Forum:CT:Trade route template overhaul

his 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 No formal vote held; no consensus reached. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:05, August 22, 2011 (UTC)

---

Dear Wookieepedia,

For several years now, in a super-secret hidden laboratory chamber, I have been floating around a major change to the trade route infobox template (Template:Trade route) in which the lists of planets and astronomical objects would be converted to an icon based route map, with each icon representing a planet, object, sector (or region) border, or intersecting trade route. If they look familiar, it is because they were used on Wikipedia previously for German train lines, which explains the long file names for the icons. I found that I could represent trade routes in a similar fashion by linking them together within the infobox. For the moment, the work has been done within the junctions section of the infobox. There are both pros and cons to this, which are to be meticulously picked apart here.

Still lacking are icons for T-intersections (both planetary and deep space) and existing icons with gray side routes should really be red, or whatever solid color we choose. The icon representing Coruscant might need a change to reflect capitol status. I am hoping there is someone with experience in editing SVGs, as they are the sources for the icons. A legend is presented below the Triellus Trade Route, which may be sent to the main template page, while there exists an option to add tooltip text that hovers over the icons when moused over.

Tm_T has proposed that we template the section by stringing together the individual planets and objects, such as this:

{{routejunctions|startterminus|Coruscant|endterminus|Quermia}} which would roughly display like this:

File:BSicon TBHFo.png‎ Coruscant
File:BSicon KBHFe.png Quermia

This is only representing two planet endpoints however, and upon adding a full route such as the Triellus, Perlemian, Hydian Way, or Corellian Run, things start to add up. Smaller routes such as the Agarix Trade Route have been created with citations as shown here, below the Triellus. The citations themselves do not seem to be creating gaps between the icons, as icons without citations can gap. Screen resolution is key to how these appear within the infobox.

Questions to be determined by the wiki:

• What sections from the existing trade route template would be removed by the entrance of this format?
• What information would be moved from the various sections to this format?
• Which left and right hand junctions are more preferable, the sweeping ones or the straight ones?
• Would we want to leave open the option of a left to right trade route display, as evident by the left-right fading routes?

I'd like to see ideas as to how we can streamline this, and if anyone can produce new or improved icons that would better represent the route system. -- Riffsyphon1024 13:44, July 12, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

• Part of the reason I want the junctions templated, is to get the junction icons having tooltips without excessive repetitive work. I also wonder if the icons should not be clickable (leading to the full-size image) or if should be clickable, where should they link to? All this is more easily handled by template, instead of hand-writing the html and all. –Tm_T ^(Talk) 13:52, July 12, 2011 (UTC)
• The Essential Atlas established Galactic North/South/East/West, so shouldn't those be used instead of left and right? The way it stands now, someone could think the lane turns right either when you look at it from above on a galactic map (turning to the east) or when you're following it along physically (if the lane traveled north-south it would turn west, with proper variations for each other direction (south-north turns east, east-west turns north, etc.)). It could be just established as the former. NaruHina ^Talk File:Anakinsolo.png|14px]] 04:18, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
  • Well in this context, left hand as we view the symbol heading to the left, and right hand as we view the symbol heading to the right. However you are correct that it would be different for an individual traveling on the route. However since routes change direction and this is a straight line, galactic directions won't really matter in this situation. Think of it like a map at a train station, especially one in London Underground. You see the routes that leave the station, but not necessarily do they follow that true path. The map is designed to best display the information, but the actual course is different. If we want to display an actual course, then we need an image. The representation here groups most or all of the landmarks that one would pass along the route. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:15, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

From Fiolli: My biggest fear is that the infobox becomes far too large that it is rendered useless. The left-most column of it, which lists "Junctions" is completely irrelevant and not needed. Here are some thoughts on it (also hoping to address some questions above). We lose some ease of information regarding sectors, as now they are borders and not the traversed sectors, as currently listed. Is that bad? Not necessarily, but it is a "loss," so to speak. I prefer the straight junctions to sweeping as it fits the idea of generic rather than implying a merging/exiting scenario; the straights are also more aesthetically appropriate given the nature of the planet/system intersections being such. Left–right trade route orientation is unnecessary, in my opinion. Up–down is fine, so the two images are depreciated. That said, I fear that some major routes might be too long to handle on one page. What about the possibility of a partially collapsing section? Again, I would like to see it be the full 250px in width for this section, if we do it, removing the left column that says "junctions" (this is currently floating in no-man's land). Then, the default would be to show only the starting terminus, major intersections, major planets, and ending terminus; an "expand" button of some type would then be there to show the complete list in the graphical form. I'm certain we can code that into the template without too much difficulty. This way, we have a nice-looking template that diagrams the route, but it is not initially overbearing. The only question then is, what constitutes a "major" junction—a problem we even have now, so maybe it is irrelevant. — Fiolli; 01:18, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

• One other thing: to appease WP:DASH and other proper American English punctuation, sector borders need to use en dashes instead of hyphens. — Fiolli; 01:19, July 14, 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree, Fiolli that it can use much cleaning up. I support the en dash usage, and I support the removal of "Junctions", as that is technically a remnant of the existing infobox. What constitutes a Major Intersection might be one of the super-hyperroutes like the Hydian Way or the Perlemian Trade Route. However we also want to include the lesser routes like the Triellus Trade Route, the Shipwrights' Trace, and the Metellos Trade Route in our maps; they just won't be represented like the superroutes. We can go about this two ways: 1) We use a larger intersecting line, or 2) we use a different color. I am thinking that the super-hyperroutes could be represented by blue lines, much like an interstate or intercontinental highway would be displayed on a map, and whereas the remainder of the routes, even the larger ones, would be in the standard red color. The good thing is that the original files that these icons originated from also come in blue. What we might need to locate are the ones that represent red intersecting blue, and in both directions. As for the features of the box itself, I support the idea of first displaying the major systems/intersections/objects, and then expanding to cover minor bodies. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:07, July 14, 2011 (UTC)
• I understand that this idea might not be too popular, but what about going from left to right across the page? -- Riffsyphon1024 01:18, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
  • I think the longer routes would require side-scrolling even on high-resolution monitors, which would be a not-so-good thing. I'm wondering though, could we just use the vertical version of the route diagram, and have it be collapsed by default? jSarek 07:40, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
    • The contents of infobox cannot be collapsible without breaking the collapse function of the entire infobox. Or, we have to change some JS, and haven't looked on it how much would be needed to be changed to make it work. –Tm_T ^(Talk) 08:24, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
      • What about making it a separate box beneath the main infobox? Would that be doable without playing with the JavaScript? jSarek 08:38, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
        • Can be doable, we can even make it a separate "infobox" if need be. But I would rather see only one box: two would be confusing and quite different from what we do with everything else aournd here, I think. –Tm_T ^(Talk) 08:45, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
          • Yeah, we still want to keep things simple enough that it can be added/edited by other users, if they so choose to go with this format. I also pondered about what if the route snaked back and forth to account for long lengths, but let's just forget I even thought of that.. The main thing is the need to remove the minor planets and junctions with a click, and vice versa. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:11, July 21, 2011 (UTC)

Section 2

• A suggestion for handling sector changes: make the junctions/map part a separate heading and then you could set up the fields as they are in the battles section of the Sector template. Then you can have different alternate background colours for the different sectors as demonstrated in this Relgim Run mock-up. This has the potential to shorted the routes somewhat. Here I have differientated between minor and major systems depending on whether the system is inhabited or not. The caption is also a place to record the junction. --Eyrezer 10:16, July 21, 2011 (UTC)
  • Hey, this isn't bad idea at all, I like. (: –Tm_T ^(Talk) 06:24, July 22, 2011 (UTC)
    • Oh my, why I didn't see this earlier. I support this style, mostly. While it is much clearer to understand and not nearly as busy, I still was looking to link to trade routes. Those gaps are bugging me a little too. Still a great effort though. :) -- Riffsyphon1024 09:15, July 28, 2011 (UTC)
      • Addendum: What happens if we don't know the sector the systems are in? That is the case for many inside of the Mid Rim at the moment, until they are determined. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:16, July 28, 2011 (UTC)
        • Re, trade routes, are you happy with something like this? --Eyrezer 07:08, July 30, 2011 (UTC)
          • To an extent. There are several places where multiple trade routes converge on a planet, and in experimenting with this, the box will only take one route before it jumps over to the next line and interrupts the pathway. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:11, July 30, 2011 (UTC)
            • That's already a problem you've overcome in your first example for Alui Corridor. I don't think that is a big problem. As for when we don't know the sectors, then just use the region, I think that should be fine. --Eyrezer 10:09, August 3, 2011 (UTC)
              • Oh, you're right. I did fix that. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:14, August 5, 2011 (UTC)

Section 3

Here are two variations for the Agarix Trade Route, with and without references. Both versions still gap between the sectors, but the unreferenced version retains the solid path line. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:49, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

• Well, if this goes ahead, then it will need to be referenced. We therefore need to find a way to over come this breaking. What if the images are made slightly longer? --Eyrezer 10:17, August 3, 2011 (UTC)
  • What about making references smaller or placed in a way that they do not change the lineheight? the problem here is anyway that not everyone use the same font size, so there _will_ be gaps unless we do things a lot different way (if possible), I think. –Tm_T ^(Talk) 10:35, August 3, 2011 (UTC)
    • If we make them longer, do we know if SVGs or PNGs can overlap one another? Might we have an example where the references are smaller? It may be too small to see them then. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:16, August 5, 2011 (UTC)