Talk:Starship Catalogue

From No Man's Sky Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Since this page appears to receive plenty of talk, the items have been reordered with the newest at the beginning. In the future, please add your new questions at the top of the page - it will save a lot of scrolling to see the latest content.

Version Change 10/11/2019[edit source]

I've changed the version from Abyss to Visions due to updating the Freighter costs. The Unique Fighter section may need to be updated as well. I don't think anything else has changed.Bhocis (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Sub Categories 09/06/2017[edit source]

I Notice that the ships catalogues have been updated to be categorized by class. As it is mentioned in the description: "Remember that each starship is available in all class grades, so it is important to know which design is best suited to you when looking for a new starship." Knowing that, it appears irrelevant to categorize the ships by class... I wish to talk again of the possibility to categorize the ships by size instead... previous discussions was as follow Talinwind (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Would it be nice to categorize the ships by "size" I mean small/medium/large. That could reduce the need of scrolling all over the list to look at the field in the popup when you know you only aim for a large cargo. Though I know that "size" need to be verify in v1.3 (I screen 40 ships so far and it worked. Just saw one shuttle that jump to small C to medium B but shuttle size is less well defined that other type right)Talinwind (talk) 02:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that would be handy, but as you've probably noticed, most editors only include the number of slots when they build a starship page. There is a parm provided for S/M/L in the infobox, but few people have chosen to use it. One thing you might try is going to the search bar and looking for, say, the phrase "(38 slots)" (including the "") That would return you pages for ships with that number of slots. Ddfairchild (talk) 03:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Slots "IS" the size S/M/L... It would be nice to specify the limits on the "Catalogue - [type]" page like "Small = 15-19, Medium = 20-29..." like this the editor that add the ship in the catalogue have a quick way to know where to post his ship. Talinwind (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC

I think it is a good idea to categorize the ships by size. However, with the introduction of additional technology slots things are a little different. We can now have up to 50 slots on A/S-Class Fighters and up to 60 slots (48+12, I think is possible) on A/S-class Haulers while C/B-class fighters of the same type only go up to maybe 44/45. Personally I don't care if a catalogued ship is C, B, A or S and if it was found in 48 or 60 slots since I think it can be found in all of it's possible configurations. So all I need to know is that it can be found with up to xx slots in C/B and up to XXX slots in A/S. So it might be a good idea to preset a bunch of global sizes (like S/M/L/XL) for all ship types and then define them in detail for each quality class (like Small is 19-25 slots overall with C/B classes ranging from 19-23 and A/S-classes ranging from 22-25). For example I can then check for a small Fighter in the catalogue knowing that I get up to 25 slots if I find it in A or S but also I know that I can end up with just 20 slots if I only manage to find it in C or B. I don't think we have all the numbers for all the details of this method yet, but I wanted to contribute it never the less. And we always can tweak the classes later. Donswelt (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Any ideas on how to proceed with this catalogue? The categorization into classes (S/A/B/C) does not making any sense to me since I can find any ship in any class and there is no guarantee that anybody else will find my ship in the same class with the same specs I did. I just added two ships and realized for the first time the amount of irrelevant information in the info boxes. I really think we should just categorize them in three or four classes of size. Donswelt (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
After investigate the last info (thanks @Thamalandis for pointing the update of Starship page). It appears that for a specific ship, the size (S/M/L) is fix. Then the class (A/B/C/S), the slots (inventory/tech) and the bonus (damage/shield/hyperdrive) varies in a defined range and are "reroll" each time the ship appears in the system. That means: The only think you need to know is the design and the size. For example if you want your favorite large fighter, you know it will appears from a creepy C30/5 (+5/+0/+0) up to an amazing S38/12 (+60/+25/+0). You just have to sit there an wait for the good roll to pop... With that in mind, I suggest to remind the ranges at the top of the Starship_Catalogue_-_(Archetype) pages and simplify each ship page, especially the pop-up. Keep the location, type, inventory, discovered by... but get rid of the class and bonus as they vary. Additionally, it could be nice to add price range on the page too (cf.Price_Catalogue). Talinwind (talk) 07:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I am agreeable to making some changes to the popup as that will shorten it a bit, but will run it by the rest of the admin team to get their opinion. I think, though, it would be safer at this point to not change the infox on the page itself, but just leave it as it currently is. As soon as we took off the class and bonus, I'd get questions from other editors about "where did the class and bonus sections go? How do I enter my information?" <g> So this is a case of "don't enter the information if you don't want to, but you can IF you want to." The other field I would suggest we leave on the main page but drop from the popup is the Discoverer. It doesn't tell us anything about the ship per se, so we can probably trim the popup down a bit and not show it. Thoughts? Ddfairchild (talk) 05:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Ship Infobox update for exotic ships 08/27/2017[edit source]

We need an 'Exotic' parameter for the starships infobox template. I don't know or can't update the template. But I already created the exotic catalogue page and will start adding ships soon. Thank you! Donswelt (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Ship Distribution 08/27/2017[edit source]

I am conducting a small survey to understand the ship distribution in Atlas Rises. For now I explored 3 systems in 1 region. I think some information could be added on the main starship catalogue page. I let you judge of that. Here my preliminary conclusions:

  • Each system have 20 ships distributed between Explorer, Fighter, Hauler, Shuttle
  • Each ship can be found (probably) in A, B, C class
  • Each system (might) have 1 exotic ship S class
  • Each system have 1 basic Freighter found in B and C class up to 2 basic Freighters found in A, B, C class
  • Each system have 1 lead Freighter found in A class A, B, C class
  • Each system have 1 Capital Freighter -on event- (probably) found in A, B, C class

Insight: The pattern of ship disribution might depend of the region and the race in the system: The region of the survey show a pattern of 7 Shuttles + 7 Major type + 3 Minor type + 3 Minor type. Major types are: Explorer for Korvax, Fighter for Vy'keen and Hauler for Gek You can look at the by system survey here: [1] Talinwind (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Sounds about right to me. Though I think there is more than one basic freighters but I might be wrong. Donswelt (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Right, I did a small edit of the observations and the insight sounds validated too. Talinwind (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Pathfinder vs Atlas Rises 08/16/2017[edit source]

To make a clean break between starships from the Pathfinder era compared to the Atlas Rises era, I plan to make the following modifications to the catalog.

  • create clones of all the starship catalogue pages. I will use the same basic name, but prefix it with "Pathfinder - ". For example, the clone of the Starship Catalogue - Fighter page would be called "Pathfinder - Starship Catalogue - Fighter".
  • include information on these pages indicating they are of the Pathfinder era, and include a link to the Atlas Rises version of the page
  • after making the copy, remove all index entries from the current pages that are not from the Atlas Rises era (which will obviously be most of them)
  • include information on these pages pointing the reader to the Pathfinder version of the catalogue, should they want to review it

As far as creating new ships, or modifying old pages if specifically updating them for Atlas Rises, please do the following:

  • add the "release = Atlas Rises" parm to the infobox
  • add a category of "Atlas Rises" to the page

Ddfairchild (talk) 06:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

* creating clone "Pathfinder - Starship Catalogue - *" => Good idea.
* include information that they are of the Pathfinder era, and a link to the Atlas Rises version of the page => Good idea
* remove all entries that are not from the Atlas Rises era => Good + is there some old Foundation ships ? If yes, put them away too.
* pointing to the Pathfinder version of the catalogue => Same way as Atlas Rises starship page will point to Starship Catalogue - * ? then good.

Talinwind (talk) 07:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

This sounds like the right things to do.

Donswelt (talk)

* I'd rather suggest to leave the Starship Catalogue Main Page design just as it is now and have 2 links per archetype description one leading to the Pathfinder era and the other to the Atlas Rises era. I think thats the easiest way to make a clean line between them.
* the new parm 'era' (Pathfinder / Atlas Rises) makes sense to see what catalogue era you currently browsing in.

Speecker

Catalogue or category 08/14/17[edit source]

I just wander the "Starship Catalogue - [type]" pages, aren't they heavily redundant with "Category:Starship Catalogue - [type]" ? Is there a real benefit to manually add each ship name at the right position in the right page, rather than just using the category that manage it by itself ? Talinwind (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

That's a good question to which there are two answers. I'll leave it to you to decide on the value thereof <g> And FWIW, if all the catalog did was present an index, you are absolutely correct that we'd replace the list with a link to the category page for that type.
However... If you check the lists, you'll that there are certain flags that can be appended to a ship's entry that specify additional information. For example, an S indicates that an S-class ship of that type is on record. This type of information can't be displayed on a category page, as only the name of the page shows there. Second, using a hard-coded list allows the use of the pop-up links which show the infobox of the selected starship without having to actually open the page. Again, this can't be done on a straight Category page, as far as I know. Thanks! Ddfairchild (talk) 01:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough... I feel that is more work, but I admit that I like the pop-up link. And the tag, well... Ok the automatic category page is limited. Feel free to delete this question if it floods the page ;)

Adding Freighters to the catalog 08/10/2017[edit source]

What's the general opinion on adding a category in the Starship Catalogue for freighters? Don't know how many of them would be entered or if the locations could be easily tracked down, but they are a type of starship when it comes right down to it. I don't see an issue with it. Ddfairchild (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I heard that Freighter are system dependant. That means you can come back to a system and you will always encounter the same freighter. In that context it make sens to cataloge them. Talinwind (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

CLASS table 06/15/2017[edit source]

The starships from the DC group contain a table with rows for each of the four classes. Is this table something we should consider adding to the other pages as well? An example here: Ookayasu S59 Ddfairchild (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it's not worth the effort. Almost no one even cares about C or B class ships anymore. Since money isn't an issue anymore because of farming, just wait 5 more minutes to get an A. This is a big failure in the game's design. And you can check ten ships of the same class in a row and you may end up with ten different combinations of bonus and slots. Do we need to document those? I don't think so. Highest known class should be the only thing added. Donswelt (talk) 07:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. It's asking folks to expend even more effort to collate and present information that literally no one will be interested in seeing. Once you know a ship's A-Class stats, it isn't hard to speculate on the lower classes. (And if someone's going to make a trip to the system in order to get one for themselves, they're certainly not going to do it for a C-Classer.) Unidestiny
And for those who want to look up the Class B / C Types there's still the Inventory Image in the Gallery. I think such a table isn't really needed. Speecker

SEE link suggestion 06/12/2017[edit source]

Since we will be using standardized language for the section descriptions between this page and the Starship page in general, I'm suggesting that we take the sentence "A list of discovered XYZ can be found on the Starship Catalogue - XYZ page." and simply add a "See Starship Catalogue - XYZ" to the appropriate sections. It will also make the link much easier to find. Ddfairchild (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed Donswelt (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
On Starship page is a link for each Archetype to its according Catalogue Page. I would leave the Section starship catalogue as it is so you have a link to the catalogue main page. Speecker

I've made the change to the Shuttle section on this page so you can see exactly what I'm referring to. I'll change the rest of them this evening if I haven't heard anything saying we shouldn't go that route. Ddfairchild (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Renamed starships 06/11/2017[edit source]

What should the guidelines be for adding starships that have been renamed? Most people don't bother but there are some that do (see AGT Red Eagle CTF for example). Do we want to encourage the addition of those ships? Have a special section for them? Anyway, just thought I'd bring the matter up for discussion. Ddfairchild (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I do admit that adding a renamed ship to the catalogue feels strange to me, since it is unique and the name is only visible to the player who renamed it. I think it might be okay if there is a location available. I would advise people to add them with the original name, though. Individual names might fit into the 'additional info' section. A good example for this might be the iRasamama. Donswelt (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
We might go with something like realname 'custom name' Sx, but in general i would add Starships only with their original name to the Catalogue. Speecker

Starship Archetype Descriptions & Some General Ideas 06/08/2017[edit source]

Starship Archetype Descriptions[edit source]

On the Starship main page are more or less similar descriptions of the Archetypes as well as on the Starship Catalogue main page. I'd suggest to merge them and either have the same on both pages (Main Starship Page and Archetype Starship Catalogue Page) or having it only on the Main Starship Page. But i think a description in general on the Starship Catalaogue Archetype Pages is very handy. Speecker

Some General Ideas[edit source]

Following Suggestion: Let us merge the Descriptions on the Starship Catalogue Page and Starship Catalogue Archetype Pages with the actual Starship main page, but keep the description on the Starship Catalogue pages and remove them from the Starship Catalogue Main Page. Then making a Section as already suggested by me with the four Pictures of each Archetype and have several sections with lists of Systems in one section for HUB systems and some other sections for other regions / civilizations so the starship catalogue becomes a clean 'shopping' Page and a collection of detailed information of several starships. Because i think you need to come across the Starship main page anyway to get to the starship catalogue page and if you are already on the SC main page you can easily get the Archetype informations by one click anyway. And they would be still on each SC Archetype Page. Currently to me it feels like double and tripling some information and the Starship main page and the SC main page become a bit too similar. Speecker

Couple of updates and comments.
1) I have removed the "See Starship" reference from the various starship catalog pages. There is really no need for this additional link, as it points to the same place as the Starship link that is already on all of the pages.
2) I moved the "See Starship Catalogue" to the top of the page, as it really should be a part of the primary section instead of strung out at the bottom. It IS acceptable, I think, to have that link at the bottom on the individual ship pages because they are not index pages as the general and the archetype pages are.
3) I agree with looking at the descriptions on both the Catalogue and main Starship pages and making sure they are consistent with each other. However, removing them from the Catalogue main page makes it more difficult for anyone reading the page, as they now would have to jump to a different page to review the descriptions, and then come back to the catalogue page when they were done. Depending on what a user searches for, or their level of expertise in NMS, they may NOT come through the Main starship page at all. For that matter, if they are looking at a Systems or Planet page that has a list of starships, they may go directly from planet to the starship page, then use the See-Catalog link to go look at the catalog in general. We have to remember that while some may be experts in starships and their differences-by-type, someone brand new to the game looking for help isn't going to necessarily know all that.
3a) Once the descriptions are synced up, the best way to keep them matched up in the future is to create a template that contains the description for each archetype. That template can then be included wherever it's needed and after that, you only have to worry about changing one place.
4) I do not agree that we should separate the starships by system, HUB, or whatever. The number of Civilized Space communities in the wiki grows by the day, and if we have to keep adding new sections for each new civilization, we end up with a maze, not an easy-to-navigate list of discovered starships. The more we break down the groupings, the closer we get to instituting a table format, which would make editors less and less interested in adding more ships to the list.
5) Having said all this, I think we have reached a crossroads with this page and it's related subpages as far as the purpose of the page goes. If the intent is to provide a central database of discovered-and-reported-ships, then it needs to remain fairly straightforward as it is now. On the other hand, if the page is become an online shopping site for the discriminating starship buyer, then the page design probably will need to change. I personally think the first choice serves more people, but that's just my educated opinion knowing how other editors work on their pages.
Ddfairchild (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Feedback
to 1) Thats fine. Forgot there is a Link in the description anyway.
to 2) Im fine with this too. I also guess most people will use it at top more often then they would use it at the bottom.
to 3a) Am i right that Donswelt created the descriptions for the Archetypes on the Starship main page. I would make an example of a merged version for the descriptions and would than have a consultation with the original creator of the archetype descriptions on the Starship main page and you Ddfairchild (if you'd like to) and then change all the descriptions on the Starship main page as well as on the Starship Catalogue main page and the Starship Catalogue Archetype pages to that merged description. So the description will be synced up. I have not quite understood how you mean it with the templates. Or do we more or less mean the same thing ?
to 4) Ok kinda makes sense. Currently there is the option to have the starships somehow collected in a category page by f.e: its HUB System. In general i think it would be very handy if you could quickly view what starships of the same system are actually listed in the Starship catalogue or not. Yes, it will be more useful to No Man's Sky Players wich are more familiar with starships or the game in general. but for those and also for Players that want to use the Catalogue as sort of a buying tool, could 'shop' by system. And at least for those who map a region for starships will absolutely profit from it in terms of a 'completion' of the Catalogue. Figuratively speaking it might motivate 'Starship mappers' to go targeted to a specific System and also vice versa to see what systems are already fully mapped and wich aren't. So maybe you could somehow standardize the starship section on a System page. This would be also a direct refer to the Starship Catalogue and would have the mentioned advantages. If a System page isn't yet created it could contain just the Starship section and might be added further later on. There wouldn't be any subsections on the Starship Catalogue main page and maybe it would be possible to automatically have a new Starship, thats added to the Starship Catalogue, also placed in the Starship section on the according System page.

This way you also wouldn't have to create a maze by having tons of pages, because the System pages will be most likely already created. And even if not. the page created with the Starships section would be a general Page for its system that can be added in the future.

to 5) I definitely want to go with the intent of a central database of discovered-and-reported-starships. But i also won't get rid of the possibility to use it as some kind of Starship shopping tool. This way i think it will become an established and grounded page for a central Starship database that can also be used as a Starship shopping tool by those who will Shop for a new Starship with the Starship Catalogue. This should be addressed to the most people of the community independent of the experience of each individual with Starships and NMS in general. Speecker
We now have a separate page for each archetype so wouldn't it make sense to have individual Tag descriptions according to the Archetype. For example on the Archetype Shuttle would the text for the description of the [M] tag be 'Shuttle-type Starships have a maximum slot count of 28.' instead of the general 'Different ship types have a different max slot count. Check the respective sections for info about max slots.' ?
Tags: I'm in general not a fan of the tags. For example I strongly believe that any ship can be found as an S-class. It's a mix of pure luck and endurance. So knowing that someone found it isn't really significant to me. But that's just my personal view. I'd say we use the M-tag type-specific (e.g. 28/38/48).
Of Course (it's a fact) any ship can be found as S-Class ship. There are some mechanics to have a higher chance of coming by an S-Class Ship and even if you go by hard to get one of the exact ship you want as S-Class you can get it. It is significant in some ways: To quickly see weather the possible max stats of a ship is yet discovered. If so you can compare those S-Class ships to find the best. There aren't that many S-Class discoveries because naturally they are really rare to find.
Descriptions: Using a template is a good idea, I think. Donswelt (talk) 08:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Main Page 06/07/2017 21h[edit source]

Can the Archetype Sections be formatted so that they are centered towards the Image of their matching Archetype ?
And what about the Sortation by HUB systems or other Systems/Regions ? Speecker

Starship Archetypes Example Image as Galleries[edit source]

Isn't it possible to do it like i stated it above here ? I think it would look much better and way more directional then having the Images as Gallery. Speecker
@Ddfairchild

Reedit[edit source]

Does it make sense to have the Tags table on Main page of SC ? i think Wochenende can remove it there cause the tags aren't used on main page and are also on every Archetype page Speecker

I think having the tags on the front page doesn't hurt anything, but I added an explanatory note as to what they are. It gives a reader an advance notification about what they may be seeing. But if the general consensus is to remove them, then that's fine with me.
As far as the "centering" mentioned, are you referring to having the pics show on the right like they used to (next to the section they apply to)? If so, yes that can be done, but we'd have to reduce the size of them quite a bit so that they didn't "bleed" into the next section. That's why I had moved them to a gallery so the pics could be larger. I'm OK either way.
I'm of two minds as to whether or not to have a specific section on this page for the Unique ships. They really are in the Fighter class, so IMHO that's where they belong. But again, I'm not the lawman here, just offering my opinion! Ddfairchild (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes i meant to have the Archetype descriptions centered to the images on the right. Did you tried it to see how it would look like if you shorten the size of the images ? Pls refer to my General Ideas above. Regarding to the Unique ships. I would also rather place them in the SC main page as separate section to highlight them. Speecker

Unique ship category revisited 06/07/2017[edit source]

The 'Unique' tag was intended for ships like the preordered and Rasamama's or ships with a maximum stat (instead of a single tag for all three Maximum DMG / SHL / HPD stats). Actually only the preorder ships and the starter rasamama has an [U] Tag. The [U] Tag behind Rishimot S31 (a Rasama Type Starship) is still there. So would you rather give Rasamama Type Starships an own Tag like [R] or is it fine with [U] ? Would you like to have 3 Single-tags (tags that can have only one ship at a time) for easily see what the actual absolute maximum in one of the Status Bonuses is ? Speecker

I'm not the ship expert here, but I'd make these suggestions:
1) create a new sub-category under the Fighter section called Unique Ships, and include a description of why these ships (and only these ships) are in it.
2) place the three original/pre-order ships in that sub-section and remove them from the No-location one
3) remove the [U] tag from the page, and whichever other ship(s) might be using it
Ddfairchild (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
If we Split up the main page quite similar to my suggestion we could have a section for Unique ships right in the main page. I don't think it would be so much space taking. and for the rasamas you could even have a separate link for a side page (maybe called 'rasama collectors club' or so) in the Unique section that shows all rasama type starships. So i'd rather w8 a day or two for community respsonse or ? Speecker
I don't know why the Rishimot had an U tag but it definitely didn't belongs there. I removed it. I'm for removing the U tag completely. They should be in a separate list. Donswelt (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Time to split the page? 06/07/2017[edit source]

Due to the diligence of our intrepid nomanaughts, this page continues to grow at a rapid rate. That's good, but it also means it is starting to get lengthy. At some point we will need to split out the four ship types into separate pages, one for each type. Interested in when you think would be a good idea to do that. Ddfairchild (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd say now is a good time. It's already rather big. Donswelt (morgvom_org) (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
It could be done pretty much now. Also, a suggestion, maybe we could split and order each page into sizes (Small/Medium/Large) then alphabetical, instead of just alphabetical. Smgqc (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I was also thinking about kinda resorting/splitting the site up so it won't become one huge page. I was also thinking about having some sort of groupings so you could have a separate list of Hub Systems, other systems and so on. Because me and some others are about to map the hub region for every ship and therefor a list for Shopping by HUB System would just make sense. It would also help to easily see weather a ship in a system is discovered/added to the Catalogue yet or not. For example the main page of the SC could have sections like 1. Sorted by Type (with four links (to each types of Starships)) 2. HUB Systems Starships (With a link per System inside the Galactic HUB region) 3. HOV/Amino Systems Starships (With a link per System inside the HOVA Empire / Amino HUB etc) 4. DC Database Starships 5. Other Regions
I Think this way we could easily shorten the main page and also keep the side pages small(er). Only the Type Pages would still be quit large because they would contain every Starship of its page's type. What are your thoughts on it ?
Or you take the four pictures for the four Starship types and use them as link to the Page that contains only Starships of that exact type instead of linking the image to the file page (if thats possible) and then have various Sections below it for HUB Systems and others Speecker

I'm about to add a few dozens ships to the lot, so now would probably be a very good time to do it.... Unidestiny

It is already split up by each archetype and this will stay as it currently is. But the Starship Catalogue main page layout is in discussion. But feel free to add your ships to the associated Archetype Pages and i suggest you to use the Template (you can find it at the end of the Starship Catalogue Main Page) Speecker

DC Starship database 06/02/2017[edit source]

I have talked to the editor behind the DC StarShip Database page about adding their current and future ships to the Starship Catalogue. He thinks that's a good idea, although he would continue to keep up his own page, as it has some other uses other than just being a listing. He would like to include a [D] or [DC] tag on these ships to indicate their source, which I think is an OK idea. Then in the table listing the various tags on this page we could include a link to his page. Cross-pollination, you know! I'm assuming we would also have a link from his page to this one.

He is already creating individual pages with the Starship infobox, so it would just be a matter of adding the links to both his page and the S.Cat.

What are your thoughts? Ddfairchild (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Mobile View 5/18/2017[edit source]

The catalogue page is pretty untidy on mobile due to the columns. I uploaded a screenshot here: http://i.imgur.com/AmU22p1.jpg How can we optimize this? Donswelt (morgvom_org) (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

using two columns instead of three would probably solve the issue on a mobile device. The flip side is that it increases the length of the page on non-mobile devices by 50%. I've changed the shuttle class to two columns so you can compare on your mobile. Ddfairchild (talk) 05:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Much better: http://i.imgur.com/AYBsQmH.png Donswelt (morgvom_org) (talk) 05:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I've also removed the [L] tag by splitting each section up into two. That would have helped in solving the issue as well. Also, you can see that, without the L tag, the few remaining tags really stand out on the page. Ddfairchild (talk) 05:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a huge improvement. Thanks a lot. By the way: I cleaned and re-uploaded the class pictures but the images on the page are still the old ones. Might have something to do with low resolution and generating the thumbnails. Donswelt (morgvom_org) (talk) 05:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Location (L) tag 5/17/2017[edit source]

I've learned through years of IT work that if you have a category that the great majority of your items fall into, the category isn't needed so much as that category's "anti-category", if you will. It appears that most ships being entered on this page DO have the location, so the L tag shows up on the vast majority of ships. (close to 85% for the Shuttle class, for example)

My suggestion is this - instead of using the L tag, have two sub-sections under each major ship class. One section labeled "Location available", the other for "No location". That would accomplish a couple of things:

  1. ) the L tag would no longer be needed
  2. ) editors would be less likely to create ship pages without a location, as putting it in the No Location section gently points out that you are leaving out information that you probably should be including
  3. ) it allows the other tags to stand out better, as they aren't intermixed with the everpresent L tag

Thoughts? Ddfairchild (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'm all for it. Donswelt (morgvom_org) (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Similar project 5/16/17[edit source]

There is a separate but similar project in the wiki found on the DC StarShip Database page, authored by User:Jas90125. Instead of having two separate pages for the same general subject, can the pages be combined to provide a more complete set of data? Ddfairchild (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Although I understand that there is some kind of reward system involved. I'm not quite sure about that one. Donswelt (morgvom_org) (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
What even is this? I've never heard of the DC StarShip Database. Could you explain it a bit for me? Dusk118 (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
This page is part of the Discovery Coalition, a community group that provides pages for a number of quests, if you will, that players of NMS can participate in. This particular one has to do with reporting various types of starships. Ddfairchild (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I understand now. BTW, isn't it funny how you can easily tell what two ships I've submitted to this catalog based on their popups? Look at the Ayosenda S98 and Nunumaniw S87 in comparison to the rest of the catalog, and you'll notice a major difference. Dusk118 (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, I'll bite. What's the difference? Ddfairchild (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
You can't tell by the preview image? I thought it'd be obvious as opposed to every other entry showing the ship's inventory as the main image instead of the ship itself. My two entries are the only ones that are different. Dusk118 (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
The inventory view is the best view to see all stats and the natural color of the ship. That's why I will use it for every entry. Information first. If I have nice screenshots of a ship I put them in the gallery. Donswelt (morgvom_org) (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I have to disagree with you there. A good preview image attracts the user to the page first, then you can display all the beautiful stats in great detail from that point on. This is why I start with a presentation view of the ship first, then the first image in the gallery is the best inventory I've found of that ship. It's all about user experience, and I'd much rather be presented with this than just a lineup of inventories. Dusk118 (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Page categories 5/11/17[edit source]

When creating new starship pages, remember to update the Starship - XXX category at the bottom of the page to match the actual type you're reporting on. Ddfairchild (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Add more pictures 5/11/17[edit source]

Come on, guys. Contribute more pictures of the ships you encounter. I'm pretty certain people would like to see more than just the inventories of these discoveries. Share what colors they are under certain lighting, show off the decals, put them through combat, just do something more. Also, try to figure out a way to add more words to your entries, like how I've done with Ayosenda S98. You'd be amazed at the kind of stories you could come up with. Dusk118 (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions 5/10/17[edit source]

  • change "Max Damage Bonus", "Max Shield Bonus", "Max Warp Bonus" to "Damage Bonus ~", "Shield Bonus ~", "Warp Bonus ~" since you need to stay for days at a trading post to really tell what is the max bonus value. Those values even differ in the same class.
The Max prefix designates the maximum discovered bonuses for the ships. This has already been discussed, and is not likely to be changed. Dusk118 (talk) 11:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Well then I missed that discussion. Noted. Donswelt (morgvom_org) (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Why is there a "discovered by" section in the summary? It's not like this information is stored on the servers. This feels a lot like bragging. Donswelt (morgvom_org) (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Why not? Credit where credit is due. If it's bragging, then so be it. I don't mind. Dusk118 (talk) 11:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I'll repeat my mantra on the "why is xyz column there?" question. An infobox is dedicated to a particular subject (stars, planets, blueprints, starships), but can be used on pages with varied content AND INTENT. If you are documenting a certain type of ship, 'discovered by' may not be all that relevant and you can use it (or not use it) at your discretion. On the other hand, if you are documenting YOUR ship-of-all-ships, that one that you never want to forget for all the memories you've had together, then 'discovered by' is very relevant. Someone who rides a bicycle sees no need for an ignition key, while someone who drives a car, does. It's all in the purpose... Ddfairchild (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Noted. I won't use it then. Donswelt (morgvom_org) (talk) 14:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Definitely keeping my name on Ayosenda S98, because it is my "ship-of-all-ships", and I want it to be known that I found it first. Dusk118 (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Unique Ship Classification 5/10/17[edit source]

I don't understand this whole "Unique ship" concept at all, since there's really no unique ships in this game. Would someone please care to explain it for me? Dusk118 (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I guess it's up to a user to tag his/her ship as unique in their view. I don't know about this. Donswelt (morgvom_org) (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
The concept appears to have been started by Speecker, so hopefully he can fill us in on what this means. Dusk118 (talk) 05:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Maybe I just found a use for this tag. I added the Rasamama S36 and it's the single most unique ship in the game since we all started with it. At least that is a unique aspect.
Fair enough. I'll accept that. It is definitely a unique ship. That, and the two pre-order ships that no one has images for. Apart from those three ships, every other one is randomly generated like the rest of the game. Dusk118 (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Good thinking. Those two ships need to be in this catalogue as well. I will try to get the infos on reddit. Donswelt (morgvom_org) (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
The 'Unique' tag was intended for ships like the preordered and Rasamama's or ships with a maximum stat (instead of a single tag for all three Maximum DMG / SHL / HPD stats). Actually only the preorder ships and the starter rasamama has an [U] Tag. The [U] Tag behind Rishimot S31 (a Rasama Type Starship) is still there. So would you rather give Rasamama Type Starships an own Tag like [R] or is it fine with [U] ? Would you like to have 3 Single-tags (tags that can have only one ship at a time) for easily see what the actual absolute maximum in one of the Status Bonuses is ? Speecker (PSN:JackWantsBlood)

Purpose of the page 5/9/17[edit source]

Does this page contain a complete list of the available starship models? I was under the impression that they are procedurally generated in the same way that planets or regions are. If this IS a complete list, where did the source information originate?

Yes, the ships are procedurally generated. This catalog (I assume) is a means of showing off some of the better discoveries that people have found. There is no possible way for this to be a complete list because there's 18 quintillion planets, and 12 randomly generated starships in every star system. That's a MASSIVE amount of ships. Nevertheless, it is possible to show a list of possible combinations of parts minus colors and decals, but that would need to have a page all on its own. Dusk118 (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Final thought - I will be creating a page template for starships tonight or tomorrow. Would be great if we could use this for any individual starship pages so that they are consistent across the wiki. Thanks! Ddfairchild (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC) (admin team)

Would be great. If it helps, you can use the look of Ayosenda S98 as a reference. I feel like I did a good job with that one. Dusk118 (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Unknown ship class - 5/8/17[edit source]

Why is there an unknown ship class and where do the names of those ships came from in the first place? Donswelt (morgvom_org) (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I haven't the slightest idea, but I have a feeling that the original creator of the Starship Catalogue page has plans to add them in later. When he does, it should be very easy to identify which type of starships they actually are, and we can move them into their proper categories accordingly. Dusk118 (talk) 10:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, let's wait then :) Donswelt (morgvom_org) (talk) 10:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Missing category 5/8/17[edit source]

There should be a category for this catalogue. I created and added it, but it was removed. Why? Donswelt (morgvom_org) (talk) 10:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Most likely because the creator thought it to be redundant, since it just leads to itself. Dusk118 (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, because I started to add it to the ship pages as well but there it has also been removed. Donswelt (morgvom_org) (talk) 10:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, if it makes you feel better, you can put it on the Ayosenda S98 page. I maintain that one since it is a starship I hold very near and dear to my heart. And if I do say so myself, it's the best looking page and starship in the entire catalog. :P Dusk118 (talk) 10:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)