Talk:Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss

Influence on id Software

I removed the passage concerning the influence of Ultima Underworld on the development of Wolf3d and Doom. I wrote an E-Mail to John Romero a few years ago and he answered:

"I was friends with Paul Neurath who owned Looking Glass Technologies back then and he told me about a new technique they were using called “texture mapping” on their current game (which was UU). He told me this back in 1990. We finally used the technique one year later on Catacomb 3D and then Wolf3D after that. So yeah, we were inspired by Paul but we had never seen UU before Wolf3D was released, nor did Paul give us any more information other than saying the words “texture mapping” back then. J"

--knechtodawas

Well, who would destroy his/her own legend? :)

--Thoric 23:04, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've found a quote to support replacing that passage... "Underworld shipped before Wolfenstein 3D. We had shown id a demo the year before, and I remember John Carmack (who was all of about 19 at the time, and as yet unknown in the games industry) saying that he could write a faster texture mapper..." [1] --Thoric (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I wondered why the overly famous Warren Spector wasn't mentioned (he was the producer), the genius Doug Church had done most of the programming and was also the project leader for the second title, credits are all on mobygames.com.

Release date

GameSpy says UW2 was released June 1, 1993, but I'm a bit dubious about this.--DooMDrat July 3, 2005 05:57 (UTC)

I don't think so. Search Usenet and you find people having bought the game in early '93. The files on the original disks are dated late December '92, so it was probably released in January. Magazine reviews also confirm this. Don't trust any modern gaming websites on release dates from when they were not yet online. TerokNor 3 July 2005 08:12 (UTC)

Phorque here. Here's what I've found (regarding release dates):

Moby games

I - March 1992

II - 1992

All Game Guide

I - 1991

II - 1992

IGN

I - june 1st 1991

II - june 1st 1993

Gamespy

I - june 1st 1991

II - june 1st 1993

I really don't know what to do. There's also a single CD release of both games that might make for a better infobox. Gah... any suggestions?

That Moby date is from me. Found it on Usenet, as written above. My old magazines confirm these dates (early 92 for UW1, late 92/early 93 for UW2). Forget the websites. Please change the dates back. TerokNor 13:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It's ok, change the dates back. I was just neatening it and ran into some confusion with the clashing sources. Maybe add the mag you own as a reference at the end of the article? - Phorque 19:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll ask around the TTLG forums.--Drat (Talk) 13:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Do so, but I think they will confirm these dates. Who would you rather trust, a magazine that reviewed the game when it came out or a website that went online five to ten years after it came out? TerokNor 13:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

There are some people there who bought the games when they were released. Some may even have old magazines with reviews.--Drat (Talk) 14:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

From the information I got from a forum member:

• UW1 was released in March 1992, according to Doug Church.
• UW2 was released either released very late 1992, or early 1993. I went with 1993.--Drat (Talk) 00:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Now that the articles have been split...

We need to deal with bypassing this disambig page (check Special:Whatlinkshere/Ultima Underworld. I will do a few here and there later.--Drat (Talk) 06:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC) That should be right for release dates because I played Under World I in 1992 and UWII in '93. The interface allowed you to see 360 degrees. The game engine was most impressive. I had not seen any other game like it before this. The creator(s) of UW were visionaries, imho.Mabryp (talk) 04:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Underworld2.png

Image:Underworld2.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Storyline of Ultima Underworld

Abstract: (I am going off memory from over ten years ago) The king's daughter is kidnapped from the castle tower by a "monster" (possibly a gorilla) and the king asks you to rescue her and rid his kingdom of this menace, which is followed by the king's guard to the entrance of the labyrinth. You must succeed where others have tried and failed. It is up to you to brave the damp, dark secrets of the cavernous abyss below. Beware of monsters, goblins, traps, secret chambers.... learn new skills and abilities in order to overcome your foe and save the princess. (more to follow;currently deployed)Mabryp (talk) 05:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not the King, but a Baron. The monster is a troll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.37.135.220 (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge

I'd like to merge in Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss and Ultima Underworld II: Labyrinth of Worlds to this article. There is no need for 3 articles about 2 games, especially when there is a lot of overlap in gameplay, plot, setting, etc. The other two should be merged in or this page should be redirected. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 02:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like it could be a good idea given the bulk of those two articles, and serve to give some much needed muscle to this one.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Totally agreed on there not being 3 articles needed for 2 games, but slapping them both in here is going to stifle any potential expansion. The only overlap is gameplay, which is but one of the four major aspects of a game article. These games will have been substantially reviewed in the sources at the time, allgame has an overview and review for each game. Do a google book search for "Ultima Underworld" and take a look at the results, these are both very historically important games and it would be a great shame to hobble them in one article like a series of scarcely notable flash games with patchy sources. I think this article should be a redirect to the first game. Someoneanother 03:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for merging Ultima Underworld into Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss, if there are no objections. The collab would then be Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss. OK? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 03:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If Someoneanother's good with that, I'm good with that.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Totally :) Someoneanother 04:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I just copied the entirety of the text, and shoved it in there (and the talk page). I also fixed the collab link to point at the merged article. Not all of the text applies, nor does that second picture. Does anyone have a screen-capture utility? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Screen capture, for what? Gary King (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Gameplay. There was a cap of #II in the gameplay section of the merged series page, but obviously that doesn't work in #1. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 17:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You can find some screenshots of the game online. I'd be surprised if someone here had the game installed. Gary King (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Just want to throw in my two cents and say that the merge is a good idea. There is a lot of redundancy between these articles. Randomran (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't the original merge proposal to merge into Ultima Underworld rather than redirect Ultima Underworld? I think that the two games should just have a single "series" page.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The proposal was rejected above, as both games lack content, not notability. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 19:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey collaborators!

I'm off to work and have no time to edit, but take a look at this The Story of Ultima Underworld from the Co-Founder of Looking Glass Studios. Mentions the influence of Wizardry and it's lack of graphics. Also, we haven't even touched on the Windows Mobile version in the text. That version even has it's own reviews. I think this article could end up being really good. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 19:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Good find. There's a lot of very useful information in there, some of which I've already taken the liberty of incorporating into the article. On a side note, does anyone have access to the original reviews for this game? The Windows Mobile ones should be pretty easy to find, but '80s and early-'90s computer game reviews are always a pain to dig up. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Did some digging, this review is mirrored from quandaryland.com, a now-defunct Australian game site. Can't yet find any info on older reviews. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 09:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, http://www.stygianabyss.com/uw/uwarticles.asp. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 09:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Excellent! Those will be very useful. I'll start working them in right away. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's official - you guys rock. Very well done with the expansion here. Someoneanother 19:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Importance level

According to Wikipedia's assessment guidelines, this is considered a "low" article for the purpose of importance. There's no way it could conceivably be rated higher, as it is a relatively obscure game despite its strong sales and critical reception. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 14:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, the game has had a "lasting impact on genre, culture or the industry itself". Bard's Tale is given as an example there, showing that massive commercial success is not necessary. Ultima Underworld was id Software's inspiration for using texture mapping, for which it became legendary with Wolfenstein 3D (1). Bethesda Softworks' has admitted that their Elder Scrolls series (a major series in games) is heavily inspired by the game. Also, Ultima Underworld put Looking Glass Studios on the map. The developer is responsible for many innovations in gameplay, physics and graphics technology. Other notable elements include: the first use of first-person 3D graphics in a RPG, an influence on designer Cliff Bleszinski 1 2, and the game has been recognized by many media sources as a major landmark and one of the greatest PC games of all time (see article and this link: 1). With this much impact, rating it as low importance would be a grave mistake. In fact, I would argue that it is qualified for high importance. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Additionally, the game has been cited by members of Valve Software 1 2. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I could probably question the legitimacy of Bard's Tale as high while I'm at it, but that aside, do you honestly feel as though this game is as influential in the video game community as Doom, Guitar Hero, or Castlevania? Looking Glass, for its part, went out of business almost ten years ago and had, arguably, two franchises I believe would qualify as notable enough to merit a "mid" rating themselves (System Shock and Thief). I recognize that a few game developers have cited Stygian Abyss as an influence. It is an old game, so of course its success influenced later games. No game is made in a vacuum. So, should every early 90s game that sold 500,000 copies and received critical acclaim be considered high? Gears of War, for instance, which has sold millions of copies, has high critical reception, has gameplay mechanics that have been emulated in other games (Dark Sector, for instance), and is so popular that it has inspired books, comics, and a feature film, is rated as "mid-importance". — Levi van Tine (t – c) 09:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
      • The video game community being the development community or the gamer community? In game development, as I have cited, Ultima Underworld has had a large, historically relevant impact. It has influenced many later games--more than most have--and it is considered one of the greatest ever. It's a more notable game in these regards than Thief and maybe even System Shock. Your Gears of War example is perfect, because it illustrates that second-rate game design clones and commercial impact are far from the only factors in determining article importance. I do find it strange, though, that legendary, influential and historically relevant games like Donkey Kong, Pac-Man and Super Mario Bros. are relegated to High importance rather than Top. It might be that the whole system is broken, but my only concern at this time is the article I am currently working on, so that's the job of someone else. The point is, according to the guidelines, Ultima Underworld fits into the High category: "a lasting impact on a genre, culture or the industry itself". The game has had a lasting impact on role-playing games and the industry itself, two of the three qualifiers. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on Stygian Abyss. I won't change the importance level again, but it seems that it's been changed several times in the past, so maybe it should be discussed on the WPVG talk page. As for the "top" importance level, articles like those generally need to have consensus by the project, as detailed in the assessment instructions. The games you cited should probably be top, but maybe no one's taken it that far with them. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 10:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
          • This actually came to discussion earlier when the article was first worked on as a collaboration, and it was agreed upon due to the impact of the game and the repeated citations that it revolutionized the genre that it was of High importance. It appears to jump around a lot on the scale however not because it stopped being influential but because the genre it affected has fallen a bit into obscurity over the years. Of course people don't readily talk about the Magnavox Odyssey, but it's Top-priority due to it's last influence. So yes, I would argue that this is a High-priority article, and definitely not Low-priority.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Vantine but I don't see why you're baldly stating that this couldn't possibly be higher than low importance when numerous sources cited in the article have already made its case. Being the subject of an article called "Games that changed the world" featured in the UK's most longstanding game review outlet is hardly an unsubtle affirmation of the game's impact. The game was not only a milestone within role playing games but was at the forefront of changing the way players interacted with and moved around game environments. Comparing sales figures with a game which had a comparitively enormous advertising budget, was released on not only gaming PCs but on a relatively inexpensive console, in a much more marketable genre, and which came out 10 years later when the amount of gamers (particularly on PCs) has gone through the roof is hardly comparing like with like. Even if we were to ignore sources like CVG and say "well it's definitely no more important than Gears".. well that's a Mid, so where does Low come into it? I'm lost. Someoneanother 18:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I concede. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • Four links are not good:Dragon Magazine, Harvey Smith, Ultima (all dismabig) and Ultima Underworld (self redirect)
   • Never use '-' or '--' for punctuation, instead use an unspaced emdash (—). This includes quotations, since dashes are typography, not grammar.
   • The 'plot' section is a bit short. I will not hold it against the article in this review, but I will mention it...
   • Include conversions for imperial units. Many non-American, non-British readers will not understand what ' is, and this should be converted to metric (in square brackets if in a quote).
   • There is no mention in the prose of which platforms it was launched on. Even more seriously, the PSX and Windows Mobile ports are not covered.
   • Would it not be better to have a paragraph on Ultima Online: Stygian Abyss in the 'legacy' section. 'See also' section, while permitted, should be avoided when possible, especially when it is necessary to explain their relevance.
   • Similar with Arx Fatalis: why is it worth having a 'see also' section, when it is not in the 'legacy' section?
   • While the technical aspects of the game are discussed in the legacy section, I would also like to know how the game falls into the Ultima series. Except for briefly mentioning which game it follows chronologically, nothing is mentioned.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • 'Gameplay' is almost not, and 'plot' is entirely unreferenced.
   • If an entire paragraph is from a single source, it is sufficient to have a single ref at the end of the paragraph.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Could there not be uploaded a screen shot? This was a DOS game, so surely it must be a fairly simple task to get a screen short for it. While only one image is required for GA, I would highly recommend this.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am placing the game on hold. The article should pass once the matters have been resolved. Good work so far. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

   Great! Everything has been seen to, and I am passing the article. However, I noticed that the accessdates do not have years. Please fix this up (I am passing the article in good faith that this will be done, to save us all some time). Again, I would really encourage a screenshot, but as mentioned, the game cover is sufficient for the GA criteria. Do none of the authors actually have the game and a DOS emulator? Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks! I will take care of the problem with the accessdates as soon as possible (I have been using the "accessyear" code, but it looks like it doesn't work anymore). As for the screenshot, I do have the game, but I haven't been able to find time to take a good screen yet. I intend to take care of that shortly. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Underworld Adventures

There was once a quite active open source project which aimed to re-implement the engine of Ultima Underworld. It was quite playable but has been discontinued. Should it be mentioned in the article anyway? The link is here. --Darkstar (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• I did some Googling and I couldn't find any so-called "reliable sources" talking about it, so unfortunately, it can't be included in the article. Oh well. It's a shame it was cancelled—looks like it would have been really cool. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference material

I found these:

• Presley, Paul (June 1992). "Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss". PC Review (8). Pg. 38-42.
• Computer Shopper review
• LA Times review
• Possibly related PRNewswire article
• GameSpot list
• IGN list
• IGN list
• Weise, Matthew (March 21, 2011). "Looking Glass Studios Interview Series - Audio Podcast 2 - Dan Schmidt". Singapore-MIT GAMBIT Game Lab. Archived from the original on March 31, 2011.

I'll add more here as I find it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

recent changes

"a believable 3D world" makes sense, it certainly not a "realistic" world. A lot of the changes seem to have no purpose, and aren't accurate. The quote "required a bit of imagination to achieve suspension of disbelief" was replaced with made it difficult for the player to achieve suspension of disbelief. Better the original way. I'm changing it back. Discuss it here please. Dream Focus 23:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• There were too many quotes in the original, and I say that as the guy who wrote it. Quotefest articles are considered badly written and are impossible to get through FAC these days. I changed it to paraphrases instead, as I had to do with my more recent FAC Terra Nova: Strike Force Centauri. Unless you want to see this article at FARC for failing to meet 1a, such changes are necessary. I'm going to go ahead and revert back--I'm still in the middle of revamping this article a bit. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Changes

The "Release" section was added by the disruptive (and now blocked) editor User:Niemti back in November. There isn't enough material on the release of Underworld to warrant such a section--as I know, because I personally dug up the research material for this article. The information he added to the section that was not already present in the article is cruft. Who on earth cares what the advertisements for the game said? The same information could be included in any article, and it would be equally worthless.

In addition, the paragraph on ZIO Interactive belongs in the Legacy section, which (contrary to User:Dream Focus's claim) is where I placed it. If there was enough material to warrant a Release section, then the ZIO Interactive information could be included there--but there isn't enough information. Even Niemti placed a expansion tag on the section.

Finally, the line "required a bit of imagination to achieve suspension of disbelief" is absolutely not necessary to quote. It can be paraphrased easily, and it is regular FA practice to paraphrase quotes whenever possible.

In conclusion, I'm reverting back to my edits. Discuss here before changing them again. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• I should add that Niemti's excessive inclusion of credits in the infobox goes against Wikipedia quality standards. He's criticized for doing it on all of his articles. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

  The fact that the editor is blocked for 42 days, doesn't make every one of the thousands of edits he made over the years invalid. Looking at the edit history [2] it does look like you placed that one bit in the Reception section, so my mistake about that one bit. You changed the quote from "required a bit of imagination to achieve suspension of disbelief" to "made it difficult to suspend disbelief". That's two different things. How is a bit of imagination "difficult"? You made that change before and were reverted. You removed information from the infobox, such as the director of the game being Richard Garriott, the creator of the Ultima series. That should be there, along with the name of the writers, and the fact that Electronic Arts was the distributor. Dream Focus 17:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

  Niemti is an infamous troublemaker. In any case, I added the "somewhat" qualifier to make Neurath's meaning clearer. As for the infobox material, I have yet to see a single source for Electronic Arts being the game's distributor. If you can find a source, add the information back. If you must include Garriott as the director, do so--even though he had very little to do with the game. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

  Requiring a bit of imagination, and somewhat difficult, are still two different things. EA bought Origin in 1992, and most releases of the game came after that, so yeah, they were the distributor. And how do you know how much of a role Richard Garriott played in developing this game? And what about the writers? Why not list them in the infobox? Dream Focus 18:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

  A difficulty is an obstacle in the way of something. If immersion requires "a bit of imagination", then that's an obstacle and therefore a difficulty. I changed the wording again, though--see what you think. Anyway, Origin was purchased in September 1992, but Underworld was released in March 1992. Adding the writers seems like overkill, since the game's writing and writers weren't really singled out by historians or the press. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for //www.allgame.com/game.php?id=930&tab=review

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Source

• https://archive.org/details/pcgames-1993.01/page/20/mode/2up
• https://archive.org/details/PC_Review_Issue_8_1992-06_EMAP_Images_GB/page/n37/mode/2up
• https://archive.org/stream/Computer_Gaming_World_Issue_129#page/n203/mode/2up/
• https://web.archive.org/web/20160322190936/http://scans.roushimsx.com/CGSP_1998_05_pg068.jpg, https://web.archive.org/web/20160322202125/http://scans.roushimsx.com/CGSP_1998_05_pg069.jpg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Ultima Underwold-The Stygian Abyss.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

minor development history changes

I added a reference to a good panel discussion about the early history of texture mapping in games that talks about the the development of the UU texture mapper in a lot of detail.

I'm not sure whether it was Ned who contacted Paul or Paul who contacted Ned about texture mapping. He didn't contact me, I was Ned's employee. I'm not sure if we had ever met - maybe some time when he visited Ned. They were close friends.

This section could use something about the Blue Sky programmer's significant and complex engine for the game that traversed their own gridded-world data structure, figuring out which walls were occluded, etc and using that to generate a data stream for the byte-code interpreter of the Car&Driver engine. I think Doug Church wrote the bulk of that. That was probably hairier to write than the texture mapper. Car&Driver represented its maps with a static byte stream for the same interpreter created manually by using macros in MASM.

why were my changes reverted?

curious why my changes were reverted?

I thought in particular that the panel discussion of the texture mapping tech by its author was relevant. It even contains a slide showing a recreation of underworld's texture mapping source code.

Is there some wikipedia policy about not having people edit things about themselves? (I am Chris Green, the author of UU's texture mapping code)

Aachrisg (talk) 08:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC) aachrisg