BattleTechWiki talk:Project Planets

Archived Official Ruling[edit]

The following official ruling was made in this thread, in the "Ask the Writers" section of the official BattleTech Forum. It is fully canonical and reproduced here for reference; please do not modify this quote.

On 13 Nov, 2011, 17:10:09, User Øystein posted the following in a thread called "Missing Worlds (again :-) )" on the official BattleTech Forum, in the "Ask the Writers" section where fully canonical rulings and clarifications are made:

[A]s a general rule, any "missing" Great House world mentioned post-3020s is deemed to be a secondary system some place, or an alternative name to a world, since the 3025 maps from FASA are deemed to be 'complete'. We don't have inhabited Great House (or major periphery) systems that are not shown on the maps.

Talk Page[edit]

I found two more planets for you guys: Siroc and Gwithian. --Neufeld 12:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Also: St. Jean --Neufeld 12:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Guys, how's the renovation coming along? I have sad news, Bad_Syntax stopped working on CBT_Cartographer because he got pissed off at the CBT forum mods. I've decided to continue part of his work (identifying the systems, their coordinates and which faction owns them at a given era) Do you guys think you'd be able to use that data? The coordinates are not canon, and my initial study showed that there are some coordinates that are rather off, (such as Far Reach in RWR) so I hope you guys don't use them yet.

As for the number of systems, based on Oystein's maps from various publications, Syntax and I came up with 3,004 systems with established coordinates, and I'm about 90% done with the faction ownership per era (I actually have 3063 100% complete, with 3067 a close second at 99.93%)

I could use some help with checking the coordinates against the published maps (by comparing the image produced from his CBT_Cartographer and the map to see which systems are in the wrong place), and verification (and filling in the blanks) on the faction ownerships. Drop me a PM in the CBT forums (under "VoltAmpere") if you guys want a copy of my current database (just 1 excel sheet at about 700kB). I'm just waiting for the House Kurita Handbook to fill in the rest of the blanks, but I don't expect to get 100% on all of the eras I'm working on.

Also, I haven't really started with the maps of the founding of each house. -Volt 15:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

No Record[edit]

Hi Guys, question on Ownership History, does "No Record" mean we have no record IRL, or the system is either undiscovered/abandoned in-universe? -Volt 16:32, 28 February 2012 (PST)

Hy Volt, this indicates we found the planet on no canon map, i hope this helps.--Doneve 16:40, 28 February 2012 (PST)
Copy, thanks Doneve.-Volt 18:09, 28 February 2012 (PST)
Doneve has the right of it - "No record" was a compromise worked out by the team to deal with the situation of not having a planet on the map, but also not having a confirmed founding date for any colony or settlement on the planet. The statement by TPTB that the worlds which show up on maps, particularly Periphery worlds, are simply those worlds worthy of note or of significance and that many other worlds have a human population but aren't important enough to show up led to the problem of a world not appearing on a map being absence of proof, rather than proof of absence. TPTB are tricksy like that! BrokenMnemonic 23:38, 28 February 2012 (PST)
Hey I know this is an old question but I am planning to do some minor updating from the TTS series, Touring the Stars: Benet III is up first and I want to know if it is ok to change No Record to Uninhabited as we have a date of first survey, a rough date of colonisation and a date the planet was evacuated or do we stick with No Record.--Dmon (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2018 (EDT)
Changing the No record entry to uninhabited is fine - No record is like a holding status, indicating that we simply have no information available about the system at that particular point in time. Knowing the survey and colonisation dates means that can be changed, and adds value to the article, so please change away Smiley.gif BrokenMnemonic (talk) 02:51, 18 July 2018 (EDT)
Thanks for the quick reply :-)--Dmon (talk) 03:01, 18 July 2018 (EDT)

Distances between Planets[edit]

I tried to make a matrix that lined up each planet horizontally and vertically then shows the dynamic distance between the two (like the multiplication table). Suffice to say that my laptop crashed after I pasted the formula on the 9,051,072 cells... hooray for technology not evolving fast enough to be able to do what the human mind wants done...-Volt 18:12, 28 February 2012 (PST) Oh and the file shot up from 800kB to 7MB in a matrix of 96 x 3009 systems... guess that's just not practical at this time.-Volt 18:18, 28 February 2012 (PST)

With this much data, you'd probably be better off looking at some sort of customized program designed to chew through the coordinates one system at a time, rather than a spreadsheet... although, you could probably get away with doing it in a spreadsheet, if you did it in stages. I think S.gage was working on producing new tables showing the nearest neighbors for planets and the distances involved, but he was working one planet at a time to keep things manageable. Trying to map 3,009 systems against each other... that's getting into DNA mapping territory ;) BrokenMnemonic 23:47, 28 February 2012 (PST)
I haven't given up :) I'm going to make a dedicated file for the relative distances, just because there isn't one available yet [yes, I got hit by the crazy bus as a kid]-Volt 00:56, 29 February 2012 (PST)
HAHA 125MB!-Volt 18:04, 5 March 2012 (PST)
OK... I'll wait until I get home before downloading that one! Given that Doneve is updating all the owner histories at the moment, I think I'll start adding the nearest neighbors tables tonight using your table of doom. BrokenMnemonic 23:36, 5 March 2012 (PST)
ETA: Sadly, I've only got Office 2003, and that has issues opening the spreadsheet. It can't handle the number of columns, and can't handle the formula in those cells it can see even after running through the MicroSoft file converter :(
Would it be possible to upload a version that has just the values in it (not the formulae) broken down into something like one letter of the alphabet per worksheet for the columns? BrokenMnemonic 11:34, 6 March 2012 (PST)
Hi BM, sure, gimme a couple min to convert and upload it.-Volt 15:14, 6 March 2012 (PST)
Sorry to cut in, guys, but BM: look for and download the opensource suite. It stays updated with MS file types and, of course, it's free. I only use MS Office at work now.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:28, 6 March 2012 (PST)
Well, for those who have not yet installed OpenOffice, I'm currently uploading the xls 97-2003 compatible version as requested. The file is 150MB so it will take a bit of time to upload. I'll post the link once it's up.-Volt 17:20, 6 March 2012 (PST)
XLS 97-2003 compatible-Volt 19:31, 6 March 2012 (PST)
Thank you Smiley.gif I'm using a version of OpenOffice on my netbook at home, but not on my home desktop. My desktop is getting a little cranky with age, and as it's got all of my video editing software on it I try not to upset it too much, just in case! BrokenMnemonic 23:32, 6 March 2012 (PST)
I've been sitting on a lot of inter-system distances, and I am not certain if those I have generated are correct (I was apparently using old numbers...?). Does this file correct these displacements?--S.gage 21:09, 7 March 2012 (PST)
Um, this file may be a bit large for my 3-year old laptop...--S.gage 21:17, 7 March 2012 (PST)
OK, I got this to open, but before I go nuts putting in distances, I want to make certain, how were the initial locations of each of the systems generated. If we start putting these into the articles, are we going to need to re-enter these in the future?--S.gage 21:26, 7 March 2012 (PST)
Volt's best placed to answer this, but my understanding is that some of the source maps used turned out to have an inaccurate axis because of the way the images are stretched to make them fit onto pages. So, Volt's recalculated the coordinates using those maps where the axes are consistent, and it's those adjusted coordinates that are in the document. So, that's what Doneve and I are using for the nearest neighbor distances. The coordinates for the existing planets will probably need adjusting slightly in a lot of cases, but that's a job being put off until Handbook: House Kurita appears and gives us the remaining missing maps from the Handbook series. BrokenMnemonic 01:19, 8 March 2012 (PST)
Well, anyway this spreadsheet was generated, I simply cannot manipulate it - I started trying to sort, realized the .xlsx was too large, then gradually tried copying smaller and smaller portions of the parent doc to do any work. Finally, I tried to copy a single column, waited for 1 hour to allow for processing time, and still found my computer's Excel had frozen. My computer is just too slow--S.gage 08:09, 8 March 2012 (PST)
Hi Gage, I think Doneve actually called that piece of work the "Doom sheet". I made a more user-friendly file, it's larger at 150MB, but I chopped up the workbook into several sheets by letter and made the coordinates 3-decimal fixed values instead of formulas based on the extrapolated+consolidated coordinates.
To answer your question, BM got the gist of it. Bad_Syntax's original work was based off of the 3075 map, which Oystein said had probable scaling issues when the layout artists fit the map on the sourcebook pages, he mentioned further that it was possible that most other maps could have that issue as well. So, to minimize the potential for error I decided to use a base that was not from a sourcebook [ie independent work, as Oystein suggested] so I used the 3130 map from his website. I followed Syntax's methodology to the letter and even used his source file as reference for generating my master file so the only discrepancy between our coordinates should by due to scaling differences and the odd typo [so far we've only found one].
For the deep periphery, HL, NC, JarnFolk & Clan systems, I had no choice but to use sourcebook info [3067 deep periphery map from War of Reaving] because no other info was available at the time. I have a master file that records raw coordinates [not converted to LY] that will dynamically rescale and offset the [so far] 3,009 systems to Terra-origin reference If/When new information becomes available on the distances, scales or even coordinates.
I've asked Oystein if it were possible for him to give me a working scale, distances, or coordinates for 5 systems but of course I knew that was not going to happen and he politely indirectly refused. So until then, I really hope these numbers are acceptable. I have yet to compare the maps generated by this list to the official maps but I'm hoping they're at least within 0.5LY accurate.-Volt 03:04, 9 March 2012 (PST)

2765 data[edit]

Hi guys, I know this is going to be a major headache, but can you hold off from updating the distances on the systems that are NOT found in the 2596 and 3040 map but are present in the 2765 map? I will be migrating to the 2765 coordinates on these systems to get a more consistent scaling. Also, head's up, I inadvertently forgot to add Dalmantia to the 3009 systems. I remember Bad_Syntax recording it in his version 0 list before but we've since stricken it out because we couldn't find it. Turns out it was visible in the 2822 and 2864 HB:HD maps beside Oshika [DC]. I'll add the coordinates and the distance in the next update once I've completed incorporating the 2765 map. Potential "new" systems will make a mess of the Nearby Systems list I think.-Volt 21:45, 9 March 2012 (PST)

Ok i stop to revamp the nearby systems, how long you need to update the spreadsheet?--Doneve 06:32, 10 March 2012 (PST)
I will probably need a week to complete the transfer of my source [raw] coordinates from the handbooks to the 2765 map, as well as catalog the new systems. I will upload the new coordinates and distances list once I'm done.-Volt 13:55, 10 March 2012 (PST)
DC 2765:
19 new systems, 2 of which were already visible in the previous handbook maps but I was not able to incorporate. 18 systems that might change coordinates as I will transfer the raw data from the handbooks to the 2765 two-page map: Celebes, Grootfontein, New Sumatra, Okaya, Miyazaki, Tangerz, Hildaman, Elix, Nai-Stohl, Périgueux, Oldsmith, Wittington, Westfield, Goldlure, Tovetin, Belacruz, Dunklewälderdunklerflüssenschattenwelt and Christiania-Volt 18:07, 11 March 2012 (PDT)
CC 2765:
4 new systems, 144 existing systems might change coordinates, and 3 systems' names changed sometime between 2768 to 2822.-Volt 04:40, 11 March 2012 (PDT)
TH 2765:
No change-Volt 05:06, 11 March 2012 (PDT)
LC 2765:
40 systems might have changes in coordinates, no new systems-Volt 19:00, 13 March 2012 (PDT)
FS 2765:
82 systems might have changes in coordinates, 25 new systems [or probably renames, I'll need to check after I'm done with LC & FWL]-Volt 02:14, 12 March 2012 (PDT)
FWL 2765:
57 systems might have changes in coordinates, no new systems-Volt 05:25, 13 March 2012 (PDT)
Periphery & Independents:
Cooperland coordinates might change. 2 new independent systems. Rezak's Hole erroneously appears on the map-Volt 06:33, 11 March 2012 (PDT)
MOC, 16 systems might have changes in coordinates, no new systems.-Volt 17:29, 11 March 2012 (PDT)
OA, 100 systems might have changes in coordinates, no new systems.-Volt 18:17, 11 March 2012 (PDT)
TC, 32 systems might have changes in coordinates, no new systems.-Volt 18:41, 11 March 2012 (PDT)
RWR, 108 systems might have changes in coordinates, no new systems, although we see the debut of Waypoint and Otisberg. This is the earliest record these two are visible, the next time we see these will be in the 3040 map.-Volt 21:29, 11 March 2012 (PDT)
I made a big bad error with the Periphery and Chainelane Isles systems. I had the wrong offset on the 3085 map so those systems would have new coordinates in the next release.
Hmm, when the 16 systems change the coordinates to the existing, we become new coordinates to nearby systems and that change some value on the spreadsheet, but i think we use the newest cannon map, and work from this, and leave notes on the planet articles, but this give me some headache.--Doneve 17:24, 10 March 2012 (PST)
Well, I'm not done with Capellan Confederation yet but I already have 127 systems that MIGHT change coordinates, which is why I asked to hold off on doing the nearby systems because at this time I don't know if the changes will be significant. I guess this will put my integration formulas to the test to see just how accurate they will be.-Volt 03:50, 11 March 2012 (PDT)
The moratorium on Historical: Liberation of Terra means that we can't create entries for planets that have only ever been shown on the 2765 map, but if there are any that were visible on other maps and which I just didn't notice when I was doing my various updates, let me know and I'll create new entries for them. I noticed one straight away - Dunklewälderdunklerflüssenschattenwelt/Bob, which is on the Outworlds Alliance 2750 map in Handbook: Major Periphery States and which I simply missed previously. BrokenMnemonic 01:10, 14 March 2012 (PDT)
There are now exactly 3060 systems [Star Systems, Clusters. Nebulae are not included] depicted in maps from Oystein from 2722 to 3130. Of the 3060, 49 are unique to H:LoTv1. At this time Sarna has 3014 Planets, I'll make a comparison and reconcile the two lists then get back to you.-Volt 19:24, 14 March 2012 (PDT)
Finished transferring the coordinates on systems found on the left half of the 2-page 2765 map, and it looks like for 98-99% of those systems, the values are identical rounding off to one decimal place. The remaining 1-2% are 0.1LY off. I'll try to finish the right half tonight and upload the updated systems file with the new systems included and post a link in the BattleTech forums.-Volt 21:54, 14 March 2012 (PDT)
done!-Volt 03:20, 18 March 2012 (PDT)
Great thanks Smiley.gif.--Doneve 05:23, 18 March 2012 (PDT)
You're welcome! Oh and for your benefit, I added a column on the spreadsheet that automatically says which are within 2 Jumps of a certain system. If for example you want to see what systems are within two Jumps of A Place based on the 1 Jump = 29.35467LY = 9parsec data then just select "A Place" in cell E2 then use the filter on column F or E. Column E shows the distance while F shows the number of jumps. I don't think I'd be able to release a full distance matrix soon because of work, so I hope the file will be able to keep you busy. My previous matrix had a formula error so the distances computed were actually farther than actual (ie, you will have to redo the ones you've already finished here on BTW) sorry about that. If you need a smaller file that doesn't show faction ownership, I uploaded one named coordinates + distance.xlsx that Rev requested.-Volt 19:05, 18 March 2012 (PDT)
Thanks for the sheet, but i wait with fix the coordinates and distances when you uploaded the Planet Distance Spreadsheet (how long need you to do this), it's easier for me to fix all in one and not at first the coordinates and then as second the distances.--Doneve 07:40, 19 March 2012 (PDT)
Hy again i stard to fix the [A] section of the coordinates, and the distances so good i can, when you have uploaded your new distance spreadsheet i correct the minor errors on the distance section, but when i wait this become a never ending story.--Doneve 10:14, 19 March 2012 (PDT)
Hi Doneve. Yeah you can resume your excellent work, I just remembered though, I'd like to remind you not to add the 49 "new" systems found in H:LoTv1 yet because of the Moratorium. Basically if it's not on Sarna yet, and not in the list I typed below then most probably it's a new system.-Volt 19:29, 20 March 2012 (PDT)

Systems list[edit]

I've compared the Sarna's Planets (sic) list with the one Bad_Syntax and I made and here are the results:

Not in my list:
Cermak (Apocryphal, no coordinates)
Tibolt (Apocryphal, no coordinates)
Champollion (no coordinates)
Farhome (no coordinates)
Kaetetôã (no coordinates)
Mesozoa (no coordinates)
Roxborough (no coordinates)
Siroc (no coordinates)
Thomas (no coordinates)
Not in Sarna:
Chaine Cluster (7) (CI, FR:3085 map) [moratorium: May 21st, 2012]
Christiania (DC, HB:HS 2822 map)
Colleen (Clan, WoR 3067 map)
Daol (CC, HB:MPS 2750 TC map)
Dunklewälderdunklerflüssenschattenwelt (aka Bob, DC, HB:MPS 2750 OA map)
EC821-387D (Independent, H:OK, 2821 map)
Elix (DC, HB:HS 2822 & 2864 map)
Fasa_(system) (Independent, H:OK, 2821 map)
Haublan (CI, FR:3085 map) [moratorium: May 21st, 2012]
Idrmach (CI, FR:3085 map) [moratorium: May 21st, 2012]
Miyako (DC, H:RW 2596 map)
Miyazaki (DC, HB:HS 2822 & 2864 map)
Mokpo (DC, H:RW 2596 map)
Nai-Stohl (DC, HB:MPS 2750 RWR map & HB:HS 2822 map)
Pietermaritzburg (FS, HB:MPS 2750 TC map)
Quimper (FS, HB:HD 2822 & 2864 map) (2nd one, became Chirac in 3130 map)
Rondane (CI, FR:3085 map) [moratorium: May 21st, 2012]
Tovetin (DC, HB:HS 2822 & 2864 map)
Vaajakoski (DC, H:RW 2596 map) (this was actually named "Sendai" in H:RW but Oystein changed the name in the updated 2765 PDF map of H:LoTv1, that overwrites the H:RW 2596 map)
Weldry (CC, HB:MPS 2750 TC map)
Zangul (CC, HB:MPS 2750 TC map)
Need edits:
change Tanite Worlds to Tanis (Clan, WoR 3067 map)
Duplicate Entries/Typos:
Hahira and Harira, Hahira is the correct spelling (FS)
Mica_I should be Mica_II (Independent)
Jordan does not exist, it's a duplicate entry of Quiberas (OA)

There are also over 10 Duplicate entries due to name changes (such as Takata and New Start but I accidentally lost my list while typing this so I was not able to transfer them here, hope someone else can cross-reference em?

Anyway, you guys can now start turning those Reds to Blues!-Volt 21:14, 14 March 2012 (PDT)

How many of these planets existed on maps prior to the Historical: Liberation of Terra 2765 map? That particular map's under moratorium for a few months yet, but I know that I spotted Bob in a map in Handbook: Major Periphery States that I'd missed, so I can get any others like that done quickly. BrokenMnemonic 00:48, 20 March 2012 (PDT)
All the systems I typed above are shown on maps before the release of H:LoTv1. I have not posted the names of the 49 new systems on BTW due to the moratorium. However, in the previous maps, Dunklewälderdunklerflüssenschattenwelt and Vaajakoski were named differently: Bob as you surmised, and Sendai, respectively. Sendai however apparently turns out to be an erroneously named system according to Oystein's reply, which the 2765 map corrects.-Volt 06:14, 20 March 2012 (PDT)
Sounds good - I'll start working up new entries. I'm not sure if I have the current coordinates file at work, so I'll ask Doneve nicely to fill out the coordinates if I don't get to them first... You may need to point me at the relevant maps, though, as I don't recognize some of the names. BrokenMnemonic 01:01, 21 March 2012 (PDT)
I placed the maps where the systems show up. I deleted the first entry, accidentally added it to the list, as it's a new system only seen in 2765.-Volt 04:58, 21 March 2012 (PDT)
Are you sure that you can make out Nai-Stohl on the HB:MPS map on p. 25? Even with the fact that where it is lies close to the edge of the page, I'm looking between Moore and Kessel and I can't see it, even though I can see half of Alnasi, which is slightly further spinward than Nai-Stohl. BrokenMnemonic 02:10, 22 March 2012 (PDT)
Hehe, you know I actually doubted my own records when you asked me about which maps the systems appeared in prior. What apparently looks like Moore in the RWR map is actually Nai-Stohl. If you compare the location of Moore, Kessel and Nai-Stohl in HB:HS 2822 against the 2750 map of RWR you will see that Moore is further to the right, and only it's name appears on the map, but the Circle there is Nai-Stohl. I also verified against coordinates and that questionable little circle there matches the 2765 and HB:HS 2822 locations for Nai-Stohl.-Volt 02:18, 22 March 2012 (PDT)
Ouch, no wonder I didn't spot it when I was working from my paper maps originally. I'm surprised Øystein didn't tidy the map up a little to put the name on the map, given that the entire world is visible... but now it makes me wonder how many other worlds are flitting around the edges of maps like that. BrokenMnemonic 02:39, 22 March 2012 (PDT)
Yup, but I think I was able to record most of them correctly. Fair warning though, there are some systems not appearing on the edges of the page of maps but exist in the preceding and succeeding maps chronologically. I can't remember exactly which ones at this time, but I think it's related to the founding maps and some of the periphery maps. It's unfortunate that those maps can't be like the RWR map where all systems are shown in the page.-Volt 05:33, 22 March 2012 (PDT)
So, the Sendai we have here should actually be Vaajakoski, and the Sendai entry needs to be changed to reflect the real Sendai near Otho and Aix-la-Chapelle? BrokenMnemonic 02:54, 22 March 2012 (PDT)
Yup, I completely missed that error, assuming the Sendai I saw in HB:HS was the same one in H:RW. It was convenient since the two systems have not appeared on the same map until in 2765.-Volt 05:33, 22 March 2012 (PDT)
Looking at the past entries for the Planets project, it's ok for us to list planets that will need articles once a moratorium's over - back when Field Report: Periphery was the new kid on the block, all of the Hanseatic and Castilian worlds were listed as needing articles, ready for when the moratorium ended. On that basis, would you be willing to put together a list of worlds from H:LoTv1? BrokenMnemonic 10:15, 27 March 2012 (PDT)
You mean like this?:
New Crete (CC)
Ilmar (CC)
Ife (CC)
Bhykov (CC)
Muroto (DC)
Avranches (DC)
Yufu (DC)
Cabanatuan (DC)
Caesaera (DC)
Caracol (DC)
Jeju (DC)
New Sarum (DC)
Seuta Bimyeong (DC)
Wonju (DC)
Isfahan (DC)
Kanto (DC)
Nara (DC)
Emar (DC)
New Sapporo (DC)
Glabach (DC)
Kiruna (DC)
Tedibyhr (FS)
Herat (FS) (FS)
Noh-wan Hohm (FS)
Skaslien (FS)
Pula (FS)
Weiz (FS)
Kautokeino (FS)
Zalzangor (FS)
Nis (FS)
Zacatecoluca (FS)
Acoma (FS)
Chota (FS)
Versailles (FS)
Korvitz (FS)
Maison (FS)
Meinhof (FS)
Gamlestolen (FS)
Yamoussoukra (FS)
Bartrock (FS)
Summerstide (FS)
Ulvskollen (FS)
Kaufermann (FS) <-- Oystein Confirmed the orignal name of this system [dupe name "Bayeux"] is incorrect, waiting for the new name, tentatively named "Diediediediedieidiediedie" [edit: ER2750 is incorrect, correct name appears on FM:SLDF 2764 map]
Nouveau Toulouse (FS)
Chaumont (FS)
Tallassee (FS)
Manaus (FWL)
Knutstad (I)
Naikongzu (I)

-Volt 18:50, 27 March 2012 (PDT)

Excellent, thank you. Isn't it interesting that we have an explosion in colonization in the Periphery between 2596 and 2750, but in the period 2750-2765 none of the Periphery nations added any new worlds to their ranks? I'm sure the answer can be handwaved as money being spent on re-arming instead, but it's still an interesting historical curiosity. I'm rather looking forward to creating the planetary entry for Diediediediedieidiediedie. I'm also curious as to why there were so many FedSuns worlds settled in that period compared to FWL worlds... BrokenMnemonic 23:44, 27 March 2012 (PDT)
Well honestly I don't have an accurate figure for 2750 [still waiting for map god to release a 2750 IS map]. The only 2750-dated maps I know of are from HB:MPS and they show the following:
CC - of the 240 new systems [discovered after 2596] 124 were visible in MPS maps [plus, Shiba was lost during AoW and resettled during SL era]
DC - of the 122 new systems only 10 were visible prior [yup, including Bob]
FS - only 19 of the 177 were previously visible
FWL - 87 of 116 were confirmed to have been discovered by 2750
LC - 172 out of 183 were already visible in the 2750 maps (thanks to the RWR map) [plus, Fatima was lost during AoW and resettled during SL era]
Periphery - no new discoveries between 2750 and 2765 for the major states, and 12 of 15 independents are visible in 2750 maps.
So between 2598 to 2765 the houses and periphery states grew around this much:
CC - 125% growth
DC - 43% growth
FS - 50% growth
FWL - 52% growth
LC - 63% growth
MoC - 110% growth
OA - 444% growth
RWR - 227% growth
TC - 208% growth
the most pathetic growth was that of the Terran Hegemony, which between 2596 to 2750 colonized only Antallos far out in the Periphery, if you can even count that. So going back, I don't think there were really more FS worlds colonized between 2750 to 2765, it's just that we had little info on FS during 2750, which I hope a 2750 IS map can correct. From the numbers above I guess we can conclude that the periphery states, being left alone [for the most part] and having no competition on 3/4 of their border, had the best room for growth. the Five houses are rather consistent, except for CC, which I think [because of their late formation and limited space] had no choice but to try harder to colonize within its border.-Volt 02:17, 28 March 2012 (PDT)

Bwahahahaha the new Era Report comes with a two-page 2750 map! time to update the old list! -Volt 18:35, 10 May 2012 (PDT)

I won't be able to pick up the new Era Report for a couple of months yet (season ticket to save for) - are there many obvious differences between the 2750 map from the Era Report and the 2765 map from Historical: Liberation of Terra? BrokenMnemonic 00:23, 11 May 2012 (PDT)
So far I haven't spotted any, I'm still at CC though, work's eating up a lot of my time while I'm in the US. When I get back home on the 17th I might be able to get things moving faster. -Volt 05:47, 12 May 2012 (PDT)
Okay, I just superimposed the two maps together to make searching for difference so much faster, aside from typo corrections there are NO differences whatsoever.-Volt 05:59, 13 May 2012 (PDT)
On the one hand, that's not a surprise - and it's good to know for the future - but on the other, it's a little bit of a shame. I like the idea of worlds appearing on maps gradually, rather than in clumps... but I guess between 2750 and 2765, everyone was gearing up for the next war. BrokenMnemonic 00:17, 14 May 2012 (PDT)

Wrong Maps on Planet pages[edit]

I stard the discussion on the Addhara planet page, and moved the content to the project planet talk page, it's the better place.

The map on Addhara is completely wrong.--Doneve 10:26, 21 March 2012 (PDT)
I'm not surprised. This is part of the problems we realized had to be fixed if we were to display maps on planetary/system articles. Nic's utility used data from the ISCS project that was very flawed.
Maybe you'll want to open a discussion on the Planets project about removing these images altogether, instead of waiting for them to be replaced.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 08:27, 21 March 2012 (PDT)
The best way is we remove the wrong planet images, we can create a gallery and move then the image at first to the gallery. When new maps created by cannon sources, then we delete the wrong maps completely from Sarna, any thoughts.--Doneve 10:26, 21 March 2012 (PDT)

Political Maps, Not Jump Maps[edit]

There was a very interesting quote from Øystein regarding the maps in the sourcebooks today over on the CGL forum:

Simple, the maps we show are not jump maps, they are political maps.

With regards, Øystein

  — Renaming planets thread

I think that's the first time I've ever seen that explicitly stated, rather than simply implied. BrokenMnemonic 23:44, 25 March 2012 (PDT)

Very interesting, i think this a clear statement for Political Maps and not Jump Maps.--Doneve 01:54, 26 March 2012 (PDT)
I think you're right. It has implications for the mapping work Volt and Bad Syntax are doing, because some systems are simply going to have to be noted as being exceptions by nature of their display on political maps (I'm thinking of the Niops system here as the biggie). This backs up my belief that we should keep the owner history detail we've got, but classified as political affiliation, and that we've been using the independent world category properly. BrokenMnemonic 02:24, 26 March 2012 (PDT)
Yup, full agree.--Doneve 03:22, 26 March 2012 (PDT)
My job just got more complicated. Does this mean that we can't use the coordinate data as JUMP paths? Oh and related to the political map thing, I just realized the coordinates for the three MICA and NIOPS systems are wrong because the maps do not show their actual distances. I doubt Mica II is actually 4LY away from Mica VII, which is farther than the distance between Terra and Rigil Kentarus. Ditto for Niops systems. Do I just get the midpoint of the three systems and use that as their unified Jump distances? Now for a semi-related question. Are Silkeborg and Havdhem two planets in the same system or two systems that are <2LY apart?-Volt 16:56, 26 March 2012 (PDT)
Well, technically this means that there's no data we can use to coordinate jump paths unless it's been published by CGL for that purpose. However, to avoid despair, this is what I'd suggest: don't get upset by the exceptions. Øystein's indicated that the Niops and Mica systems are basically exceptions to the rule - but even CGL seem to be using the maps for coordinates purposes, so the vast bulk of the data is correct. Here on Sarna, we aren't allowed to presume anything. So, what you need to do for situations like Silkeborg and Havdhem is post a question over on Ask the Writers asking exactly what you just asked here - are they two planets in the same system, or two systems on top of each other. Again, ask Øystein to adjudicate on which planet in the Niops and Mica systems is the reference planet. If he won't confirm, then we calculate the coordinates using your method anyway, but make a comment in the Notes section of each planet entry that we can't be certain of the coordinates. Don't forget that when the new Planets template is agreed (and I wish an admin would hurry up and agree it so Doneve and I can start rolling it out in bulk) systems like Mica and Niops will be one article with sub-sections for each planet, rather than 3 articles each as they are currently. BrokenMnemonic 00:20, 27 March 2012 (PDT)
Well, I think the Mica and Niops systems can be merged in one article [1] but the coordinates at this time are still a question mark. My idea is to get the centroid of the triangle formed by the three systems and use that as the system coordinate. What do you guys think of that method? Guess that would reduce the number of systems count by four [five if Calish II and Calish III are planets in one system]-Volt 05:33, 28 March 2012 (PDT)
Don't forget Davetal II and Davetal III... BrokenMnemonic 11:55, 28 March 2012 (PDT)
Gah, I did forget. I have new coordinates for the Niops, Mica and Calish systems. I'll have the Davetal system coordinates in a minute then update the database and post in the forums-Volt 16:45, 28 March 2012 (PDT)
Uploaded! Sorry, forgot to post it here. Been up since this morning.-Volt 23:37, 28 March 2012 (PDT)

Semantic Results Coordinates[edit]

I was thinking of other ways this addition to the site could be useful and something I thought of was to make all the coordinates listed for the planets viewable from not only one centralized page, but also available as a spreadsheet download. For those of you who are unfamiliar with Semantic Result Formats, basically it is a way to compile data from many pages into one place like a single page or a downloadable spreadsheet. For example, I made a list of the first 10 planets:

Planet LocationsX CoordinateY Coordinate
"Boxer" Lee
"Shades" McCabe
"Snake" Hickman
"Sunshine" Talbot
Aaron Hall
Aaron Harper
Abasi Oteke
... further results

You can then sort this list in order of either the X or Y coordinates and add who owned it at a specified year to the table.
This same list is available for download as a spreadsheet here: CSV
If you guys have any interest in using this, let me know and I'll explain how to get it to work on the rest of the planets.--Seth 19:45, 26 March 2012 (PDT)

Hey Seth, I'm all ears/eyes.-Volt 20:56, 26 March 2012 (PDT)
I wait for more responese from the other guys how we handle and use it in different thinks on the planet pages, and Volt give us this sheet [2].--Doneve 07:23, 27 March 2012 (PDT)
Are we pushing through with this with the coordinates? Is it possible to have the coordinates placed in a central page and then have multiple pages reference these coordinates instead of having the coordinates in individual pages and then consolidating them on one page? I ask this because I've recently changed base maps again, from the 3130 map to the single-page 2764 map found in TRO:SLDF. I changed my base for three reasons:
1) this map is the most dense to date so I will need to combine less maps total (I think for this project I only need 2764, 3063, and 3085 to get the full IS map instead of having multiple maps, which can cause consolidation errors),
2) it's a single pager, so transposing page 2 coordinates to page 1 nomenclature is eliminated, and
3) Turns out Tortuga Prime on 3130 map is in the wrong location (around 7LY too high).
Of course with a change of base map comes a shift in XY scale (again), but of the 270 coordinates I've finished so far (out of 3064) the average X-drift is -0.002LY with a minimum of -0.112LY to a maximum of 0.011LY. The Y-drift is -0.074LY with a minimum of -0.127LY and a maximum of 7.263.-Volt 18:15, 5 September 2012 (PDT)

Editing Help[edit]

If there are any pages that need a particularly high amount of grammatical help, just notify me, otherwise, I don't really know where to start. Thanks. BobTheZombie (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2013 (PDT)

Hy take a look on Glengarry i think there is a lot to do.--Doneve (talk) 09:26, 21 June 2013 (PDT)
Thanks, I'll get to it ASAP; hmm... this looks like the same writing style of a few other horrendous ones... BobTheZombie (talk) 10:38, 21 June 2013 (PDT)
The best way is you look on the history of some articles, alot of them came from Wrangler and Neuling, i hope this helps.--Doneve (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2013 (PDT)
Iam not a fluff writer, german is my first language then came englisch, my strenght is in other thinks, article formating, star system and planet infobox and image uploades and so on.--Doneve (talk) 10:46, 21 June 2013 (PDT)
D: Sorry, it just looked bad to me because I am a perfectionist and I completely forgot that many are using their second language; my sincerest apologies to all that I have offended. I am so very sorry. BobTheZombie (talk) 10:50, 21 June 2013 (PDT)
Its not bad, great to have you here on sarna.--Doneve (talk) 10:53, 21 June 2013 (PDT)
Sorry, most of the time I can only get on the site later at night, and my brain gets befuddled by sifting through so many words on so little sleep. Thanks for being understanding, Doneve. BobTheZombie (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2013 (PDT)
Glengarry is done I think; it really wasn't as bad as I thought it might be. Tell me if it still needs attention. BobTheZombie (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2013 (PDT)

Over-linked Pages[edit]

I noticed that in the "owner history" section for each planet, links to the factions are repeated countless times; aren't you only supposed to have one link to each item per content page? BobTheZombie (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2013 (PDT)

Yup you are right, i change this in next time.--Doneve (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2013 (PDT)
I'm 90% certain that the original reason for this happening was the script Nic used to auto-generate the planet articles - I'm pretty sure that script turned every faction name into a link in the owner history automatically. Since then, I think people have just kept the format consistent. Moving it across to match the wiki policy makes sense, although it makes me a little nostalgic! BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2013 (PDT)
Hey, it is possible if we keep on it. There are only 3,118 planet pages...... so any help would be appreciated. Doneve and I have started alphabetically from A, and It will take some time. -BobTheZombie (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2013 (PDT)
Doneve, if you are going to remove the redundant links, it is also good to look through the planet's history section and eliminate any repeated links; I also try to make sure that there is a space between every faction name and its reference. Also, I will start at Z and go backwards, so see you in the middle of the list eventually... -BobTheZombie (talk) 10:03, 8 July 2013 (PDT)
Okidoki, i check also the history, oh and i use the space between faction and reference.--Doneve (talk) 10:07, 8 July 2013 (PDT)
I've edited every planet on this wiki at least twice, and added about a third of them to the wiki. I don't mind pitching in to help clear through the owner histories. I'll pick a state at a time and work through them. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2013 (PDT)
I know what you have done BM, and i have done, but Bob is right to remove double or redundant links, i involved why i can do all of the cleanup from work as second work ;), but my next goal is i will to update the owner history and add some missing references from my map arcive, oh and some new pretty maps are in work for the BattleTechWiki:Project Planets/Planet Overhaul/Faction Map Gallery.--Doneve (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2013 (PDT)
Aren't those clear and legible maps from The Blake Documents gorgeous? I wish I'd had them when I was doing all that Jihad work last year. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2013 (PDT)
Yup, new 3075 Maps from The Blake Documents, thanks a lot to Neuling for his work.--Doneve (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2013 (PDT)

Standardized Page Layouts[edit]

Could we set up a universal layout (order of sections) for each page? Some have the owner history at the begining while others put it just above the chart; also, the "planetary garrison" section can be found nearly anywhere on the pages. While this isn't as important as the info on each page, it makes it harder on the readers when each page is laid out differently. -BobTheZombie (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2013 (PDT)

That's one of the main objectives of the Planets project here on Sarna. Revanche has the final say as the team leader, but for the last couple of years work's been going on to create a common standard by concensus, and there've been some extensive debates on what the pages should look like. The most recent article is BattleTechWiki:Planet_Article_Overhaul and the working template is in the talk page for that article. The conversations about it are scattered throughout the Project Planets talk pages, if you want the history behind all of them - if you take a look at the Project Planets page, I think the bulk of the essays are all linked in the box on the bottom right, but you need to check in the talk pages for discussions that've been archived. Doneve's a good person to ask about a lot of this stuff - he and Rev were actively working on the project when I joined Sarna a couple of years ago. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:21, 12 July 2013 (PDT)
Hy guys, i think at first come the owner history on the top of the page, after the x:y coordinates when no infobox stuff is availible, then the Planetary Info and Planetary History content, then the Planetary Garrison and Manufacturing centers, i favor this layout, any thought.--Doneve (talk) 10:29, 12 July 2013 (PDT)
Revanche proposed this layout on the BattleTechWiki:Planet_Article_Overhaul page-
0. Opening Statement
[Table of Contents]
1. History
1.1 Owner History (list)
1.2 Deployment Data
2. Geography
2.1 Orbital/System Details
3. Planetary Locations
3.1 Industry
4. References
5. Bibliography
I'd say that it looks ... good, but there are countless ways and orders to display the pages; the issue (I think) is what people are going to look for, and to make it the most orderly and comprehensible layout possible for people to find said information. I am in favor of a short "opening statement", because it could help summarize and describe the planet in a nutshell. The problem with the aforementioned layout though, is that it assumes that there is a wealth of information to fill each section and subsection, which in my experience, is rarely seen. Without enough info, it could lead to weirdly laid-out pages. I do like how the owner history looks at the top of the page, but it makes more logical sense to put it under History. I'm unsure exactly how it should be laid out; perhaps we could ask the people that use the wiki what they think it should look like? Give them a few options and take a vote? Or maybe we could ask which section(s) they find most important/go to most and put those near the top? -BobTheZombie (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2013 (PDT)
BobTheZombie, anyone is welcome to comment on anything on the wiki. That said, most of the people who are interested in Planets have joined or contributed to the discussions that BrokenMnemonic has linked to above. I like what Rev has proposed, and I hope to see that format used everywhere. For those systems that don't have a wealth of information, I'd suggest you include the relevant headers on the page and put a {{Sectionstub}} template there. That marks the area as needing more information, but doesn't cause the page layout to shift too much. (This is what I do on military unit pages and it works pretty well.) Just my 2 cents.--Mbear(talk) 11:59, 12 July 2013 (PDT)
After lots of discussion, the latest iteration of the draft template looks like this: BattleTechWiki talk:Planet Article Overhaul - there was a lot of discussion about how to deal with systems that have multiple planets and the like. The problem is that we haven't had enough people really weigh in on the template yet, and someone needs to say "ok, start using it". I'm hoping that Rev will weigh in at some point, although I know he doesn't have much time at the moment. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2013 (PDT)
I think that we should move as much information as possible from Operation and War pages to planet pages; then we would have enough fluff to work with for a new layout. Most planet pages are very boring and barren, and could use an overhaul. -BobTheZombie (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2013 (PDT)

Exodus Worlds[edit]

Here's a (minor) issue we need an easy answer too. Thanks to the release of the bulk of the Handbook series being released, we have maps of large parts of the Inner Sphere at various year dates going back to 2271. Unfortunately, those maps only show a small number of nations on them - generally those that went on to form the basis of each Great House (the notable exception being the Stewart Confederation). From Era Digest: Age of War and other books we know that the period of history between/around the Demarcation up to the start of the Age of War featured the rise and fall of countless little nations of varying size; Øystein has also highlighted in the past that we aren't ever likely to see those nations on maps because working out where their boundaries were is practically impossible - even nations that were involved in events going on when the maps were produced, like the Muskegon Empire and the Marlette Association.
So, we have a lot of worlds on the various maps that show up as being inhabited, but which we can't confirm if they're part of a nation or not. That's not a problem in later eras, because once the Inner Sphere was basically "full" by the end of the Age of War, every world that isn't part of a state or nation on a map is by default an independent planet.
Unfortunately, that isn't the case for worlds that predate the Age of War, because we simply can't confirm if they were independent or not. The map of 2271 in Handbook: House Marik has a couple of hundred worlds on it, and we can't even confirm if they were all Terran Alliance worlds because the Demarcation Declaration happened 30 years before that map.
So, just as we have "No record" for worlds that don't appear on maps and "Independent world" for worlds that are definitively not a part of a nation, we need a category for these early era worlds, that doesn't conflict with "Independent world". Any suggestions?
At the moment, I'm tempted to suggest something like "Inhabited world" or, based on the definitions in the BattleTech eras page, perhaps "Exodus world", perhaps with an article link to a page entitled "Exodus world" and a category description that explain that an Exodus world is a world known to have been settled prior to the beginning of the Age of War but for which it hasn't been confirmed if the world was independent or the member of one or more nations/states prior to the establishment of the Great Houses. Thoughts, anyone? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 03:31, 1 August 2013 (PDT)

Oh wow, sorry for the late reply. "Exodus world" sounds good to me, but there has to be a link explaining what an Exodus World is. I have the exact same problem with this in my database, and right now they are all marked "I" for Independent, just so I know that the system was known then. The handbooks and housebooks are not very direct in indicating what system belonged to what minor pre-Great House faction, something like "[faction] is bordered by [system1], [system2] and [system3]", and that is VERY annoying because it doesn't really say what systems were part of that faction, only what footprint that faction had at the time-Volt (talk) 01:59, 8 July 2014 (PDT)


I am happy to announce that every planet has been ridded of redundant faction links. I think that I'm going to take a moderate break from the planets for the sake of my sanity. See you all around. -BobTheZombie (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2013 (PDT)


Kaufermann (FS) has no article yet. It's found in Crucis March, Minette Operational Area, Point Barrow Combat Region. It first appeared in 2750 and 2765 maps as Bayeux. The correct name appeared in the 2764 map. This was the system that we tentatively named "Diediediediedieidiediedie". -Volt (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2014 (PDT)

I actually have a note for myself from ages ago about this one - if I remember correctly, there are two Bayeux, one in the Anjin Muerto CR, one in the Point Barrow CR, and Øystein declared that the one in the Point Barrow CR should be Kaufermann, but then renamed the one in the Anjin Muerto CR to Kaufermann and hasn't confirmed since which is the correct one? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 01:21, 30 July 2014 (PDT)
My copy of the single-page full-color 2764 map from Field Manual: SLDF show the Point Barrow Bayeux correctly renamed to Kaufermann.-Volt (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2014 (PDT)
Is that the hard or soft copy of Field Manual: SLDF? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2014 (PDT)
I have the PDF, no way of economically sourcing the DTF from here-Volt (talk) 04:25, 30 July 2014 (PDT)
I usually go with PDF as well, unless IGUK have a really good offer on. I'll check to make sure I've got the most recent iteration of the PDF when I get home tonight, and generate an article for Kaufermann. The coordinates are in your map file, right? I have that open semi-permanently in a firefox tab these days... BrokenMnemonic (talk) 04:35, 30 July 2014 (PDT)
Yup, the map file is updated. In fact I recently added a few entries (and references) related to pre-2571 ownership. I also updated the coordinates of the New Delphi Compact systems when I realized the Y-coordinates were flipped relative to each other.-Volt (talk) 05:40, 30 July 2014 (PDT)
OK, Kaufermann is now on Sarna. I haven't really touched ISP3 yet - it's one of my favourite books, but I keep finding other projects I should take on first... I really should finish adding in all the planets yet. Although that'll remind me that I still don't know how Leviathan's Rest earned it's name. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2014 (PDT)
There's no article on Leviathan's Rest in ISP3, it only appears on the map. It's the same with other entries. It's a shame, too, as I'm sure there are interesting stories behind those names.-Volt (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2014 (PDT)

Planet Naming[edit]

Hi Guys, what do you think about renaming articles based on the name of the System instead of the planet, and then having the planet redirect to the article of the system? Ex an link to New Earth would redirect to Tau Ceti or Terra to Sol or such? It would be nice to be able to standardize the naming based on either systems or planets.-Volt (talk) 06:14, 30 July 2014 (PDT)

I'm easy with whatever a majority decision is - and it is something that would need to be polled fairly widely - but my main concern would be being consistent with whatever CGL use as their current standard, just for ease of searching for people who don't know any better. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 11:17, 30 July 2014 (PDT)
Huh? I've been treating this as a valid policy for years, as I thought the "Project Planets" crew had already positively agreed that Sarna should sort by systems, not by individual planets? In any case, this gets my vote. Frabby (talk) 04:09, 4 August 2014 (PDT)
Do you have a list handy somewhere where I can use to rename the planets in my database to the appropriate star system name? My vote is also on the System instead of the Planet and would like to standardize accordingly.-Volt (talk) 04:49, 4 August 2014 (PDT)
I don't tend to carry detail like system names around in my head, so unless I've renamed a system myself, it's probably something I've just honestly not noticed. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2014 (PDT)

It is canonically spelled out in Starfire (short story) in the 25 Years of Art and Fiction tome that systems are typically named for the primary colonized planet therein. But no, that's not always the case. A few system names from the top of my head:

  • All mapped "systems" with roman numerals, c.f. Suk II is a planet but the correct system name would be Suk.
  • Norn system (planet Verthandi)
  • Klathan system (planet Klathandu V)
  • Carver system (planet Liberty, previously Carver V)
  • Tau Ceti system (planet New Earth)

Frabby (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2014 (PDT)

Cool, thanks. I'll check that book out. I don't think I have it yet, though. I only remember Micanos (Mica II et al).-Volt (talk) 05:29, 4 August 2014 (PDT)
Whoah, one of the books I actually have! Cheesy.gif I also thought it was always by systems, so a vote for that? -BobTheZombie (talk) 09:19, 4 August 2014 (PDT)
Wait, so if we go with systems, will Terra be named Sol, Caph be named Barnard (or Barnard's Star), and New Earth (AKA Tau Ceti IV) to Tau Ceti? I don't think I have enough space in my PDF map to show all those names.-Volt (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2014 (PDT)
Ultimately, yes. Though it's probably not too bad. I reckon there's less than 100 systems that aren't properly named in BT cartography. Frabby (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2014 (PDT)


Hello Project Planet, I am wondering if anyone can help decipher if there is supposed to be a third system named Fletcher or if there is a typo in the information. On the page, Gamma Galaxy (Clan Hell's Horses), it says "They faced Clan Ghost Bear forces on Fletcher, Goito, and Kempten." Though when I go to Goito and Kempten and search through the nearby systems, I do not come up with a Fletcher in the nearby systems section. Wondering if anyone would be able to help me who has access to the Field Manual: Updates or to someone who has a better understanding of the subject matter. Thanks DerangedShadow (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2015 (PST)

I took a look at the source for the quote, and it looks like someone misread it. The relevant sentence is "In the invasion of the Ghost Bear Dominion spearheaded by Fletcher, Gamma racked up a string of early successes by seizing Goito and Kempten..." - the Fletcher in that sentence is Khan Fletcher, who's referred to in the preceding sentence. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2015 (PST)

Handbook: House Kurita[edit]

Okay I managed to get a hold of copies of the 9 era maps in HB:HK and I will start to incorporate them into my database. At first glance I've already found inconsistencies between this set of maps and the other handbooks (notably HB:HS) so I might be sending a couple of questions in the official BT forums around next week. Mild spoiler: there's a new system in the 2319 map named Lamar. Sadly, this is the only time we get to see this system as it disappears in all succeeding maps. I don't have the whole book so if there's something written about this system I have no knowledge of it.-Volt (talk) 08:09, 24 April 2015 (PDT)

Unless the spelling within the text differs, ctrl-f search shows the only instance of Lamar is the 2319 foundation map on page 18. Cyc (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2015 (PDT)
Thanks for the confirmation, Cyc! Guess we have a new mystery system in place. I've just finished printing my full map with Lamar in place. Will post the link on my user page as soon as I'm done validating the rest of the maps. Who knows what other surprises Oystein has in store for us in those jewels.-Volt (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2015 (PDT)
The map in Handbook: House Steiner was admitted to be in error before, I think - I'm not sure which ATW question I flagged it up in, but I had questions for them about the worlds in the Terran Hegemony in the HB:HS map compared to (I think) Handbook: House Liao, because the two maps implied systems being annexed despite the Geneva Treaty between House Marik and the Hegemony, and it was confirmed that the HB:HS map was wrong.
Lamar looks to be the first instance of a system that was presumably depopulated during the Age of War and then never re-populated, which is rather fascinating. I rather wish I had the ability to extract the text layer from the map pages, because fiddling around with the cursor highlights the names of a lot of systems underneath the map legends that it would be great to be able to link to a date. Which begs the question... if I can copy and paste their names out of a map in an electronic copy of the Handbook, even though they can't be seen visually, can I still list them as being in place at that date and cite that page of the book as the proof? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 10:54, 25 April 2015 (PDT)
I use Adobe Illustrator to do just that. I delete the legend panels and see which systems are in existence then. My only problem with that is on the foundation maps, where most of the surrounding systems have no affiliation borders. Take for example the 2319 map, systems beloning to pre-Capellan factions (Sarna Supremacy, Tikonov Grand Union, etc) are visible but if one didn't know they existed then they could accidentally be mistaken for "Independent" systems.-Volt (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2015 (PDT)
I thought this over last night, and it would be useful to have the lists of planets that are included but hidden in each of the founding nation maps; I can include them in the Political Afffiliation section of the planet articles with a note saying "inhabited, but affiliation unknown" and an explanation in the system history indicating that we know the system had been settled by that year, but no detail exists confirming it's membership of any of the various proto-nations. The fact that the systems are on the map seems important enough to note, even if we can't be sure who they were affiliated with.
I'm going to have to rework the Nearest Systems section of every system within 60 light years of Lamar, aren't I? *sighs* BrokenMnemonic (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2015 (PDT)
Let me know if you need help with the visible-but-invisible systems in the map. I might be able to split the work with you on that one. Yup, you're going to have to rework the Nearest Systems section. On the plus side, there're only 57 pages (including that of Lamar) and I've already finished going through the maps from HB:HK and it's the ONLY new system I found. To help you on your way to the 57 here are the links to the respective pages:
Satalice Heiligendreuz Skandia Shardayne Oyevaina Gunzburg Halesowen Nox Karston Maule Hainfeld Muswell Utrecht Kobe Thun Galuzzo Thannhausen Hyperion Ardoz Vorarlberg Diosd Eguilles Carse Setubal Bessarabia Memmingen Altenmarkt Suk II Alshain Wheel Perrot Volders Ramsau Marawi Weingarten Rastaban Stanzach Domain Rubigen Kempten Lothan Sternwerde Toffen Mannedorf Kaesong Maestu Sheliak Krenice Tinaca Radstadt Quarell Tamar Kandis Najha Tukayyid Biota
My XLSX file is up to date so you can use the coordinates and distance from there. Looks like all I need now is a full map of the Inner Sphere after the 2nd Succession War to complete my database. I've all about given up on hoping for maps of the Kerensky Cluster around the time of the Succession Wars and during the Wars of Reaving-Volt (talk) 03:16, 28 April 2015 (PDT)
Thanks for the list of worlds affected by Lamar - I suspect I'll go back and do them seperately once HB:HK is out of moratorium, as I'm going to be churning through planets for the next eighteen months or so. I'm a little hesitant to rush in with changes given the number of issues you've picked up between the HB:HK maps and the map Historical: Liberation of Terra Volume 2 - although I'm also worried that I haven't seen Øystein posting much on the forum at all lately, and he no longer shows up with any kind of developer tag, instead being listed as "BattleTech Volunteer", which makes me wonder if he's no longer directly involved with CGL.
I don't have access to Adobe Illustrator, so while I can get at some of the hidden map names by dragging the text cursor around, I can't find a way of getting at all of them - I'm a little envious of you! Would it be possible for you to harvest and list all of the system names in each of the five founding maps by individual map? I'm debating whether it would be worth setting up a seperate article/essay linked to the planets project page here to explain where the details came from and how they were obtained, so that in the future if anyone has any questions we can show clearly how the various systems were identified. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2015 (PDT)
I just realized I could do the same thing with much less mess and effort using Adobe Acrobat Pro. I could take all the handbook maps and put them in one compilation, take out the legends and title pages then send you the link via dropbox. I could probably do this over the weekend and furnish you with a link by next week at the latest. Let me know if this works for you. That info you just provided on Øystein is kinda disturbing. That means we don't have a go-to person for the clarifications that we may have. Personally I am more inclined to use the HB:HK maps over the full-page 2822 simply because the ones on the HB:HK 2822 map seem to jive with the 2864 and 3025 maps from the same book. I think I'll have to review this further and see which one will net me with fewer conflicting data and then just note it accordingly.-Volt (talk) 03:16, 29 April 2015 (PDT)
That'd be great, if it's not too much trouble?
One thought does occur to me - are there any discrepancies between the H:LOTV2 2822 map and the 2822 maps from any of the other Handbooks? If all of the inconsistencies are linked to just HB:HK, that would imply the errors are on the part of HB:HK. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 04:56, 29 April 2015 (PDT)
So far I've only found three systems appearing in HB:HK in 2822 but are missing from the other handbooks, Nis, Herat, and Skaslien. All three are FS systems and all three are behind the Legend panel. All three also appear in the HB:HK 2864 map. For the most part I would like to treat the inconsistencies found in HB:HK as erroneous even though it's the more recent map released simply because all the other maps previously are more consistent with one another. Also notice that the Succession Wars maps of HB:HK are using different dates (2781 instead of 2786, 2822 instead of 2830, and 2864 instead of 2866). The only inconsistency I would like to acknowledge that favor HB:HK would be the absence of Dunklewälderdunklerflüssenschattenwelt in 2822 because previous retcon did place it as lost in the First Succession War because it was renamed to Bob but died precisely because of this, so it should not even appear in 2822 as Bob if this is what in fact happened.-Volt (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2015 (PDT)
I'm a little confused - I don't have all the Handbooks at work, but my PDF copy of Handbook: House Davion has the map dates as 2822 and 2864 - are the HB:HK dates 2830/2866, or am I missing something? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2015 (PDT)
The other four Handbooks use the following dates: 2786/2822, 2830/2864, 2866/3025 while HB:HK uses 2781/2822, 2822/2864, 2864/3025. I don't know if that has any significant impact but some of the discrepancy might be attributed to the slight shift in the start/end years showing border changes.
Here are the maps without the legend panels. I didn't include the maps that didn't have any systems found under the Legend panels. You will notice that some circles don't have names. best to reference these against my Human Sphere PDF map because that map has all known systems plotted regardless of era. Let me know once you'd downloaded it because I might have to delete it right after. I only put in founding pages Let me know if you need the 2864 maps as well.-Volt (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2015 (PDT)
I've grabbed the file, thank you - I'm rushing around like a madman at the moment because there are two big deadlines for the convention coming up tonight, but I'll hopefully get to look and reply coherently in a day or two. I did look through to check that all the pages had downloaded cleanly, and my first thought was that BattleTech maps are so much fun. My second thought was "why couldn't we have the Federated Suns border on the DC formation map?" but that's another issue Wink.gif BrokenMnemonic (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2015 (PDT)
You are quite welcome. Just let me know if you need anything else. I am just about done with BT-related work until a new map appears. Haha don't get me started with the "why couldn't we have..." conversations regarding the maps because based on the data that has been mined from these maps and then going back to the maps I am seeing so much that can still be done with the maps. Don't get me wrong, I think Oystein has been doing a superb job with the maps, they hide and at the same time tell so many stories if you know where to look. I remember my first take at the HB:HM map when I saw Jardine for the first time, my heart literally skipped a beat.-Volt (talk) 05:23, 1 May 2015 (PDT)

Nearby Planets/Systems[edit]

Hi guys, I have this minor concern with the Nearby Planets/Systems Table. I was looking through the Clusters and it just dawned on me that maybe some systems should be taken out of this list. For example, if you go to the Pleiades Cluster, the nearest systems would be Electra, Maia, and Merope, but those systems are actually INSIDE the star cluster, so maybe they shouldn't count? It's the same case with Badlands Cluster and Hyades Cluster.

When you go to a cluster system like Electra, should the Pleiades Cluster be listed in the Nearby Systems? Maybe it should be taken out because Electa is part of the cluster.

On the opposite side of the table, we go to a non-cluster system such as Ridgebrook. When you look at the Nearby Systems table, should we be seeing Electra, Maia and Merope, or maybe just the Pleiades Cluster? Appreciate your thoughts!-Volt (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2015 (PDT)

I prefer to see the full list - so in the case of Ridgebrook seeing Electra, Maia, Merope and then the Pleiades Cluster - because it's listing both the cluster and the primary worlds/systems of significance within that Cluster. It's a bit like seeing a list for Paris include how close Britain is, but also how close the major cities such as London, Bristol and Birmingham are; most of the systems and planets within clusters are so insignificant that they not only don't have names, until recently TPTB couldn't decide whether they existed or not. Planets like Maia, Merope and Electra (and Badlands and Lorkdal, etc) are significant in some way, and I'm comfortable seeing them singled out for specific mention in the nearby systems table. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2015 (PDT)
Makes sense. Thanks for the input :) -Volt (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2015 (PDT)
You can generally count on me to have an opinion Wink.gif Plus, if it comes down to it, it looks like I'm going to be updating 90% of the planet articles myself, so if anyone wants to argue, they can always volunteer to go back and rework the 800 or so planet articles I've already updated... BrokenMnemonic (talk)

Updated Coords[edit]

Gents, is there any problem if I update specific pages with Volt's most up-to-date coordinates. I'm working a database project for ScrapYardArmory's stress test of the new Inner Sphere at War rules and I've been assigned to add in coordinates for the FRR. Since I'm using Sarna to determine the (financial) values of each planet, I thought I might as well update each article with Volt's latest coordinates. If no problem, I'm also presuming the shortcut 'e' link to the System coordinates essay will suffice for the citation. (I ask, as I don't want to violate any changes since I 'departed'.)--Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:19, 27 August 2015 (PDT)

No problems from my end with that; you should find that all the FRR worlds beginning with an A, B, C, W, X, Y or Z have already been done - I'm currently working slowly forward through those beginning with a D, whilst Doneve has been working backwards through those beginning with a V. The e template citation is what we're still using as standard - I suspect that citation will last as long as the wiki does now. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2015 (PDT)
Excellent; thank you. Any specific place I should record these as having been updated? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 04:51, 28 August 2015 (PDT)
No need to worry about recording the update - Doneve and me are the only people working on planets at the moment, and we're checking all the coordinates as we go through. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2015 (PDT)

Baker 3: Arabic vs Roman[edit]

Please see this project-related question. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 22:33, 24 August 2017 (EDT)

Handbook Map Reference Errors[edit]

I have been correcting a large number of planet pages with incorrect and/or broken references for the maps in Handbook: House Davion. The 3067 map references are most often in error and should be p. 82 rather than p. 78, though I have found some incorrectly referencing the 3030 and 3039 maps. This is just an FYI. It's going to take a long time, but I'm working through them. Any help would be appreciated.--Cache (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2018 (EDT)

There is a whole lot of this causing reference errors, too: <ref name="HB:HKp43">''Handbook: House Kurita'', p. 53

(ref name should be HB:HKp53)

I'll be working through them as well. Again, any help is appreciated. It's a quick fix per page, but there are a lot of pages.--Cache (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2018 (EDT)

I've been working on the Pages with reference errors for months. The ones you cite seem to be copy & paste errors, and as such they're luckily relatively easy to spot and fix. Your help is appreciated very much! Frabby (talk) 04:42, 30 March 2018 (EDT)
I got through all that show up with the HB:HKp43/53 error. Those were probably the easiest. Probably back to the HB:HD errors now. They won't be quite as easy, unfortunately.--Cache (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2018 (EDT)

Links in Political Affiliation and Military Deployment[edit]

I have a proposal on these two sections: always like an affiliation / unit the first time it appears there, regardless if it is previously linked in another section. I know we are to try not to link something twice, but those two sections should for always link the topic.--Pserratv (talk) 07:26, 14 February 2019 (EST)

I actually thought we did that anyway! I pretty often re-link things in a new section on all kinds of articles.--Dmon (talk) 07:34, 14 February 2019 (EST)
I've seen enough cases that this is not happening... that is why I suggested.--Pserratv (talk) 08:08, 14 February 2019 (EST)


Hi guys, can someone create the article page for Eliat? It's an Independent system in the 2980 map from House Arano book. the coordinates are (250.629,-449.585)-Volt (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2020 (EDT)

Done--Dmon (talk) 11:46, 14 September 2020 (EDT)
Thanks!-Volt (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2020 (EDT)

New systems from OTP: Hanseatic Crusade[edit]

Hey team,

I am not entierly sure how we workout coordinates etc for planets, so if somebody on the team would like to step in and generate coords, maps and nearby systems tables for the new planets introduced in Operational Turning Points: Hanseatic Crusade.

I can supply a map from the PDF if needed, also would it be possible to add colors for the territory to the maps?.--Dmon (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2020 (EDT)

Hey Dmon, if you can send the PDF to me I can extract the coordinates and post them here and in the SUCK-Volt (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2020 (EDT)
Sent you an email to the address in the SUCK spreadsheet.--Dmon (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2020 (EDT)
Got it!
Fell Wind (-771.887, 1047.393)
Glory (-688.883, 1018.071)
Graystone (-680.427, 1055.24)
Hallelujah (-667.304, 970.668)
Holdout (-731.252, 1050.247)
Khanquest (-714.573, 993.081)
Winston (-747.634, 1085.037)
currently working on faction ownership data. Have to sift through text. You can view what's been extracted in the SUCK-Volt (talk) 06:51, 15 October 2020 (EDT)
Can we get these out to 7 decimals? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:01, 19 June 2021 (EDT)
well, I could technically make the decimals to whatever length you'd want, we just decided to cap them at 3 decimals because the most we could get from the raw coordinates was 3, plus I think anything more doesn't really serve any practical purpose. I could make them 8 decimals so they look like cryptocurrency--Volt (talk) 11:19, 19 June 2021 (EDT)
I claim Luthien (for the Federated Suns) via my NFT!--Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:20, 19 June 2021 (EDT)

Permission to use unreleased coordinates & new names[edit]

On June 16, 2021, Ray Arrastia (as Gideon) approached Sarna staff (on Discord) with a request:

  • add three "new" planets to Sarna (as articles), based upon the year 3152
  • include their currently-unreleased coordinates
  • rapid-return on our interpretation of the closest planets to these coordinates

Gruese was able to rapidly generate maps, with these three worlds in the center, wherein it was realized that two of these three worlds (Sardinas and Almotacen) were almost perfectly co-located with pre-identified systems (Baggville and Stonarboi, respectively), which Gideon confirmed were now renamed. (The planet Matteo was in a new location.)

A bit after, utilizing a script he wrote on-the-fly, Gruese was also able to provide at least 5 nearby (defined as within 1 jump) systems (and their distances) to these target worlds.

Gideon then revealed these worlds would be depicted on a map for the forthcoming Tamar Rising sourcebook.

On June 21, 2021, Gideon once again affirmed the official permission to post the official coordinates for these worlds, as seen here.

The above documentation is provided to serve as a linkable citation for the information.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 22:03, 20 June 2021 (EDT)