Talk:Zarushagar Sector

User:Tjoneslo, Why does the "SectorWorlds2" center right on this page? Thanks. Maksim-Smelchak (talk) 02:02, 7 June 2015 (EDT)

It just looks that way because of the layout of the object on the page. The Zoomed out view of the surrounding sectors is left aligned in the space which is wider than the image is. So you eye thinks the right side of the image is the right side of the page, but there is a set of white space between the right side of the image and the right side of the page. This makes the {{SectorWorld2}} template look unbalanced on the page. The problem here is the size of the {{InfoboxSector}} isn't fixed, it's largely determined by the width of the subsector names. It also might help if the lower image was centered in the table. Tjoneslo (talk) 08:14, 7 June 2015 (EDT)

Thank you,. Maksim-Smelchak (talk) 09:22, 7 June 2015 (EDT)

So what is the extra world in this sector? Summary says 496, but worlds template says: 497. I know why the Spinward Marches Sector is wrong, but why this one? Tjoneslo (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2015 (EDT)

I will check and see what I can find. It may be awhile (...perhaps a few days) as I have other obligations today than the Traveller Wiki... Thank you for all of your help. Maksim-Smelchak (talk) 11:06, 18 June 2015 (EDT)

Thinking about, I think there is a non-canon world in the blend. I am still checking. Maksim-Smelchak (talk) 11:07, 18 June 2015 (EDT)

I had a quick look, things may be a bit more complicated than a single world extra. Zarushagar Sector/data and Zarushagar Sector/world list differ considerably. I'm assuming the data page is more up to date. The first world that looked odd alphabetically in the Worlds in the Sector was Agamemnon, because that isn't listed in the Zarushagar Sector/data. I then looked at the planet entry which says it is in Gaussi Subsector. I looked in Gaussi, and that has at least three worlds that are not on the Zarushagar Sector/data. Agamemnon, Australia, and Isfahan. the data page doesn't list anything at their purported locations, so it probably isn't a case of name changes. This comment is wrong so ignore it.

So it looks like there could be a number of worlds that are wrong and a number that don't have entries yet. OGuutan (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2015 (EDT)

Hi Peter AKA OGuutan. T5SS is the only canon source and the most recently reviewed source. Zarushagar Sector/data and Zarushagar Sector/world list are older sources and full of fanon and non-canon worlds, especially the world list. When in doubt, default to T5SS. I don't consult the world list much since it's almost always far out of date and full of non-canon and non T5SS worlds. Just something to consider... Maksim-Smelchak (talk) 11:58, 18 June 2015 (EDT)

The Zarushagar Sector/data is the same as http://travellermap.com/data/Zarushagar, and both contain internal labels as T5SS and are dated 2015-05-04, which is why I used that list as the comparison page and not the Zarushagar Sector/world list, which must be wrong. OGuutan (talk) 12:09, 18 June 2015 (EDT)

I must be wrong about the data page then. The world list I'm sure is older and has incorrect and non-canon data items, in as much as either can be called incorrect for a fictional work. Good observation. Thanks, Peter. Maksim-Smelchak (talk) 12:36, 18 June 2015 (EDT)

---

This is a bit long so I've separated it off.

I've done a quick bit of comparison between the planets listed from the T5SS data and the planets listed in the Worlds in the Sector box on the Sector Page.

We start with a 496:497 discrepancy in worlds

• Worlds in the Worlds in the Sector box but not in T5SS are Agamemnon, Australia, Isfahan, and Toortiered.

Of these Toortiered seems to be the same world as Provalan looking at the write-ups, so those two need reconciling in some way.

Isfahan seems to be in the same location as Banjul but with minor differences in UWP. Maybe a before and after T5SS difference.

Agamemnon seems to correspond to Voss, as above

Australia seems to correspond to Mogok, as above

Sorting those four pairs out would remove 4 entries, turning the discrepancy to 496:493

• Worlds listed in Worlds in the Sector box twice under the same name for some reason are Borderline and Phota (Coming out of alphabetical order in the second instances)

• There's also the oddity that looks like GinsheGishin in the Worlds in the Sector. This is in fact two links that for some reason haven't been separated by a bullet point - and are not counted separately in the box total! So Gishin is listed twice but hasn't been counted twice.

Sorting those out would make the discrepancy 496:491.

• Worlds in T5SS list but not in Worlds in the Sector Ypse, Zigme, Zimilia, Zlotoja, Znin

Adding entries for these would bring parity at 496:496.

I haven't made any changes as some of the double listings look a bit odd so might need a bit of checking before they are corrected.

OGuutan (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2015 (EDT)

At least some of those errors come from World and WorldS (code_ problems. The top entry of any UWP planet entry should be world. Any after that such as from colonies should be World S. I am getting good at figuring those errors out. Maksim-Smelchak (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2015 (EDT)

Please look here: Talk:Toortiered (world). Thomas writes: "Move the article to the canon name, and update the article to include the non-canon name" ...that works. Those are all non-canon worlds and I have notes in the discussion areas of each. Maksim-Smelchak (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2015 (EDT)

Yes, I'd seen the comments on the pages. I thought it sensible to be as complete as possible here so as to have everything in one place. Once combined, I think Thomas means to then turn the non-canon page into a redirect - otherwise it does things like messing up the numbers of worlds in a sector. The other thing, that means it can't always be just copied across, is that now we have a page, Provalan, that says that it has a population of 600 million, yet there is the statement "The low population figure given above...". that's what I meant by needing rationalising.

Sorting out the WorldS /World template confusion as you suggested has cleared the duplicate names once I tracked down which other worlds had the names in them. I had seen Thomas's comment about the World template not being overused but hadn't quite understood how it affected things in practise. Thanks. That leaves the four worlds to rationalise and five to add.

Incidentally, if you change a World to a WorldS template, you need to delete the subsector name from the arguments of the template or it doesn't display properly. WorldS only has WorldS|world name|sector name|hexcode while World has World|world name|sector name|subsector name|hexcode. OGuutan (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2015 (EDT)