Discovery Wiki:General Discussion

General Discussion Archives: 1

What is this for?

A general page to propose your ideas on how this Wiki should move forward.

To post a suggestion: create new section, write everything you wish. Here you'll get more chances for your idea to be brought to life then by posting in a forum thread.

Wanted pages

Anyone with spare time please look at Special:Wantedpages and create those. The higher up they are, the more urgent it can be considered.

Please also look at the 'what links here' link on the left when creating a page, to find out what is expected to be on the page.

Editor's Compendium

This page will link to many various tools that are useful for any editor. Please familiarise yourself with them.

coordinates of bases

This is a tricky subject. I think for lawful bases the co-ordinates are fine. And wellknown bases (both lawful and unlawful) as well. The contention comes about when we are talking about "secret" bases or "new" bases, such as ones in Gallia. I would expect that the co-ordinates ARE available from information kiosks and brokers around Sirius, so to say "No displaying coordinates", doesn't make logical sense to me. Chovynz 18:24, 18 June 2009 (MDT)

I actually feel it makes sense. There are information brokers in the game engine that will reveal the coordinates to bases for a price. If they do not exist then it doesnt seem like the developers want this information to be so easily obtained (or they havent had time to make them yet, but i dont think the wiki should act as compensation for lack of development resources. -Tazuras 17:26, 22 June 2009 (MDT)

Infocard Data

Recently people have been "correcting" certain information, either by grammar, or description. Should we be following the infocard information or writing our own stuff? I'd like a discussion on this to sort out the procedure that we are following as there are a few different methods being used.

Chovynz 07:45, 28 May 2008 (GMT)

I'm one of those, I follow what "sounds" right, like adding "the" in front of words so it becomes smoother to read. As well as Wikipedia's capitalisation format and americanized spelling. Notice the z? Tumble-Weed ^{(ComLink) (Holocron)} 07:57, 1 June 2008 (GMT)

Weapons/Turrets Sorting

I've just filled in all the content on the missiles page, but have inadvertantly unearthed another issue. Re: Missile Turrets, I propose these turrets list as part of the "Class X Turrets" pages (which I am workin on collecting data to fill in - any help there would be appreciated). They sort better based on class - i.e. ship type - than the fact that these turrets fire missiles. Especially when you've got to factor in other turret types (Flak, Razor, etc.) If people are interested we could still have a Missile Turrets links page with sortable table (sort of a double-up), but I would just do a simple disambig page linking to the different classes. What are people's feelings on this and the current organization of the weapons listings? JRawk 23:45, 21 December 2008 (MST)

Ship Categories

I noticed that some ships have been put in categories for which House they originate from. Other ships have been put in categories for where they are from, the factions that use them, who built them, and so on. Bottom line is that we need to standardize ship categorization.

One option is to put ships in the standard ship-type categories, any appropriate general categories (e.g. Category:Discovery Content), and the origin of the ship. For example, the Guardian should be put in Category:Liberty, the Titan should be put in Category:Corsairs, and the Whale in Category:GMG.

That option is simple but the problem I see with it is that it does not account for ships that are used by factions that are unrelated to the origin of the ship. Take the Whale for example. It was designed by GMG but is being manufactured by many ship building corporations all over Sirius and used by as many factions. Putting the Whale in Category:GMG would practically hide it from people looking for a ship that suits their needs who are using the categories to find ships that suit their character background and affiliation. Would a Rheinland trader even consider buying a GMG ship?

This brings up the issue of ship usage being much more complex than where the ships originate from. Perhaps the issue should be stepped around by not using any such categories? People looking for ships could use the ship lists here and there and use the short descriptions as guidelines (that's what I do).

Ideas?

-- Eyvind (talk • contrib) 03:16, 22 February 2009 (MST)

Discovery Wiki Editing Guide

I strongly feel we need a content guide for editing this wiki that includes general guidelines that we follow, such as not posting ship sale locations. There are also other guidelines we follow, such as not including too much information about things that shouldnt be known in character, such as information about zone 21 and some pirate bases/systems. I feel formalizing and documenting these guidelines will help new editors better contribute to the wiki without unfortunate incidents such as the following: http://discoverygc.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=38745&hl= Tazuras 18:23, 23 May 2009 (MDT)

Upon further review the style guide includes some of this but it is fairly outdated and not a terribly accessible document. It also contains nothing about content inclusion vs. exclusion, things about content format. Tazuras 18:26, 23 May 2009 (MDT)

Outdated Template usage

You should use the Outdated template only for ships that are displaying stats as of version 4.84. Do not use it for ships that are up to date but that have a uncompleted page. "Skatepro0 13:22, 18 June 2009 (MDT)"

Thank you for the advice. They are good thoughts. I used that template as it is linking to the Category: needs update, which I thought was a good category to use for any updates needed. Many of the ships have incomplete stats, or old stats which still need updating to 4.85 status. I agree with you about the Outdated template should only be used for outdated info, which is partially why I used it. All I'm doing is identifying pages that need updating, so that the editor team can quickly find the ones that need it. However, I will also use the Incomplete template often on pages that need it. There is good reason why I used the outdated template, I've tried to add a pointer or two so that someone can check the history and find the "bug". Often they are little things - hard to spot.

A number of the 4.85 ships have "old" or incorrect stats related to thruster or power output, which is where I've used the Outdated template. Most of the 4.85 ships have Incomplete content, which is where I will use the Incomplete template from now on.

Again, thanks, as you have helped me identify a better way of letting the editor team know which pages need what sort of updates. I'm also going to copy this conversation into Important conversations so that all editors can participate, without being on someone's talk page.Chovynz 15:59, 18 June 2009 (MDT)

I think it should also be used for ships that have an outdated description. I have completed a new template that can be used for pages that are simply incomplete: Template:Incomplete -Tazuras 15:55, 18 June 2009 (MDT)

Ship Hull and Package prices

Source:

Hello!

I am quite new to this wiki and I would appreciate some advice. The price listed on ship pages should be the price of the hull only, or the ship and equipment usually sold with it? You edited the Cavalier price back to the "with equipment" price and I am not sure if that was your mistake, your intention or my mistake.

Also, one matter I addressed on the Fighters page - some vanilla ships are listed with their vanilla stats and some with Disco stats. I expect the Disco stats should be there, but I am not sure.

Another one comes to mind... The list of selling locations should be complete or some cut version thereof? I put a full list in Crusader, but maybe it is considered a spoiler. *Over-ruled by Igiss, System location only.

Thanks in advance, MarvinCZ 13:05, 9 July 2008 (GMT)

Hi! Thanks for contacting me.

1) My personal preference would be to use the full price. When I came here as a new person and saw some of the prices (CSV - $162,000), I saved up to that amount and then went to buy it. Surprise! I didn't have enough money (182,000). I had hoped to help other new players avoid that particular frustration. However, Igiss has said to use the Readme information. If you feel it should be the full price, feel free to ask Igiss to change his mind. Also if you spot any mistakes that I have done concerning this, feel free to correct them. I know some people have been using screenshots, which has the full price on them, and other have been using the readme (which seems incomplete to me). As for my methods, I use Datastorm and FLStats. I have found that using those two, I can input a huge amount of data very quickly. I have been using the Datastorm price. I don't know what the readme says, but in the ones I have checked...all of them were a different price to the price in Datastorm (and in the full game). And as I said before. Igiss wants the readme price used.

(In short, please change the price if I have input the datastorm price on it.)

2) Vanilla stats should not be here. If you spot any mistakes please change them to Disco stats. I have been concentrating on getting the individual pages up. When the individual pages are all up I intend on going through the lists and fixing/updating as necessary.

3) The list of selling locations should be complete. *Over-ruled by Igiss, System location only.

Thanks. Keep up the great work!

Chovynz 02:26, 11 July 2008 (GMT)

Thanks for the reply, it was very helpful.

But it seems I will have more trouble with the prices, because the vanilla ships don't have their stats in the readme. So yes, it really is incomplete. My way was looking directly into ini files for the price of the "hull", which is the same as the ship without equipment ingame (I checked on several ships). It seems the readme may also be out of date in cases. I looked at the Arrow and its readme price (1,744,000) is lower even than its hull price (1,814,000). In many cases the price in readme equals the hull price, so I will use that for the vanilla ships. I hope you won't mind.

I understand your concern about the full vs. hull prices. I will have a better look at it, but I really think the readme and hull prices are supposed to be equal. I personally think the hull price should be included, it seems more precise. MarvinCZ 18:24, 12 July 2008 (GMT)

I asked Igiss for us to use the full price and to get some better direction in this issue, and he replied as such: "Hey, Do as you like. But remember that I may change price of components without reflecting it in readme, while changing base price always gets reflected. Regards, Igiss". Now this explains it to me why the Readme is set at that lower level and it is a good point, but I think if some people (who are not the admins or mods) in the Disco community or the entire community itself, take the responsibility to make sure the data is updated on the wiki, I think it won't be a problem if we use the full price. As long as the wiki is updated at each release I think it will be ok.

For now I'll continue to add ships, but leave the price out until this issue is resolved. At the very minimum the hull price should be used.

One idea I had is to show both prices. I'm not sure about this idea as it might add another column to the ship lists, and will another field to the individual pages. Might be worth having both prices in the individual pages only. What do you think? I am all for more helpful info on the wiki.

Chovynz 04:11, 13 July 2008 (GMT)

I can look up the hull prices quite quickly, about half a minute each if I do multiple. I can go through the ship lists, checking the the hull prices against the readme and correcting data as I go. I went through the vanilla fighters where the Readme had no info, so I just added the hull prices. The hull price could clash with readme on the new ships though. I will write down those ships so we will know how many of those there is and how they deviate. I would ask for your approval, but I will rather do it right away, it can always be reverted.

I thought about including the full price aswell. It would be additional work, but useful information. I would do it, but keep it in the individual pages only. The ship lists are wide enough already and one price is enough there. Having both prices will also help editors decide which price to put where. MarvinCZ 14:42, 13 July 2008 (GMT)

Alright so its agreed? Both prices on the individual page. Hull prices on the main lists? I think you should do it according to the ini files hull price and update Igiss on the ships that needs updating on the readme.

Chovynz 23:51, 13 July 2008 (GMT)

So, it is done, as you already noticed. I stopped checking the readme after a while, though, with exceptions. I will do it separately. I already noticed a few clashes. Most notable are the Preagle (6M readme vs 3M real) and almost all the capital ships (where the differences seem systematic). I will go through it with the readme again and send my results to Igiss. What means do you use to contact him, E-mail? MarvinCZ 14:24, 15 July 2008 (GMT)

Ship page names

Skype chat - Conversation edited to bring out the main points. Emphasis added by Chovynz 22:15, 17 June 2009 (MDT)

• [17/06/2009 4:44:56 a.m.]

Eyvind says: We need a standard for ship names. Most ships are on pages named after their short names. Arrow, for example. Others are not, like the Golem is under Golem Heavy Mover. Liberty Super Transport instead of Mastodon. In my opinion, we should stick to the short names.

Dan K (Tazuras) says: im on the fence really. I like the functionality of the short names but they aren't in RP.

Eyvind says: What? Of course they are. You'll need to explain what you mean

Dan K (Tazuras) says: yeah, i do, im trying to find a good example

Eyvind says: If you look at http://discoveryfl.com/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Ships

Dan K (Tazuras) says: im in flstat right now. the farmers alliance bomber. no one is gonna call it that in game. they will call it the mamoru

Eyvind says: That's what I mean by short name. The flid short names have always been screwed up

Dan K (Tazuras) says: gotcha. ah, soo the flavortext name

Eyvind says: Call it what you want, they aren't the full name, they are shorter, hence short name. Familiar names. Actual names? Names without taxonomy. In any case, we should stick to them

Dan K (Tazuras) says: I think it should be the short name + user category (ex. civilian) + ship category (ex. transport)

Eyvind says: Why make it so long? Nearly all ships have names, we might as well use them

Dan K (Tazuras) says: so people know what the ship is at a glance, just by looking at the title

Eyvind says: But the title isn't supposed to hold all the information. And where would you be looking at the name of the page where it doesn't say what type it is?

Dan K (Tazuras) says: well, the transport category actually has two types of ships in it at least, transports and trains. Also, the pirate transport for instance, doesnt have a flavor name

Eyvind says: Those that don't obviously can't be named after them

Dan K (Tazuras) says: i suppose i care less about the faction then i do the ship type, although, yeah

Eyvind says: Also, the difference between a transport and train is negligble, isn't it?

Dan K (Tazuras) says: i dont know if that is needed in most cases

Eyvind says: It's just about where they put the engines, isn't it?

Dan K (Tazuras) says: train, oops. Also armaments, cargo space, the ships general shape and handling

Eyvind says: Yes, but that changes drastically between all ships. Some transports have better armaments than some trains, sometimes the opposite is true, some tansports have more cargo space than some trains, sometimes the opposite is true, etc. It's not something that will greatly affect the choice of ships, at least not enough to make it important to put which they are in the page name

Ben says: Eyvind says: It's just about where they put the engines, isn't it? i thought so, but pirate train

Dan K (Tazuras) says: that's true. no more than the gallic train. thats not a real train

Ben says: so the term is pretty meaningless

Eyvind says: Definitely

Dan K (Tazuras) says: they just used that name to imply it was the maximum size hold for a ship someone from a faction of that type could logically buy. it has in RP meaning more than fuinctional meaning i would say

Eyvind says: Sounds more like the opposite

Dan K (Tazuras) says: i just worry about the flavor name usage because of all the ships without flavor names but maybe it will encourage the dev's to start making up flavor names

Eyvind says: If they named it train to indicate that it has more space than the transport, then naming it that serves a simple function. Anyway, let's stick to the short names

I think Eyvind has it on the button. Short names would be better, and now that 4.85 is out, I think most of those ships that didn't have short names, now do. Chovynz 22:15, 17 June 2009 (MDT)

I brought this up in the skype chat and Hyung-Chovynz suggested I rewrite it here. Methinks that in keeping with the officialness of the wiki- things manifest in that we call, for example, the Nomad page "Slomon K'Hara"- their technical name, rather than their colloquial name, while the colloquial name "Nomads" redirects there. Here's my suggestion. The long names of the ship should be the name of the page if at all possible (excluding periods and such- work around those if you can) with the colloquial name of the ship in there as it is in the infocard names (stuff like XLIHQfthagn "Tridente" Outcast Gunship) or as a subtitle, or in parentheses, etc. if that seems inappropriate. Then make the one-word colloquial name a redirect page. When we make lists (like "Very Heavy Fighters" we can then pick which name sounds more appropriate, but when someone views the page it will appear in the "official" terminology as it would in Sirius. Wikipedia does much the same thing. This shouldn't be too difficult to implement and should help with organization. Thoughts? Sovereign 17:16, 18 June 2009 (MDT)

I think that solves the short name long name problem. Use redirects as the short name, use long names for the page name. Chovynz 17:26, 18 June 2009 (MDT)

Table: Prefix

This is an unnecessary prefix. Using it will just prevent articles to show up in search results and various special pages (e.g. Special:Allpages), for example Table:Very Heavy Fighters. Articles that have such custom prefixes and are not in a seperate category will be hard to find. --Tsaryu^Talk 16:28, 22 June 2009 (MDT)

It was in a category before i believe and is now again. I dont this page really need to be found by the search function though. Of course, I may be wrong. --Tazuras 23:11, 22 June 2009 (MDT)