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. --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)

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)

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)