Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 2 of 3  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 »
Author Message
eswube
Post subject: Re: Database LightbulbPosted: January 26th, 2013, 7:34 pm
Offline
Posts: 9586
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am
I would suggest to use "hull classification" prefixes always except for the US Navy ships (and perhaps JMSDF) where they would be redundant - regardless of wether it's a single ship or whole class, esp. that not all ships have/had pennant numbers.

To give an example: in Polish folder there is patrol boat Batory - it's file name is KP-1 as at one point it was named like this, and I wanted to keep sequence with other KP-... boats, but easily I could name it simply Batory instead, and - at least theoretically - there could be another file named Batory, but showing a passenger liner. If "hull classification"/"type" prefixes were to be used always, it would be no such problem (one would be PB Batory and other MS Batory). And in the case from my example, where KP-... files had PB prefix removed, it creates situation where "patrol boats" are (unnecessarily, IMHO) in two separate places in one folder.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Raxar
Post subject: Re: Database LightbulbPosted: January 26th, 2013, 7:36 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1407
Joined: August 31st, 2011, 4:49 pm
Location: Michigan
I was under the impression that the mainsite was confusing was because we changed the system around after nation-specific folders were added and the older drawings never got their filenames changed. In this respect, changing the system again would just add to the confusion.

_________________
Worklist

"If people never did silly things nothing intelligent would ever get done." ~Ludwig Wittgenstein


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
eswube
Post subject: Re: Database LightbulbPosted: January 26th, 2013, 7:38 pm
Offline
Posts: 9586
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am
It could not add to the confusion if the older files were renamed (but for this volunteers would be needed).


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
TimothyC
Post subject: Re: Database LightbulbPosted: January 26th, 2013, 7:43 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3750
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact: Website
Charybdis wrote:
Monster.

Whats that, about 150MB?
About 109 on disk. If I finished converting all of the GIFs to PNGs and optimized the PNGs I could probably get it down a bit.
KimWerner wrote:
TimothyC wrote:
If you don't have a pennant number for a ship (such as UK battleships or Civilian ships), then the Pennant number is replaced with just the type as follows:
BB Howe 1944.png
:shock: HMS Howe had a pennant number. She had pennant number 32 even if it wasn't painted on the hull!
eswube wrote:
I would suggest to use "hull classification" prefixes always except for the US Navy ships (and perhaps JMSDF) where they would be redundant - regardless of wether it's a single ship or whole class, esp. that not all ships have/had pennant numbers.

To give an example: in Polish folder there is patrol boat Batory - it's file name is KP-1 as at one point it was named like this, and I wanted to keep sequence with other KP-... boats, but easily I could name it simply Batory instead, and - at least theoretically - there could be another file named Batory, but showing a passenger liner. If "hull classification"/"type" prefixes were to be used always, it would be no such problem (one would be PB Batory and other MS Batory). And in the case from my example, where KP-... files had PB prefix removed, it creates situation where "patrol boats" are (unnecessarily, IMHO) in two separate places in one folder.
I will take your thoughts under consideration, but I offer no promises.
Raxar wrote:
I was under the impression that the mainsite was confusing was because we changed the system around after nation-specific folders were added and the older drawings never got their filenames changed. In this respect, changing the system again would just add to the confusion.
The renaming has been in flux for a long time, Golly didn't do a lot because his connection to the server was SLOW (It would take him a couple of hours to download everything, while it only takes me about 30 minutes [the connection overhead eats a lot more than you would think]). The goal has been to update the files, but it takes time, and as eswube said, the old files need to be fixed also.

_________________
Please don't call me Tim. If you don't want to use Timothy, use TJ.
MATHNET - To Cogitate and to Solve


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Hood
Post subject: Re: Database LightbulbPosted: January 28th, 2013, 9:13 am
Offline
Posts: 6508
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am
eswube wrote:
I would suggest to use "hull classification" prefixes always except for the US Navy ships (and perhaps JMSDF) where they would be redundant - regardless of wether it's a single ship or whole class, esp. that not all ships have/had pennant numbers.
There is a pertinant point here, while it might make sense to us that D88 Glasgow is HMS Glasgow of the Type 42 Class of DDGs an outsider just randomly looking at the archive site might not know the original pennant number and might find it harder to locate the drawing. Of course when they open the image its clear what ship it is from the credits. All ships have numbers, but as Kim points out they aren't always painted on and aren't always well known. It's a two-tier system, but given the sheer size of the database now I don't think wholesale changes are feasible without excessive work and the system we currently have works anyway.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
eswube
Post subject: Re: Database LightbulbPosted: January 28th, 2013, 9:23 am
Offline
Posts: 9586
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am
Actually the work on setting straight the filenames is already to start via PMs (there are four volunteers, me being one of them, and under TimothyC's guidance we're starting to divide the work among ourselves).

If You see it a valid point, maybe it would be good to discuss it among the administration, before there isn't too much actual work with filename update/correction done yet (that would have to be potentially redone again)?


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Colosseum
Post subject: Re: Database LightbulbPosted: January 29th, 2013, 7:31 pm
Offline
Posts: 5121
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 9:38 pm
Location: Colorado
Contact: Website
Thanks all for volunteering to undertake this thankless task. ;)

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Gollevainen
Post subject: Re: Database LightbulbPosted: January 30th, 2013, 10:12 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 4447
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:10 am
Location: Finland
Contact: Website
just in case I need to state the obvious ones, Let me handle the russian and finnish folders, unless you feel 200 % certainity what you are about to do. 8-)
beyond that, good luck and good nerves, you gonna need them

_________________
Coming next: L/M Moskva, some research ships, pr.26bis, Pr.1144 remakes and Project 1143 complete redux.



Shipbucket mainsite, aka "The Archive"
Submit your drawings to the archive here
Far Eastern AU wiki


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Charybdis
Post subject: Re: Database LightbulbPosted: March 5th, 2016, 11:08 am
Offline
Posts: 988
Joined: November 8th, 2011, 4:29 am
Location: Colombo, Sri Lanka
Contact: Website
I see that some recent uploads to the database have non standard filenames. This is particularly annoying after all the hours a few of us volunteers put in a couple of years back. Two questions...

1. What is the best way to change the file names in the database to standard agreed on in this thread?

2. What's the best way to ensure that only drawings with standardised file names are uploaded in the future?

As before, I'm happy to volunteer my time to correct the file names.

_________________
USS WASP CV-7 History


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
bezobrazov
Post subject: Re: Database LightbulbPosted: March 5th, 2016, 4:55 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3406
Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:20 pm
Out of sheer curiosity: when I get my ass around to actually submit my DofEs for upload (to replace [possibly!] the old, outdated drawings in the Archive), how would it look like accordingto the proposed naming practice?

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 2 of 3  [ 27 posts ]  Return to “General Discussion” | Go to page « 1 2 3 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]