Talk:Traveller Wiki

Main discussion page

please watch this page if you are a contributer.

WOW, we've been busy...

By the looks of things we have scrounged the internet, searched and scanned/typed entires from some well-hidden as well as widely available sources. The amazing thing is that if you look at the statisitics page, for quite some time it's only been two or three contirbutors.

I have tried (when asking for permission to use website material) to encourage others to look this Wiki over and consider contributing. I have no idea if anyone I've asked even has thought about it. Sstefan 07-19-2006

The analysis of wikipedia has shown that most of the work is done by a few people. Given the vastly smaller group of Traveller fans, this is not surprising that there are only one or two "contributers". What concerns me more is the (apparent) lack of viewership. I can't tell if the statistic showing no page views is due to some configuration error, or if the system does not count views by the contributers.

In any case, since we now have a significant portion of the canon Traveller library, we should be trying to find viewers. Which means advertising. Not the paid kind, but just mentioning (on occasion) the Traveller Wiki in appropirate places. For example, on the COTI Boards, my sig includes :

Contribute to the Traveller Wiki:http://traveller.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

This is in hopes of driving some viewers here. Don't be overbearing about this, but a few mentions here and there wouldn't hurt. Tjoneslo 13:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

and what is this line all about??? Buy my books: On the Ground, Against Gravity, Through the Waves

and why do those titles almost sound familiar? Sstefan

The Wikia Working page. This page (and the linked ones) are a discussion about how to create a successful wiki, including attacting viewers, users, and contributers. And all that stuff. Tjoneslo 17:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Armour - Armor

Are we using the British spelling (armour, utilise etc.) or the Amercian spelling (armor, utilize etc.)? Sstefan 07-12-2006

I prefer the Engish spelling (armour). All the BITS stuff is spelled that way... The contents should be left in whatever spelling the source material is written in, I recently put in redirects from the USA spelling for armour for all articles that use that word and this should be continued for all alternate spellings in titles. Someone (Thomas?) has created Combat Armor and renamed it in the technology chart without altering all the others that used armour. Dcorrin 19:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yay, our first edit war. Sstefan created the Combat Armor page, and Dcorrin created the Combat Armour page. I noticed there were two pages with very similar names, and decided to combine them. Being an arrogant American, I chose the American spelling.

While I agree that we should keep titles under the original spelling, the difficulty comes when (like this case) where we have both spellings. I will leave the combat armour alone, but if I come across other cases, I will probably revert them to the American spelling. Tjoneslo 20:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I created Combat Armour first so Nyah! Seriously, I would suggest not changing any, just making the appropriate redirects from USAian. Whomever created the article can choose the language (presumably the same as the source material if copying and pasting). Dcorrin 20:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

World - System

I was reading the definition of System and I think we may have promulgated a bunch of errors in the library data by listing descriptions as Terra (world). By definition of system we can (and should eventually, if it hasn’t already) list Glisten. But in “reality”, Glisten is a belt system, not a planetary body (world).

I am tempted to redo all the (world) entries into (system) entries to correct this minor oversight. Thoughts?

Sstefan 07-05-2006

This is a problem from the canon itself, as for example Terra is really in the Sol system. So what are we referring to when we have an entry for Terra (world)? We are talking about the planet itself, I don't see any extended system data in any of these entries, or discussions about any other planets in the system as a rule (though I may have missed one). So in our case we are really talking about the world. I understand your point that the steps are (Domain)-Sector-Subsector-System-World/Moon-... so most of our entries should really be the Terra (system) to fit in the progression, but as they don't talk about the sytem I would propose that we leave things alone, and if for some reason someone posts an article about an entire system, we put that as (system) and have (world) to differentiate. e.g. Regina (world) and Regina (system). As for the Glisten is really a belt, not a planet, the world Glisten is spread out over the asteroids in the belt, so even though it is a bunch of small planetoids, the rules consider it a "world". Dcorrin 17:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The other problem is we need to be able to distingush between (for example) Antres Domain, Antares Sector, Atares subsector, Atares world, Antares system, Antares the star (and, just for laughs, Antares the constellation).Tjoneslo 17:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Which is why we have the conventions Domain of Antares, Antares Sector, Antares Subsector, Antares (system), Antares (world) and now new ones: Antares (the star), Constellation of Antares (Though Antares is not a Constellation) and don't forget Antares Region. As long as we are consistant. Dcorrin 13:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Needed items

• Template for out-of library information (see sector)

E.g. want to note some feature that should be a sidebar or something rather than appear in the main article

Template: Sources

I got an answer back from the Wika support staff about how to get the conditional {{if}} template tags to work properly. I've been playing with the Template:Sources to replace our current article source tag system. Please make suggestions on what this should look like or text it should have in the Discussion page. Please don't use this template anywhere just yet, it is slightly broken still. Tjoneslo 18:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikia Ranking

I'm thinking of removing the "Ranks us 20th" line from the front page. How you rank wikis can be a delicate subject: is it good articles (which we are using), all articles (by which we rank about 75th, but only because we spend more time adding in articles and not talking about them).

According to "top wikis" section on the main Wiki talk page, the administrators feel the best ranking is number of active contributers seeing as the point of a wiki is to build a community.

Thus, according to the statistic page we rank about 96th. Tjoneslo 14:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I originally put it there to attract attention, thinking that if anyone (Traveller Person) stopped by they would see that we are a large resource. I would also like to see us on the "Most active Wikias, or perhaps a featured wikia but I think we need more than just 3-4 people. Dcorrin 13:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It certianly couldn't hurt to nominate us for featured wiki. What's the worst that could happen? we get blissfully ignored. Again. As usual. Tjoneslo 00:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Another note: As I've been researching articles via Google, I've begun to see the Traveller Wiki articles show up in the searches. Not all of them, but the Wikia people have made an effort to be nice to Google. So perhaps we'll get some response that way too. Tjoneslo 00:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Additions to Rules Descriptions

I've added a description of T4 and slightly modified the MT description as a result. Please feel free to check them for inaccuracies and make any modifications needed. Thanks, Gruffty

These look good. Thanks Tjoneslo 22:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)