Yes, I have already proposed to eswube that he be named the "upload boss" and be placed in charge of coordinating any/all future uploading.
| Shipbucket http://67.205.157.234/forums/ |
|
| ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wiped http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=8925 |
Page 1 of 12 |
| Author: | Colosseum [ September 17th, 2018, 6:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wiped |
All - An error during deployment of the new FD Scale vehicle system resulted in the complete wipe of the site's archive database - this is why the site's content is currently "empty". Automatic backups were (mistakenly) not enabled, and so far we have not been able to find the backups we used during the server switch several months ago. We are very likely facing the complete loss of the categorized SB archive. Fortunately only the database (with its categories and associations) has been wiped -- all the drawings are still available on the site. In the meantime, use this link to download the entire collection: http://shipbucket.com/archive Unless we are able to find a backed up copy of the database somewhere (not likely), we will need to once again enlist the community to help us upload and categorize all the previously-posted SB scale work. Before we start this work we want to make some UI changes to streamline uploading (given our experience in the past). If you haven't already, please go to http://www.shipbucket.com/register to register your account. Contact me via Discord or forum PM if you would like to help with uploading. We will run the uploading concurrently with the FD Scale uploading. Stay tuned for updates. |
|
| Author: | eswube [ September 17th, 2018, 8:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wiped |
Of course, as always, I am volunteering to help with the re-upload. By the way, IMHO it would be good if this time we (meaning the uploaders) have agreed to certain common standards regarding certain tricks in filenames, classification and so on (no point in looking for particular quotes, but there were few such issues during the previous upload, that emerged only in the process and eventually each uploader did it differently). |
|
| Author: | Novice [ September 17th, 2018, 8:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wiped |
I think so too. A common practice to give uniform data on images uploaded is very recommended IMHO. |
|
| Author: | Colosseum [ September 18th, 2018, 1:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wiped |
Yes, I have already proposed to eswube that he be named the "upload boss" and be placed in charge of coordinating any/all future uploading.
|
|
| Author: | eswube [ September 18th, 2018, 6:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wiped |
Thanks for Your trust in me. I can try to be not too undeserving. When I'll have a moment I'll try to look for these "issues" mentioned above, list them and suggest how to sort them out (of course by giving it "for discussion"). Anywa, I imaging there's no horrible rush, as first the technical situation with the Archive must be "made stable". |
|
| Author: | Garlicdesign [ September 18th, 2018, 3:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wiped |
Hi all Of course I'll personally upload everything I've ever drawn, no one else needs bother with that. Just tell me whenever the technical issues are resolved. Greetings GD |
|
| Author: | Colosseum [ September 18th, 2018, 11:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wiped |
Guys - if you want to resume uploading SB scale stuff, go for it. That part of the site has not changed. You'll need to recreate your accounts though (see first post for registration link). I for one have reuploaded all of my stuff. eswube will be posting some proposals later on to decide how best to name files for the FD Scale uploading. Once we decide on the format for this, he will be in charge of coordinating the uploaders for FD scale. |
|
| Author: | Rhade [ September 19th, 2018, 9:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wiped |
Damn scrap code... this is sabotage... HERESY! |
|
| Author: | heuhen [ September 19th, 2018, 11:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wiped |
Ah buger |
|
| Author: | eswube [ September 19th, 2018, 9:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Site archive wiped |
Before we start re-uploading the content to the Archive, there are several things I would like to raise, regarding the standards and commonality of the names and classification. I noticed certain discrepancies between standards of these applied by various Uploaders, and apparently wasn't the only person who though that perhaps we could try to avoid such situation now, and got some encouragement to raise these issues. One thing is that I'd like to remind that we shouldn't use prefixes such as USS, HMS, m/s, s/s and the like (neither CV, AHTS etc. unless they are part of the pennant number "US Navy-style"). "Title" of the drawing should be composed only of the pennant number (if applicable, of course), ships's own name (like Ark Royal, Saratoga, Bismarck) and - if needed - date of depiction (but only if there are multiple drawings of said ship at different times or there's some other particular reason to include it in the name - otherwise there's the "date depicted" window elsewhere for it) and/or extra information ("as built", "battle of Jutland" etc.). I know that it's basic, but I remember that during previous upload some uploaders were occasionaly doing these titles differently (and someone else had to modify it). For the most part, these things were explained here: http://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=7680 Few notes - previously the convention has emerged, that anything that's from pre-steam era is, by default, classified as "Sailing Vessel" (even though there were several ships there that actually had no sail at all! ). Also, any submersibles go under "Submarines".In "Riverine Warfare" only the "shooting ships" were added (monitors, gunboats, patrol boats and the like), but riverine mine-warfare and auxiliaries were in other, relevant categories. Generally, when the drawing was made to represent whole class (generically), let's name it as lead ship of the class (unless something on the drawing - like pennant number on hull, for example, clearly contradicts it). (That said, in some cases - usually from countries historically rather discreet about their military, like PRC or North Korea - individual ship names might not be known at all, therefore the "generic class name" may simply have to be used as a "title") Also (as there were also several cases like that), when there are multiple drawings of a ship, at different times, we created only one SHIP entry and multiple DRAWING entries - there's completely no need to create separate SHIP drawings for every year. And we mustn't upload multiple literally identical (down to a single pixel) drawings to represent all ships in the class (it happened before!) Oh... and when creating a CLASS, there's no need to write "class" in the name (like "Bismarck class" - "Bismarck" will suffice). One important thing I'd like to stress, is checking if someone else hasn't already created a CLASS (especially) or SHIP entry for a given vessel (for example when it was used in different country and/or drawing was made by someone else). That leads to another matter - consistency in writing standardized naming sequences, like, for example Soviet/Eastern-Bloc "Project Numbers" (which can be written, for example - "Project 1143" or "Pr.1143" - last time it was with full word "Project" and I'm going to do it same way this time), or Royal Navy's post-war "Type-XX" etc. etc. Point is, that during the upload, the suggestions appear, based on the names already created, but if somebody would starty typing "T-...", then "Type..." might not appear, and vice versa, also the use of diacritics from some languages might be an issue ("Huáscar" vs. "Huascar" for example), so IMHO it would be good to keep it in mind. Also, I'd like to call for consistency when writing pennant numbers and the like. While in the USN it's XX-000 (with hyphen), some other navies don't have it always so clear, but regardless of what way is used (A00, A.00, A-00), it would be great if it was always the same way (for a particular navy). Some things I would like to put for discussion. "License Class" Some ship classes, besides their country of origin, were also built under license in other countries, very often with some noticeable local modifications and under different name. For example Dutch Van Speijk frigates, which were license-built British Leanders. Generally, such classes were mentioned in the CLASS list separately, although some Uploaders would only give the local name, and some (including me) would also add the "source name" in brackets - for example "Van Speijk (Type-12M Leander)". "Conversion Class" Also, some ships, during their service lives, were converted into entirely different tasks then originally intented - for example, some of the Polish Jaskółka-class minesweepers, were also converted into patrol ships and hydrographical survey ships. My suggestion is (as I was doing it previously) to create in such cases separate CLASS entry/entries, with "original class name" and word "(modified)" added, and of course with appropriately changed role. So for example, for original Jaskółka the CLASS/TYPE entry would be: "Jaskółka - Mine Warfare" and for conversion "Jaskółka (modified) - Naval Auxiliary" However, while the above format I used for "one-off conversions", for more standardized conversions (applied uniformly to a group of ships) I would suggest adding the "original" class name in the brackets - for example: "Casco (modified Barnegat) - ... "Date Depicted" in regards to Never-Weres For the most part, it seems that in the drawings of the unbuilt ships, Uploaders tended to give there (literally following the name of this function) the year they considered a likely date when given ship would be built if it was built. But for me it's bit awkward, since actually these dates are actually quite arbitrary (and we don't know if they would be true), but we do know when the given project was made, which is IMHO more sensible option to enter in the "date window". "Research Ship" vs. "Naval Auxiliary" There are several categories that quite overlap (like the example above). Personally, In the above case (which, IMHO is most striking) I would suggest to put all "research ships" into this category, regardless if they are civilian or military (oceanographic research, satellite tracking, whatever), while in the "naval auxiliary" put emphasis on ships like AOR's, tenders and so on. Similar situation can be encountered, for example with Sailing Vessels and Icebreakers. Any suggestions? Or other problems You believe should be solved beforehand? |
|
| Page 1 of 12 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|