BattleTechWiki talk:Project Systems

The Mapping Project, Operation Doneve, is actively seeking input and involvement from Sarna's Editors and users.

In order to promote effective communication and project progress, please determine which of the following sections are most applicable and initiate conversations in that section. If you have an idea that is rather different in scope than what is being discussed, please consider opening another independent thread to that conversation.

Conversations will be periodically (and irregularly) archived.

Audit

reference: BattleTechWiki:Project_Planets/Mapping#Audit

Corrective Services

reference: BattleTechWiki:Project_Planets/Mapping#Corrective_Services

Article Mapping

reference: BattleTechWiki:Project_Planets/Mapping#Article_Mapping

Input regarding the primary map

Gruese is seeking user input as to how the maps would best serve the system articles.

Using the Sarna system article as an example, system articles generally have a map in the right top corner, initially generated by Nicjansma when he first opened Sarna's BattleTechWiki. However, through a number of issues detailed elsewhere, these maps are often inaccurate relative to present canon. The Project: Planets team has done an incredible job in trying to ensure that accurate coordinates are presented within the article and updating this primary map image (when possible) with manually-modified images that are more accurate in the presentation of positions.

However, the Mapping Project is seeking to standardize these images across all system articles, in a way that is both accurate and easy to correct, update, and upload.

In his initial work, Gruese has created a series of test images. The below gallery allows you to compare the present image for Sarna to the test image:

• Sarna Neighbors.png

  Auto-generated December 2007

• 

  Mapping test image

One of the first things you'll notice is the difference in positions of planets: some have moved, others added. The test image is far more accurate, as it is based upon the Extrapolation Method of the SUCS. Both images depict about the same area of space, over 60 light-years out from Sarna, with 30- and 60-ly rings. The test image is far "busier" than the original, attributed to several reasons, including slightly differing scales and different fonts and font sizes.

Here's the request he making: what can he do to make the newer map images more useful to the Sarna user? Ideas he's already received from offline Mapping Project discussions include:

• retained 30- and 60-ly jump rings
• standardized 1000x1000 pixel size
• directional arrow to Terra (with distance)
• a minimap to help with positional reference (now a separate goal of the Mapping Project)
• shaded background to match the political affiliation; in other words, instead of a white background with colored dots, the idea is to have featureless dots on a background matching the color of the realm. In this case, that background would have green for the Capellan Confederation under all of the systems shown that are controlled by them, and yellow and purple for the systems per their relevant realms (see "Example image" here, from the IS 3025 site).

• 

  Example image

For discussion purposes, what else would make this map useful (but hopefully not too cluttered)? --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:47, 20 June 2018 (EDT)

Marking Apocryphal Systems on Maps

It should be possible with relative ease to append "(apocryphal)" to the system names in any lists. The real question is if/how to put them on starmaps. If we decide to simply include them we run into the problem outlined by BrokenMnemonic above; if we either omit them completely or mark them apocryphal on the maps we may find the maps outdated if and when CGL canonize them - which may or may not happen at some point down the line. If the HBS game really pulls in troves of new players then that should be an impetus for CGL to canonize the gaming area and storyline as much as possible. Frabby (talk) 05:36, 23 August 2018 (EDT)

@Frabby: The maps will be dynamically created, whenever the SUCKit coordinates are updated, so if/when they become canonical, it'd just be a matter of removing whatever tag the mapping software uses to identify them as apocryphal. But you've highlighted a good point about identifying them in the first place; I'll bring that up with the Operation Doneve group.

@BrokenMnemonic: Nic has responded positively about including the table into the operation. So, good on ya for identifying this well before we completed the whole thing. Thank you.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:40, 23 August 2018 (EDT)

If you look at the | Aurigan Reach Map that was published in the Kickstarter days it has what appear to be jump paths. This gives me the impression that a lot of the new worlds HBS have added, they did so specifically to alleviate the issue of isolated worlds. If we are to retain the 60 LY format for the tables including the apocryphal worlds will have a fringe benefit to us in that it will help cut down the number of tables that would need manual care for that region at least.--Dmon (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2018 (EDT)

Unless and until CGL canonise those worlds, and the MechWarrior worlds, and all the other apocryphal worlds, they're still something that shouldn't be showing up in a way that could mislead someone into thinking they're canon systems, though. My preference would be for them to not appear on system tables and maps in canon system articles, but I don't know how easily achievable that is. The only way they should appear in canon articles is if there's some way of making it immediately obvious and highly visible that they aren't canon systems. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 16:26, 23 Aubgust 2018 (EDT)

My gut feeling goes in the opposite direction. I'm a completionist, and I'd prefer the apocryphal systems must be added - preferrably listed as apocryphal on maps and jump links, but if that's somehow unworkable then they should still stay in. After all, the linked articles themselves will be marked as apocryphal. And there are plentiful official canon maps around to double check, and CGL even have a dedicated map guru in Øystein Tvedten. Frabby (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2018 (EDT)

You're absolutely right, Dmon. The dream is to make all of these tables script-updatable, and you've reminded me that we should tag the ones that are not,for such manual updating. I can't image there will be more than a handful (if any).--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:19, 23 August 2018 (EDT)

There are a fair number - particularly since ISP3 gave us maps of the Deep Periphery for the first time, but Explorer Corps and Wars of Reaving also added a fair number. I've only worked through about 40% of the tables manually, but there were enough that by the time I'd got to systems beginning with a C, I felt it was something I needed to find a way around, so that the nearby systems section of those pages wouldn't simply be an empty table - I wanted to give readers something useful. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2018 (EDT)

What I meant was, following the adaption of your Phase 5 tables (as Nic refers to them), there should be few that cannot be updated by the "distance bot". In fact, that's what the cross-site collaboration team is working on now, but on system coordinates, by Nic identifying which articles are not getting updated by his coords bot, and us resolving them, so that they can. Same thing with your tables: once Nic builds the distance bot, you and I will resolve the problems keeping the remaining articles from being updated.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:18, 23 August 2018 (EDT)

Interactive Map

reference: BattleTechWiki:Project_Planets/Mapping#Interactive_Map