Forum:CT:Adding a spacelane field to the planet infobox

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Adding a spacelane field to the planet infobox

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Add a spacelane field to the planet infobox. Grunny (talk) 03:30, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Alright, this one's pretty simple. Currently, both the {{System}} and {{Sector}} infoboxes have a "routes" field for spacelanes that pass through the system or sector. I propose adding the same field to the {{Planet}} infobox; there, it would be used to denote any trade routes on which the planet happens to be located. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 19:36, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Voting

Support

  1. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 19:32, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Chack Jadson (Talk) 19:35, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Xicer9Atgar(Combadge) 19:36, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
  4. —Tommy 9281 19:39, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 19:41, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
  6. Why not? - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 19:48, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
  7. Per JMAS. —Master Jonathan New Jedi Order (Jedi Council Chambers) 19:59, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
  8. Fine. YOU code the thing. Updating any infobox template is a pain now. :P -- Darth Culator (Talk) 20:08, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
  9. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 21:12, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
  10. Grunny (talk) 23:09, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
  11. Soon we'll be able to MapQuest directions from our houses to the planets. Graestan(Talk) 01:57, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
  12. heh per Grae, and JMAS. JangFett (Talk) 01:58, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
  13. Per JMAS. Green Tentacle (Talk) 19:55, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
  14. Just so long as it's used for all relevant hyperlanes, per discussion below. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:25, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
  15. -- 1358 (Talk) 04:56, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
  16. CC7567 (talk) 07:01, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. If there's one thing we don't need, it's further bloating our infoboxes. --Imperialles 03:43, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
  2. To me, the more appropriate level for this information is system articles, not planets and/or moons. --Eyrezer 03:46, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

  • My question is this: The proposal reads that it would be used to denote any trade routes on which the planet happens to be located. A regular hyperlane does not necessarily equal a trade route. Take the planet Hoth, for example: it lies on the Ison Corridor, which is a hyperlane, not a trade route. The nearest true trade route to Hoth is the Corellian Trade Spine. So are we including only trade routes, or all relevant hyperlanes? This should be clarified in the final wording. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:19, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
    • Whatever hyperlane(s) the planet happens to be located on. My mistake. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 20:22, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • I pretty much see where the vote is going, though I debated with myself on whether the route field should or should not have been added to the planet infobox. Your points here are valid. It does seem redundant if the system articles (less so the sector articles) already have the routes in them. The sector article could have several given the large space sectors cover, versus individual systems. On the flip side of this is how some sources don't specify routes emanating from the system, but from planets. I guess it works both ways. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:05, June 4, 2010 (UTC)