We might want to place this in a category for "former sectors" or something like that, because the Nimbus sector was removed from STO in 2015, and the systems listed here distributed among several other sectors, including the Azure sector and Ha'toria sector, while Nimbus III itself was relocated FAR away to the Hobus sector. --TimPendragon (talk) 02:21, April 12, 2020 (UTC)
- I think "former sector" is the wrong terminology to use from "in-POV" as this doesnt actually erase the sector from existence. Sector co-existence is possible (think of it like the US East coast, where the Massachusetts sector and Connecticut sector are cohesive sectors by one system of definition, but are part of the larger "New England sector" which is a sector that follows a different system of definition). The Nimbus sector can still be considered to be an irregularly shaped sector that encompasses those components even as they are part of other sectors. There's not really much cause to do more than put a background note stating it is no longer used in game -- captainmike
12:32, April 12, 2020 (UTC)
- When "sector" is defined (in STO) as "20 cubic lightyears," to call one STO sector "irregularly shaped" in order to accommodate the retcon is not in keeping with the source material. Nimbus III, therefore, should be listed in both the Nimbus and Hobus sectors, Dewa needs to be listed as in the Nimbus and Azure sectors, et cetera, with notes about the retcon in the articles. Retcons need to be acknowledged, or we're not accurately reflecting the material. --TimPendragon (talk) 00:01, April 13, 2020 (UTC)
- I said the retcon could be acknowledged -- captainmike 00:27, April 13, 2020 (UTC)
- I was mostly addressing your misunderstanding/misinterpretation of the "sector" issue, and pointing out that additional articles categories would be required, and the data on the articles should be adjusted. "Nimbus sector" is no longer the primary location of these planets and systems, and should be the footnote, rather than how its portrayed in the articles at present. --TimPendragon (talk) 02:13, April 13, 2020 (UTC)
- I said the retcon could be acknowledged -- captainmike
- it wasn't a misunderstanding or misinterpretation - it was an attempt at rationalization. while the sectors currently referred to in-game are in fact cubic, that doesn't mean all sectors are necessarily cubic. since this sector has been "orphaned" from its source continuity, there's no real cause to expect it to conform to specifications from a source it is no longer part of - and it would be possible for sectors from a different sector system to overlap current sectors. just attempting to explain why it wouldnt be necessary to call this a "former" sector or remove the information outright - as there is at least one possible explanation why such a sector could exist without being contradictory. \
- regardless, as an unsourced rationalization, it doesnt have a place in the article, i was just expressing a hypothetical situation. the hypothetical situation was to justify the fact that even though the locations have a new 'primary' location, it is still POSSIBLE for them to have a 'secondary' location - to wit - i disagree with your notion that portraying a location as having a dual sector categorization/location is something that needs to be changed. i've added a footnote acknowledgment that accurately reflects the material. -- captainmike 02:26, April 13, 2020 (UTC)
- As usual, we seem to be speaking at cross-purposes. I never suggested removing any data, or that we shouldn't list it in both sectors. In fact, I wanted it listed in both sectors from the start. I specifically say so above, and at the time I made that comment, it was only listed in the outdated one. I don't know how you got idea I thought having both sectors listed was a problem -- I just wanted to make sure the current status took priority. What I was proposing was adding a category for the sectors that had been removed from STO. In fact, a broad category for all such removed content may actually be a worthwhile thing for us to have here, as it would include articles like Joshua Riker and even [[Icheb], as well as the old missions that are no longer in the game. If "removed" or "former" is too out-of-universe for you, how about something like "legacy articles (STO)"? --TimPendragon (talk) 03:10, April 13, 2020 (UTC)
- regardless, as an unsourced rationalization, it doesnt have a place in the article, i was just expressing a hypothetical situation. the hypothetical situation was to justify the fact that even though the locations have a new 'primary' location, it is still POSSIBLE for them to have a 'secondary' location - to wit - i disagree with your notion that portraying a location as having a dual sector categorization/location is something that needs to be changed. i've added a footnote acknowledgment that accurately reflects the material. -- captainmike
- I don't think there's any need for that. The acknowledgment message is there, and the categorization can be updated with the new locations. If copying and pasting the same message about the retcon is too piecemeal, a boilerplate template can be devised to auto-insert the language to that effect. Your commentary about changing the way it is "portrayed in the articles at present" led me to believe you had been suggesting something be removed. As it is now, it was a long talk page conversation to process the suggestion that newer categorizations can be added. . -- captainmike
03:24, April 13, 2020 (UTC)
- My main goal in bringing it up, apart from the category suggestion, was to make sure you were aware of the retcons, because most of that data hasn't been put on Memory Beta yet and I don't know how closely you follow STO, if at all. The necessary changes are, essentially, admin-level stuff, and based on past experience, if I -- or anyone -- had gone and made those changes without consulting you first, there likely would have been an issue. Whenever something like this comes up, I have to try and make a case for it, instead of just doing it. --TimPendragon (talk) 03:28, April 13, 2020 (UTC)