This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:31, October 6, 2009 (UTC)
In the recently published The Essential Atlas, the galactic maps are overlaid with a grid reference system. Each system is assigned to a grid reference so that one can find the approximate location of a system within the larger galactic map, even if said system isn't listed on the diagram. my question is how are we dealing with these grid references? Are they an IU reference system, to be used alongside the three-digit coordinate system, or are they an OOU reference to allow readers to find information quickly, much like real-world map books?
If we treat them as OOU, then obviously they have no place within articles. However, if they are treated as IU information, then how do we reference it? The current system infobox has a field for coordinates, but I thought this related to the three-digit system. Perhaps adding a new field in the infobox (say, "Grid reference") would be acceptable, placed under the coordinate field. Another idea is that, if we reference the grid numbers, perhaps said grid references should get articles as well, since they may be an IU term. For instance, M-21 would be an article, listing all worlds in grid ref M-21. Of course, the downside to this would be that the articles would essentially by list articles, unless one could come up with a way of expanding them sufficiently.
I think that some planet articles already have the grid listed in their infoboxes - though I can't find an example at the moment. Personally, I think it would be best to leave it like that, without creating articles for every grid. Grand Moff Tranner(Comlink) 22:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't have the book itself, so I can't make the best judgment, but I would say the grid is OU, unless it gets established later as IU, especially since the galaxy has an existing coordinate system. However, is the book written from an in-universe perspective like many of the other guides? This may imply that we should consider it a canonical system. —Xwing328(Talk) 22:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
It is written from an IU perspective (and written quite well, to boot.) 18.104.22.168 04:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
It is written from an in-universe perspective, but it seems that the "grid coordinates" system isn't really a true universal system, but rather just a quick reference guide intended for that IU "author's" map. Those coordinates could easily vary on another IU cartographer's map, just like (as a real-life example) Dayton, Ohio could be at G-9 on one map, J-13 on another, and E-7 on a third. There's no hard evidence to support this theory, but it seems to be the most likely explanation. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 19:06, September 1, 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm confused but how exactly are we communicating with Dan and Jason (i.e. what program)? -- Riffsyphon1024 05:51, September 2, 2009 (UTC)
See the Kiribi system. It is one of the few (3) systems to have both grid and XYZ coordinates. The grid coordinates are also used in the planetary profiles so is good enough for me to say we include it in the temples. The way it is currently set up is |coordinates= displays the Grid ref and |xyz= displays the other system. I see Cav was discussing changing the template to reflect the new grid. I did that last week so that those busy creating new system articles could get straight into it. --Eyrezer 01:55, September 2, 2009 (UTC)
Well, here's the transcript, and it appears that I was right above. Jason stated, "I'd call it in-universe, but not a standard used for everything." So if it's "not a standard used for everything," then the question we need to answer is, "Does it really belong in an encyclopedia?" I'd be inclined to say no, but I'd like to hear what others have to say. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 20:26, September 2, 2009 (UTC)
Well if it's in-universe then I'd be inclined to say it does belong in our encyclopedia. After all, we are trying to be the most complete Star Wars resource and I think this is useful information. Grunny(Talk) 20:33, September 2, 2009 (UTC)
Using real life as an example, if you were writing an article on a small town, you would not grab a nearby atlas, look up the grid coordinates, and stick them in the article as fact, since those coordinates would vary from map to map. Yet that is effectively what we are currently doing, since Jason has confirmed that the grid coordinates are not a universal standard. That's why I would say that they should be removed. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 20:52, September 2, 2009 (UTC)
Nonetheless it is useful and what we have to work with. They are a form of reference which we have not had before, and we don't know how common place they are meant to be IU, Jason was a little vague. It's also not the same as a real-life encyclopedia where every atlas has a different system and so would be pointless to put in articles. We have one atlas to work with, making our grid references consistent and useful. Grunny(Talk) 21:00, September 2, 2009 (UTC)
I suppose per Grunny, although I must say: 9_9 at giving us a straight answer. Chack Jadson(Talk) 23:00, September 2, 2009 (UTC)
Considering it's in the Atlas, and most planets don't otherwise have another way to chart them, it's worthwhile to have the grid system. Jason likely keeps it vague just so to not set it in stone for canon's sake, should someone come along in the future and improve on it (in-universe). -- Riffsyphon1024 08:04, September 3, 2009 (UTC)