BattleTechWiki talk:Planet Article Overhaul

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)

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)

Strongly disagree about cutting out the co-ordinates! "Too much work" is hardly an argument to leave out BattleTech-specific data such as this. I'd even say presenting the correct coordinates with conclusive references would be a possible reason to go to SarnaBTW for users, given the convoluted mess of maps found in the old FASA products. Reliability questionable? That's a challenge, not an argument for turning away from providing the data. As for it having little value, I disagree on that point too as the exact coordinates may be important to draw up jump routes.
The Infobox Star System should only appear one single time per article because the article covers exactly one single system. If it has multiple suns then the Infobox should be filled out with several entries in each section (one for each sun).
Inhabited planets is not good, as it is bound to frequently change. Simply go for number of planets.
Infobox Planets should contain highest lifeform, but not percentage as percentage, too, changes over time. (Could be coverd in the text instead; I also suggest a listing of known native species for planets linking to their respective articles.) Frabby 20:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'm okay with building a coordinates entry as an optional/conditional, but those definitely need to be cited when they get added. As discussed elsewhere, the canon ones often contradict themselves and the printed maps, the maps that Oystein makes don't use exactly those apparently and he hasn't released what he does use, and when interpolated by a fan's computer plotting project, found some "in the ballpark" to be off by one or two lightyears. We cannot (stressed) use the ISCS as a source, meta or otherwise...all the coordinates must come from canon sources, if we're going to be doing these right this time, so that we're not incorporating our errors on top of that project's mistakes. That means the ones used right now, both uncited and cited to ISCS, must be disregarded, until checked against the books. That, of course, also means a number of planets added since the Housebooks (and some Clan sourcebooks, I believe) won't have jumppoints at all.
As for value, how often have you used the coordinates of a planet to either locate it or generate a jumppath? I personally use a Heavy Metal pre-beta program, but I know others use the ISCS and now Bad_Syntax's Cartographer program. I've never come here, since I know how doubtful they are and since there were far easier ways to gen up a path.
Adding coordinates should be its own phase, so that we can maintain positive control on sources (too many easy and unreliable sources out there). By leaving the conditional entry in there, it won't be too difficult at all to add them in with their citations. What might work best, administration-wise, is to have a side-project that works parallel to the overhaul project, creating either a spreadsheet or text file with the planets listed alphabetically, followed by coordinates and attached reference code. When it was compiled, both teams (where not already overlapped) could grab chuncks of this canon database and plug them into the future embedded system templates. Would you be interested in setting up/helming that project?
InfoboxSystem in regards to multiple stars: got it. Making the change. Same with inhabiteds and lifeforms. I think the 'listing' of species would best be incorporated freehand into existing sections, rather than creating/dedicating a section for something that will be bare for most planet entries.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, understand your busy for a while, Frabby, but did a little more checking with Bad_Syntax regarding his interpolation method. He uses Adobe Illustrator (open source alternate: Inkscape) and opens the PDF to the map he's reviewing. Some of this is speculation on my part, but from what I understand, he clicks on the system's dot and records its position on the map and then, relative to Terra, has a very precise coordinate location:
Bad_Syntax, 02August2011, private message: I went through the complete 3075 map in illustrator, clicked on each planet, and wrote down its 3 decimal place pixel coordinate to the application. IIRC each pixel was 1 LY, so that is far more accurate than the only printed coordinates out of the original house books. Since that time I have actually gone through every printed map, and wrote down which major faction owned that system for every single era, a total of over 40K entries. However, a few hundred planets didn't appear on any map of the entire inner sphere, so they aren't as accurate *yet*.
Bad_Syntax, 02August2011, private message: But you can use the numbers all you want, again the 3075 coordinates are pretty darned accurate.
Bad_Syntax, 03August2011, private message, when asked how many maps he used to make (and verify) his coordinates database: I mean *every* map ever printed, though I only got ones with entire factions viewable, and ignored any factions that were not entirely viewable.
Bad_Syntax, 03August2011, private message, to highlight his comparison of Housebook coordinates to the map ones: ...they really abandoned the coordinates, I'm 100% sure of that else planets wouldn't be missing, moved around, or all sorts of other nonsense. The original 3025 coordinates had many (dozens) of systems in the wrong locations, and HUNDREDS of systems that aren't even on them.
Bad_Syntax, 03August2011, private message: ...I've added a lot of new systems, accurate to .0278 LY. I still have a couple hundred davion and periphery systems I haven't added yet...
Bad_Syntax, 03August2011, private message: To get the 3075 coordinates I opened that map in Adobe Illustrator, the application that made it. I then manually clicked on EVERY little planet circle, and wrote down its coordinates (which are accurate to .001 points). It is more canon of coordinate than anything else ever made, period. Very soon I'll take those coordinates, add all the new systems from the various handbooks, and I'll have accurate coordinates for everything but the Clan worlds, Hanseatic League, Nueva Castile, and the deep perphery, none of which have anything close to accurate data yet.
Bad_Syntax, 04August2011, private message: War of Reaving helped a *LOT*. Not only was I able to get coordinates for all the clan worlds, but also the HL, NC, deep periphery, AND Jarnfolk worlds! I had to do some creating scaling, and it was all due to Alfirk being on the JF map, which I was able to overlay and match almost exactly. All my coordinates are well under .05 LY off from any map, and many of them a LOT less than that so my data is *very* accurate. Once I get these coordinates set I'll email you a copy.
I've brought all these quotes over to demonstrate two things: 1) the questionable value of canon numerical coordinates when compared to the superior (as in the 'more recent' context) locations provided by the maps, & 2) the availability of meta-coordinates derived from the numerous maps. If we value the individual coordinates as information for the individual reader (vice databases used not by Sarna but graphing applications), then let's provide the more valuable coordinates. Any body can put coordinates they get from this project Bad_Syntax has nearly completed and put them into any CBT-mapping program and spreadsheet and get a stellar map based upon the maps now being seen from CGL or they can get the ones printed almost 23 & 24 years ago and get maps somewhat representative, but with systems out-of-place or missing.
My proposal remains doing away with coordinates on Sarna. My compromise would be to include them, but give this Bad_Syntax database of canon map locations a serious & critical look, see if his results are duplicatable (especially valuable when adding on worlds later on ourselves) and then consider a 'waiver' policy where we acknowledge the actual figures are not official, should not be confused with the older, printed coordinates of the late 1980s, but provide figures that are accurate in depicting canon locations and deriviative answers (such as jump paths). I just don't feel it is worth the effort to stick with a coordinate database (the Housebooks') that even TPTB don't use, as they don't consider them reliable enough to depend on for modern graphic maps.--Rev (talk|contribs) 20:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Having read through this, I think there are two different aspects to the idea of putting the co-ordinates detail on the wiki. On the one hand, you've got acknowledgement of the historical record - "this is what FASA said were the co-ordinates of the planet" - and on the other, you've got functionality - "these are the co-ordinates that are actually useable for doing/calculating anything." I think that if the co-ordinates from the original House books are going to be kept, then they should be put in the Notes section for an entry, rather than actually being flagged up in a "co-ordinates" section. They have a certain historical value, but not a functional value in a lot of cases, and by keeping them in the notes section it would be possible to acknowledge their place in the history of BattleTech while making it pretty explicit that trying to use them is a mugs game. BrokenMnemonic 06:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
That's a good way at looking at it. Frabby?--Rev (talk|contribs) 13:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
On a semi-related note, would it be helpful organizationally to get Bad_Syntax's info in a table on the wiki so we can see the system name, coordinates, and status. Sort of like what I did for the MWDA Dossier project. (The advantage of the table is that it could be updated as an editor makes changes, which may not be true of a spreadsheet/text file.) And yes, since it's my brilliant idea, I'm willing to be the lucky fellow who creates the table.--Mbear 17:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Hy Mbear, very good idea, can you show us a example, thanks.--Doneve 17:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely, Mbear. He's gonna send me the database when its available (hopefully before Handbook: House Draconis) and I'll send it to you. But, isn't there some software out there that will wikify data? I could have sworn I used some many moons ago. (M-O-O-N...that spells wikify.) Here's a preview of it. Go down to the "Monday, January 31, 2011" entry. You'll see the Cartographer link in that entry. The database is in a text file in the program's data folder.--Rev (talk|contribs) 18:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

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 or a regional map? Please weigh in.--Rev (talk|contribs) 14:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=BattleTechWiki_talk:Planet_Article_Overhaul&oldid=199102"