Image summary template
- I've noticed this as well; I originally thought it was only removed from the "upload new version" option but it seems that all forms of file uploading do that now. -BobTheZombie (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2016 (PDT)
- I'm sorry, I'm confused on what you're talking about. Are you talking about the text box called Summary when you've selected your file? Or was there another form that was shown after uploading your image that is now gone? Nicjansma (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2017 (EST)
- Good catch, fixed! Should be updated daily. Nicjansma (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2017 (EDT)
It's only taken me about four or five years to think of asking this question, but... rather than us creating new maps for all of the planet articles from the published maps, if I gave you the updated list of correct coordinates, could you respawn new map images the way you did when first creating the planet articles? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2017 (EDT)
- Absolutely! With the X/Y fixed this time :) Do you currently have a better list of images and X/Ys? In addition, I could create "expanded" images, so when you click on a 2-jump image, it could grow out to 5 jumps, or more. Nicjansma (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2017 (EDT)
- Cool! But if this is going to happen, we need a solid database to work from. Not only X/Y coordinates (which in and of itself could be problematic enough!), but we need to decide on which system name we want to display on the maps (e.g. Hesperus II or Hesperus? Klathandu or Klathan? Norn or Verthandi? Carver, Carver V or Liberty?) and we'd also need to adress the question how to deal with the individual Mica Majority planets, nebulae, or special cases like Flannagan's Nebula.
- I guess we're all aware of user gruese's map project thread over at the HBS forum? There's some notes and corrections concerning the Sarna data in there that I've not yet come round to checking and working into Sarna.
- And while it's a long shot, we might just try and ask Øystein Tvedten if he would kindly offer his "official" system position database for our project. I'm not sure if he and CGL would be cool with that, but it's certainly worth a try to see if a miracle happens. Frabby (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2017 (EDT)
- There are a lot of points here, so I'm going to try and tackle them in order - let me know if I miss something...
- 1. Thanks to Volt and Bad_Syntax, there is a spreadsheet that contains accurate X/Y coordinates for every system that's been shown on a map, and which was calculated using some kind of ArcGIS software that Bad_Syntax's conversations with Øystein indicated were generating X/Y coordinates that were within decimal point value accurate to those used by Øystein. Whilst it's still a case of working backwards from the maps rather than forwards from the source data, if something's accurate to within 0.15 LY (which I think is the value Bad Sytanx quoted) then I think it's good enough for our work. Unfortunately, while I have a copy of the last version of the spreadsheet Volt generated, neither person is currently working on any BT stuff, so I don't think it's likely to get updated. That does mean that new planets are starting to appear that we won't have coordinates for - Jasmine in First Succession War is the example that springs to mind.
- 2. I really like the idea of the maps as described - two jump radius in the small maps, jumping to five jump radius in the larger maps. I think that'll be useful to a lot of people looking to use the maps casually.
- 3. I think that where names are concerned, given that this is maps, rather than articles, we should use the names that are going to be most recognisable to a majority of users. If we don't auto-generate maps, then the alternative is to use cut-up sections of published maps, and those don't use system names. Players generally know the notable planet names, not the system names, where there's a difference. A player looking for Alula Australis is going to look for Alula Australis because that's how it's referred to almost everywhere - they aren't going to look for (or consciously recognise) Xi Ursae Majoris 99.5% of the time. Where we can't autogenerate maps, we're going to have to use published maps, which also won't be using the system names but rather the well-known world name format currently in use, which means we'll end up with dissonance between visual sources, which is a bad thing. I'm all for using system names in the articles, and I'm the one updating all of the articles and creating redirects to make sure all of the articles work, so I'm committed to it, but switching our maps over to use the system names as well feels like a step that will only make life more confusing for the vast majority of users.
- 4. For multi-world systems (Niops, etc) I think we should do what the system articles do - pick the coordinates of the most notable and use that for the map, and only include the one entry. There aren't that many, so I can go through a list manually and create the single entries. I remember seeing the conversations about how the Niopian planets technically being 1.4 LY away from each other was an artifact of how the maps had been done historically, not a reflection of reality, so I think that's a case of tidying up more than anything else. I don't think that a region like Flannagan's Nebulae should be on the map, because it's not a defined astrogeographical point - it's a nebula. We don't have a centrally-defined point around which to base it, unlike something like the Chaine Cluster. Where there's a crossover - and the Pleiades and Pirate's Haven clusters are the two I can think of - the map/article should simply use the coordinates of the most well-known point, be that Badlands or whichever one of the three names Pleiades worlds are in the middle. There are other stellar features that have articles but no coordinates, either already in place or due to be worked up - things like the Orion Nebula - and in general, I think those are better served through using extracts from existing published maps to highlight their location, rather than trying to shoehorn something into a mathematical/coding construct intended to work around defined points.
- 5. I'm not aware of greuse's work - I haven't any particular interest in the HBS game, and there's a limit to the number of internet forums I have the headspace to engage with, I'm afraid. I've started reading through the thread, and from what I can see of the errors picked up, the coordinates ones are typoes from when Doneve and I were updating the articles the first time around. Those coordinates are being updated, but it takes a while - either Doneve is catching them when he generates the new system neighbours tables, or I'm catching them when I update the article format, but I'm 2-3 years into that and only 40% of the way through, so there's a ways to go yet. Greuse indicated that he'd fixed the ones he'd found though, so I'm not sure that's still much of an issue?
- 6. I'm all for using the source data that Øystein used to generate the maps - first generation data is much better as a source - but I'm leery of contacting CGL because of the whole potential can of worms over Sarna's status as an unofficial fan wiki. I suspect that any data Øystein has is covered by NDAs or the equivalent privilege relating to his time as a CGL employee, so he may not be allowed to provide us with a copy. I don't want to be the one asking, though, for various reasons.
- I think I've weighed in on everything? I'm in a bit of a rush today... BrokenMnemonic (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2017 (EDT)
- I'll provide as much support here as I can for you guys. Everything you've said sounds reasonable. I think the best way I can help is to take the output of a curated list someone creates, and generate some beautiful jump-maps from them. If there's something else before we get to that point that I can help with, let me know. Otherwise I'll just plan on being the "jump image generator" :) Nicjansma (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2017 (EDT)
- My bad it took so long! (Newborn at home!) Was happy to give out the awards today. Nicjansma (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2017 (EDT)
Morning, Nic. Thought I'd share this tidbit with you: MW 1.28.2 automatically lists cited references under a section called "references", without any need for the ref code (i.e., <references/>). Not a reason to update alone, but I discovered it by accident on one of my wikis. Cheers. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:38, 25 June 2017 (EDT)