in mind that there appear to be numerous minor settlements on different planets or moons. Frabby 20:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. I would submit that many of those were probably not "naturally" habitable. Meaning, like Mars, they were converted. But still - Quentin has two habitable worlds, and is a fairly major system. We treat it as one article. ClanWolverine101 21:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I would note that Sarna III is a name you're only going to see on this wiki. Everywhere else - including in the books - it's always just Sarna. There's a handful of times we see worlds referred to by system name and orbital number but one of them - Chirikof II - is in the same paragraph as the main world in the system is called Chirikof without any number. I think we need to follow the conventions of the books, not whatever happens to make more sense to us. This is an encyclopedia, not a world building exercise.--Moonsword 16:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
It's a core problem inherited from the early FASA days that BattleTech doesn't differentiate between planets and systems to the point of frequently putting planets on jump maps. Which leads to stupid situations like the three planets of the Mica Majority being fluffed as being in the same system, but having different jump coordinates. I think this wiki should explicitly try to rectify the situation and correct this mistake, by deliberately redirecting planet names to the correct system even if it has a different name. Including Suk II --> Suk system. Frabby 16:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
A third perspective, but one that (appears) to borrow from both of your's.
1: I agree we should not be re-interpreting nor try to solve the inconsistencies of FASA, FanPro nor CGL; we should just report. We can comment, but in a way that is properly cited to indicate it's one possible conclusion or place the comment in the more (in my opinion) apropos Notes section.
2) Frabby is right that the inconsistencies, however, do impact us here. While a great deal of 'history' (battles, events, etc.) do occur planet-side, more than enough occur in systems at large and that systems are described well enough in so many places, that we cannot limit ourselves to just articles on planets. The description of a jump station or an asteroid mining operation in System Alpha cannot be relegated to the article on Planet Beta. Nor can we have one type of articles for systems (when known) and another for planets, as it confuses the reader who is used to reading 'down' in scale and may never know that there is additional information of the planet readily available.
The simplest solution, therefore, and best way to be consistent with all, is to create system articles with the planets as sections within. That means a lot of articles will be planet-centric, but that is fine, if that is where the majority of info (currently) exists.
So, to provide a naming structure within the article is important, too, so that -when the overhaul is complete- we don't have 15 similar articles built 8 different ways. We're not proposing to change the canon names of planets, we're just seeking to include their orbital numbers (represented as Roman Numerals) alongside the proper names (when known). If the proper name becomes clear later (and it differs from that of the system, then it gets changed. For example: made-up system Marzipan has three planets, one of which is the notable one Strong Bad. In the absence of information, the other two are named Marzipan I and Marzipan III. If they get named later, they lose the Roman numerals and become Bubs and Pom Pom.
However, if the star name is not known, how should we handle the the system name? That's the question. I feel naming the system after the planet is the wrong answer, as it could be construed that the system's canon name is the same as the planet. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
My point is that the worlds need to be called what they're called in the books, not what happens to make the articles look nice or seems logical. The intention there was, "The planet's infobox needs to be titled what the world is called in the books", not, "We need separate articles". In the case of Chirkof, the primary world in the system should be called Chirkof throughout the article even though we know the entire system is the Chirkof system and it's as technically correct to say Chirkof IV as it is Sol III. --Moonsword 01:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you that the infobox can use the 'proper' name. Maybe, where the system and planet share the same name, the notable planet can have the Roman numeral follow in pararenthesis (to set it apart), such as Chirkof (II). --Revanche (talk|contribs) 02:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Since the article template is about the system, and planetary information in supposed to be exclusively treated in subsections of the relevant system article henceforth, I feel the InfoBoxPlanet should adress the planet with its orbital. However, there is nothing keeping is from inserting its "proper" name into the infobox as well, like "Tau Ceti IV, aka New Earth". Frabby 05:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Frabby, I un-indented your comment it a bit to break it out from the discussion of systems & planets with the same name. You're describing a different situation, where the system name differs from the planet's.
To address your comment: what you're suggesting is that the scientific name (to provide an easy description, where the planet shares the star's name and has an orbital number) takes precedence over the notable name of the planet. For example, the first four planets of the Sol system in your system would be shown as: Sol I (Mercury), Sol II (Venus), Sol III (Terra), Sol IV (Mars).
I'd disagree with that method. I'm fine with providing both (both in the section and infobox), but in the opposite order, when notable is known: Mercury (Sol I), Venus (Sol II), Terra (Sol III), Mars (Sol IV). Where only one notable name is known (in a system), the scientific one would be shown for the unknowns and follow the known: Marzipan I, Strong Bad (Marzipan II), Marzipan III. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with that, Rev. The order of the names isn't important. Frabby 18:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Comrades! I believe we may have been on the wrong track. (Or maybe we were, and I missed it.)
What do people come here for? Do they come to read about stars? Or do they come to look up planets where events in the BT universe took place?
Terra/Sol should be an exception. When someone goes to a planet's page, there should be little italicized blurbs at the top, directing them to whatever they need, or clarifying _______. When someone goes to "New Avalon", they are going to want to read about the capital planet of the FS; not the star. (Though we may include both.) The PRIMARY subject of the article should be that planet.
Not whatever other planetary assets they have. I think we need to step back and say "Hey - Terra is an exception, but let's not screw up by applying the same policy to every world."
Does any of this make sense? ClanWolverine101 15:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not so sure we can know the will of the reader. For example: New Avalon. How do we know they want the planet, and not the capital city Avalon City or the NAIS? There is plenty of information about systems too: jump stations, orbital facilities, moons. How do we take all 3000 worlds/planets/systems and decide individually what is important and then focus around that? By applying one template, every reader can receive one stop shopping and not have to intuit what search term (or guess what the first editor was contemplating) to use to find the information. For example, the article on Moscow doesn't provide information on the population of Russia or the history of the Soviet Union. But, if you go to Soviet Union, you'll find information on Moscow. I'm not saying (one way or the other) if a separate article is appropriate or not for a very notable planet (like Terra, New Avalon or Luthien), but we need to establish some consistency for every article and the one thing every planet has is a system. Why not start there and include all known data on that system.
I guess I'm saying: I'm not understanding the problem with system articles. If someone is trying to find "Terra" or "New Avalon", they still will; it'll be no different than before, except that the non-planetary information will be better organized and not intrude on the planet-specific section.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
ClanWolverine101, in my opinion we would screw up if we didn't apply the same policy to every world. That way we create a logical system that's easy to use, instead of presenting the same convoluted hodgepodge of systems, planets, what-have-yous or other that all other sites have. With redirects from planet names to the correct system in place, everybody will immediately find whatever information he is looking for. Frabby 18:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, well. I had to try... does this mean we are going to have hundreds or thousands of articles that don't have much content for every star? ClanWolverine101 14:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Not entirely sure what you mean here. But I thought the whole idea behind the overhaul was to abandon planet articles, because they are always part of a system anyways? Frabby 15:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not certain I understand your concern either, but I'll take a swing at it: the Overhaul will (initially) transition the planetary articles into system articles with the information that currently exists. So, no, it won't get worse than what we already have, but display the information in a more systematic manner. Additionally, some incorrect information will be corrected (coordinates, 2-jump maps) and unnecessary information will be culled (nearby planets). The new format will highlight what is missing, but in a way meant to spur interest in filling in the gaps. So, the answer to your question may be 'yes', if you think the current articles are rather empty (as the Overhaul cannot feasibly do data mining for 3000+ planets and expect to effect change to the majority, before petering out). We'll stick with the current wiki model of individual editors providing the details to the articles that interest them.
For Frabby: I don't think we're abandoning planets, as much as we're transitioning to a more holistic approach. I can see the phrase "abandoning planets" being completely misunderstood. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

System Naming II - Systems with the same name[edit]

You're probably going to hate me for this, but here's another of those great ideas of mine how things should be done:
In the case of multiple systems sharing a name, the current approach is to put a successor state/realm short behind the name in brackets to differentiate the systems. A random example would be Sakhalin, which is a system in the CapCon (Sakhalin) and another system in the LC (Sakhalin (LC)). This is not very elegant given that Sakhalin (LC) was a Terran Hegemony world before it was a C world, then it became a FC and later LA world and then a RotS world. Why name it (LC)?
My suggestion would be to give numbers to the systems, with the one closest to Terra getting the number 1, the next closest the number 2, and so on (if more exist - can't think of any three systems sharing a name). I am suggesting this because there's a major overhaul going on anyways, and it might be less work if it's done all in one go. Frabby 21:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's not a problem, but more of a solution. I was very aware of the naming structure we had could become problematic eventually. Let me mull over your naming solution a bit. Comments from others welcome, please.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'm liking this naming system after some thought.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 15:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, question to be answered: how should system articles be named, when the name is shared with another (non-system) article? I'm thinking "Name (system)" would be appropriate. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Frabby 15:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


I just started an offline draft of a new-template pattern entry for Rollis, and I've come up with a couple of observations and niggles that I thought I'd mention...

  • InfoBoxSystem and InfoBoxPlanet both have an image field. I'm guessing that one of these will be for the galactica map, and one for the planetary flag, if it's known - is that correct?
I think so. We also have pictures of a number of individual worlds scattered about various sources, plus of course the coverage from LinkNet. Frabby 09:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
In that case, it may be worth expanding the template to include more than one image area, and to flag them as something like image (galatic map), image (planet), image (planet flag), to reduce confusion a little for casual editors, and to allow for display both the image of the planet (from something like worlds of the republic? 25 years of art and fiction? I don't have either, but I'm making educated guesses from what I've seen here) and the planetary flags from the Handbooks, House books and the like, where they exist. One thing I've discovered editing Rollis is that simply copying and pasting the image code already present for the Rollis flag generates some sort of visual glitch in the new template box, and I don't know how to fix that. BrokenMnemonic 09:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, BM: you've said you were unfamiliar with templates, and I should have thought to point you to them for information. If you go to the actual template itself (in this case, Template:InfoBoxSystem, Template:InfoBoxPlanetStandard & Template:InfoBoxPlanetUpdate, you'll see how each of the fields is meant to be used. As for multiple graphics, the image field description provides the order of importance (when multiples are available); the rest should go in the article's image gallery (just as we do with the 'Mechs.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 10:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah, now that makes more sense. Thank you! BrokenMnemonic 17:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Planet Update boxes: Rollis has planetary information available from two different eras, drawn from two different sources. I think this information has value - it potentially shows how populations and planetary levels have changed over time - but I don't know if the template allows for multiple InfoBoxPlanetUpdate entries. I think it probably should, but I don't know if you can repeat a template more than once in an article. I notice that in the Sarna article, there's the one info box, but each field has (3067) and a reference next to the information, which makes the box look a bit... cluttered. I think it would be better to expand the InfoBoxPlanetUpdate template by adding a "Year:" field, which can have the reference applied to it rather than to every entry. Most planets are either going to have no specifics (because they've never been printed up) or are going to have more than one, because the majority of planets that are important enough to have this sort of detail are important enough to be updated in later documents. I'm not sure how this would work, but what I'd like to be able to do for Rollis would be to do something like this:
| year                = 3025 <ref name="HL:TCCp75">''House Liao (The Capellan Confederation)'', p. 75, "St. Ives">
| ruler               = Lord Mathus Overton
| capital             = 
| population          = 5,619,000,000
| USIIR               = 
| hpg                 = A
| year                = 3067 <ref name="HB:HLp81">''Handbook: House Liao'', p. 81, "St. ives"</ref>
| ruler               = Duchess Candace Liao
| capital             = 
| population          = 5,900,000,000
| USIIR               = A-A-B-A-C
| hpg                 = A
| year                = 3079 <ref name="OCCp2129">''Objectives: Capellan Confederation'', p. 2129, "St. ives"</ref>
| ruler               = Empress Marisa Tomei
| capital             = 
| population          = 4,600,000,000
| USIIR               = B-B-B-A-C
| hpg                 = A
My gut feeling says we should have only one InfoBoxPlanet, and leave variable parameters (rulers, USIIR, population) out of it. Such items belong into the text imho, because they are too different to use a unified scheme for all planets. Frabby 09:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Ultimately, I'll go with whichever format is mandated, but I don't like the way the InfoBoxPlanet details at the moment seem to spread across the page from the right hand side - I think they should be a bar down just one side of the page, but I don't know if the Rollis entry looks messed up because of something I've done, or because of the template itself. I think the danger in having the rulers, population and USIIR details in the main text is that it'll make some entries look more like list posts, and whereas not all planets have these details, those that do have them look to be in a fairly consistent format; USIIR is relatively new, but where it exists, it's in the same format throughout. BrokenMnemonic 09:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
You've identified something I failed to comment on myself, having re-discovered the issue while working on Sarna. Frabby has previously suggested we should only have one Planet infobox, and I think that is probably a good idea. He had suggested having multiple Update boxes just clutters up the article and may overly elongate that planet's section, when there isn't enough text to justify that many boxes. Also, the Update templates don't seem to be cooperating, showing up to the left of the Standard box (instead of following in line underneath).
So, it's my intention today of combining the Standard & Update boxes. But, as for multiple years, what we do in other infoboxes is add in the <br> code after one entry and then add in the second, so that they fall in line. Sarna didn't allow me to do that, but after I respond here, I'll show you with the Rollis boxes.
And I agree with you about utilizing infoboxes, rather than lists. But, we'll see what the result is during this Mockup run.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 10:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I see what you did with the Rollis article - I'd done the same thing when I updated the Wolf's Dargoons sourcebook article, but I hadn't thought to do the same here. D'oh. How many times have details like the USIIR rating been updated for a palnet, at most? I think th elists within infoboxes works, but it could get a bit cluttered if there are more than 3 or so entries in each line. BrokenMnemonic 17:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
To add some perspective to that, there's at least two USIIR entries for Solaris (HBHS and ATOW) and they're very different because of the damage caused by the Blakist invasion and occupation. USIIR ratings are not necessarily static and when we get a look at more of them for different worlds (possibly in the Turning Points series?), we're going to need somewhere to put them. --Moonsword 12:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Not a problem: add in the original USIIR with the year in parenthesis followed by the <br> code and then add in the second (with its year). --Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
As for 3 or more codes, I think it's not something we'll need to worry about just yet. Moonsword has found the first instance I know of where two USIIRs are available; three seems a bit remote and when it does come, we'll handle it at that time.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • At the moment, under the new template, the system histories are going to come fairly high up in the article. That's not an issue itself, but at the moment a lot of entries have the system history details after other details, such as the planetary data, garrison data and the like. Stylistically, I think the new way of doing things is a better way of doing things, but in practise it means a lot of references need to get copy and pasted back and forth, because the original citation (the garrison unit entry, the planetary ruler entry, etc) will now be further down the document than the system history. It's not a drama, but it's a bit of a pain moving them back and forth and checking that they've ended up back in the right order of precedence. Is there a trick here I'm missing to make it easier?
System data is the "envelope" for planetary data, with possibly several entries of the latter type per system. I don't think it can be sorted in any other way. But keep in mind that system ownership can be a different animal from planet ownership (the planet Wolcott was controlled by the Kuritas but the system was controlled by the Jags; some systems were contested for extended periods of time; some systems were under joint administration; etc.). Frabby 09:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
It's the same core issue, though; ok, in the Wolcott example, you may have system history, then planet history, then garrisons, but the problem remains that the references are currently spelt out in the garrison entries, which are still after the system history and planet history, so you're still copy and pasting back and forth from lower in the old article to higher up in the new article because the format's changed. We're going from articles that are in the format Planet Summary : Planet Rulers : Planet Garrisons : Planet Ownership to one where Planet Ownership (sometimes split out into System Ownership and Planet Ownership) is suddenly at the top of the precedence order after system description, so all of the references generated in the Planet Summary/Planet Rulers/Planet Garrisons areas of the old article need to be moved/retyped. If it's got to be done that way, then it can be done that way, but if there's an easier way to do that (some kind of automation?) then it saves a lot of copy and pasting and chasing down of reference errors. It's not the structure of the template I'm having problems with, it's the physical task of reformatting the articles. BrokenMnemonic 09:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Scholastically-speaking, you're right in that the first use of a reference in a work should have the citation tied to that first use. However, in books (real non-ficiton) where citations are collected in an appendix, that's not an issue; the number is applied throughout the work to that citation in the appendix (if the citation is exactly the same, without notes). Wikis have confused that: it's much easier to find a full citation when it's applied to the first use, but rarely have I ever copy-edited an article to the point where I've moved the citations. The wiki code doesn't indicate the order of first use to the reader and so I've found it to be of limited benefit (only to editors and only in articles that will be overly long and convoluted) to relocate references to the first use. When I absolutely have to find the full citation (in order to copy-edit the citation), I'll do a search within the edit field for ref name=xxx, until I find the full citation. In other words, I wouldn't worry about moving the citation. It'll work out to the 95% mark as it stands.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 10:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Just to check I've got this right, so long as I spell out what the ref name is at some point within the article, I can use the ref name/ tag anywhere in that article, above ore below where it's defined, without breaking anything? If I sound slow, it's because I've done a bit of computer programming, and I've always been taught that you have to define a variable or string before you can use it... BrokenMnemonic 17:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, where does history go when basically everything is planetary history? Also, is Geography the appropriate place to put things like observations on climate? --Moonsword 12:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
If it concerns control of the system, above. If it deals with events on the planet, below. There's also no reason mention cannot be made in both, if necessary.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 02:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Planet Name section[edit]

Need we realy a ==Planet Name== section, the planets name is showing in the Infobox headline?.--Doneve 12:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I just copied and pasted the template... it's probably worth repeating this question over on the project overhaul page that links to the template. BrokenMnemonic 13:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, since this is the Mockup mission, please discuss it here. Thanks.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 15:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Doneve, can you re-state the question? Are you asking why we need a section called "Planet Name" or are you asking if we even need to name the section?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I mean to name the section :).--Doneve 19:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I guess the simplist answer is because we have to have a section reserved for each noteworthy planet (to indicate the separation from the system part of the article and from other planets included there) and for the section to work, it has to be named...something. Do you have a suggestion?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Planet Infoboxes[edit]

I've consolidated the fields from InfoBoxPlanetUpdate into Template:InfoBoxPlanetStandard, so that all data is displayed in one box. Sarna has the newer, single box, while Rollis uses both. Comments, please.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This is what i want, thanks Rev and Mbear, great job, all planet infos in one infobox, and the page looks cleaner, i don't like the Rollis example, to many infoboxes overcross some sections of the page, thanks guys.--Doneve 21:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I like the look of the Sarna infobox more than the Rollis one, but it feels like the header "Rollis" should be above the flag image, rather than below it. BrokenMnemonic 21:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
You are right, the headers make some mess, i think we can limit the headers by really needed not so needed etc.--Doneve 21:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Doneve, I believe BM (correct me if I'm wrong) means the planet's name in the infobox should be above the image, not below it. I'll see what I can do; it should be possible.
However, as far as the sections go, I was waiting to hear your suggestion on what the planet section should be called, if not the planet's name.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 22:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for fix the planet name headers, my intention was when i take as second a looke on the Rollis page, the problem is, they are to many infoboxes in one article (you and Mbear fixed the problems, of the planet standard infobox, i appreciate this), i mean the section headers --Geography--, ---Planetary Location--- but the problem is fixed at this time by one infobox, i would to say why can we not install a major infobox, that include the star system and planet info, in one general infobox, sorry for my special ;) writing.--Doneve 23:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I believe I understand now. The reason we cannot use one infobox for the whole article is because we can only use a field (population, ruler, etc.) one time in a box. If the system has more than one notable planet, we need to be able to use an infobox for the additional planets also. So, we have the option of using one infobox only for non-planetary stuff (star, jump point, etc., but nothing for planets) or an infobox for the stars and one for each planet.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 23:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, you are right, but we don't need a updade infobox, we can add the rulers etc. in the standard planet infobox, i want to go to bed, i give you a test page example tomorrow, i hope this helps, good night.--Doneve 23:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I think I've done that with the 'new' standard one, right? I just left the Update box up for comparison purposes and to allow for consensus.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 00:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so the lower part of the new InfoBoxPlanetStandard is called 'Infrastruture'. Surely we can give it a better title than that. Suggestions?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Phase 2[edit]

Okay, BrokenMnemonic & Moonsword: I've assigned you the planets Rollis and Grossbach respectively. Instead of two of us pinging around three planets, let's each shepherd one planet through all the phases. I've posted the link to the extrapolated coordinates in the resources section.
Since we're now in Phase 2, we can put the coordinates in the System infobox. Coordinates will also be displayed with colons (XX:YY) instead of commas (XX, YY). Be sure to include the {{e}} template next to the Y coordinate, as it's necessary to indicate why we're not using official coordinates.
Please provide your feedback here. Thanks.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm probably going to start pruning the planetary data parts of the template out of Grossbach. We just don't seem to have that information. Phase 2 went fine, though. --Moonsword 12:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Let's open that up to discussion: should we pull out unused sections and sub-sections? On one hand, the final template (the one we settle in on following the mock-up) will be available for future system editors to refer to when adding data not currently available in the articles, and empty sections (inevitably filled with section-stub banners) can be ugly and highlight the lack. On the other, it does highlight the lack and has led readers to become editors on the 'Mech articles, getting them to fill in the blank areas. Also, having the full template displayed reduces the need for a more knowledgeable editor to fix something that is placed in the wrong (but available) section.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that the median of information availability is probably closer to Grossbach than Rollins, with some worlds like Fletcher and a handful of highly detailed worlds like Sarna. What may be doable to clue people in on why so many of the articles look barren is some sort of banner or boilerplate text that explains that many worlds simply don't have that much information about them. --Moonsword 16:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea. To be clear, though: are you (now) advocating for removing the 'empty' sections or keeping them? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really fond of the empty sections, nor am I that gung ho about eliminating them on reflection. If we're going to have them (BattleTech does tend to scatter information basically everywhere, so leaving the structure makes sense even if it's ugly), people should know why a lot of the articles are so empty. --Moonsword 15:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I like your idea of explaining why there may be so little. I'll start thinking of a template that either is a banner or a stock, italicized statement for the Notes section that explains how there is so little information available for many planets and/or it is spread around and that the reader is invited to add cited information to help spruce up the article. Leaving the overall template in place will 'support' the tag/banner/statement and allow them to quickly edit the relevant sections. We can add this is as part of the final efforts (Phase 6?). Thanks for the good idea, Moonsword.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Geography/Planetary Locations[edit]

I'm finding these titles a little confusing to implement - is geography just natural features? Or does it include cities? Should spaceports be listed as Planetary Locations, rather than Geography? BrokenMnemonic 17:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, i think we can delete the geographic setion, is my opinion.--Doneve 17:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd suggest you guys read the description on the Overhaul page, where the sections are described. Many of the few descriptions that exist in the canon simply describe the geography of the planet, while the Planetary Locations section is meant to provide a list of known (i.e. canon) places. (see Luthien for examples of each, with Planetary Description standing in for Geography). I'm open to renaming one or the other, but I see them as two distinct & different attributes of a planet.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I've in the past just added a section under the basic planetary date section where planet description came first in own section and history marked as just history. Breaking it up per known events. If there nothing in canon, i've not listed in the article. -- Wrangler 03:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Phase 3[edit]

Okay, as BrokenMnemonic wraps up Phase 2 for Rollis, we can start talking about Phase 3. As shown, this phase is purely about replacing the 2-Jump map with the customized canon maps prepped by BrokenMnemonic. He is the project cartographer, so he'll be uploading these maps for each mission's Phase 3 by himself. However, I'm 'opening' this discussion section, so he can make comemnts about his experiences doing so and our observations of the results.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

  • One of the things that I think I'm going to have to do is create a seperate gallery category for the individual system maps; as it stands, if I tag them with the standard categories of Map Gallery and Works by √ėystein Tvedten those two categories when viewed through the gallery option on the left master menu are going to become so large as to be unworkable. It might be worth further sub-dividing the planet maps category somehow into other categories, to make casual searching of them easier to do. I'd be grateful for any suggestions. BrokenMnemonic 08:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
This might help you to know: starting with the test-run of one region, each mission will get its own mission page (such as I've built up here for the Mock-up, etc.) So, let's use the FRR as an example: Mission FRR will have a mission page, where Phase 1 assignments will be doled out. Since you, as the Overhaul cartographer, will know what missions are currently active, you can have a gallery sub-page to that mission, where you can upload all the individual maps (for storage). don't even need to do that: when an article in that mission gets to Phase 3, you can just upload it and automatically assign it to that article (i.e., no gallery). To be clear, one person doesn't shepherd an article all the way through all the phases. Instead, you BrokenMnemonic, will own the Phase 3 for each article and as a mission member declares an article Phase 2 complete, you can move in and plug in the map. Is that clear? Does it make the task easier for you? Or would you prefer to create a gallery for the mission members to pull from themselves?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 15:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
So, just to get this clear in my own mind, whereas all of the maps I've uploaded for reference for the project teams have been categorised as both Map Gallery and Works by √ėystein Tvedten, the planet/system image maps won't have the Map Gallery category applied to them? My first concern was clogging up that main maps gallery with literally thousands of small maps, making it difficult for people to find the "big" maps like those of the major Houses by era. I think I'd prefer to create a specific category for these maps, to keep them seperate from those higher-level maps - or is it possible to actually re-use the [[Category:Planets|Planetname]] category that each planet already uses, linking the maps directly to the planets? I don't know if that would break something though... BrokenMnemonic 06:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Unlike articles, all maps do not need to be categorized; they just have to be used by an article (an exception is being made for your region maps, as they're actively being used for research purposes). The ones you'll be uploading for the system articles do not need to be categorized. I absolutely agree with you they should not go into the Map Gallery nor should they go into the Works by √ėystein Tvedten one, either (as they have been 'significantly' altered, and not just cropped). Now, you could categorize them for the purpose for which they're being used (i.e. a new category), but why? If someone wanted a map where Rollis is highlighted, why not get it directly from the Rollis article?
As for using the Category:Planets (<-- see where I put the first colon in order to display it), it would really clutter up that beneficial category, with hundreds (200, I believe) images on every page, increasing the amount of data being pulled from Nic's servers warrantlessly, as most people (in my opinion) will be looking for a planet name, not a map. I would advise against putting them in that specific category. Does that help?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • There's also the question of eras. A lot of planet maps are going to be from the 2750/2822 maps, because a lot of planets only exist on those maps. Relatively few new planets have appeared on maps post 3025, compared to the number that were added during the Star League era. That could create a distorted view of the Inner Sphere on maps though, as the 3025+ era has been the main game era for the last 30 years or so; would it be best to use 3025+ era maps for worlds that survived the first three succession wars? Alternatively, would it be best to include maps for 3025 and 3067 for each planet, where they exist? Or, is it worth expanding the image gallery of each planet entry to link to the province maps being worked up by Doneve and myself for each of the major eras, so that people reading have sight of both? BrokenMnemonic 08:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
The galleries of region maps that Doneve and you are building serve a different purpose than the individual system maps for display in the articles. The region maps are for Phase 4, the Ownership phase, where the mission members determine who own the system in any particular year. These maps are for research purposes, and while they can be used in any articles anywhere on the wiki, they are primarily decision/research aids for the mission members.
That said, and this is only my opinion (as the decision as to what system map should be used is up to you, in your Phase 3 responsibilities), but the best map to display would the the most current one that displays the target system. My rationale is that the most current era will be the most familiar to the most readers, and with your customization of a very limited displayable area, the most recognizable features would be best. However, you might be of the opinion that with the deletion of the Nearby Planet tables from the articles, an older map displaying more planets serves a greater purpose. You might even have a third option.
What way are you leaning?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 15:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd rather avoid the most current map option, simply because that's soon going to be the 3130 era maps, and the big map of the Inner Sphere released by √ėystein is gorgeous, but not easily editable. Until it's available in a more easily edited version, it's going to be difficult to produce maps for that era, and given that CGL have stated they're moving away from the Handbook style sourcebooks because they aren't profitable, I'm not sure if we're likely to get better maps than those we've got at the moment (3067 for most, 3079 for some if the Field Reports are used). My gut instinct is to go for the most heavily populated map for planets that died off (so, 2750 for Periphery worlds, 2822 for most Inner Sphere worlds) and the 3067 maps for those worlds that survived up until the beginning of the Jihad. My reasoning for working this way is that if someone's looking at entries for Star League era worlds, it's probably of interest to them to know what the situation was like for those worlds when they existed. For those just looking for maps in general, 3067 marks the end of the last "finished" era in writing terms, the FedCom civil war, which seems a reasonable break point to use for maps. I could, as an option, produce 2750/2822 era maps for all of those worlds that survived up until 3067, giving us two maps for a lot of the planets - would that be a valuable option for the wiki? BrokenMnemonic 06:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
That makes logical sense. I have no issues with doing the most populated maps. Thanks, BrokenMnemonic.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I concur with BrokenMnemonic and had considered making the same point myself but I wasn't sure of the details. That said, could we color the Periphery nations? As it is, it looks like Grossbach and the worlds nearby are unaligned, not part of the Concordat, and that looks like the 3067 border. --Moonsword 16:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll have a play around with the Grossbach map, and perhaps see if I can get a gradient fill to work. It's only really an issue for those periphery worlds without a border to demarcate the nation of focus and the periphery within the image. I'll see what I can do. Although, as a side note, the colour used for the Concordat in the Map of the Inner Sphere 3130 is a really unfriendly colour to work out above a certain scale because of how similar it is to the black text of the lettering. BrokenMnemonic 12:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I've uploaded local images for Rollis, Grossbach and Sarna. I'm not particularly happy with the Sarna image, and I'm going to see if I can make a better one. Can I get some second/third/nth opinions on the three images, please? BrokenMnemonic 18:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Nice! Though I also think that the Sarna picture is a little bit irritating. It looks like the boarder in 3030.Harry 18:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
The problem with the Sarna image is that as it was taken from the 3067 map in Handbook: House Liao, it's got the thick black dotted line on it showing where the border was in the previous map (3058) compared to the 3067 map. It's not something I can easily get rid of, as maps of the region are going to show border changes whichever Handbook they come from, so I'm not quite sure what to do about it. BrokenMnemonic 06:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Looks nice, you know iam a fan of Nics self created maps, (grml the most of them are created by wrong coordinates), but i can live with the new maps, good job.--Doneve 18:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Is there anything that I could do with the maps to make them better for you? If there's a way to make them more useful that I can implement quickly, I'm more than happy to do it - but with 2,500 maps to make, I'm going to be looking for ways to make them quickly ;) BrokenMnemonic 06:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I was coming to respond anyway. I really do like the images (not sure what you don't like about Sarna), but I really like the distance bars. I believe these are way ahead of the 2-jump images because of the perspective they provide, but the distance bars provide even more information than the original maps. Me like. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
The distance bars are a little fiddly - you can see the drop shadow I had to make on the Rollis image to work out where to crop the edge of hte image - but the thing that bugs me about the Sarna map is that it's got the dotted black previous border line running through the middle of the image, making the image look very "busy" - I've checked all the maps I can find for 3067 though, and I can't find one that shows Sarna without that moving border line. I think that means I'm going to have to live with it, but it does raise a question regarding other maps - does having these dotted lines or the text showing things like the Liao Commonality detract from the useability of the image within a planet article? BrokenMnemonic 06:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, when I first looked at it from the perspective of a reader, I really didn't 'see' the line, so I guess its impact isn't too bad (at least for some). Now, if it's something that bothers you, can it not be removed (painted white, erased, etc.)?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
It could be removed, but it'd take me a certain amount of effort - at least half an hour an image, I suspect. Given how many maps it's going to appear on one way or another, I'm reluctant to start doing that... BrokenMnemonic 12:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


Just as an FYI, I'm finding that there are some planets that aren't listed in the reference file for co-ordinates. Most are Draconis Combine Star League era planets, which I'm guessing is because Handbook: House Kurita isn't out yet, but the planet Chirac from the 3130 map of the inner sphere (FedSuns planet, in the same spot as Quimper from what I can tell) is also missing. I've checked eight or nine other "new" worlds from the 3130 map and they're all in the list, so I'm not sure why Chirac isn't. BrokenMnemonic 09:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll ask him about Chirac. And you're right about the missing DC ones being related to the unpublished book. When a coordinate is not known, however, just leave that field blank. It won't even show then.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm looking at the map of the Rim Worlds Republic in 2750 on P25 of Handbook: Major Periphery States, as I'm gearing up to trying to load all of the Lyran Commonwealth planets that vanished during the Succession Wars into the database, following on from a conversation Doneve and I had. I've found that there are three planets on the 2750 map from HB:MPS that aren't on the 2822 map on P25 of Handbook: Major Periphery States within the Alarion Province (the first province I've checked) - Burnt Rock, Hegel and Logres. None of them are listed in BadSyntax's co-ordinates list, so I have a feeling he may not have checked this particular map. Could you possibly confirm this with him? If this is the case, then within the next couple of days I should have a list of any other planets missing from the various other Lyran regions that he might be able to calculate co-ordinates for fairly quickly. BrokenMnemonic 19:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
BM, Volt is working with Bad_Syntax on the coordinates project and says, with the exception of Chirac, their new database lists all of those planets. They're looking into Chirac and they noted the relationship with Quimper.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Phase 4[edit]

  • I went ahead and shifted Grossbach to Phase 4. The ownership history is fairly easy to determine from the information we have although one source (FR: Periphery) isn't out of moratorium yet. --Moonsword 17:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for starting this discussion. Do you foresee any issues with the way we handle it?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Ok Phase 4 starts, but i want to say i don't like at the moment the section, ok a descriptive text is superb, but why we delete some of the dates, i make a minor change, two dates added to Grossbach.--Doneve 17:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Doneve, I'm shifting your comments up to Phase 4, since it is particularly relevant to Phase 4.
We're trying to avoid lists to describe something, where text is the preferred means to convey history. From one point, we must use text to describe everything; having a list (at best) duplicates that information and (at worst) becomes a cruch for editors who just expect someone else to turn it into text (which then becomes the standard, as follow-on editors presume the list is preferred).
I understand your perpective: the reader can quickly scan the list and see when a system changes hands, but what we'll do is create a different sub-section for each turnover: ==Independent== The Marzipan system was founded in 2358, by Umpty Squat, who forced his fellow colonists into labor camps. ==Federated Suns== In 2542, the Federated Suns invaded Marzipan and liberated the the eighth generation Marzipanians, from their slavery. The planet was supported by the importation of a massive meat-packing industry, which helped bring wealth to the planet's inhabitants. ==Draconis Combine== In 3041, Marzipan was invaded by elements of the Black Dragon Society, freeing the 5750th generation of chickens, allowing them to become "free range".
In that example, a simple list might have simply been used (ex: 2358 - Independent, 2542 - Federated Suns, 3041 - Draconis Combine).
It's an academic perspective to providing information and promoting the addition of more. Does that make sense?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Yea i like the example, i think Moonsword would push the project to phase 4, very good, but i provide your examples for the owner history, dates are very important in the ownership section, Moonswords owner history lacks of some relevant dates, this is my view of thinks.--Doneve 19:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I find that I'm having reservations at the idea of removing the list format owernship history for all of the planets, but I'm having trouble articulating them. There are a lot of planets I've added with only two or three entries, because they vanished during the first three succession wars; for them, I don't think a list style is really needed. I think the same is true for worlds that have never changed hands, or perhaps changed hands once or twice only. Where there are a lot of changes (examples would be something like Chesterton, or maybe Northwind... border worlds and the like) it could be difficult for me to extract quickly an idea of how often the planet changed hands and between whom. I'm satisfied that for probably the majority of planet entries on here, a list style ownership record isn't needed, but I do think that it's a useful aid for planets with complex histories, and I'd be reluctant to see all of the list-format ownership history records to be removed unilaterally. BrokenMnemonic 19:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Could you somehow incorporate the list into the article? I mean, somehow use it not as a stand-alone, but incorporated within the text? Feel free wto bring one of those example worlds into this Mock-up, to test & demonstrate. What I don't want to lose are the citations you've worked so hard into bringing into those articles. They must be used in the text.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 20:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll have a think about a good example, and see about working it up as a fourth mock-up world. Thinking about the work I did recently, I'm tempted to say that Mesartim might be a good example - you've got the Terran Alliance - Age of War period where it changed hands repeatedly, and then the Succession Wars period, where the same happened again. I don't know much about Mesartim's history in the Jihad era. I think the way I'd probably construct the article is to add the list-format ownership history in several parts, as a summary of changes after a block of text. I'll have a play tomorrow... Although one thing that might make it a bad example is the thoroughly confusing Chesterton Trade Federation/Trade League/Commonality. BrokenMnemonic 20:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Agree full with you, no deletion of added reference notes and citations.--Doneve 20:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Gotcha, Doneve. You're right: wikilinked years are helpful to the article.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 20:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, if you are going to put hard dates in there, put them in correctly. Do not say "Grossbach was controlled by the Taurican Concordat from 2750 to 3067" unless it was literally passed into their control in 2750 and left in 3067. The lists were simple statements of the system's status at the time. A sentence is going to be taken at face value unless you put the dates in the proper context. --Moonsword 02:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
You're right, too, Moonsword, and I can see exactly what you mean. However, and I know you comment was general in nature (and not just aimed at Doneve), but for full disclosure, Doneve is working here in English, which is a second language to him. The nuance may be difficult to grasp in his case. In fact, once Doneve is done with Phase 0, I see him focusing on Phase 2 coordinates (much as BrokenMnemonic is owning Phase 3 maps), leaving the textual translation from the list to native speakers, such as ourselves. Again, good points by both.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay, all three planets have completed Phase 4, but I'm thinking we don't want to progress to Phase 5 just yet:
-How do 'we' feel about about the Ownership lists? BrokenMnemonic has shown us (with Rollis) how he would prefer to keep the list, while also incorporating the information into the text. Pro: no additional work in keeping the list, and the history of turnovers is instantly observable. Cons: it is a list and it might encourage people (post-Overhaul) to add only to the list and not the text. Comments?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 15:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm partial to keeping the list, as well as incorporating the info into text.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 15:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I believe we should keep the lists. I've tried making better use of the lists in the draft article on Mesartim that I'm working on than I did in the Rollis article, if anyone wants to take a look for reference; in the Mesartim article, I've broken the detail down by adding the list in chunks under the sub-heading of "significant dates". For many of our planets/systems (greater than 60% is my gut feeling) the only dates we're going to have relevant to the planet articles are those dates generated from the various maps in the Handbooks and other such sources, because the systems/planets simply aren't significant enough to warrant any text time at this point in time, and all those maps really tell us is that on date X, a planet was owned by faction Y.
If anything, I'd actually be in favour of adding a seperate section under Notes or something similar to the "Rules" box used to present in-game information in military units (the ones that give the special tabletop gameplay rules for units) for each planet, because the information in the lists is specifically useful for those planning things such as playing the Inner Sphere in Flames games, or looking for specific periods for assigning Mercenary contracts using the rules in the various Mercenaries: Supplemental products, and people looking to populate such games are going to be looking for specific dates, rather than trying to extract information from the text.
I believe the point that presenting information in list form might discourage people from adding information to the articles in the future is entirely valid, and it's a concern of mine as well. However, at the same time... I don't think that's any different than the situation that's already in place, so I think it represents not so much a negative situation as a continuation of the current baseline. I do think that because the planets project is getting maps of the various eras in some detail through the map work Doneve and I are doing, even sticking with just the list format will actually improve the quality of most basic entries because the dates will at least have citations attached; I've found a lot of mistakes and omissions during my work on the Periphery worlds and the Capellan Confederation worlds using the same maps for reference, so the overhaul will, if nothing else, scrub, correct and expand the existing data. BrokenMnemonic 09:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
-The use of the word maps in Grossbach in the System History breaks the fourth wall, in that it is out-of-character, something we strive to keep in the Notes section of an article. I'd normally state this on your talk page, Moonsword, but I think this is a good place to bring it up as reference to future team members.For example, the statement could be reworded: "Grossbach was owned by the Taurian Concordat, apparently from its founding as a colony, until it finally left the Concordat at some point after 3067 (as it was no longer part of the Concordat by 3130).<Ref the 2750/3130 maps and ''Handbook: Major Periphery States'' here>"--Revanche (talk|contribs) 15:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- In addition to the two points above, having worked through the Mesartim article, I find myself with a point that I'd been working through elsehwere on this page, but which I think I've now clarified in my own mind to something more cogent. I think that in creating articles for planets/systems where a) the text makes no distinction between the planet and the system and b) we have no information specifically to indicate that there is more than one inhabited planet in that system in particular, all of the history for that planet/system should go in one area, rather than being split between System History and Planety History. I know that there will always be exceptions - Talon/Wernke has been brought up several times, and I know there were planets/systems jointly administrated during the Age of War and the Star League era by the Terran Hegemony and A. N. Other state - but I think that for the vast majority of entries, as the texts make no distinction between planet and system, trying to stratify the two on here will lead to us making judgements we shouldn't, and will make it more difficult for readers to find useful information easily.
My gut instinct is to say that it should be in the planet history area, simply because while there are cases where the system's star has a different name to that of the planets (I know Norn has been mentioned several times) those seem to be the exception rather than the rule. If new information comes up in the future, then the articles could be altered in the future on a by-exception basis. Including the detail in the system history instead makes me feel as if we've prejudged the situation to be that stars will in most cases have a different name to the planets in their systems - something that would make it difficult for me to substantiate based on texts like the Fourth Succession War military atlases, where every battle seems to take place on a planet with the same name as the system marked on the maps showing the individual waves of the attack. BrokenMnemonic 09:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Given that we're going to have maps of both realms and regions for use by the project teams working on this overhaul, in colour and in black and white, is there a benefit to be obtained for readers of the wiki if we expand the system/planet article entries to include maps related to the system/planets in the image gallery for that entry? For example, we have or will soon have defined maps for all of the Inner Sphere regions for 2571, 2822, 2864, 3025 and 3067, and for the major Periphery states, we have defined maps for 2571, 2750 and 3067 as a minimum. We're going to be using these maps to check citations and the like, so why not add them as thumbnails in a gallery to the article so that readers can to? The Cons I can see here are that it would increase the bandwidth consumed by each article substantially, and it may result in articles becoming overly cluttered with images, particularly those articles where there isn't much fuel for text to begin with. As an alternative, perhaps we could include details of the maps as internal wiki links within the references or bibliography sections? BrokenMnemonic 09:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Hy, very good idea with the image gallery, but i think when we use to many maps we blow up the pages, i like the idea with internal wiki links in the ref. and biblio section.--Doneve 08:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
It may mean adding a fair number of wiki links to each article, but I do think it'd make the articles more useful. Do you think a collection of internal wiki links would work best in the reference or bibliography section, or would it be better to create a specific section just for links to maps? BrokenMnemonic 10:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I just got caught up to date, and I hope my opinions are relevant: I'm not a fan of separating the planets/systems UNLESS the system has multiple inhabited planets or separate names. I really think keeping a list of common dates is a good idea, it helps make these pages easier to use, but important dates for the system (especially changing factions) should be written in the text - both really make a complete article. I REALLY like the idea of providing multiple maps on the page, but this can be a lot of work. Lastly, I wanted to point out that with the example of Grossbach, the scale bar is erroneous - the total is not 90 light years, but 120 light years. I hope this was helpful--S.gage 18:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Heh... I just went back and checked my copy of Handbook: Major Periphery States... and that scale bar is the one from page 127, and it's wrong in the Handbook. That's hilarious! In fact, the scale on the map bar on page 121 is wrong too. I've just listed that in the errata thread over on the Catalyst Labs forum - well spotted!
It sounds like you and I have a lot of the same views on how the articles should look. If you compare the articles for Sarna, Grossbach, Rollis and Mesartim, is there one that matches most what you have in mind? Bearing in mind that the four have different levels of information in them because of the available source info when the articles were drafted, of course.
How many maps do you think would be too many to display on the page? Doneve pointed out that too many could blow up the page, so links to maps could be good, but perhaps if we have a small number of maps for particular eras or defining dates? BrokenMnemonic 19:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Of the 4 choices, I like the Rollis page best, with Mesartim second. I prefer lists that are kept really simple, but really flesh-out the story in the history section. That way, a viewer can find what they need quickly and still get the story if they choose to spend the extra time. I do not know about number of maps to present - perhaps it would be best to see which eras Catalyst supports?--S.gage 03:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Lost Worlds[edit]

I'm in a fairly unique position, in that I've personally added the bulk of the worlds that vanished from the maps dated before 3025 into the wiki, and by the bulk I mean those which were in the Federated Suns, Lyran Commonwealth, Capellan Confederation and the major Periphery States, with the last of the Lyran worlds and then the Free Worlds League still to go. In that time, I've noticed a few things, which I thought might be worth recording here in case there's a need for some background for debate on the subject of missing/lost worlds. BrokenMnemonic 16:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Contrary to what I've seen stated on some boards/forums around the net, the 1st Succession War doesn't seem to have been when most of the worlds lost from maps vanished. It's difficult to judge accurately, because 2750 - 2780 era maps aren't common, but thanks to Handbook: Major Periphery States it's possible to make some observations based on pretty much the entire Lyran Commonwealth, plus a chunk of the Capellan Confederation, Rim Worlds Republic and Terran Hegemony. As a case in point, if you compare the Lyran Commonwealth of 2750 from the map of the Rim Worlds Republic as at 2750 from HB: MPS and compare that to the Handbook: House Steiner map of the Lyran Commonwealth as at 2822, the number of worlds that vanish in the 1st Succession War is approximately 7-8, including the infamous Rocky. With the exception of Rocky, the worlds were all in the relative backwater of the Coventry and Alarion Provinces of the Protectorate of Donegal, although that does ignore the former Rim Worlds Republic worlds which did thin out faster. In contrast, half a dozen worlds vanish from the lower region of the Capellan Confederation, so it's possible that some war zones were more active than others. BrokenMnemonic 16:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • The period within which the most planets vanish is the 3rd Succession War. Some realms lose much more than others. BrokenMnemonic 16:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Very few worlds reappear on maps in later periods having vanished in the Succession Wars. As an approximate rule of thumb, I've found between my notes and those in BadSyntax's co-ordinates file that less than 2 dozen worlds reappear on maps, and of those that do, the vast number are Periphery worlds, or Inner Sphere worlds that were on the Periphery border. Cases in point are the former Rim Worlds Republic worlds that have reappeared as the Rim Territories, and the former Capellan Confederation border worlds around the New Colony Region/Fronc Reaches. While the hidden worlds like Jardine might skew things a little, I've only found two instances of worlds that don't fall into this type reappearing - the former Lyran Commonwealth world that became Kerensky's Vision, and the world of Quimper in the Federated Suns which looks to have reappeared as Chirac. A few more may appear when I finish going over the Free Worlds League and when Handbook: House Kurita comes out, but of the worlds that have been added onto the map, more than half reappear on the Dark Age maps, not on earlier maps - and those that reappear on earlier maps are entirely Periphery worlds, if my memory's working correctly. BrokenMnemonic 16:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

System History vs Planet History[edit]

Currently, the template for a system entry has a section entitled "System History" and a section entitled "Planet History". While I accept that there are probably situations where there's an important need to make the distinction between the history of the system and the history of planets within that system, I'm finding as I slog through my second system writeup (Mesartim) that it feels as if needing both a System History section and a Planet History section is likely to be the exception, rather than the rule. I'm finding that the information in the books on Mesartim makes no distinction at all between Mesartim the system and Mesartim the world, which means that I'm unclear from the template whether I should be doing the bulk of the write-up under the System History area or the Planet History area. How contentious would it be to remove or rename one or the other? Only I'm not finding the process of working out which historical elements to put in which section in any way intuitive. BrokenMnemonic 21:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hy, i provide the Planet History section, when is no content or decription of a Star System in the sources, then i use the planet history section, i think this works.--Doneve 21:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
The problem for me is that the template has the following entries and definition:
System History section: this provides the political climate of the system, especially that which is not planet-dependent, such as when the system changed hands, space battles, etc, all in text form.
Planetary History section: provides more details (supposedly) of major events, detailing changes in ownership, battles, major events, etc.
This indicates that the lion's share of the history should be going under the System History section by default, rather than the planetary history section, unless it's only the planet that's changing hands, and not the system - but the Housebooks don't seem to make any distinction between the System and the Planet changing hands. BrokenMnemonic 07:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Morning, hmm i think we can talk to √ėystein Tvedten, what he think about this discrepance.--Doneve 07:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
√ėystein did give me a really fast response over the problem with Pressby, and he seems generally quick to reply to questions. Is it an issue for him, though? Does it perhaps need a general Line Developers response to the question of when it comes to maps, systems and planets, how many of the names on the maps refer to systems, how many to planets, and how many use the same name for both, as a rough rule of thumb? I've been thinking about this some more, and I think my issue stems from the template indicating that change in ownership history should be a System History detail in most cases, whereas it seems to me that the text works the other way, with the bulk of the detail focussing on worlds, not systems. BrokenMnemonic 07:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
The maps never differentiated between systems and planets, and it has caused problems. My suggestion would be to concentrate on the planet in cases where we don't have any extra information on the system, and do as FASA/FanPro/CGL do: Simply imply that whatever is written about the planet also applies to the system as a whole. If you wrote the information into the system information, then that would amount to presenting the implication as fact - something we're not entitled to decide. Frabby 08:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I think that really needs to be spelt out in the template, because at the moment, the onus in the template reads to me as if any changes in affiliation on maps should be presented as system history by default, when I'm not sure it's that clear cut. Although I need to go back and rework Mesartim again now. BrokenMnemonic 10:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
BM, please take a crack at re-writing the template description. I wrote those well before we started on the mock-up, as a starting point. They were never intended to be the end-all, be-all. I really think the textual Ownership history should be represented under system history, as very few systems were ever divided in control (Terra being an example) for any significant (i.e., over a year) length of time. Details of the events that led to a system's change in ownership either happen in deep-space (unlikely) and on-planet and in-orbit (which would then be located in the planet's history). I just don't think the "blah-blah" system ownership should reside in the planet history, as then it's being repeated for each notable planet as well as system history. Let's leave the planet history with the interesting stuff: the drama of 'Mech battles.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I can try re-writing it, but the biggest problem is that I'm not sure I understand the logical reasoning behind what counts as system history and what counts as planet history. As I understand it, within each article, ownership should go in system history, but change of ownership in planet history? Or am I missing something? I know it's complicated by the fact that the vast majority of the time, we have no information that allows us to make the distinction between whether TPTB are discussing systems or planets when they name something. I know that there are statements out there saying that many, many systems have more than one inhabited planet - I seem to remember an average of 1.75 inhabited planets per system in the Capellan Confederation being quoted somewhere - but that TPTB actually confirming which any of those systems are is a bit like finding hen's teeth. A case in point: the 4th Succession War resulted in half the Capellan Confederation becoming Federated Suns property one way or another, and yet having read both military atlases of the war many times over the last 20 years or so, I don't remember a single example from those texts of any of the systems being described as having more than one inhabited world, or battles occuring on two planets with similar names differentiated by numbers. I know that some systems and some worlds have been managed by two entities at the same time for extended periods, with examples being Malagrotta before the Reunification war, and the various worlds the Terran Hegemony gained shared access to along the borders between the various Houses, but again those seem to be more the exception than the rule, and without clear phrasing from TPTB, I'm not sure how to suggest things be divided unless the article is writing about a system that has clearly been jointly owned, or has clearly been identified as having two or more inhabited planets. I've been trying to bring the Mesartim article up to standard for the new template, and it's giving me absolute fits trying to sort things out. BrokenMnemonic 14:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Aaah, okay, I think I understand your confusion. The problem stems from the three planets we chose for this Mock-up mission: they're not that active historically, and I mean 'active' in the sense of famous battles that are detailed in the novels and sourcebooks. When those do occur, the planet history would be the one to detail the event. For example, take a look at Luthien. Most everything in the history section there is planet-specific: the battles, the environmental efforts, etc. Though the history section is still clearly lacking in details (it is Luthien, afterall...there's tons of history there), most historical events took place on-planet or in orbit of the planet. When the Battle for the Imperial Palace's details get incorporated into the article, it'll be in the planet section.
In almost any system article where BattleTech history has been detailed, the planet history will have much more detail than the system history. Every now and then, a space battle will take place at the jump point or in transit between the jump point and a notable planet; in that case, the battle would be in the system history. But most BattleTech history would be more appropriately placed in the planet history section.
However, most articles here on Sarna are of planets that exist either only on maps or maybe also as throw away lines in a larger context (ex: "Trip was settled by enthusiasts of the final Star Trek pre-TriVid entertainment series sometime in the 24th century."). If that sparse history is only about ownership, then it applies to the system as a whole (in that you capture the planet, you also have the system and vice-versa). If it can be applied directly to the planet (such as in my Trip example here), then best judgement applies. In this case, I'd mention in the system history that the Trip system was an independent one in the 24th century, but in the planetary history, I'd mention it was settled by Star Trek fans in the 24th century.
I'm really hoping that made sense. If it raises more questions, please ask.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 15:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Nearby Systems[edit]

I was surfing through some planet pages (specifically, I was planning on editing Xhosa VII to include the 3022 battle (Revannion vs. Ubodo), but was really confused as to the current policy. I came to the overhaul page, took a look at a couple of examples, and realized losing nearby systems is really bad, because you no longer have links to nearby neighbors. I can spend a lot of time simply following links from neighbor to neighbor in an effort to find background material - it's easy and fun. Choosing the next article based on the maps, on the other hand, requires a lot more effort - it's not fun. I am not suggesting adding back dates or faction information of all of the nearby neighbors, just a section or list of links to planets within 1 or 2 jumps (even do it by eye for the lost planets in the Handbooks)?--S.gage 04:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, this is a point of discussion for all interested parties, not just team members. Some answer will have to be decided by consensus, since the scope of this request is so large.
S.gage is requesting we provide a list of closest planets to allow for wiki-surfing between articles that are related by location. In the current (pre-Overhaul), this is accomplished by the Nearby Planets table, which is being cut because of the complexity (very era-specific ownership data that needs to be updated on each & every mentioned system every time one changes) of maintaining and adding to it. What he is (correct me if I'm wrong, S.gage) requesting is a list only of the planets within a set distance, be it 1 or 2 jumps.
Now, this would require another Phase to be added (no big deal in itself), but would require review of the regional maps that BrokenMnemonic is providing and adding wikilinked planets in to that list.
One: do we want to do this? Pro: one advantage of a wiki is the interconnectedness of the articles, and S.gage has indicated an interest in the value of this. Con: it is extensive work (not as bad as the Nearby Planets tables).
Two: how do we do this? I'd rather not have a generic list. What about a template located at the bottom (centered) that shows all planets nearby, possible in paragraph-form? For example, the way way predecessors and successors are shown [see Ian Davion], but with only one box, with the systems listed alphabetically separated by double colons: Krimari:Lockton::Palm::Trip. One problem with that is it wouldn't be as easy as only looking at BM's map, as they're regional maps and not "closest 2-jump" maps, which means the subject world may be at the edge of a map (such as with Joyz. My suggestion would keep it simple: 5 closest worlds, which can be eye-balled.
Comments?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't feel strong either way, but I think that if we do it, we should do it right. Limiting to 5 nearby systems isn't helpful at all, especially as worlds pop up or vanish occasionall so your list of 5 nearest systems might be subject to changes over time. The original concept - a "neighbours" map for each system - wasn't bad at all imho, nor was the list in the article with all the links and distance (well, approximate distance we have to say these days). NicJ used a bot to create the first batch of 2-jump maps, we should be able to do it again. Especially since BrokenMnemonic should have all the data we need to update the list of systems from which new pics and article inserts can be auto-generated.
If it can't be auto-generated, on the other hand, I agree that it might not be worth the hassle. Frabby 13:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
It appears it can't be auto-generated: "Unfortunately, Nicbot is a script that I have to run locally, and it makes edits to "files" on the system then re-uploads them. It's not easy to apply it to multiple pages at once unless you know which ahead of time." [from an email discussion I had with Nic last month]
The only real way I know to do it is to assign it to one person (other than BrokenMnemonic). Just as Doneve will be a "floater" for Phase 2 (where he focuses just on coordinates) and BM is a "floater" for Phase 3 (region maps), if someone who volunteers focused not on the regional missions but on all Phase 5 worlds and used the Faction Maps to create the nearby systems (to include sometimes 'missing' ones), the overall Overhaul might not be too impacted. But, if there was no interest by anyone, we could just leave that as a case-by-case project for interested editors, post-Overhaul.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I would like to clarify my suggestion. I was interested in a simple list of current nearby systems. If this list had distances (in jumps and/or light years), even better, but a list of nearby systems seems critical. This list would be 2-3 columns with the distances, and much easier on the reader and editor than the current setup. Alternatively, if we want to have this be only system names, the list could be sorted by distance to give the reader a sense of distance without actually having a number. To me, this seems like a bare minimum of functionality for surfing or editing planets within a particular region, and all of the data required to this is already available in the history tab of every current nearby system article in the Inner Sphere and close Periphery. I also propose extending this to Deep Periphery, Clan Space and Lost systems, but this would be labor intensive. Again, I wanted to bring this to your attention and get a consensus.--S.gage 15:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
S.gage, can you provide us a complete example list here (origin planet of your choice)?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 15:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I used the planet Romulus as an example, and provided 5 different options. Each of these was a simple edit with the existing data - I barely needed anything other than a backspace/delete key, and all 5 together took about 15 minutes, including deciding how to present them, and I'm not a software engineer. I prefer the List in column approach, but of course I defer to the consensus.--S.gage 18:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • The problem I see with what you've done is that you've used the existing data to construct your list. The existing data is flawed, based on incorrect co-ordinates in a lot of cases, and there is no comparable existing data for any of the 400-500 lost worlds I've added in, which would need to be calculated somehow to match what you've done. It would also need to be recalculated every time new worlds are added. Don't get me wrong, I think there's some value in the information, but I think it's going to be a bear to calculate, often out of date and laborious to implement for new additions without some sort of automated process. BrokenMnemonic 18:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I see what BrokenMnemonic means. We cannot use the previous Nearby Planets table as the source for the data. Instead, we are using the coordinates located in the Helpful Links section of the Project: Planet main page. Please choose one of your five lists, using the extrapolated coordinates (I wouldn't recommend doing all five).--Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
You raise a very good point I had not considered (the initial displacement data is wrong). My preference was for a simple list, and column form looks good. Is the link you refer to the "extrapolated system coordinates" link on the CBT forums? Does it have coordinates of lost worlds, too? (I've forgotten my login ages ago and have to get a new login to see this)--S.gage 19:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the "extrapolated system coordinates" link is the one. You may be aware of this, but the CBT forums had a refresh in January, so your log-on may just be a new register anyhow.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
The system.txt is AWESOME! However, I notice it does not have any lost worlds in the DC (I just checked with Luthien, and only found current (3062) systems within 30 ly). I'll get to work on an updated Romulus, but 2 quick questions: how was this list generated (i.e. can it be considered canon), and when Handbook House Kurita is released, when/how will the list be updated?--S.gage 21:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Canonicity of the coordinates is discussed here (each coordinate will have this essay 'tagged'). As for anything Kuritan: that side project is waiting on the release of the final Handbook. They'll update the list when that book is released.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 22:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I just received word that Bad_Syntax has updated the coordinates database, and it's now hosted on his blog (no registration required). He has also updated the program (Cartographer) with for which it is intended (BattleTech Engineer Monday, September 5, 2011).--Revanche (talk|contribs) 22:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
With the inclusion of correct distances for Romulus, is there consensus whether nearby systems should be kept? If so, I've already generated updated distances for several neighboring systems, and I'll go ahead with making the edits.--S.gage 22:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for also pointing me out to Bad_Syntax's blog, I already bookmarked the page!--S.gage 22:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Let's give it a day to gather responses. I think it's do-able, but I'd suggest two boxes (if we decide to go 2 jumps out): one for 1 jump, the other for 2.
If the consensus is there, are you up for running that part of each mission (building each system's jump box)? Knowing that would probably help consensus.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 22:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, let's wait for consensus. BrokenMnemonic is right, though - each distance calculation takes several minutes of computer time and I'm doing them one at a time, and there are thousands. I'm not a computer engineer, so I've been using Excel and the Pythagorean Theorem to get the distances. Is there an automated script? I cannot use Bad_Syntax's programs because I am on a Mac, so I do not know if it has this functionality already, but for my part, I will generate more data individually, and maybe recruit a friend or 2 on PCs - doing it by brute force, I've already finished several.--S.gage 23:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good; we'll wait. And, no: no script. Nicbot was used to create them, but as I understand it, it can't be used again, without 'destroying' the overall articles. As for doing the thousands of planets: my plan is to do it in pieces (probably by regions). Presuming the consensus supports this, I'd like to 'assign' you a Phase (probably the new Phase 6). What that means is, on the project page, you'll note when an article enters Phase 5, work on and add the 'local' box(es) and re-tag the article as Phase 6. You'd only need to hit the planets after they met each of the preceding phases and enter Phase 5.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 23:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, as it was already requested, I designated systems within a single jump within the table on the sample Romulus page - I italicized all 8 of these systems rather than adding a second table, and designated this within the table header. These can be separated into 2 distinct tables if desired.--S.gage 02:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Reading comprehension failure on my part. Apologies.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 02:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • One problem to bear in mind: Early jumpships had a maximum jump range that was less than the standard 30 LY jump, as I gather CGL have clarified in more recent texts. I'm not sure at what point the jump distance became 30 LY, but early eras like the Age of War are going to be limited to shorter jumps, and the initial Terran Alliance radius for inclusion after the Demarcation Declaration was one jump from Terra and was only 22 LY. That means that distances of "1 Jump" and "2 Jumps" aren't going to be consistent across all time periods despite the planet information for some systems going back at least as far as 2271 just from maps in Handbook: House Marik alone. I'm not sure how exactly to caveat the information you're presenting - perhaps a standard line to be inserted into the article template and copied into each entry - but with CGL supporting primitive tech and early time periods, I do think it's an important detail that needs to be noted. BrokenMnemonic 12:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Another good point. And, I had been feeling bad about generating all of these correct displacements, yet not actually posting them. As a solution, why not include the displacements next to each of the neighboring systems/planets?--S.gage 14:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Good point, BM. It's easily solved by either not calling them '1-jump' or '2-jump', but instead '30 lys' and '60 lys'. However, I prefer, instead, S.gage's most recent Romulus update, where the distances are listed in columns next to the destination system (I'm changing 'planets' to 'systems' on those tables). After all, if you're doing the math to figure out the order, might as well include the actual distances.
S.gage: is this work sustainable?
Trivia: Modern jump distances are actually 29.xx, not quite 30 lys.[citation needed]--Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
By sustainable I'm assuming you mean accomplishable (?). I've learned a couple of tricks since I started, and I have been able to generate jump distances for systems at a rate of ~20-25 each hour. This rate is slowed by health, but for that same reason, I have more free time. So far, I've actually completed ~90 systems, and the ones I've focused on thus far are those I would want for my own gaming. I estimate the entire known Human Sphere would take ~150 hours of work (including the DC, which is on hold). Then, adding this into the articles would require another ~150 hours of work. For 1 editor, this is months of edits. For a small team, it's accomplishable, but again it's the group's call.--S.gage 16:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd say, "accomplishable" is the accurate question, yes. Good news for you is that we'll be working...slowly... and you'll know well in advance which systems we'll be focusing. If you have a means (often as simple as notepad) of pre-doing the work, then it'll just be a matter of pasting each table in to their respective articles when they reach Phase 5. I agree with you (now that I see it) these tables do have quantifiable value to the articles and would be missed. I think your method is probably the most clear way to do it. Speaking of phases; I need to add Phase 6 into the banner code, as it looks like we have no complaints with the tables and you 'read' willing to provide that service (at least for a core part of it). Oh, and I'm adding you into the Project:Planet team, too. Caught 'cha!--Revanche (talk|contribs) 20:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I think it'd be a shame to lose the Nearby Planets completely. I like S.gage's suggestion. Nicjansma 12:08, 10 February 2012 (PST)

Lost Worlds/Co-ordinates[edit]

I'm adding the various Free Worlds League worlds that vanished during the 2nd/3rd Succession Wars into the wiki at the moment, and when I've done that, I think I'll have added everything I found in the various House Handbooks. So, when I've finished working through the maps I've got, I'm going to run through the co-ordinates file BadSyntax found and compare it to our list of planets here on the wiki, and see if I can track down any I've missed... BrokenMnemonic 10:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


Given the way that User:Doneve has been trucking through the addition of co-ordinates to system articles, and given that I'm now adding them automatically to all of the new/lost planets I'm adding into the wiki and have been for a while, I think it's likely that the new co-ordinates are going to be in all the articles pretty quickly. I think it'd be worth moving the phase number for the addition of co-ordinates up the list somewhat, so that we don't end up with a phase that we basically skip when we get there because it's already been done... BrokenMnemonic 07:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

My absence[edit]

I'm sorry to have to announce my absence for the next two weeks, as I travel. I will not have a lot of 'down time' nor an expectation of reliable internet access during this trip, so felt it was appropriate to consider myself on a short wiki-break. However, this should not cause a stoppage in the progress being made on the Overhaul effort. I had originally anticipated to have the first mission underway, but because of the large amount of interest, participation and, especially, policy progress, I didn't want to urge the project along any faster than it was going.
BrokenMnemonic has volunteered to cover my absence. He'll help guide discussions of the phases left to us, and possibly start the discussion of the first mission region we'll undertake. I'll pop in when I can, but will unfortunately be somewhat removed from a continuous conversation. Keep charging!--Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)