User talk:Canreb: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:24, 22 June 2008

DS17 nav template

Wallace is linked as it was posted to the station, it's crew were on dual assignment as we were posted to both Wallace & DS17 and regularly had missions (not just shore leave) on the station. If Triumphant is the same then very well but if not then either leave it in the Ithassa Region bit and off the DS17 menu OR add Indy-A and maybe Ursa Major too... - Jay^Talk 04:11, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

As both Admiral Anassasi and Hollis have said, Deep Space 17 serves the Ithassa Fleet (and vice versa). I think the best course is to just change the wording of the text from craft assigned to starship support, as this better reflects the joint and collaborative voices of several crews instead of just one, as it should be. ;-) DCody 19:48, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

That's my fault, I wrote the Wallace and DS17 pages as one section at first about two years ago. - Jay^Talk 04:28, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

Thank you for the responses. I will try and get those fixed. I am still working on learning how to use Wikki properly. I have also asked various people about how to do things when I was having problems trying to do any changes or additions. Still working on getting them all fixed. If I missed something just tell me and I will get to it. Again thank you for the input. Canreb July 1, CANADA DAY, 2007

Well the admins are here to help, if you want help with anything then feel free to ask us ;) - Jay^Talk 04:28, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

Re: Template:Asterospolis

Normally, the images used in nav templates are 175px x 90px. Just keeps a nice uniformity to all of them, whenever possible. Just an FYI... --Wolf /^{talk page} 00:17, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for letting me know. I will keep that in mind for the future. If I can find an asteroid picture the right size I will replace it. Canreb 4 July 2007,

Free Trade Union

I am removing the Grendailli link again... unless you have information that is an update of what is already posted, this race is not a member of the FTU. Thanks. DCody 14:36, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Phaelasour & Ilbera species

Were these species shown, mentioned, or referred to on a Star Trek episode or movie? If not, then they should not be listed in the "restricted" category. Instead, until they are reviewed and approved, they need to be listed in the "Non-Reviewed Species" and the Non-Canon Species categories. For an example, see Adanni. --Wolf /^{talk page} 21:33, 4 August 2007 (CDT)

I just added some details to the Phaelasour listing. I have no idea about them. The same goes for the Ilbera who were mentioned by my First Officer. I will change them. Canreb

Signature

To leave the timestamp, type 4 tildes (e.g. ~~~~). It'll also provide a link to profile, and save you typing it all out manually ;) Jay^Talk 19:32, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Break tags are not necessary in most cases

I noticed that you're using a lot of <br> tags in your markup. You'd be better off, instead, using bullet points. Also, instead of just bolding section headings, use the subheadings marketup. You can see examples of both these changes, here. --Wolf /^{talk page} 16:03, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

Devitt, Darla

Just curious but does the USS Berlin mean the same ship as the Excelsior class vessel named in TNG? If not then feel free to remove the link. Also, naming convention for pages is surname first, then given name(s). - Lt.JG Salak^Talk 11:09, 19 October 2007 (CDT)

I used the name because I had read of it in one of the novels, so it probally is the same ship as that from the show. Also I will try and remember to do the names in the right order. Canreb Canreb 15:37, 19 October 2007 (CDT)

Talk:Blank NPC page

I left a note on the above linked talk page a while ago. If it's possible for the quiery to be answered? The group has various existing templates for PC's, and it wouldn't be too hard to adjust the page to work in the same way. - Lt.JG Salak^Talk 05:43, 29 October 2007 (CDT)

I have seen some of them.... I just added the blank one to the master crew list at the bottom of the list to make it easier for me or any other member of the crew who might want to use it to find it. canreb Canreb 20:31, 5 November 2007 (CST)
- Well you can easily paste the text of one of the templates onto a page by typing, for example {{subst:Bioadvanced}}, which would give you the text of Template:Bioadvanced. (subst being short for substitute, the {{}} bit around the text being code to insert a template, much as [[]] is the code for a link) Just thought that might be simpler and could be easily rolled out across the fleet too. - Lt.JG Salak^Talk 13:30, 6 November 2007 (CST)
- Thanks.. I am still learning how to do things within the Wikki environment... a lot a trial and error... hopefully the finished product is not to shabby...Canreb 20:47, 6 November 2007 (CST)

Naming pages properly

Hello. Thank you for taking such an interest in the wiki. However, I do need you to please carefully review the Naming pages properly article. Some of your page names are not specific enough, such as Current Crew Roster, and will have to be moved. Thanks! --Wolf /^{talk page} 19:28, 7 January 2008 (CST)

Ship Nav

Don't forget your ship nav. ;-) Saves the trouble of hitting the back button on browsers. DCody 10:49, 10 January 2008 (CST)

Naming pages properly:warning part II

Hey, just a reminder about naming pages properly (see above). -Varaan 12:27, 10 January 2008 (CST)

MA content

When creating articles, unless you are adding something with details specific to our SB118 universe, just link to the appropriate Memory Alpha article. We aren't here to copy canon information already available, but to create our SB118 universe in detail. Thanks. -Varaan 12:27, 10 January 2008 (CST)

Eagle nav

I've removed a chunk of links as I thought they'd belong better on the as yet unwritten deck listings page. The menu was reading as a long, unbroken list and didn't look too good. If you really feel they should go on there then I'd suggest indenting them or breaking the list up into more section seperated by horizontal lines (----). I've also corrected a few links so that they point to where the Eagles pages should be instead of general disambiguation pages. - Lt.JG Salak^Talk 10:06, 11 January 2008 (CST)

Eagle History

Just a thought - there's a not-quite-canon reference from an old roleplay sourcebook that mentions a USS Eagle, Constitution-class, as being crewed entirely by Andorians around the time of TOS. If you wanted to add it to past ships called 'Eagle' there's some info on Memory Alpha. Hutch 16:09, 13 February 2008 (CST)

*holds hands up* I'm largely to blame for the Previous ships called Eagle page, it's effectively a load of info dumped there and needs a clean up. I put what I could find up about the Eagle a year or two ago, long before it was actually recommissioned. A lot of it is from Wikipedia, with a bit from MA but there might be more at each now. If you want to try tidy it up, try to make each entry brief, we don't want redundancy. Wikipedia has info for ships named USS Eagle and HMS Eagle, there might be ships with other prefixes I've forgotten. You can link to wikipedia by typing wp: in front of a link name, e.g. wp:USS Eagle, with wp replaced with ma for Memory Alpha. Add a vertical bar | at the end of the link to lose the prefix, e.g. USS Eagle. On later inspection, the wiki will automatically add the text minus the prefix to the link after the line. - Lt. Salak^Talk 17:56, 13 February 2008 (CST)

Attention

Please see Talk:Cart'hen Star System for comments regarding the size of objects in that star system. Thanks. - Lt. Salak^Talk 04:22, 4 March 2008 (CST)

Eagle

1: The main ship page could do with a pic. If you have MSN (burwellian AT hotmail DOT co DOT uk) or YIM (burwellian), I have a folder of pics I managed to get off Star Trek Australia just before it went down so might be able to help there. ^{Done - Lt. Salak^Talk 21:32, 12 March 2008 (CDT)}

2: The Previous ships called Eagle page needs work. I started it ages ago, whilst Eagle was still an unused ship, but the blurb needs editing down (ideally to a paragraph a ship), plus I've only put stuff on 3 of the Royal Navy's Eagles on there. Follow the link at the bottom and you'll find there have so far been a lot more than 3... 18 if I'm not mistaken. It might be worth picking and choosing the most prestigeous of ships as fitting over 20 ships onto one page could be interesting. As it's your ship and you seem an active editor, I thought you might want to pick up that baton, or know someone else who will :) - Lt. Salak ^Talk 14:33, 6 March 2008 (CST)

Eagle

Mission Archive looks good now it's been split up a bit under headers. I've made a comment on the Eagle talk page regarding the relevence of the content of the main article. - Lt. Salak ^Talk 18:06, 14 March 2008 (CDT)

Oh, I undid your edits to Intrepid class as this is a wiki mainly for material that is canon only to us. Practically all the info you added to it seemed canon and thus is likely on the MA page (which by rule is linked from the ship nav). We don't want to duplicate what's on Memory Alpha really. - Lt. Salak

^Talk 18:41, 14 March 2008 (CDT)

I moved the stuff like you asked... just thought it would be of use at the Intrepid Class spot I put it... since that location gives next to no info regarding that class... my mistake... sorry Canreb 19:13, 14 March 2008 (CDT)

It's no prob. Whole point of that page is just to tell us what ships in the fleet are of that class really. For canon stuff, always best to link to Memory Alpha. - Lt. Salak

^Talk 19:26, 14 March 2008 (CDT)

crew roster

Whoops, he's one of Indy's engineers, lol. Thought you might like that layout, seems half the fleet uses it now. - Lt. Salak ^Talk 09:05, 15 March 2008 (CDT)

Actually YES I do... thanks... I had been considering makeing the change myself... but have been buzy doing other changes and upgrades... In fact I am trying to add or update the Cart'hen pages... as my Captain was hopeing it could become a well used plot location... Canreb 09:23, 15 March 2008 (CDT)

Think I'd been told that on the forums. It's one less thing on your to-do list then :) - Lt. Salak

^Talk 09:27, 15 March 2008 (CDT)

Sector

a) Does the Sector have a proper name? The Carraya Sector? Sector 1034? Something like that? b) Have you seen Image:Starbase118-map.jpg which could influence the development of the region? - Lt. Salak ^Talk 13:15, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Hello... I have a copy of the map in front of me that I had printed out and enlarged... Eventually I will post the map with the stars named that I have done up systems for...

As for a Sector name... I thought Starbase 118... after all it is the most important item in this sector... it is the main base for the game... and it is almost in the center of the sector...

Go to the new page I made called Space Sector - Starbase 118 - I linked all the systems I have done work on to it so far... Canreb 13:20, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

I enlarged the map to make it easier to measure distance for the info added to the different pages... also so I could add the names to the page and then post it... just the 1 sector by it self... Canreb 13:22, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Okay. Surely the sector would have been known and named before an important base like SB118 would have been built there though? ;) - Lt. Salak

^Talk 13:27, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Whilst on the subject, have you any source for where you got the sector co-ord layout? It seems to lack a third dimension, meaning anything at those co-ord covers an infinite vertical distance and is fairly useless. Given a sector is 20ly x 20ly x 20ly, it could mean any one of a large number of sectors. - Lt. Salak

^Talk 13:31, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

I used both the star charts located on this wikki and from the book Star Trek Star Charts - The complete Atlas of Star Trek by Geoffrey Mandel I need to add the third dimension factor for each system and item in Space Sector - Starbase 118 - I had been playing around with also calling the sector Trinity due to it being the juction point of 3 major space power's... I was thinking I would plot the exact location of each item useing the 3 different directions... with a - or + for the 3rd dimension... - being down and + being up... Canreb 13:50, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

The one referance I have been useing plus the book above describes space as a HUGE disk like shape... but with some depth... in this case either plus 10 lightyears or minus 10 lightyears depending on it's location either above or below the center line... the major part of the plate... or do we just want to list it as just from bottom to top ot top to bottom...Canreb 13:56, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

I wanted some input and suggestions on how to handle... list 3 dimensional locations... I figure my system has to match what this group wants to use... then I could add it at the Space Sector page under the location description of each item in the sector... Let me know what system YOU want me to use... that way it will be useful and make sense... Canreb 14:03, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Academy Library#Flight Control (Navigation) might be of use. What's there wasn't put up by me but was familiar to me before I joined the group too. On the Navigating a starship page, the Galactic Co-ords refer to XYZ, where X would be the border between Alpha & Gamma or Beta & Delta. Y would be the border between Alpha & Beta or Gamma & Delta. Z would be perpendicular to both running vertically. The Sun is 26,000 ± 1400 light-years from the Galactic Centre. We're a barred spiral galaxy by the way. And I can't think off hand of an issue with "Trinity sector". - Lt. Salak

^Talk 14:34, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

OK... if Trinity is the choice I guess I need to make some changes... still have to learn how to delete a page after I make one by mistake... then I will creat the Trinity page and move everything... plus update it...Canreb 21:20, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

To delete a page, tag it with {{delete}} and one of the sysops will do it. It's a sysop-only tool. Also, to move things, please either hit the move tab at the top of the page or call in a sysop to do it. That way, we don't lose the page history. - Lt. Salak

^Talk 23:36, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm probably seeming a pain in the neck aren't I? :P Regardless, please see Talk:Trinity Sector. - Lt. Salak ^Talk 17:00, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

"Under Construction"

There's no reason to mark articles "Under Construction" -- the whole wiki is under constant construction ;) --Wolf /^{talk page} 02:20, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Interwiki links.

1) Case you didn't see what I added to the talk page a few mins ago, see here
2) I take it you've worked out what I did with the links? The same works with wikipedia links too, just wp instead of ma in the markup. :) - Lt. Salak ^Talk 17:13, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Yes I did see it... and I did figure it out... took me a few try's ... plus I checked some links that others had made to make sure I was doing it right...Canreb 17:21, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

I saw the few tries too :) It's a useful little tool, saves the arrow thing popping up, cuts the page length a tad and saves a ream of url code too :) Might save you a few seconds in future - Lt. Salak

^Talk 17:23, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Trinity sector

Hope you like the new menu. I've begun an overhaul of the Cart'hen system pages already, with the new Trinity Sector template, a Cart'hen system nav (top left), etc. The system page is an overview, the situation affecting the whole system, with planet stats kept to planet pages. I'd hope a similar overhaul could be done with the sector page such that it covers info regarding politics, stellar cartography of the sector, etc... with it becoming less of a list. Opinion? - Lt. Salak ^Talk 10:44, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Sounds good to me... I am just adding a few details and doing the race pages for the Rothians... then I will do it for the Cart'hen and the Raskor... I take it the over all work will be useful... and if so would another sector be of use?? Canreb 10:48, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Another sector? If your crew want to prep a neighbouring sector or something then fine, that's up to the lot of you as to whether you think it might be needed. The overall work probably will be useful in future, though the more it's all fleshed out now, the less there is to create in sims when you visit these places ;) Also, did you see my further comment regarding the Ophiucus 70 problem yet? After further thought, that name isn't really appropriate to the area. - Lt. Salak

^Talk 10:54, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

As to Trinity and Acamar sectors... what star names would be found in them... this way I don't mess up again as with Ophiuchus... also I LOVE the Trinity sector nav window... but personnaly I like the star system basic info all on one page with links to any planet with more than basic info...the pre Cart'hen look... but that is just me... I find it easier to work with... I will try and finish Trinity soon... other than the 3 stars in Fed space with no info what else would you like to see??? Canreb 13:57, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Also is it Ok to name the sector with the other half of the Azure Nebula... the sector to the left of Trinity = Acamar??? Canreb 14:12, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Replied individually to both on Talk:Trinity Sector. - Lt. Salak

^Talk 14:38, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Looking at the star chart for Trinity sector I see I have 3 more stars in Fed controled space... I was considering calling them Corvus #???, Sigma Corvus and maybe Azure #??... numbers still to be determined... these OK?? Canreb 15:45, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Sigma Corvus should grammatically be Sigma Corvi. A quick google search seems to show no stars by either name. The constellation's close enough for it to be believable. Corvus ?? will also be Corvi ??. Azure isn't a constellation name so play with that name to your hearts content :) For the record, none of the stars in Corvus are above magnitude 4, so are barely visible with the naked eye from Earth. We can see anything below a magnitude 6 unaided in favourable conditions. - Lt. Salak

^Talk 15:56, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Next I see the Trinity sector has a tag saying it needs major work... is it work on the Fed controled areas or is it the Klingon space??? or Romulan area?? Canreb 15:47, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

That's because I want to revamp it. I think the system stuff blongs on the system pages, leaving only the top 2 lines or so as being about the actual sector. Why's it so named, what's the history of the region, etc... Things which apply specifically to the sector and not just to little parts of it. - Lt. Salak

^Talk 15:56, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

P.S. I spot your replies mainly because I check the Recent Changes a lot. It's a lot easier on the person you're talking to if you reply on their talk page. Click on the name linked in the sign off and then on the talk tab at the top (or simply the "talk" link if it's mine or Wolfs' sigs ;) ) - Lt. Salak ^Talk 16:03, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Rough outline regarding the start of a revamped overview: User:Salak/Trinity. Might split the Federation, Romulan and Klingon bits of the current page into three new pages anyway, as the nav is getting long now and would link to those rather than to every system. Not yet sure what layout they'd have. They might just be categories, might have a list of star system templates, unsure. - Lt. Salak

^Talk 19:08, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

STOP

Right. What pages you want moved, say. I'll move them so we keep the edit history. - Lt. Salak ^Talk 14:01, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

OK... I only moved the info for Ophiucus system on the Trinity Sector page to Miri system on the Trinity Sector page... the entire system still has to be moved and each planet renamed... then the 1 inhabited planet needs to be moved to the new Miri page for that planet... When it is done I can then make the changes to explain the confussion in Federation records regarding the mix up in system names...Ophiucus 70 really being Miri system on the opposite side of Sol Canreb 14:07, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

System page moved, planet page moved. If there's anything else, do say please. I've not tweaked the page content yet. I just didn't want to handle another cut and paste move and assumed you were about to do such, hope that's okay? Should be fine to carry on now :) - Lt. Salak

^Talk 14:11, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Use edit summaries

Hello. I'm glad to see you've become so enthusiastic about using the wiki. However, I've noticed that you almost never use the "Edit Summary" box. Please make it a habit to do so, as it is an important part of reviewing wiki changes. Thanks! --Wolf /^{talk page} 20:48, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Sorry... I will try to remember and start useing it... still learning but hope my efforts are of some use... Canreb 21:04, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Yup, they are of use :) Noticed you've started to add the templates now ;) - Lt. Salak

^Talk 22:20, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

So far just copying and moveing the one's you have made... but at some point I hope I will figure out how to make them as well... Canreb 01:39, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Remember: edit summaries :) For examples, see Special:Contributions/FltAdml._Wolf --Wolf /^{talk page} 12:29, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Right... On the edit page, there's the long box at the bottom next to "Summary". Any text already appearing there will appear on Special:Recentchanges as a link to the section being edited, for example. After that, type a brief record of what you're adding. e.g. If you're adding facts and figures for an Asteroid belt, perhps add the summary "asteroid figures". - Lt. Salak ^Talk 13:21, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

OK... thanks... now all I have to figure out is how to make templates... Canreb 13:22, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Templates? Which ones do you want to create? - Lt. Salak

^Talk 13:30, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Templates

Your experiment actually worked. The reason it showed a red link was because the template you were linking to doesn't exist. Take Template:Roth or Template:Cart'hen and copy the code across to the page linked in red, changing the planet links as appropriate. - Lt. Salak ^Talk 17:40, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Tutorial

I've split the planet & asteroid pages off. If you go to Gamma Taboa system, you'll find the red link at the top for the template, and the red link in the categories bar at the bottom. Create the category first and keep it open. I've put all the relevent pages in there as they should be, and the page titles will help with the nav.

The coding for the template will be the tricky bit...

{| id="toc" class="toc"
|style="width:7.5em;"| '''[[Raskor system]]'''
| [[Raskor (star)|Star]] '''·''' [[Raskor|I]] '''·''' [[Raskor II|II]] '''·''' [[Raskor III|III]] '''·''' [[Raskor IV|IV]] '''·''' [[Raskor V|V]]
|}

Is the code to produce...

Raskor system

Star · I · II · III · IV · V

Change "Raskor system" to "Gamma Taboa system" and hit Preview. You'll find there isn't space for it to fit onto one line and that "system" is probably on a new line below. Where it says 7.5em earlier in that line, change the 7.5 to a larger number; 11.0em might be enough. That will give the system name more space and shift the other links along. As they are in a seperate column, they are not subject to the boldening that the system name is. '''·''' creates a bit of space and the dot between each option. Change the links between them so that it is appropriate to the system. You should finish with something like this:

Gamma Taboa system

Star · Belt I · I · Belt II

Hope that helps you. Should you get lost, I'll try to help out. Alternatively, the code I've just put here is fine to go on the template page, but you'll probably learn it better if you try changing the code yourself. :) This coding is only for the system contents nav templates, each type of template uses a different coding. Also, don't add categories to a template. Unless it's done in a particular way, it'll add every page with the template to that particular category. - Lt. Salak

^Talk 18:32, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Um... you're meant to click on the link and put it as a new page, titled Template:Gamma Taboa. Not replace the template link with the code :P You'll find the links on the other pages in the system are all red links. If the template is a seperate page, one tweak to it will be copied to all the articles which include it. - Lt. Salak

^Talk 21:44, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

So I creat a page called Template"whatever"... put in the code and I'm all set... right Canreb 21:46, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

It has to have the prefix Template: otherwise the {{templatename}} (curly bracket) link won't work. At least, I don't think it would. - Lt. Salak

^Talk 21:48, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks... I got it now... corrected my mistakes... hope I'm not to much of a pest... this is by far the hardest thing I have ever tried to do on a computer... usually only use my e-mail and play some war games... Canreb 21:54, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

It's fine. You seem to have got the hang of that now, which is the important thing. You learn something new every day, eh? On that note, have you seen the categories bit above this? - Lt. Salak

^Talk 21:58, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Stars

Firstly, read the Categories bit above ;)

Secondly. How do you mean? If you mean what to put on each individual star page, see the other star systems for examples. If you mean the Trinity Sector page, I've got the beginnings of a redraft at User:Salak/Trinity which I think gets rid of them entirely. As all the systems are linked from the right menu, it may not even be needed to add a summary of them all in the page content, which is meant to be an overview of the whole sector anyway. I'd cite the Ithassa Region as an example except that it's being rewritten as well at the moment. - Lt. Salak ^Talk 22:03, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Ok... in that case I will wait and see what the final version will be... I was just trying to respond to the STUB request for more info listed with most of the stars... Canreb 22:06, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Ah, well that's probably me just saying "this article about a star is short, please add stuff when you sim about it" - Lt. Salak

^Talk 22:14, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Understandable, but the approach I've used is that on Cart'hen system. It covers the very basics (It's an Orange Dwarf) and leaves the mass info for the stub star page. - Lt. Salak

^Talk 09:23, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Having the star page separate IS important. It's a separate entity, just like each planet, whether inhabitable or not, is a separate entity. The star pages, unless something unusual happens to/with/because of the star, will be very short, yes. But the page should be there nonetheless.-Varaan 15:15, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Trinity Sector

Why are you adding data from the systems pages to the Sector page? If anything, it wants to be taken OFF the sector page. The system pages, the star pages, the planet pages are for that info. - Lt. Salak ^Talk 21:38, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Actually I'm adding the other way... but I guess your right...I will only add it to the star listing from now on... I was doing the initial work on the sector page... copying and saving before then putting it on the star page... will only add to star page from now on... trying to finish all the stars before my break at work is over... Canreb 21:44, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Ah, okies. I want to rip everything below the Table of Contents off the Trinity Sector page really, but not sure what you're still using. Is it safe to delete any text where the header is linked to a 118wiki article? - Lt. Salak

^Talk 21:47, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Let me double check each sector and make sure I have moved all the important data off the Trinity Sector page first... I think I have already done it for all the Federation systems... but I will let you know once I have double checked and made sure I did not forget something... Canreb 21:59, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Ok... I have checked down to and Finished New Scotland... will try and get to the others on my next break... question do we need to delet all info... I took out the main stuff that needs to be removed... left just a bare bones description... the kind of bare bones data that one could scroll down trying to find important facts fast... like member worlds... occupied worlds etc... let me know what you think...Canreb 22:07, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Um, that one's debatable. We have an Ithassa Region Stellar Cartography (WARNING! Building Site!) page which overviews the systems and phenomenae, so that might be an option if we want to split the overview off. We're unsure how we're going to lay that page out yet, but it leaves Ithassa Region (our version of the Trinity Sector page) as an overview of the region and its history. And yes, I am Redrafting the main Ithassa Region page too... - Lt. Salak

^Talk 22:16, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

OK... managed to finish the star data and checking the Federation systems... have not created pages yet for the non federation systems... I guess I should... that will be my next project... Canreb 00:51, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

I took a quick look at the work you are doing for the Ithassa redrafting project... nice work... much bigger area... I see some of my earlier work was kept and used... the only major thing I still want to add to the Trinity Sector main page is an image, copy of the map for just that sector... other than that I am very pleased with how it turned out so far... Canreb 00:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Tried to cut out just the Trinity sector and then add it to the site... but pic ended up to small... could not see any details... when I tried to enlarge it first it became burry... not useable... I was hopeing to put map smack dab in the center of the big empty white section on the Trinity sector. Canreb 01:57, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Think I've tried that myself with little luck. The map is already linked from the nav though, I just changed the name of the link to make it a tad more obvious (it had been the "(Sector 118)" link at the top). As for Ithassa, yes, it's a huge region. :) No reason such a crucial sector wouldn't have a similarly rich history though; given exploration it should even be more history :) - Lt. Salak

^Talk 02:08, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Well thats what I tried to do... give Trinity Sector some depth... some history... while also giving lots of interesting simmimg locations and possibilities... now that the Federation part of it is done... next question is how much of the Klingon and Romulan area's of the sector should I fill in?... right now I just have 2 systems identified in both... they are the 2 largest population centers for their respective empires in Trinity sector... I was thinking of leaving most of the Romulan blank to be developed later as their border is closed... but with our treaty with the Klingons... I guess players could do missions in Klingon space... either with NPC Klingons or on their own... Canreb 21:53, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

I also checked my copy of the star charts book... the one our master copy of the star charts comes from... certain parts of the Ithassa region seem to be in the wrong spot as portrayed by the plain hand drawn black map... in compareson with the book... (location of the Gorn, Tholians, etc) will that be fixed... also how many sectors does it cover?... and once you have figured out the sectors will you be figureing out the coordinates of each sector?... also with such a huge area how many more systems are their?... Canreb 21:53, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

looking at the maps in the book it shows the Gorn below the Klingons in the Beta Quadrant, while the Tholians are WAY over in the Alpha quadrant with the Cardassian, Tkon and the Talarian empires between them and the Gorn... unlike on the Ithassa region map Canreb 22:05, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

After taking another look at the map of the Ithassa region I have to say that it needs to be updated... refined... turned into a more useable version... mind you that's just my opinion... as a working model it's ok... but not for a finished product... Canreb 22:05, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Not another one moaning about the Ithassa map, lol! At the end of the day, I didn't make it. Also, Star Trek Star Charts is a non-canon reference anyway. I've raised all this with the relevent senior staff. It won't be "fixed". I doubt we'll be looking at sector co-ords, but for the total sector count, it's a lot. I've been asking occassionally for a new, up-to date map for the better part of 2 years, so don't hold your breath. The version there at the sec is correct as of August 2383, with ship positions edited off. Oh, and I think we deduced that the only place Ithassa would possibly fit in the Star Charts is the huge expanse at the bottom, the bit which is little more than a few Federation shipping lanes I guess, given the web nature of it on the map. - Lt. Salak

^Talk 22:30, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

As for the Klingons and Romulans, don't see why there can't be missions in Klingon space. Fill in what you like. Bear in mind the distrust between the Romulans and Klingons which has become conflict at times (see here, here or here for examples). The Romulans became involved in the Klingon civil war too, so there may well be a history of conflict in the region. In addition, there's also the Klingon-Federation relations, which although good at times, can also turn foul. The Azure Nebula has a bit of history too :) - Lt. Salak

^Talk 22:43, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Work on Sectors

OK... I will try and add some data for the Klingon systems in Trinity... too bad about the Ithassa region map... I looked at the Star Trek Star Charts: The Complete Atlas of Star Trek by Geoffrey Mandel again... (how can it's charts be both canon and non-canon???)... anyway from what I can tell... your right... the Ithassa region is below the federation and it stradles the border between the Alpha and Beta Quadrants... I was able to figure out the distance between the Tholian and the Gorn... ITS 4 Sectors in Alpha space and then 4 Sectors in Beta space for a total of 8 Sectors between them... that makes the map they provided HUGE... way to big... Canreb 10:08, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Did it get mentioned or appear in TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT or any of the films? It didn't, thus it's not canon. - Lt. Salak

^Talk 15:15, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk about getting it wrong... another look at the Ithassa region map shows that they have the TZENKETHI COALITION which is in the 3rd sector away from Earth in the Alpha Quadrant as per the Canon star charts saved on the Wikki that we have been useing... no mention of the Cardassian Empire that is inbetween the TZENKETHI and the Tholians... or the Talarian Republic that is also inbetween the 2... Obviously they have all 3 of the Canon Races in the wrong places... (Tholian, Gorn and Tzenkethi)... when so much canon info shows that the map is wrong... why will they not try and fix it??? how hard can it be to make the map again but leave off the 3 Canon races (Tholian, Gorn and Tzenkethi)... that will not change the map they use but does delete the incorrect info... making their map right again??? Canreb 10:23, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

*sigh* I've raised most of this before. It's not my call, it's the call of the Regions' COs I believe. I've suggested trying to slip it into the gap between the Tholians and cardassians but got told it was the space at the bottom of the map if anything in reply to that. Trying to raise it further, I was then reminded Space is 3D and thus the Star Chart maybe accurate if you cut accross a plane of the galaxy, but above or below that it may be inaccurate. - Lt. Salak

^Talk 15:15, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

well in that case I guess the best that can be done is to try and work with what your stuck with... have started adding to the Klingon part of Trinity Sector... still have 5 star systems to add... used a Klingon dictionary to name the star systems so far... Canreb 15:37, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Looks good so far. There'll be too many systems to fit them all on the nav though, but that can be worked around. - Lt. Salak

^Talk 19:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Jenatris I believe is Varaan's old patch. He'd know better than I do. - Lt. Salak ^Talk 04:58, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

OK... I was just wondering why they added it where they did... map confirms their is no possible way it's that close to Trinity Sector... I didn't delete the add on as I wanted to find out why it was added... it should be 3 or 4 more sectors farther away... Canreb 07:06, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Sector Coordinates

You do realize, don't you, that we're working with a 2-dimensional representation (picture) of a 3-dimensional object (Outer space). When I said "bottom" in the Jenatris explanation, I meant bottom of the sector, not bottom of the map. On the star charts, we're looking at the sectors top-down. X-axis goes left-right on the map/screen. Y-axis goes up-down on the map/screen. Z-axis moves into and out from the map/screen. So the Jenatris Cloud, being "below" the Trinity Sector on the Z-axis, would be further into the map/screen (almost "behind" the map). You get that, right?-Varaan 11:54, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

yes I understand that... all the stars on the map are not flat at the same level... some are above the page and some are below the page... if we turned the map so we could see it from the side we would have a narrow band with the number of stars becoming more numerous the closer to the middle... but it would still be 35 stars regardless of if you looked from above like the map or looked from the side... just harder to count them as some would be in the way of others looking from the side... space is WIDE... but it is only about 1 sector deep... like a plate stretched out forever but not very deep... So for the Trinity Sector... if I was to use proper star coordinates then for Starbase 118 I would have to write... X = 8 ly, Y = 10 ly and Z = 0 ly... while H'Atoria might be X = 15 ly, Y = 17 ly and Z = -5 ly... as in 5 ly below the middle of the Sector looking at it from the side... all astronomical info wp:Galaxy plus the Star Trek Star Charts book plus other articles I have looked up agree on this fact... space is 3 dimensional but it is also flat and spiral like a plate... Canreb 15:42, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Right. So this being a FICTICIOUS setting (Star Trek is not "real") we can tweak some things a bit. Now, where we are in the spiral arm of the galaxy, it's more than one sector thick. And if I created the Jenatris Cloud and the other things behind it, Geoffrey Mandel wouldn't have known to put it in his book. So, while I was CO of the USS Atlantis, I created this area, below what you now call "Trinity Sector", and my crew and I simmed there. Seeing as how you have to go through Trinity Sector to get out of it, and to the Jenatris Cloud and beyond, I thought it natural to insert that info into the Trinity Sector description.-Varaan 08:50, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

QI'tu system template

The system page is spelt with a capital I whilst the rest of the system's been spelt with a small L. That's why the link isn't working. I'd suggest moving whichever pages are in error. - Lt. Salak ^Talk 17:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Oh, and inclined to agree about the systems in nav. I've got a lot on my plate tonight, just back from an internet-less week, had over 100 e-mails, a new ship launch going on... Let me know what you want help with, I'll try to help though. - Lt. Salak

^Talk 17:57, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Thanks... I got it fixed... I also deleted the systems from the Trinity nav window... the page might be long... but I think it works... all 3 different political groups and every system listed with basic info... Canreb 12:38, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Planets

I know you're adding a TON of new systems and planets, etc. to try to flesh out the Trinity Sector. Remember, when you've decided what type of planet each is, you can add that specific category to the bottom of the page, too, to try to keep each kind organized. Thanks. -Varaan 10:22, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

once I finish the sector I will try and go back and add all those planet type categories... Canreb 10:25, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Remember to check out the Planetary Classification page. There are different classes for each planet type. "Gas Giant" isn't a category, because they fall in as either Class Js, Class Is, or Class S-Ts. I've fixed up all your "Gas Giant" categories with the appropriate category depending on size.-Varaan 10:56, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Thank you... I will check and make sure any new gas giants I make are given the correct category... I guess I will need to use the Planetary Classification page to categorize the other planets I have made or will make...Canreb 11:07, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

The nice thing, too, is if you refer to the planet's class in the description you can make a link to the classification page like this: [[Planetary Classification#Class M|Class M]], which looks like this: Class M and takes you right to the "Class M" section of that page.-Varaan 12:16, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

When I finish the sector I will try and do that... go back and add the links to each planet for the classification... thanks for the info...Canreb 14:15, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Ithassa

If you can flesh out the systems you created, then please do. I've been preoccupied lately with the Tiger, and Cmdr Cody just became XO on Indy so the rewrite has effectively been put on hold for the time being. You won't be stepping on toes. - Lt. Salak ^Talk 10:09, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Understood... will do what I can... Canreb 12:04, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

I was taking another look at the map for the Ithassa region... anyway we can update it... that way we can put the right empires in the right places... also this region should be partly within the Alpha and Beta quadrant... I think I have something that would work... right out of the Star Trek Star charts Book... could I send it to you to look at and you could let me know what you think... Canreb 23:01, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Even the star charts saved to this wikki show they made one mistake... wrong T empire... should be Talerian Republic not Tzenkethi Coalition... Canreb 23:06, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

I believe the short answer to that is no. My rewrite removes the map from the main page given its inadequacies. - Lt. Salak

^Talk 23:35, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

I've removed the Ga'ter system para from Ithassa Region. We list the systems on Ithassa Region Stellar Cartography instead. Anything you add to Ithassa Region will prob get written over given I have a total rewrite of the main page being drafted on my profile. - Lt. Salak

^Talk 15:13, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Sounds OK with me... but can I add stuff to the Ithassa Region Stellar Cartography page?? also I have finished the Ga'teran and Ga'ter system rewrites... take a look and let me know if it's anygood... then I'll start on the other ones... Canreb 15:43, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

I added the Ga'ter system to the above page... I know we are not suppose to change anything regarding the false info already listed for the region... but an easy way to solve the largest mistake is to just not mention the Tzenkethi Coalition in the rewrite... we know it's really on the other side of the Cardassian Empire and much closer to Earth than even Bajor... we may not be able to change the Ithassa map... but if we just delete that one mistake we would be Canon (staying within the Correct Star Trek mythos) and still not step on any toes... Canreb 16:06, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

And I'd be disobeying what could be interpreted as a direct order in the process. - Lt. Salak

^Talk 18:59, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Where are the location details from? I wrote in the Eratis sector itself almost exclusively for over two years (Wallace/DS17, then the Gorn Conflict on Indy, then DS17 again) and those details seem a little off compared to what I'm familiar with. - Lt. Salak ^Talk 14:27, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

You deffinately have more info on the area than me... I wrote activities on DS17 and area while on the USS Triumphant... maybe 1 year total... what was stressed to me while playing was that DS17 was on the edge of Federation space and right next to the Free Trade Union... Canreb 14:30, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

Well we're a long way from the Core, we've got the FTU near us in the Aurona Sector if memory serves, but DS17 is at the very heart of Federation activities in the Region. - Lt. Salak

^Talk 14:43, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

Oh, and DS17 isn't really on the edge of the Ithassa Region. The station's almost bang in the middle of the map ;) - Lt. Salak

^Talk 14:46, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

I did not put the FTU beside DS17 but it is not far off... 1 or 2 sectors are in between them... just trying to place the races I created in relations to the Federation border and DS17... The black map has no border for the feds shown... the offical map shows that the Federation border extends down into that area... Canreb 14:52, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

As far as UFOP is concerned at the moment, that black map IS the official map. I think that's correct for the FTU :) - Lt. Salak

^Talk 16:05, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

I was assumeing that part of the Ithassa Region was inside the Federation border... That would put DS17 just on the border with the none Federation parts of the Ithassa Region... Canreb 14:55, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

I changed the wording a little to clear up the problem of locations... ie.. just within the Federation part of the Ithassa Region... or just outside the Federation part etc... Canreb 12:15, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Ga'terian

GURPS Space Builder? Never heard of it... - Lt. Salak ^Talk 15:31, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

The layout you have used (Planetary survey information) is almost identical from the book... it is the same book I used to work out most of the data for each system in the Trinity Sector... I just left out most of the stuff that did not seem to fit in with Star Trek like Civilization: Population - 200 million Ga'teran's on world and about 50 million Ga'teran's off world , 22 million slaves on world, Tech level - ???, Control rating - ???, Society - ???, Starports - ???, Installations - ???

Other notes:Economic/production - ????, Canreb 16:11, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

I'd not really touched Ga'ter et al, so I guess it's prob left over from you or Varaan - Lt. Salak

^Talk 16:19, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Must have been Varaan then... still I think I may go back and change it over so it looks like the other systems... Canreb 16:22, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Ithassa again

How much of the info is sim based and how much are you creating from scratch? I'm not convinced about some of the sectors... - Lt. Salak ^Talk 12:44, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Only really doing work on the FTU part of space right now... all based on my past postings on the USS Triumphant which operated in this area... I am useing a grid map for the sectors... all the FTU races are side by side... Just filling in the main data for each home system and the race right now... working down the list... referances for the founders were very limited... they seemed to stay out of sight... after that I will fill in any other systems that they control... which for some is NA... but the Ga'teran control 5 star systems... I've done 1...Canreb 13:01, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Well as Indy, Tiger & Ronin are all still in the region, do leave some things for us to discover, won't you? - Lt. Salak

^Talk 13:21, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

even with the little I have added to work with you could probally sim for the next 5 years... but NP... as soon as I finish doing the work on the FTU races I helped develop I will back off and move on to another project... Canreb 22:49, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

By all means add things, just be wary that certain details that have been simmed might contradict what you have on record, and that there are still ships in the region and thus they may return to these systems. - Lt. Salak

^Talk 03:58, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

That's the good news... I hope they do... then they can add more detail to the bare bones descriptions I have written up so far... all I have done is give a starting point... a simplist description of the FTU races and the systems they control... hopefully the players will by simming be able to expand and improve these entries... Canreb 04:14, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

OK... I finished the rewrites on the member races of the FTU and their homeworld systems... I hope it proves useful... Canreb 13:49, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk page is raising questions over the name "Cait". I've removed all co-ord references from the index page due to lack of a z-axis, which makes them practically meaningless. Also, various sectors seem VERY densely packed. Especially given the intro states "1000 days to cross, or 2 years and a little over nine months, systems and local governments are far and few between." - Lt. Salak

^Talk 09:26, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Fixed the problem with Cait... it is the home system of the Caitian, a member race of the Federation... also sectors are 20 light years wide, tall and deep... their are no sectors above or below them... space is flat like a plate... see Star Trek Star Charts, The Complete Atlas of Star Trek thats why I used co-ordinates other wise how do you know where they are in relation to each other??? with out Co-ordinates one player might think The Dahri were on the border of the Tholian when they are actually closer to the Alpha Beta border and south of Cait Sector which is on the border with the Tholians... as for the number of systems within a sector... I already reduced it from the norm which acording to the book above is normally 32 to 40 systems per sector... Canreb 11:32, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Question... if we do not use co-ordinates how can you plot the time it takes to travel between locations when you have no idea where it is in relations to where you are??? Canreb 11:36, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Ignore the book. Space is THREE DIMENSIONS. Space is NOT flat as a plate. If it were, when you look up at the night sky, you'd see a ring of stars and otherwise a lot of black. I removed the Co-ords as there was no vertical axis. We do use co-ords, just the system you've been using has NO meaning when you're trying to place something in space. How best to explain it... take a map of the world. The whole planet is on one page, flat? But we know the world is round. The atlas has to account for it so has to stretch bits and flatten the planet to make it fit on a page. - Lt. Salak

^Talk 11:40, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

As for location of sectors, why not just describe it? It'd be a hell of a lot easier for people unfamiliar with that co-ord system. By the way, I just checked, a 20ly diameter sphere around Earth would contain just 7 star systems. In the sparce ithassa, we're probably looking at 2 or 3 systems in a sector in most cases I'd've thought. See wp:Image:Nearby Stars (14ly Radius).svg for a good image of how stars do not lie within a single plain, and thus how space is 3D. the line 0h-12h is the y axis, the line 6h - 18h is the x axis, a vertical line passing through Sol would be the z axis. All three are needed to specify the whereabouts of a star. You said yourself above, a sector is "20 light years wide, tall and deep", that's 3 dimensions. Your co-ord system gives us where it is in terms of the width and tallness, but there's no figure given in your co-ords saying how deep. A sector or a star could be at any point on that line, your co-ord system simply does not tell us. - Lt. Salak

^Talk 12:15, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Ok... I will describe locations... I need that becouse when I did the rewrite I figured out on a grid page where each sector would go... it affected how I wrote up each race in the FTU... also I understand about wanting the region to be sparse... but it would not suddenly go sparse... 2 years to cross is a one hell of a lot of sectors... deeper into the region the number of systems per sector will keep dropping but right here on the edge of Federation space they would be only slightly lower I was thinking... Canreb 21:55, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Sorry if I sounded really annoyed above, not the best of days. To quote myself however; "By the way, I just checked, a 20ly diameter sphere around Earth would contain just 7 star systems." When you're looking at the map, each grid square is not just one sector, but the sectors vertically above and below it as well. Thus due to the limitations of the paper being 2D, while you may seem to see 30-odd systems in a sector, you're actually seeing, perhaps 6 systems in each of 5 sectors, one on top of the other? - Lt. Salak

^Talk 22:28, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

If that is the case we need some way to tell the differance between those the 2 below and the 2 above... I would need to divide the 30 odd systems listed in Trinity between those 5 sectors... if you think of a way let me know and I will try and think of a system to do it as well... Canreb 06:27, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure how would be the best way to do so. As it's all there already for Trinity, you could keep it as is I guess. The nearby nebula might explain why it's quite densely packed if a rationale is wanted? *shrug* However Ithassa is meant to be sparce, so I would be inclined to go for the far lower figure in our case. - Lt. Salak ^Talk 09:27, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Sectors

if space is going to be treated as 5 sectors deep then how about useing the following as co-ordinates... A02-0005-1324... Quadrant, sector number from top to bottom, sector number from Alpha- Beta border... then distance from the galactic core... all in sectors... as for the Trinity Sector... how about if I divid it into 5 sectors named Trinity Sector 1, Trinity Sector 2, etc since all 3 powers would be present and meet in all 5 sector's... or we could call them Trinity Sector, Sector 118 and Serellan Sector for 3 of them... then for system location in a sector it's co-ordinates could be as follows 13-06-14, (left to right, top to bottom and then depth)... next their are 31 systems listed which could be divided as follows among the sectors starting from top to bottom... 1) has 4 star systems, 2) has 6 star systems 3) has 9 star systems 4) has 7 star systems and 5) has 5 star systems... Canreb 10:41, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

now taking that into account I could do the same with the FTU systems... Canreb 10:43, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

The powers may not necessarily be present in all the sectors. That's like saying, "oh, this bit of Europe is French, so all of Europe must thus be French". It's complicated. I want to go through the Ithassa stuff at some point anyway, so I might try to patch that stuff up. As for Trinity, it's Eagles region of space. As long as the CO is fine with it, shouldn't be a problem. - Lt. Salak

^Talk 10:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

In that case I will let you fix the Ithassa region stuff I did... and I will see about fixing the Trinity stuff... Canreb 17:30, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Eagle Crew Pages

Thanks for catching those pieces of information (crew master crew list and crew history). :) Teamwork's great! Alana 22:24, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

@@ Line 423: / Line 423: @@
 In that case I will let you fix the Ithassa region stuff I did... and I will see about fixing the Trinity stuff... [[User:Canreb|Canreb]] 17:30, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
+==Eagle Crew Pages==
+Thanks for catching those pieces of information (crew master crew list and crew history). :) Teamwork's great! [[User:Alana|Alana]] 22:24, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

User talk:Canreb: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:24, 22 June 2008

DS17 nav template

Categories

Re: Template:Asterospolis

Free Trade Union

Phaelasour & Ilbera species

Signature

Break tags are not necessary in most cases

Devitt, Darla

Talk:Blank NPC page

Naming pages properly

Ship Nav

Naming pages properly:warning part II

MA content

Eagle nav

Eagle History

Attention

Eagle

Eagle

crew roster

Sector

"Under Construction"

Interwiki links.

Trinity sector

STOP

Use edit summaries

Categories

Templates

Tutorial

Stars

Trinity Sector

Work on Sectors

Sector Coordinates

QI'tu system template

Planets

Ithassa

Ga'terian

Ithassa again

Sectors

Eagle Crew Pages

Navigation menu

Search