Ship Data Sources - newcomer question - Ship Design

Beginner

Tuesday, October 12th 2010, 12:05am

Ship Data Sources - newcomer question

In the "encyclopedia", collating the efforts of many members of this "SIM" interest group, there are a few data items which do not appear to come from any Jane's Fighting Ships (or other hardcopy references) with which I'm familiar.

Can anyone ellucidate on the genesis of items like Brin Class Submarine:
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 112.5 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 0.0 %
Waterplane Area: 3,613 Square feet or 336 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 309 %

and what they mean? Are they in context of the SIM execution only?

Are the depth capabilities of this (and other) classes pulled from such references? Which ones?

F.O.

Go to the top of the page

ShinRa_Inc

Mad Scientist at Work

Posts: 4,307

2

Tuesday, October 12th 2010, 8:11am

This board is the home to an Alternate History simulation game. While it is predominatly based on real world events, there are notable points-of-divergance in the history, and every ship since the game 'started' in 1920 (and many before that) have been player-designed using a program called Springsharp.

The documentation for the details and statistics of a Springsharp readout can be found at the homepage for the program, www.springsharp.com

Go to the top of the page

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

3

Tuesday, October 12th 2010, 3:39pm

And as was pointed out to me last night, the fact that we're a game has apparently not stopped a few people from citing our specs on Wikipedia or elsewhere.

Go to the top of the page

Kaiser Kirk

Lightbringer and former European Imperialist

Posts: 3,605

4

Tuesday, October 12th 2010, 7:26pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
And as was pointed out to me last night, the fact that we're a game has apparently not stopped a few people from citing our specs on Wikipedia or elsewhere.

Didn't realize we popped up on Wiki.

Every so often when I'm trying to run down further information on Dutch/Belgian equipment I find that Google points to my encyclopedias allready. Most..but not all that info is accurate. Hoo's traffic counter indicated my VCL specs were drawing traffic- and those are legit. But I wonder about folks not being able to seperate the OTL wheat from the Alt-Hist chaff.

Go to the top of the page

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

5

Tuesday, October 12th 2010, 8:04pm

I'm not certain of the extent of the problem, but someone noted that the Wiki article for the Brin-class submarines (Italy) includes some specs taken from RA's Springsharp!

Go to the top of the page

ShinRa_Inc

Mad Scientist at Work

Posts: 4,307

6

Tuesday, October 12th 2010, 8:22pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?titl…search=wesworld

Three Italian subs and a Greek battleship, by my extremely halfhearted and lazy search.

I suppose if we're being used as a reference, we're notable enough to qualify for our own wikipedia article.

Go to the top of the page

Commodore Green

The Irish Legend

Posts: 3,266

7

Tuesday, October 12th 2010, 8:46pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
I'm not certain of the extent of the problem, but someone noted that the Wiki article for the Brin-class submarines (Italy) includes some specs taken from RA's Springsharp!

Scary when you think about it, as to how many articles there might be in Wiki where the data is basically "fictional"?????

Go to the top of the page

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

8

Tuesday, October 12th 2010, 9:01pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Commodore Green

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
I'm not certain of the extent of the problem, but someone noted that the Wiki article for the Brin-class submarines (Italy) includes some specs taken from RA's Springsharp!

Scary when you think about it, as to how many articles there might be in Wiki where the data is basically "fictional"?????

Yup. That's why Wikipedia should be regarded with caution.

Go to the top of the page

Commodore Green

The Irish Legend

Posts: 3,266

9

Wednesday, October 13th 2010, 1:21am

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by Commodore Green

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
I'm not certain of the extent of the problem, but someone noted that the Wiki article for the Brin-class submarines (Italy) includes some specs taken from RA's Springsharp!

Scary when you think about it, as to how many articles there might be in Wiki where the data is basically "fictional"?????

Yup. That's why Wikipedia should be regarded with caution.

Trust me, I treat it with a LARGE pinch of salt!!!

Go to the top of the page

RLBH

Professional

Posts: 762

10

Wednesday, October 13th 2010, 2:18am

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_IncI suppose if we're being used as a reference, we're notable enough to qualify for our own wikipedia article.

You clearly don't know many wikipedians. They're obsessive about notability, and just making stuff up won't cut it. Never mind that we've been making it up here in great detail for a very long time, it's just a bunch of anoraks making things up on the internet.

As opposed to a group of anoraks who use their free time trying to perfect a complete encyclopaedia of everything important - and nothing unimportant. :rolleyes:

In any case, I'm going through those articles that reference WesWorld and flagging it up in the talk page. Don't know that it'll achieve anything, but you never know.

Quoted

Originally posted by Commodore GreenTrust me, I treat it with a LARGE pinch of salt!!!

Not a whole salt mine?

Might it be worth putting a banner across the top of the site to the effect that it's very alternate history?

Go to the top of the page

ShinRa_Inc

Mad Scientist at Work

Posts: 4,307

11

Wednesday, October 13th 2010, 2:48am

I forgot my sarcasm tag on Wesworld meeting notability requirements, apologies for the confusion.

Go to the top of the page

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

12

Wednesday, October 13th 2010, 2:49am

Quoted

Originally posted by RLBH
Might it be worth putting a banner across the top of the site to the effect that it's very alternate history?

It'd be more useful to close the encyclopedia off to viewing by non-members, at least from my POV.

Go to the top of the page

Sachmle

Professional

Posts: 816

13

Wednesday, October 13th 2010, 2:53am

While that would 'solve' the problem, it could/most likely would, limit interest. I think everyone likes being able to see what is 'inside' a site before they join. If you close the encyclopedia's because some people can't figure out fact from fiction, then you may very well drive off some prospective lurkers or even players who come to the site and then can't 'see' anything without joining. My $0.02

Go to the top of the page

TexanCowboy

Ship's Mascot

Posts: 1,026

14

Wednesday, October 13th 2010, 3:03am

Lock the encyclopedia's to everyone but the respective player in that nation, much like the rules section is locked?

Go to the top of the page

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

15

Wednesday, October 13th 2010, 3:52am

We're not going to lock the encyclopedias to people.

Go to the top of the page

RLBH

Professional

Posts: 762

16

Wednesday, October 13th 2010, 4:25am

Would that even be workable? In effect, it would mean that we'd have to have a distinct usergroup for each country in the game. Which is lots.

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

17

Wednesday, October 13th 2010, 4:40am

I agree, locking the encyclopedia's to outsiders cuts off interest. At any rate its not really our fault that some take the stats as historical, we do afterall have an introduction thread that stats this is an alt-history site.

Go to the top of the page

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

18

Wednesday, October 13th 2010, 4:45am

Quoted

Originally posted by RLBH
Would that even be workable? In effect, it would mean that we'd have to have a distinct usergroup for each country in the game. Which is lots.

Yes. We have too many usergroups right now, really.