Talk:Ithassa Region Stellar Cartography

Page Necessary?

There is a page for the Ithassa Region, wouldn't it make more sense to merge this page and that one? Why have two pages explaining the Ithassa Region? Especially considering that the supposed entry page is almost empty of information. I'll leave it for 3 days if anyone cares please comment if not the two pages will be merged. Sirkit 14:54, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

The Ithassa Region page should be basic (although not to the extent it currently is) whilst this one goes into more detail. I'd maybe look a bit at the balance. The Ithassa Region page might want to look at other areas in more detail too, perhaps move history there, etc...

I see this as an equivelant for the Ithassa Region page as any of the pages on wikipedia which look at the geography of a country. Perhaps use w:Geography of the United Kingdom and w:United Kingdom as guides? Of course headings won't be the same (mountains in space?) but the basi ideas behind the articles perhaps...

If you also look at the ship pages, several have or are developing pages which are guides to the ship, in addition to the main page of the ship. Deep Space 17 is an example which springs straight to my mind, although there are better ones.

Also, please sign your comments with 3 or 4 tildes, like ~~~~ so we know who has made the comment. 4 tildes will automatically turn into a link to your wiki userpage and a time stamp. - Jay 06:00, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

I see your point, I may merge the history into the region page. Unfortunatly not much information on this area is available to me at this point so I would require others to add in points such as the shape of the region and other 'geographic' information. Thanks for your comment and the ~ trick - Sirkit 14:54, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

I may be simming in the region but I have little more than this to go on myself... As for the Tildes; any time. - Jay 18:11, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

Layout

If you're basing this on Trinity Sector, I'm planning to attack that with a sledgehammer when it's quieter (poss next week?). I personally don't like the idea of a long list of one line synopsis, not in the style this currently is. Think it looks messy. - Lt. Salak^Talk 12:32, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

It's far better than having all this scattered through several articles, which is how I found it. Wasn't basing it on Trinity... I just wanted an article that would be easy to manage and easy for contributors to update. The important thing is it's here. We can edit/modify the information so it doesn't look as messy. ADD-ON: Unfortunately there just isn't enough information on what was contributed to do what I'd really prefer to do. DCody 12:46, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

What did you have in mind? I was just commenting to be sure this was thought interim. Oh, and I do agree it's better in one place. - Lt. Salak^Talk 12:53, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

*chuckle* It's interim... Preferably, I would love it if we could encourage our members to further develop the exiting systems so they could support their own articles (we lucked out a bit more with the TE-IV on information about the system), but, failing that... I'm not sure what's going to look pleasing to the eye just yet. DCody 13:02, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Have you seen Cart'hen IV? The info there can prob do with trimming down, but I'm thinkin gmore the layout. The region nav on the right, a system contents bar top left. Not sure where planet specs can come in yet (prob in the text) but I don't like that template either, lol. - Lt. Salak^Talk 13:16, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Oh, agreed. It's a nice layout, but some systems will have a nice breakdown like that, but most don't. DCody 13:25, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Those that don't, the links in the top content bar can either point to stubs for each body (see Cart'hen, Cart'hen I) or to the main system article perhaps? No article is too short to be created. - Lt. Salak^Talk 13:34, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

We were both editing this at the same time :oP I really, really do like that content bar. Let's go ahead and clean this up with that idea (although I don't know what your thoughts to trimming are. DCody 13:44, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Not thought through exactly how to trim yet. I plan to change Trinity Sector to an overview of the sector as all the systems are linked in the nav (quite deliberate that ;) ). We'll have to work it out I guess. I'm on MSN btw. - Lt. Salak^Talk 13:59, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

I was doing a little test... are we thinking it's own nav panel? There was a thought of doing multiple content bars, one for each system. DCody 14:03, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Cait System

Cait is already a canon location, home of the Caitians in the Federation - should we really have a duplicate in the Ithassa Region? Hutch 04:55, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

This is a relatively unexplored region, inclined to agree it shouldn't be here. Canreb placed it though, I'm yet to sift through all the new additions. - Lt. Salak^Talk 09:05, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

After a quick look, I can't see any reason it can't be renamed. Tur'vin System/Sector might be more appropriate than Cait. - Lt. Salak^Talk 09:15, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Also, for a Region sparcely populated with star systems, there are some busy sectors. I've never envisaged more then a handful of systems in the Eratis sector... if there were even that many. - Lt. Salak^Talk 09:21, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

If you take a look at the Star Trek Star Charts map... they have a named planet which I have checked and is the homeworld of the Caitian's... it is extremely close to DS17... that is why I added it... but I think this page needs to be split... it's getting to big and it does not even list 1/10 of the sectors in the Ithassa Region that are close... Canreb 09:32, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

North?

in Space, which way is North? ;) - Lt. Salak^Talk 15:35, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

traditionally, isn't Earth near the 'centre' of the map? so 'north' is anything above it. gets a bit tricky in three dimensions. Hutch 19:23, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

Debatable. Maps of the Milky Way tend to use Sagittarius A* as the centre of the map, if I'm not mistaken? We know roughly which way the Galactic Centre is (top of map) so referincing whether it's closer/further from there, and if discussing vertical then if it's above or below the galactic plane perhaps? - Lt. Salak^Talk 19:32, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

The Ithassa Region sits on the Alpha/Beta quadrant border so it must be on the central line somewhere, presumably at the edge of Federation space. The Gorn (I figure the closest biggest neighbours) are mostly in Beta but i can't find any reference to them being 'up' or 'down'. Maybe just pick one? Hutch 04:29, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

If the usual Ithassa Map is taken as read, the Gorn are in Alpha, slightly towards the Galactic Core, but several degrees from the Alpha/Beta border, in Alpha. - Lt. Salak^Talk 04:56, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

The Gorn are below the Klingons according to the Star Trek Star Charts... and are completely inside the Beta Quadrant... about 4 to 5 sectors away from the Alpha Beta border... Canreb 09:37, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

And to repeat for the umpteenth time what the Admiralty has told me, we DON'T use the Star Charts for the Ithassa Region. You seem to be making DRASTIC changes, have you run them through the region's CO's? - Lt. Salak^Talk

Ithassa Region Star Charts

It's getting a little to big... I think what we need to do is break it down into smaller pages... maybe leave just the sector names and their locations as well as a one line description... just an idea... Canreb 09:37, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

Well if you want to split a few off, try to make sure the pages link to each other. Don't rush, cos each sector can be many pages and they need to link together. - Lt. Salak^Talk 12:03, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

Klingons

The Klingon Empire is nowhere near the Ithassa Region. In fact, I think they're meant to be on opposite sides of the Federation. - Lt. Salak^Talk 11:35, 23 July 2008 (EDT)