Forum:Sector main page layout

Forums: Index > Watercooler > Sector main page layout

This is from a discussion on my Talk page, and I thought I would bring it over here for a broader discussion. I am suggesting a change/update to the current outline used for the sector and subsector pages.

The major driver for this change is the Spinward Marches Sector page. As I complete the updates for the worlds from the Regency Sourcebook, we now have two major era's information to include on the sector page and no obvious way to include it.

This outline has been re-ordered slightly from my talk page. The biggest change (other than the simple moving of subsections) is the Political Astrography is duplicated by era. For the Spinward Marches there would be a Political Astrography: Milieu 1116 and a Political Astrography: New Era. The Solomani Rim Sector may have a Interstellar Wars, Milieu 990, Milieu 1116 sections and so on.

Description

Astrography

Native Sophonts

Mains, Traces, and Clusters

Other Astrographic Features

History

All major historical events with links to longer articles and year pages

Political Astrography -> by era

Generated sector summary paragraph for the era

World Listing

Demographics

Territorial Overview

Subsector listing

Polity Descriptions

Major Powers plus sub divisions (e.g. Imperial Duchies and districts)

Minor Powers

References

Feedback and updates are appreciated. Tjoneslo (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2016 (EDT)

Sector Article Design Background & Discussion (2016)

Hi Thomas and other discussion mates,

I spent some time designing and formulating/creating categories that could work for the sector organizational layouts (templates). The current system works and, better yet, it is now implemented in over 216 sectors (charted space + zho core expedition + Turokan + others). I am, of course, open to it being improved and changed. I would appreciate being a part of this discussion and decision-making process that I have taken a major part in implementing these changes and building momentum at the Wiki.

• Ultimately my goal is to see the Wiki be an even bigger success and for it to help Marc as a resource and as a promotional tool.
• On the player basis, I would like the Wiki to interface with Traveller map and be an amazing resource. Oddly enough, many previously published Traveller authors are now quoting me from the Wiki. It's been my pleasure to tell them that the Wiki team developed the entries from their materials and others.
• The biggest complaints are coming from people who don't use the wiki anyway. they will take time and as material steadily improves, they will come over. Until then we just need to steadily improve the Wiki and make it the resource it should be.
• I have been actively seeking and soliciting volunteers to help with the wiki and training them to make their wiki edits take shape.

Shalom,

• Maksim-Smelchak (talk) 10:28, 13 July 2016 (EDT)

I would appreciate if you would discuss more of the changes you are making with the rest of us before you re-write several hundred articles. In one day. Tjoneslo (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2016 (EDT)

---

Hi Thomas, I posted on your chat page regarding Rhylanoir and recent events thereof. It might behoove us to find a happy balance between making sector pages an "in-universe" encyclopedia galactica and a research tool for budding authors , future cinematographers, and the like. Both are in the reading user base and have needs at odds with each other. That is why I vote for a prominent "easy-to-read" metahistory section in an obvious front near-the-front of sector articles like is currently in place with nearly every sector article except the Spinward Marches, the showboat sector article for the wiki.

• Maksim-Smelchak (talk) 07:52, 15 July 2016 (EDT)

---

I saw the Rhylanor updates on my talk page.

As you note, the wiki's main purpose is to be the Imperial Encyclopedia. To that end the original goal was to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style. For this discussion the Layout description should be followed. In this case references like the meta-history should be placed at the end of the article.

As previously discussed the long time style for the Traveller Wiki is to separate the Metadata/story/history from the main article. Either by putting on to a sub-page (like is done with the Talk and Meta pages) or by putting it into a differently colored box (like is done with the Sources box).

In theory, the Sources box at the bottom of the page, if correctly filled out for an article, should supply the complete information about the sources and history of the article in both canon and non-canon. I feel that adding a second copy of this information is redundant.

Tjoneslo (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2016 (EDT)

---

Aye, aye, captain. Just want to see the ship underway.

• I disagree with much of the Wikipedia official manual of style. It has significant shortcomings and building a product customized to Traveller would be better.
• The wiki style breeds huge flame wars. Trav has enough bad blood.
• But, I signed on and will see what happens. Supporting your efforts as I can. I did enter entire sectors in, entered "animal" in, and did other things in support of your goals. It was a real learning process.
• Redundancy is a part of nature and the metahistory and sources are two different things and formats, related but different. Meta, for one, can name the T5SS review. The current sources don't. That's gone now. Before a player could look at the page and know. Now, 95% will not and among that large number are the vociferous detractors and big complainers. Such is life. Respectfully disagree.
• I can see some of the logic of what you are doing. Just not sure if it ends up being a bigger dead end.
• Wishing the wiki safe travels!
• Thanks for your hard work, Thomas!
• Maksim-Smelchak (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2016 (EDT)

---

The reason the T5SS is not included in the Sources template was for two reasons. First, it was included in the categories at the bottom of the page. I had assumed, and no one voiced a contradictory opinion, that it was sufficient. Second, when the T5SS work started it was not published anywhere. It was kept on Don's computer and sent to a select group of people.

So neither of these is true any longer, and every sector page should have the Sources box updated with the Spinward Marches (for example) and the explicit notation about being part of the T5SS (or not) should be sufficient.

Please be more specific about the "dead ends" you see in my suggested format. This is the point of having a discussion before changing 200, 2000, or 20,000 articles. Tjoneslo (talk) 12:09, 16 July 2016 (EDT)

---

Thomas, I think it would be better being far more inclusive. That's how we attract more bodies. Make things accessible. Make the knowledge, such as T5SS review easy to come by. I understand how it got that way. I would like to see it changed to include more folks instead of excluding more folks.

• I'm not 100% sure about which of the moves you are enacting might be a dead end yet... But I can say that my experience with process engineering and high-level organization keeps triggering my spider sense. Something is backwards and I haven't put my finger on it yet.
• Also, Thomas, I have been with the project for nearly two years now as a primary actor. I have helped put in place many sectors that you requested. I do understand why discussions occur (...the point of it). I just don't have all the answers.
• I also understand that much of this is exploration and experimentation on your part. I can see it. And I'm with you as a partner to cooperate and collaborate.
• I hope to build out Solomani space next although I might take some detours back into Imperial space to finish off the remaining domains. We now have several domains worth of sectors built out. Much more than two years ago. That makes me proud. It's real progress.
• At some point, I will return to the first few sectors that I built out that need updating such as Daibei, Iliesh, Zarush, and Reaver's Deep (...the first domain I built out).
• Maksim-Smelchak (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2016 (EDT)