BattleTechWiki talk:Planet Article Overhaul

• Pre-release Discussion Archive

Working Template

• System Name Title
• {{InfoboxSystem}}

regional map image

system name (defaults to star and then lead planet name, without numerals (ex: Solaris, not Solaris VII))

star names: multiple stars added here (optional)

sun spectral class

recharge time

planets:

• Opening Statement: "The System Name Title system is the location of the inhabited planets Planet1, Planet2, the inhabited moon Moon3 and the Industrial Satellite4 orbital facility. The system is located in the Region5 district of the FactionName6.
• __TOC__
• Description section: details general facts about the system, such as the objects mentioned in the opening statement (with additional information), other uninhabited structures, recharging stations, others charted sytems (not in list form) that are within one jump, etc.
• 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.
  • Ownership History sub-section: since it's usually systems that change hands rather than just planets, it seems appropriate to have this here

---

• Planet section: repeated as appropriate
  • {{InfoboxPlanet}}

planet image (priority), banner image (secondary)

planet name

system position

time to jumppoints

moons: number (names if known)

day length

surface gravity

atmospheric pressure:

equatorial temperature:

surface water:

highest native life: type

founding year

• • {{InfoboxPlanetStatus}}: repeated as provided; all entries conditional (i.e. optional hiddens)

status year

ruler: [[character name]]

capital

population

Socio-Industrial Levels: i.e. the former USIIR

HPG: type (Precentor name)

• • Opening Statement: "Planet1 is the [orbital number] planet in the SystemName system [and is the regional capital of the FactionName6's Region5 district]. On the surface, the planet hosts CompanyName7's FactoryName8 industrial facility [and the summer palace of ImportantPerson9], while the Industrial Satellite4 facility orbits its moon, Moon10.
  • History section: provides more details (supposedly) of major events, detailing changes in ownership, battles, major events, etc.
    • Deployment sub-section: lists semi-lists of military units, broken down into smaller sub-sections by years of recorded note.
  • Geography section: a general description of the planet, but in text form (no lists)
  • Planetary Locations section: a hierarchical list, as seen in the Luthien article. Short descriptions of each entry, unless a link is provided.
    • Industrial Centers sub-section: should list all known factories, included this destroyed. Construction and destruction can be indicated by year notes (similar to dates of life for a character).
  • Image gallery: banner image (if not displayed in infobox), additional planetary images, surface maps, etc.

---

• References: as expected
• Bibliography: as expected

Comments Regarding Essay

Rev, I think you've got some good ideas here. Two things I'd like to add to the infobox are 1) the USIIR ratings and 2) the planetary capital (if known).

As for the format of the article, I have no strong feelings about it at all. Just make it consistent and provide a "known good" example we can work from and I'll be happy.--Mbear 12:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we should probably remove the Comstar1 line from the Infobox as well. That belongs in the main part of the article, IMO, since it will change over time. (Precentor ni 3025 isn't the same Precentor in 3050, etc.)--Mbear 12:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with you on all points. I thought I had included the USIIR (but it may have been accidentally deleted) and also came to the same conclusion regarding anything transitory, such as governors or precentors. I like the capital idea. I'll add that in. Thanks.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if this belongs here, but a point about the InfoBoxPlanetUpdate: The current setup is aimed at (possibly) providing several infoboxes, each with its own timestamp. I believe this to turn out unworkable for two reasons: It will cause a formatting mess, and there will be overlapping time periods for individual infobox entries (like overlapping terms for rulers and precentors).
I suggest to eliminate the Year part, and allow for multiple entries per section that must each be tagged with a timestamp/period. Or, failing that, take these things out of the Infobox and list them in the article text; I think that is what we usually do. Frabby 18:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see what you mean now. Well, let me use it for the 3 example articles BrokenMnemonic and I have planned and we'll judge it then, as my rationale was to create the equivalent data sections we see for canon atlas entries. If it goes as you foresee, we should change the name of the infobox also, to represent something more specific, such as "political data". Thanks.--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Really nice ideas! But I've got two suggestions. First: I think there should be a year from which point of view the opening statement is written (i.e. 3067) Because the information about the planet's affiliation may only be correct for a certain period. Second: What about an own section about temporary information (like i've added in the ozawa or Mallory's World articles) like the planetary rulers?Harry 18:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Doing it right this time

The revamp is badly needed. But it needs to be done right. I have voiced ideas and suggestions in various spots on BTW in the past but can't find them so here goes again:

Systems vs. planets

You're mixing these two up again, and that means creating a mess right from the start. Even CGL do this wrong on their own maps, and we need to do it better. It is imperative that the "map" and associated articles cover entire star systems, not individual planets. Which means a couple of things:

• Use the proper system name for the article, not a planet name. (Norn system includes Verthandi and 2 other planets; Hesperus II is in the Hesperus system, Klathandu is in the Klathan system, etc.)
• Planet names need to redirect to the system article.
• There need to be separate "star system" and "planet" infoboxes. The star system article always gets a "system" infobox and at least one "planetary body" infobox (I'd treat space installations like Odessa or inhabited asteroid belts like planets, i.e. as chapters within the system article.

What goes where:
System Infobox: System name, X/Y coordinates, sun spectral class (= recharge time), sun name (if different from system name), recharging stations, wikilink to real-world counterpart (if applicable); possibly jumpmap picture
Planet Infobox: Picture (if available), planetary banner (if available), name, moons, planetary day length, date of first settlement
All other information should be put into the article text. For systems, that might be stuff like earlier names (a number were renamed over time) or perhaps famous space battles that occurred here.
For planets, there should be a description of the geography (number and names of seas, continents, mountain ranges, etc.), biosphere (flora and fauna) and weather conditions. List of known cities. Owner list, listing each (known) instance where the world changed hands as accurately as possible.

Items like planetary capitals and USIIR codes tend to be of a temporary nature, i.e. they absolutely need to state a year when they apply (think of the typical Star League hi-tech world with orbital shipyards that gets wasted and its capital and yards nuked... in 3025 the same formerly hi-tech world might be a poor planet of subsistence farmers with 18th century technology, and of course an entirely different capital).

Um. Yeah. So much for now. Little time right now. I'll be back with you on this as soon as I can. :) Frabby 18:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Frabby, take a look up top; see if I represented your idea well. I'll adjust that template as the discussion developes. Note, did away with the stellar coordinates. That is a labor-intensive, questionable-reliabilty, little-value factoid that may be better served by properly cropped regional maps.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Coordinates (Sidebar)

This conversation has been moved over to the System coordinates talk page. Please continue the discussion there.

Independent Planets

I just thought I'd check what counts as an independent planet in category terms. I'm finding Taurian Concordat planets that either aren't on maps, or are only on maps as a part of the Taurian Concordat/Calderon Protectorate, but which have been categorised as both Taurian/Concordat Planets and Independent Planets. I've only been tagging planets as Independent if they show up on a map outside the boundary of any of the established realms... am I getting it wrong? BrokenMnemonic 20:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

[vocalization] Ehhhhh....at this point, the categorization is primarily to allow us to accomplish 'chunks' of planets as goalposts. Its really not too important at this phase. I've asked myself the same question. Previously, I've put all planets that were only registered as having 'Periphery' ownership as independents. When it appears they were Taurian owned and then 'no record' and then Taurian owned again, I presumed they remained habitable, but I'm not basing that on any research and I'd tag them as independent. That's way I think the categories are not really representative of the real status of any article at this point.

However, they should be by the conclusion. So, if the planet was ever an independent planet, it needs to be so marked. If it wasn't (or there is no record of it having been), then no. The important thing: every planet must fall into at least one category other than Cat:Planets. If it does that, then we're good (for now). Does that help?--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup, that solves my problem nicely, thanks. Although, it does mean I need to ask CGL about a couple of planets that are being difficult around the Calderon Protectorate... the Periphery, 2nd Edition has planets on it's map of the area that aren't there in the maps in Handbook: Major Periphery States, but are on the Map of the Inner Sphere 3130. I need to clarify if that means they were independent during the missing years, or if it's a mapping mistake. I'd not like to venture an opinion either way after some of the irregularities in the Handbook: House Liao... but I digress. BrokenMnemonic 20:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The Final years

Looking at the template designs above, and having added a shedload of Star League-era planets/systems just in the Taurian Concordat and Outworlds Alliance alone, I think it would be worth having an entry in the Planet Infobox to indicate the last year a planet appears on any maps, to help flag up dead/lost worlds as such. For the founding year, will that be the first year that a planet/system appears on any maps by default if there isn't any textual detail confirming a founding year? BrokenMnemonic 06:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't include a "last" year because there are numerous reasons why a system may have dropped off the maps. It may have been destroyed (by weapons of mass descruction or natural desasters, like Rocky, Jardine, Necromo, etc.), declared its independence (most Outworlds Alliance worlds that disappeared from the maps), lost its relevance (like Haddings, which was almost but not entirely destroyed), or be deliberately hidden/obfuscated (like The Five or, again, Haddings). What I'm trying to say is that a "last year mapped" in the infobox isn't saying anything in particular about a system. I suggest leaving this out and covering the issue in the text instead. Frabby 07:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Having a "last year mapped" in the infobox tells readers the most recent maps they can look at and actually expect to see the planet on it - I was thinking primarily of saving time for players dealing with worlds they aren't familiar with that vanished during the first couple of Succession Wars. If an entry tells you a planet was last seen on maps in 2822, then you know straight away it's not worth looking at the Inner Sphere 3130 map for it. For a lot of systems it's simply referencing the last listed entry in the owner history without needing to scroll down the page to read the history and then check the references to see which owner history references cite maps compared to text. BrokenMnemonic 09:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Frabby. In my perspective, the infoboxes need to be as stable, static, as they can be, providing the basics that are common between a large number of planets (if not the majority). This reduces the number of articles that must be updated every time a new product comes out and keeps it from being seen as more easily outdated. I understand what you're trying to do, BrokenMnemonic: reduce the time a reader needs to spend to find out if a system/planet is still available on another resource (the maps). However, because it is not a common enough feature nor one we'd want to ahve to update to refelct each new game year's maps, I think it'd best to indicate the status of the system/planet within the article.--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Bandit Kingdoms

I think it'd be handy to add a category for those worlds that formed one-system/planet bandit kingdoms to flag them up as a distinct sub-category of Periphery Worlds. Bigger kingdoms like the Oberon Confederation will most likely already have a category, but there are odd one-system realms dotted around like the Pirates Haven Cluster, Rezak's Hole, Star's End, and some kingdoms started out as just a single world. With CGL releasing products dealing with historical eras I suspect we're going to see a few more odds and sods added to the map reflecting short-lived kingdoms springing up in places like the remains of the Rim Worlds Republic after the Hegemony Campaign. BrokenMnemonic 06:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be more precise to differ between multiple-system realms like the Oberon Confederation and single systems that happen to be pirate lairs; the latter should (only) be categorized as independent worlds. After all, who are we to decide who's a pirate and who is not? Take Antallos as an extreme example of muddy waters here. Frabby 07:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Infobox Maps

BrokenMnemonic and I have been discussing replacing the map images currently used on a large majority of the images intended to depict relative location for the following reasons:

• they're often based on the wrong coordinates (see various reasons above for why some coordinates are wrong)
• other than colors depicting owner faction, the maps aren't very informative as to where the world is located in the grand scheme of things

The idea we've been developing is to use the familiar & canon maps in place of the auto-generated ones, as these cropped images will be familiar in both style and border shapes, thereby showing where a world can be found. However, Doneve has suggested he prefers the auto-generated maps, as they quickly tell the viewer which worlds are within two jumps of the subject planet. Normally, I'd dismiss this as unnecessary, since the articles currently provide a table of those same planets, but the overhaul intends to do away with that table. It appears there may be some interest in including the coordinates for the planets, but without either using one of the few programs out there that can determine jump paths or doing the math individually, replacing the jump images would do away with easily determining the nearest worlds. So the question is posed: where's the interest? What so people want to see in the infobox image: a jump map (ex: Sarna) or a regional map (ex: Joyz)? Please weigh in.--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

In a perfect world, the map section is an auto-generated thumbnail linking to a scalable map database (centered on the system in question) that provides 30ly and 60ly rings, and optional coloring of all systems based on timeframe. The tool we're looking for auto-updates maps with new systems in the vicinity that get added (such as Jardine, which essentially popped up in the middle of the FWL and should be marked on very many planet's maps...). Frabby 18:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

But as we're not there and we don't have the means to create those maps, and as the current jump maps are incorrect, which provides the most (overall) value to the article?--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, doesn't appear to be any comments against the idea of new, regional (& canonical) maps so far...--Rev ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I love regional or other minor maps, see my Federation of Skye maps, and other regional maps of each faction, i am in work to uploade new region maps.--Doneve 00:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of regional maps myself, and to be honest, the only way I've found of making useable maps of the Protectorate of Donegal to upload so far for the mapping project is to break the Protectorate down into regions as well. BrokenMnemonic 06:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I really like the idea of the canon maps. They look much better than the old jump maps. Is it not possible to insert the LY rings by hand as a scale reference? Harry 18:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)