Difference between revisions of "Template talk:InfoboxSubsector"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Notes (2018) == | ||
| + | <pre> | ||
| + | TBD | ||
| + | </pre> | ||
| + | |||
== Notes (2008) == | == Notes (2008) == | ||
While the use of the traveller maps site for the sector is a good idea, I am not certain about subsectors however. | While the use of the traveller maps site for the sector is a good idea, I am not certain about subsectors however. | ||
Revision as of 19:52, 20 May 2018
Notes (2018)
TBD
Notes (2008)
While the use of the traveller maps site for the sector is a good idea, I am not certain about subsectors however.
There is a possibility of subsector information which is not canon, or from duplicate sources on this site, and how would we represent this? The InfoboxSubsectorImagemap should obviously be used when we have a pre-defined image, but we might need to preserve the old InfoboxSubscector perhaps under a different name? Dcorrin 18:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I had two reasons for wanting to do the traveller map as the subsector rather than the older style. First is, it's a total pain in the... err. wrist to input correctly. Second is, it looks terrible. So, a lot of work for something that looks and functions marginally just didn't seem like it was worth while. Whereas the traveller map looks good, requires no effort to input and contains far more information.
- The downside really is that the sector data used by the Traveller Map site, and the data we have isn't always in sync. I have no solution to that other than to say that Joshua Bell (owner of Traveller map) seems to be responsive to suggestions for updates.
- If you really want, I can pull the older version of the InfoboxSubsector from the page history. But I don't like the older version enough to want to take the time to re-create it or use it. Tjoneslo 19:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)