BattleTechWiki talk:Project Planets/Planet Overhaul

Era Specific Data

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

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

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

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

System Naming

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

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

Discovered Star Name:

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

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

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

Observations

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

  • InfoBoxSystem and InfoBoxPlanet both have an image field. I'm guessing that one of these will be for the galactica map, and one for the planetary flag, if it's known - is that correct?
I think so. We also have pictures of a number of individual worlds scattered about various sources, plus of course the coverage from LinkNet. Frabby 09:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
In that case, it may be worth expanding the template to include more than one image area, and to flag them as something like image (galatic map), image (planet), image (planet flag), to reduce confusion a little for casual editors, and to allow for display both the image of the planet (from something like worlds of the republic? 25 years of art and fiction? I don't have either, but I'm making educated guesses from what I've seen here) and the planetary flags from the Handbooks, House books and the like, where they exist. One thing I've discovered editing Rollis is that simply copying and pasting the image code already present for the Rollis flag generates some sort of visual glitch in the new template box, and I don't know how to fix that. BrokenMnemonic 09:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, BM: you've said you were unfamiliar with templates, and I should have thought to point you to them for information. If you go to the actual template itself (in this case, Template:InfoBoxSystem, Template:InfoBoxPlanetStandard & Template:InfoBoxPlanetUpdate, you'll see how each of the fields is meant to be used. As for multiple graphics, the image field description provides the order of importance (when multiples are available); the rest should go in the article's image gallery (just as we do with the 'Mechs.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 10:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah, now that makes more sense. Thank you! BrokenMnemonic 17:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Planet Update boxes: Rollis has planetary information available from two different eras, drawn from two different sources. I think this information has value - it potentially shows how populations and planetary levels have changed over time - but I don't know if the template allows for multiple InfoBoxPlanetUpdate entries. I think it probably should, but I don't know if you can repeat a template more than once in an article. I notice that in the Sarna article, there's the one info box, but each field has (3067) and a reference next to the information, which makes the box look a bit... cluttered. I think it would be better to expand the InfoBoxPlanetUpdate template by adding a "Year:" field, which can have the reference applied to it rather than to every entry. Most planets are either going to have no specifics (because they've never been printed up) or are going to have more than one, because the majority of planets that are important enough to have this sort of detail are important enough to be updated in later documents. I'm not sure how this would work, but what I'd like to be able to do for Rollis would be to do something like this:
{{InfoBoxPlanetUpdate#1
| year                = 3025 <ref name="HL:TCCp75">''House Liao (The Capellan Confederation)'', p. 75, "St. Ives">
| ruler               = Lord Mathus Overton
| capital             = 
| population          = 5,619,000,000
| USIIR               = 
| hpg                 = A
}}
{{InfoBoxPlanetUpdate#2
| year                = 3067 <ref name="HB:HLp81">''Handbook: House Liao'', p. 81, "St. ives"</ref>
| ruler               = Duchess Candace Liao
| capital             = 
| population          = 5,900,000,000
| USIIR               = A-A-B-A-C
| hpg                 = A
}}
{{InfoBoxPlanetUpdate#3
| year                = 3079 <ref name="OCCp2129">''Objectives: Capellan Confederation'', p. 2129, "St. ives"</ref>
| ruler               = Empress Marisa Tomei
| capital             = 
| population          = 4,600,000,000
| USIIR               = B-B-B-A-C
| hpg                 = A
}}
My gut feeling says we should have only one InfoBoxPlanet, and leave variable parameters (rulers, USIIR, population) out of it. Such items belong into the text imho, because they are too different to use a unified scheme for all planets. Frabby 09:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Ultimately, I'll go with whichever format is mandated, but I don't like the way the InfoBoxPlanet details at the moment seem to spread across the page from the right hand side - I think they should be a bar down just one side of the page, but I don't know if the Rollis entry looks messed up because of something I've done, or because of the template itself. I think the danger in having the rulers, population and USIIR details in the main text is that it'll make some entries look more like list posts, and whereas not all planets have these details, those that do have them look to be in a fairly consistent format; USIIR is relatively new, but where it exists, it's in the same format throughout. BrokenMnemonic 09:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
You've identified something I failed to comment on myself, having re-discovered the issue while working on Sarna. Frabby has previously suggested we should only have one Planet infobox, and I think that is probably a good idea. He had suggested having multiple Update boxes just clutters up the article and may overly elongate that planet's section, when there isn't enough text to justify that many boxes. Also, the Update templates don't seem to be cooperating, showing up to the left of the Standard box (instead of following in line underneath).
So, it's my intention today of combining the Standard & Update boxes. But, as for multiple years, what we do in other infoboxes is add in the <br> code after one entry and then add in the second, so that they fall in line. Sarna didn't allow me to do that, but after I respond here, I'll show you with the Rollis boxes.
And I agree with you about utilizing infoboxes, rather than lists. But, we'll see what the result is during this Mockup run.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 10:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I see what you did with the Rollis article - I'd done the same thing when I updated the Wolf's Dargoons sourcebook article, but I hadn't thought to do the same here. D'oh. How many times have details like the USIIR rating been updated for a palnet, at most? I think th elists within infoboxes works, but it could get a bit cluttered if there are more than 3 or so entries in each line. BrokenMnemonic 17:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
To add some perspective to that, there's at least two USIIR entries for Solaris (HBHS and ATOW) and they're very different because of the damage caused by the Blakist invasion and occupation. USIIR ratings are not necessarily static and when we get a look at more of them for different worlds (possibly in the Turning Points series?), we're going to need somewhere to put them. --Moonsword 12:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Not a problem: add in the original USIIR with the year in parenthesis followed by the <br> code and then add in the second (with its year). --Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
As for 3 or more codes, I think it's not something we'll need to worry about just yet. Moonsword has found the first instance I know of where two USIIRs are available; three seems a bit remote and when it does come, we'll handle it at that time.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • At the moment, under the new template, the system histories are going to come fairly high up in the article. That's not an issue itself, but at the moment a lot of entries have the system history details after other details, such as the planetary data, garrison data and the like. Stylistically, I think the new way of doing things is a better way of doing things, but in practise it means a lot of references need to get copy and pasted back and forth, because the original citation (the garrison unit entry, the planetary ruler entry, etc) will now be further down the document than the system history. It's not a drama, but it's a bit of a pain moving them back and forth and checking that they've ended up back in the right order of precedence. Is there a trick here I'm missing to make it easier?
System data is the "envelope" for planetary data, with possibly several entries of the latter type per system. I don't think it can be sorted in any other way. But keep in mind that system ownership can be a different animal from planet ownership (the planet Wolcott was controlled by the Kuritas but the system was controlled by the Jags; some systems were contested for extended periods of time; some systems were under joint administration; etc.). Frabby 09:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
It's the same core issue, though; ok, in the Wolcott example, you may have system history, then planet history, then garrisons, but the problem remains that the references are currently spelt out in the garrison entries, which are still after the system history and planet history, so you're still copy and pasting back and forth from lower in the old article to higher up in the new article because the format's changed. We're going from articles that are in the format Planet Summary : Planet Rulers : Planet Garrisons : Planet Ownership to one where Planet Ownership (sometimes split out into System Ownership and Planet Ownership) is suddenly at the top of the precedence order after system description, so all of the references generated in the Planet Summary/Planet Rulers/Planet Garrisons areas of the old article need to be moved/retyped. If it's got to be done that way, then it can be done that way, but if there's an easier way to do that (some kind of automation?) then it saves a lot of copy and pasting and chasing down of reference errors. It's not the structure of the template I'm having problems with, it's the physical task of reformatting the articles. BrokenMnemonic 09:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Scholastically-speaking, you're right in that the first use of a reference in a work should have the citation tied to that first use. However, in books (real non-ficiton) where citations are collected in an appendix, that's not an issue; the number is applied throughout the work to that citation in the appendix (if the citation is exactly the same, without notes). Wikis have confused that: it's much easier to find a full citation when it's applied to the first use, but rarely have I ever copy-edited an article to the point where I've moved the citations. The wiki code doesn't indicate the order of first use to the reader and so I've found it to be of limited benefit (only to editors and only in articles that will be overly long and convoluted) to relocate references to the first use. When I absolutely have to find the full citation (in order to copy-edit the citation), I'll do a search within the edit field for ref name=xxx, until I find the full citation. In other words, I wouldn't worry about moving the citation. It'll work out to the 95% mark as it stands.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 10:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Just to check I've got this right, so long as I spell out what the ref name is at some point within the article, I can use the ref name/ tag anywhere in that article, above ore below where it's defined, without breaking anything? If I sound slow, it's because I've done a bit of computer programming, and I've always been taught that you have to define a variable or string before you can use it... BrokenMnemonic 17:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, where does history go when basically everything is planetary history? Also, is Geography the appropriate place to put things like observations on climate? --Moonsword 12:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
If it concerns control of the system, above. If it deals with events on the planet, below. There's also no reason mention cannot be made in both, if necessary.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 02:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Planet Name section

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

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

Planet Infoboxes

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

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

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

Phase 2

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

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

Geography/Planetary Locations

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

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

Phase 3

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

  • One of the things that I think I'm going to have to do is create a seperate gallery category for the individual system maps; as it stands, if I tag them with the standard categories of Map Gallery and Works by Øystein Tvedten those two categories when viewed through the gallery option on the left master menu are going to become so large as to be unworkable. It might be worth further sub-dividing the planet maps category somehow into other categories, to make casual searching of them easier to do. I'd be grateful for any suggestions. BrokenMnemonic 08:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
This might help you to know: starting with the test-run of one region, each mission will get its own mission page (such as I've built up here for the Mock-up, etc.) So, let's use the FRR as an example: Mission FRR will have a mission page, where Phase 1 assignments will be doled out. Since you, as the Overhaul cartographer, will know what missions are currently active, you can have a gallery sub-page to that mission, where you can upload all the individual maps (for storage). BUT...you don't even need to do that: when an article in that mission gets to Phase 3, you can just upload it and automatically assign it to that article (i.e., no gallery). To be clear, one person doesn't shepherd an article all the way through all the phases. Instead, you BrokenMnemonic, will own the Phase 3 for each article and as a mission member declares an article Phase 2 complete, you can move in and plug in the map. Is that clear? Does it make the task easier for you? Or would you prefer to create a gallery for the mission members to pull from themselves?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 15:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
So, just to get this clear in my own mind, whereas all of the maps I've uploaded for reference for the project teams have been categorised as both Map Gallery and Works by Øystein Tvedten, the planet/system image maps won't have the Map Gallery category applied to them? My first concern was clogging up that main maps gallery with literally thousands of small maps, making it difficult for people to find the "big" maps like those of the major Houses by era. I think I'd prefer to create a specific category for these maps, to keep them seperate from those higher-level maps - or is it possible to actually re-use the [[Category:Planets|Planetname]] category that each planet already uses, linking the maps directly to the planets? I don't know if that would break something though... BrokenMnemonic 06:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Unlike articles, all maps do not need to be categorized; they just have to be used by an article (an exception is being made for your region maps, as they're actively being used for research purposes). The ones you'll be uploading for the system articles do not need to be categorized. I absolutely agree with you they should not go into the Map Gallery nor should they go into the Works by Øystein Tvedten one, either (as they have been 'significantly' altered, and not just cropped). Now, you could categorize them for the purpose for which they're being used (i.e. a new category), but why? If someone wanted a map where Rollis is highlighted, why not get it directly from the Rollis article?
As for using the Category:Planets (<-- see where I put the first colon in order to display it), it would really clutter up that beneficial category, with hundreds (200, I believe) images on every page, increasing the amount of data being pulled from Nic's servers warrantlessly, as most people (in my opinion) will be looking for a planet name, not a map. I would advise against putting them in that specific category. Does that help?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • There's also the question of eras. A lot of planet maps are going to be from the 2750/2822 maps, because a lot of planets only exist on those maps. Relatively few new planets have appeared on maps post 3025, compared to the number that were added during the Star League era. That could create a distorted view of the Inner Sphere on maps though, as the 3025+ era has been the main game era for the last 30 years or so; would it be best to use 3025+ era maps for worlds that survived the first three succession wars? Alternatively, would it be best to include maps for 3025 and 3067 for each planet, where they exist? Or, is it worth expanding the image gallery of each planet entry to link to the province maps being worked up by Doneve and myself for each of the major eras, so that people reading have sight of both? BrokenMnemonic 08:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
The galleries of region maps that Doneve and you are building serve a different purpose than the individual system maps for display in the articles. The region maps are for Phase 4, the Ownership phase, where the mission members determine who own the system in any particular year. These maps are for research purposes, and while they can be used in any articles anywhere on the wiki, they are primarily decision/research aids for the mission members.
That said, and this is only my opinion (as the decision as to what system map should be used is up to you, in your Phase 3 responsibilities), but the best map to display would the the most current one that displays the target system. My rationale is that the most current era will be the most familiar to the most readers, and with your customization of a very limited displayable area, the most recognizable features would be best. However, you might be of the opinion that with the deletion of the Nearby Planet tables from the articles, an older map displaying more planets serves a greater purpose. You might even have a third option.
What way are you leaning?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 15:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd rather avoid the most current map option, simply because that's soon going to be the 3130 era maps, and the big map of the Inner Sphere released by Øystein is gorgeous, but not easily editable. Until it's available in a more easily edited version, it's going to be difficult to produce maps for that era, and given that CGL have stated they're moving away from the Handbook style sourcebooks because they aren't profitable, I'm not sure if we're likely to get better maps than those we've got at the moment (3067 for most, 3079 for some if the Field Reports are used). My gut instinct is to go for the most heavily populated map for planets that died off (so, 2750 for Periphery worlds, 2822 for most Inner Sphere worlds) and the 3067 maps for those worlds that survived up until the beginning of the Jihad. My reasoning for working this way is that if someone's looking at entries for Star League era worlds, it's probably of interest to them to know what the situation was like for those worlds when they existed. For those just looking for maps in general, 3067 marks the end of the last "finished" era in writing terms, the FedCom civil war, which seems a reasonable break point to use for maps. I could, as an option, produce 2750/2822 era maps for all of those worlds that survived up until 3067, giving us two maps for a lot of the planets - would that be a valuable option for the wiki? BrokenMnemonic 06:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
That makes logical sense. I have no issues with doing the most populated maps. Thanks, BrokenMnemonic.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I've uploaded local images for Rollis, Grossbach and Sarna. I'm not particularly happy with the Sarna image, and I'm going to see if I can make a better one. Can I get some second/third/nth opinions on the three images, please? BrokenMnemonic 18:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Nice! Though I also think that the Sarna picture is a little bit irritating. It looks like the boarder in 3030.Harry 18:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=BattleTechWiki_talk:Project_Planets/Planet_Overhaul&oldid=205096"