Star Trek Online Wiki

Welcome to STOWiki[]


welcome to Please fell free to add to the Wiki and be bold! If you have any questions, the Guidelines cannot answer, simply ask me on my talk page.

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.

Again, welcome! --RachelGarrett 16:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Trait colors[]

You want to choose new possible and required colors for the new skin? (You can use that link to see how your changes look on the new skin.) I'll make CSS classes on the skin-specific pages so we're not stuck with only one choice. (I'll take care of the replacement on that page too, once I have the colors.) Eyes User-Eyes-Sig.png 18:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I just got back from a few days of an Open Air Festival and every muscle still aches, I'll look into it when I'm finished with my message backlog. --Dukedom 11:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest to darken the optional colour a bit more. Try #B82E2E or even #A32929. --Dukedom 08:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


Hello! I want to thank you for everything you have done for the Star Trek Online Wiki. Allow me to introduce myself. I am Tesla, a wiki manager for Curse. The reason I am posting on your talk page is for some feedback. I was hoping you could tell me if there was something you would like to see on the wiki or if you think there is something we could do to help improve the quality of our service to the community. If you have any ideas at all, please feel free to stop by on my talk page and leave me your thoughts. Thank you! DjTesla 10:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: New Items[]

Will do. I prefer the older Cavendish skin, so I can't see it. Do you think it's possible to add the clear template to the infobox/coloricon template, or has that already been tried? KarikaCommunicator 15:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding it to the templates wouldn't work since those templates don't come at the end of articles, but it just occurred to that modifying the wiki's CSS might do it, same as I did for the BoilerRoom problem. Eyes User-Eyes-Sig.png 16:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

DOffs by same name, different Specialties[]

I'm finding various DOff's by the same name, but have different specialties. May have to figure something else for the DOff system on STOwiki. Can provide a screenshot if you need one. Jadem 19:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

What to do when finding an already used name?
- Move the existing duty officer to Name (Specialisation) (i.e. Sunguk (Security Officer))
- Make sure to fill out the name colum on the moved page now.
- Change the automaticly created redirect to {{doffdisambig|Name}} (see: Sunguk)
- Enter the new duty officer as Name (Specialisation) (i.e. Sunguk (Projectile Weapons Officer))
- Don't forget to fill out the name colum on that page either.
And you're finished. --Dukedom 10:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Conversation about how to structure Assignments and Doffs[]

Sorry for all non-German-readers. I gonna write this in my native language, as this keeps it easier for me.

Wir sollten uns mal in nem Chat oder dergleichen unterhalten, was wir so für Vorstellungen haben, wie die DOff-Missionen am besten notiert werden können. Ich find es nämlich, auch wenn du schon länger dabei bist, nicht freundlich, wenn du zum Teil Dinge kommentarlos löschst oder unbegründet (in meinen Augen) anpasst. Ich bin selbst nicht so der große Wiki-Experte, besonders was Formatierungen und dergleichen angeht, aber ich finde, es gibt da schon einen gewissen Gesprächsbedarf, sofern meine Mithilfe hier überhaupt erwünscht ist... --Skydragon 22:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The various corrections were mostly minor formatting issues, a wrong commendation category on one and a change to unique assignment in the other instance. As you probably have already guessed we are trying to generalize the assignmenst as far as possible. The problem with this approach (which you have already discovered too) is that if you don't have a good grasp at how many variations are around and especially if you can generalize the assignment at all it get's ... complicated ... at least. Take a look at the category:sector assignments for example. Federation Colonization assessment has been split into a common and uncommon generalization. The bridge officer recruitments had to be split in another way. Basicly we have to decide at each assignment how to generalize (if at all). And we haven't even figured out how to identify higher commendation rank assignments reliable and/or how to deal with that. It's an awful can of worms there. And if you feel offended that I was to lazy to write up a longer summary of what I edited on a 5 second switch the text format of a word edit I offer my apologies to you, this time at least :)
You might want to check out the ingame channel 'stowiki' if you want to talk / have questions etc. etc. --Dukedom 23:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
If I may chime in: What Dukedom has done might appear rude on the outside, especially, if you are new to Wikis. It is important to remenber that no one "owns" articles and everyone is invited to improve and change existing articles. As far as I could derive from the change logs, Duke only tried to silently make your contributions integrate with the existing articles. He did so in the spirit of this guideline for establishing a friendly and helpful community. I know this might be alienating when one is new to the "anyone-may-edit-anything"-paradigm, but please assume good faith. If you want to discuss fundamental changes, please start a topic on the Community Portal, so the community may discuss and vote on them. Regards, --RachelGarrett 15:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
It's not about the content, but just adding a small comment, like "typo" or something would be helpful. For example, I added in the notes section of Doffs, how I acquired them, just as some additional information. Not very useful, as 90% seem to be randomly assigned, but at least some information, to see if there are shared pools, whatsoever. For me, its ok to edit and add something, but deleting implies there was a severe mistake. I just ask, that when such a mistake occurs, that i get told, what went wrong and why. Sometimes its just hard to guess and get it right for the future.--Skydragon 16:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Again, my apologies, I assumed because of your participation in Form talk:Duty officer no further explanation was needed why I removed those notes. --Dukedom 16:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


Hate to bother you, but the T'Pil conning officer doff has a typo in the page title and I don't know how to move it. 14:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

(Almost) fixed, thanks for noticing. --Dukedom 15:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


Sorry about the duplicate trouble; I was watching you change it around in the Recent Changes and figured I hadn't done something right. Thank you for the fixes, the info and I hope that you won't have to clean up after me much more. Cheers. Keyfob 14:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Player traits[]

I was looking at and noticed that the entry for Trill is the same as the entry for Joined Trill. The only error is showing "Joined Symbiote" as a required trait for Trill.--Marhawkman 22:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That is something which happens because of SMW. You need to talk to Eyes about that but if I recall correctly that is nothing that is 'easy' to fix without breaking the semantic 'thing' --Dukedom 22:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
It's because Joined Trill redirects to Trill, so SMW is considering them the same thing. The only possible fix currently would be to create a separate Joined Trill page. It wouldn't have to be much. Eyes User-Eyes-Sig.png 06:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
would it need to be more than a redirect page?--Marhawkman 17:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


I was thinking rather than re-uploading the common doff headshots or moving them to their in-game filenames, we could just slap this template on the file pages for the headshots instead. The advantage of this is that the headshot widget could be adapted to use this information too (but also wouldn't *need* to be either), so this is (hopefully) an easier way to keep both the widget and the upcoming extension working.

It's about 60% complete, but it looks like I'm going to have to devote a few days to another project in the meantime, so there's no rush on this. The mother of all uploads is probably still a week or more away. Eyes User-Eyes-Sig.png 19:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

rarity change[]

Thanks for the followup edit. I didn't realize that the rarity had changed, I just thought that it had been listed incorrectly. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 15:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to ask[]

You seem to be the expert on these. How are you getting the images? Also do you know of a way to copy and paste the assignment and mission text out of the game to put here into the wiki? thnaks --Drmike 15:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I cannot tell you how to get the images. And the copy paste is the good old Version 0.1 - read, memorize, type. --Dukedom 16:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I was hoping there was a better way then alt-tab which is what I;ve been doing. --Drmike 16:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
You could always resize your STO and browser windows so they're side-by-side, or at least only slightly overlapping. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 17:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Sort of a follow-up: do you take screenshots of the assignment data, or do you just write the wiki article with the game running? I could use some help filling out these tables for verifying the variant-specific details. (Since we didn't have full data on all the variants of those, I had to make some assumptions that need to be validated.) I know you supplied most of the data for them in the first place, so if you had screenshots, then you would likely be able to verify a lot of them quickly; but even if you don't, I'd still appreciate your help with that. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 20:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I usualy write the article with the game running. What exactly do you need to know? --Dukedom 07:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Hm, it may not be as much of an issue as I had thought at first. Anyway, what I wanted to have verified for each specific assignment is:
  • The exact variation of the summary text (probably not a problem outside the Biochemical chain, the other 2 chains just swap species and homeworld names)
  • The doff slot requirements (I think Analyze Biological was the only one where the actual slotting reqs differed)
  • The success/failure traits
Now that I take a second look at the old generalized versions, though...
So really there are only 2 that need full verification. I'll mark those specially on my tables, and I can just verify the rest for my personal satisfaction as I find them. Cheerio, good sir. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 00:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Biochemical Investigations: The difference in the summary text is consistent within each commodity. Once you reconstructed the exact text (i.e. the organic artifacts known as shapeshifting lockets) you should be able to use it for the other assignments in that chain. When I went through them I didn't see any typos in the game text. --Dukedom 08:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
That's what I did - pretty sure the only other odd one is Tulaberries from the Gamma Quadrant. So like I said, we should be good other than verifying a Biologist for Reactions to Jevonite (makes sense) and the crit traits for Karemma Labor Aid (not very certain of my guess at all). —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 15:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

LoR Romulan, Reman DOff galleries, and other missing doff pictures[]

On your recommendation, Elachi survivors are spared. \\//_

How do you get clean pictures of duty officers? I considered the screenshot method, but it's very crude and doesn't take into account duty officer rarity borders. -- The Klingon Jedi (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

With the right knowledge you can find them in the texture.hogg. I stopped uploading them because I no longer see the option to upload multiple files and it already was a pita doing them five at a time. --Dukedom (talk) 07:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't have the right knowledge, where and how do I pull stuff from the texture hog? -- The Klingon Jedi (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
A quick google search should send you on the right venture. --Dukedom (talk) 08:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I've hit an altogether different snag; I can't find the LoR Romulans in the texture files I took apart. The Klingon Jedi (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Assignment Locations[]

Hi. Just wondering why you changed the assignment locations on all of the new Dyson Sphere assignments to "Minor Interaction Popup"? There have been quite a few added recently (around 20) and they were added as "Allied Zone" and "Contested Zone" which at least tells the reader where they can expect to find these assignments (It's a location field after all).

I couldnt find any previous example of "Minor Interaction Popup" anywhere. I could understand if you changed it to an existing value like "Current Sector", but for these, "Current Sector" is not appropriate, and as far as new values go, I think what was there already is better, and once we settle on an appropriate value, they can be added to the property.

We already created categories for the Allied Zone and Contested Zone locations (which cant be moved), and now they need a new category created. I'm sure that articles for Allied Zone and Contested Zone will be created soon, which the location field would link to. I don't really see Minor Interaction Popup as being much of an article, other than a one-liner to say to say that the assignments pop up. What am I missing? Tahno (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

So far the loctype prop has only been used for contacts not for description of the actual location. We have the Template:assignmentlocations for that, to which I recently added the new zones. And the contact for this new type of assignments is a minor interaction popup. I went for this fairly general description because we cannot rule out yet if these assignments only show up in one specific neighbourhood, or even worse show up in both allied and contested zone (which would break the previous classification).
How to proceed. I would suggest adding the specific neighbourhood and a note about the type on each assignment's page variation part. As for the Minor Interaction Popup. If we keep that 'name' (I am not terrible pleased with that choice either) a general description what type of assignments, what the different specific locations are (if someone has way too much time you could even make maps for that), even a query for all the assignments could be added. -Dukedom (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I think the way to proceed is to get a consensus on this before we go ahead. I was surprised that you used my comment to find one you missed and further embed this, adding it to boilerplate as well. If the location type field doesn't indicate a location, whether that be a contact in a known location, or an area on a map, then it's misnamed. Regardless of what you call it, a link to a "Minor Interaction Popup" wont give much relevant information to the reader in the way that a link to a contact or map location where the assignment can be found would, and isnt that the point after all?
You've been working with duty officers longer than I have, so I'll sit back and see how this plays out, since you seem fairly committed to it. Tahno (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
If I stepped on anyones toes I apologize. I clearly see that you currently do a lot of heavy lifting on the wiki. As for the matter at hand. The prop as allied / contested zone breaks in the moment when we discover an assignment that shows up in both zones. Same thing happens if you would label the prop with the actual neighborhoods. -Dukedom (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
No toe-stepping here :) I didn't create these - I just saw "Minor Interaction Popup" as something new and possibly less helpful than what was already there. I don't think we need to go as far as neighborhoods, but I also don't see the zones breaking anything, even if an assignment is in multiple zones. The {{assignmentinfo}} template handles that already, using arraymap to set the property for each zone that is listed in the infobox, however, the template/properties system we have may already be overcomplicated. The game classifies everything as either "Current Map", "Personal", or one of a handful of "Officers". Perhaps the best solution is to see how it classifies these assignments and go from there. They may end up in "Current Map" after all. I have been avoiding these assignments in-game, but it's time (for me) to go and do a bit of research on these and other assignments to see if we cant simplify what we already have, without adding anything new. Tahno (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys! I've also been entering these "very rare" sphere ones in the wiki (sorry about that "free thinking" one - my fingers took over). The "minor interaction popup" style seemed to make sense to me when I saw Dukedom's edits, especially if we changed the links on the map that currently point to the non-existent "Solanae Dyson Sphere" page to point to the category pages instead. However, Tahno definitely knows these templates best.

And upon further review, I realized it would be nice to be able to be more specific about their location, since most are tied to a particular subzone (like Minefield, Supply Depot, a specific tower in Voth zone, etc.). In addition, it would be great if the final solution made it easy to see both these "popup" assignments and the rest of the normal Allied/Voth zone sector ones together (via a category or such). Just some thoughts. :) -Woogawoman (talk)

Whoops, missed that the category pages were now empty. So, yeah, Tahno's points make even more sense now. :D -Woogawoman (talk)
When the template was designed there only were "sectormap" and "personel". All the different officers were added to the game later. Thus the now weird name for the prop. In retrospect "doffcontact" or sth like that would have been better. I left an inquiry in the doff forums, maybe borticus will give us a snazzy label for them. -Dukedom (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I've been holding off on my reply until you (Dukedom) had a chance to look in here. Anyway, I've done a little research and it seems you're thinking along the same lines. These Dyson Sphere assignments do show up on the "Personal" tab, as do those from other miscellaneous contacts that are currently "allowed" property values, such as the Romulan Historian, etc. As you mentioned, these extra contacts crept in because allowing them seemed like the easiest way to handle it at the time, but it may not necessarily have been the best way.
I propose that we change at least the label in the assignment infobox (and possibly the property itself) to something like "Assignment Type" and only allow values such as "Current Map", "Personal", and the 8 (by my count) "Officers" which have their own tab on the left side of the Duty Officer UI in-game. (6 Department heads, Fed Envoy, and Maurader).
That would put the Sphere assignments under "Personal". I know we have that template which makes the big galaxy map, but it's not always needed (esp for ship-board contacts, or contacts in fixed locations (eg: academy)), so I suggest adding another field to the infobox for the Assignment Location, or Assignment Giver. This could then be used to categorise assignments by location (I see a Giver NPC as a fixed location, since we know where he is) and solve most of Woogawoman's issues. What it doesnt solve can be fixed by manually adding category tags to a few selected articles which might benefit from that.
BTW. Dukedom knows these templates better than I do. Im still learning my way around the Doff Template System, but I do understand his goals and reasons for wanting to generalise things. A lot of it is due to limitations in Semantic Wiki (SMW). My goal is to keep things simple, and as SMW friendly as I can, while still being helpful to the less technical readers. (ie: hiding stuff that has been done to "make things work" which isnt all that user-friendly. An example is my push to replace "FedRomKDF" with the more plain english term "cross-faction", but that is a whole other issue).
If we can agree that this is the best way forward, I dont mind adding it to my project list to get it done, but right now it will be one of several things Im working on. Tahno (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we really must change the prop. Technically "every" assignment you pick up from contacts gets added to your personal tab. So if you follow through with your proposed change one could argue that we could/should get rid of the other contacts as well. It's not an issue of adding another infobox field either. Most loctype lables serve their purpose just fine, even the more exotic like for example "Tal Shiar Command Code".
The real issue is we cannot agree on a prop name, because I want to avoid zone names there (you really don't want to open that can of worms for later editors), and my current 'description' just sucks. If we cannot get some word from borticus in the doff subforum on the issue I probably would relabel them again to 'Sphere Lore' since they give background informations when you crit them. -Dukedom (talk) 10:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Not "every" assignment you get from a contact goes into Personal. There are 8 contacts I mentioned earlier who have their own UI tab. Let's call it an "assignment type" for a moment. It's true that assignments picked up from random NPCs go into "Personal" though, which is probably the bulk of them.
I looked at how Cryptic categorises assignments, after all, why re-invent the wheel? We are trying to document the game, so how the game operates is important to that. The problem we have is that SMW doesnt handle complex queries well, so keeping it simple works best. My understanding is that the more values we add to a single property, the harder it gets. Eyes has already had problems querying cross-faction ships from a property with just three possible values, forcing him to code around it, adding yet another property in the process.
Yes, what I was proposing means we need to remove a lot of the contacts that have been added over time, who essentially have become their own "assignment type", where Cryptic instead classifies them as "Personal". I see advantages to that. a) it parallels the 10 types (8 + 2) into which, cryptic classifies assignments. b) its less values for us to deal with for queries, and c) it immediately tells readers where the assignment can be found in the UI. I've been asked that a lot, and the answer is usually "Its under Personal". I think what has been created on the wiki is over complex, and getting harder to maintain as more contacts are added as allowed property values or "types", whereas the way Cryptic do it, they can add more and more contacts without having to create new assignment types to place them in. Some, (like the Tal Shiar Command Code) havnt even been added to the property, so would return nothing if queried for.
The one thing Cryptic doesnt do, which we do, is say where the assignments are found. I know I can get certain marauding assignments from the Orion Marauder, but I have to remember which sector to be in, to get them. This is why I suggested that "loc type" isnt really a location (other than sometimes knowing where an NPC contact is) and a separate location field would be handy so that we could say, for example "Cardassian space" (or sector block if you like) for some of the better maurauding assignments. That field could also help add them to wiki categories - grouping assignments by where you can find them, completely separately from the "loc type" or which contact hands them out (many are shipboard or in unknown locations). In the case of the Romulan Historian, as an example, I would classify that as type: "Personal", with a location linking to the "Romulan Historial" article, or if you wanted to call them a "giver" in another field. the location could optionally be "New Romulus". For Tal shiar Command code it would be, Type: Personal, Giver/location "Tal Shiar Command Code". I think tidying this up helps the wiki in many ways.
Having looked deeper into it, my position has changed somewhat from my initial question above. I've tried to outline what I'm thinking now. Right now, I dont think "Allied Zone" etc is a great idea, but I still think it is better than MIP or "Sphere Lore" (that last one makes no sense as either a location or a type). It seems however that you plan to wait on a reply from Jeremy, and then go ahead and add a new type anyway. As I said earlier, I'll defer to you on this, but right now I dont think continuously adding new types is the way to go, and I dont think that I could explain it much better than I have tried here. Tahno (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I see your point there. Another proposal. We get rid of the additional loctype properties like you suggested, but only allow a new infobox field to be displayed when the loctype is personal. I would really like to avoid possible new additions to the assignments show as 'current map' 'orion sector'.
As for the 6+2 department head contacts that open up their own tab on the ui. I am fairly confident that all the assignments that show up on those tabs could also be on 'current map'. Static ones like for example 'Fabricate Prototypes' from the Engineering Department a) require you to physicaly travel to your bridge and b) get added to your personal tab again. Also the 'Trader' on a tuffli & dkora behaves like a department head with some assignments (nadorc comes to mind).
Which still brings us back to the original question how to categorize the sphere assignments. Personal and what? :) -Dukedom (talk) 09:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
To be helpful, I think an additional "location" field should link to an article, about either the NPC who gives the assignment, or the map location (system or sector block etc) where the assignment is found. I guess that leads me back to "Allied Zone and "Contested Zone" (and presumably "Voth Zone") for the assignments in question, which is probably why they seemed ok to me at first, until I dug deeper into it and reaised they didnt really belong in the "loc type" field.
I don't see a need to avoid things like "Current Map", "Orion Sector", other than preferring to have that information added to the {{assignmentlocations}} template. For consistency I think all assignments should be able to show a location field in the info box, which doesnt prevent us also showing them on the map below. In either case, the "location" field should add the assignment article to the appropriate location categories, regardless of whether that is done by {{assignmentlocations}} or the infobox. (I think it would be better done in the info box). Again, that doesnt prevent us also showing them on the map. Tahno (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
For consistency I think all assignments should be able to show a location field in the info box - Don't you think if it was that easy we would have done it in the first place? While a lot of the 'recently' to the game added assignments can be pinpointed to a fairly specific location the majority of existing assignments can not. Let's just take a look at the Assignment chains. Biogenic Weaponization - Can be almost everywhere. Biochemical Investigation - Personal tab not location specific. Caitian Diaspora - All over the galaxy. Childrens Toys - Cardassian Space then Shipboard Contact. Colonial Team - Cardassian Space. Colonization - Exploration Clusters. Consular Authority - Cardassian Space. Culinary Credentials - Chef Contact. etc etc. While I agree that easy location information would be nice to have in the infobox assignments just do not work that way. -Dukedom (talk) 10:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I didnt say it had to be a required field, only that I dont see a need for "Current Map" to exclude it. If an assignment can be obtained from a single location, its there to be used. If not, we have {{assignmentlocations}}.
As I said earlier, I see maps and NPCs as a location, given that we (usually) know where the NPCs are. I'm trying to make it easy to automatically categorise assignments that end up in "Personal", or from one of the 8 contacts, by location, but that doesnt mean we have to exclude others which might benefit from it (anything with a sngle location).
I guess if you're concerned that people will start trying to add assignments in multiple locations to it we could call the field "NPC Contact" or something, and pick the "map" ones up from {{assignmentlocations}}. Tahno (talk) 11:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Just to recap then. We condense the loctype to Current Map or Personal only. Infobox gets a "Contact" added (it's not always a NPC), where we migrate the previous loctypes (i.e. Personal Officers, Tal Shiar Command Codes, Temporal Beacons, various New Romulus NPCs).
In addition you want to code something that reads out {{assignmentlocations}} and puts it into "Contact" if only one location is given on a Current Map assignment. Keep in mind if you manage that we probably would have to split up articles like Assignment: Asylum (Rare) into their specific species again. -Dukedom (talk) 13:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
All I am suggesting for {{assignmentlocations}} is that we use it to automatically add assignment articles to categories that can be used to group assignments by location. I'm not saying it should add anything to the infobox values. Likewise the proposed "contact" field can also be used to add to sub-categories of "Assignments by location", if the contact field is present.
The loctype field needs to be limited to values that appear in-game, I was thinking the values that have their own tab in the UI (Current Map, Personal and the main contacts), but as you say, the contacts get classified under Personal anyway, so limiting it to just "Current Map" and "Personal" is probably even better.
Anything under "Personal", or which otherwise doesnt need the complete galaxy map shown by {{assignmentlocations}} needs a "contact" field to indicate where the assignment can be found. On some assignment pages I find a map of the entire galaxy to be overkill - for example the personnel assignments at the Academy, but I'm pretty sure all of those assignments come under "Personal", so a contact field would be sufficient to indicate location, in those cases. Tahno (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Icon name for Infinity Prize Pack[]

Hello, I was trying to upload icons for Infinity Prize Pack articles which has ":" in their name (for example, Infinity Prize Pack: Personal Trait (Space)), but ":" is not allowed when naming an image file, so I can't match the article name. Would proper course of action be to name icon differently, or to move page to icon friendly name? Ship prize pack like Infinity Prize Pack - T6 Ship has name without ":", but that also means it isn't exact in-game name. --Damixon (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Continued on Damixon's talk page --Dukedom (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Sector Space Assignment Locations Since Sector Revamp[]

While the map is very pretty, its information is very much out of date, to the point of being misleading. In many, perhaps even most cases, assignments are now found only on the narrow sliver of space after a border crossing. Personally, I haven't found any of the numbered assignments not specific to a Nebula-type node in any of these nodes since sector revamp, so my inclination is to simply set all these to "no", but my experience alone is not necessarily sufficient to say if this is correct. I see a lot of questions on Reddit about where to find these numbered assignments and so have begun documenting exactly where I've found them while playing my ToS character. While this doesn't fit the template, the information is accurate and arguably more valuable than the current map. At present, I don't have another idea on how to proceed. ArgentMage (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Continued on ArgentMage's talk page. --Dukedom (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)