Forum:Beyond

Forums: Index > Watercooler > Beyond

Notes (2007)

I've been going through the Subsector category cleaning things up. I ran into this once before, but this time I found enough data to comprehend the extent of the problem.

In 1981 Paranoia Press released a supplement on Beyond sector. It has since been de-canonized. In 1991, DGP released a dot-map that is quite different. (Understandably so, the PP version is... oddly regular in a few places.)

So, we have a former-canon version with a fair amount of data, and a canon version with no data except a bunch of non-canon fan work. The web-fan work uses completely different subsector names, which means we have two different entries for the same location, with the Beyond Sector giving the PP names, and the other versions being effectively deadended (see Meizirn Subsector vs Mapepire Subsector and Alternate Beyond).

Thoughts? --Rindis 20:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I am hoping that this wiki eventually becomes an authority for both canon articles, and as a place where people can add their own non-canon content. If there is nothing else written for a location, then a piece of user non-canon creation hopefully can be picked up by various GMs and perhaps even eventually become canon.

This concept poses several problems, the first that you reference above, is that some previous information is over-ridden by subsequent cannon (one can imagine a GM adding non-cannon information for an already cannon location as well, though the reason for this would escape me). So we list the cannon information as primary, and add the non-cannon part as either a non-canon section to the original article, or as a meta page. Fairly simple until one tries to make a list of, say, subsectors. Where there is no cannon, then we might include the non-cannon beside the cannon, but where the cannon is contrary that is a good question. I would suggest listing it and marking it as non-canon, or again as a meta page from the original. So to continue the above one could have a page of subsectors, and a meta page of conflicting and/or non-canon subsectors, or just mark them on the complete list.

A more difficult question arises around bad non-cannon. (even the cannon can be bad in places). Let's say some industrious author goes about defining the Genfert Sector. Fine, list it as non-cannon and let it be. What if said author decides to put in Aslan colonies, three or four ring worlds, tech 18 civilizations? Do we simply mark it as non-canon and move on, or express concerns and list it as somewhat less than non-cannon? Perhaps there are less outrageous but still troubling data? Where would a line be drawn?

Dcorrin 21:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the particular problem I'm having here is that the current cannon doesn't define the names, so we have two non-canon names for different versions of the same place. Worse, the current setup orphans one version.

I've thought of the "bad fanfic" problem before. In a more active wiki, the solution is to let consensus rule. The community as a whole can draw it's own lines as to what works as extensions to the Traveller universe. But, right now, it's about five of us, not the general Traveller fanbase. Hopefully, that will be less true by the time the problem actually comes up. (Consensus should be aimed at "what would I be likely to let into my own campaign if/when I run one".)

For now, what I'm thinking is to make the current fan version the "official" page, as it is based on the one piece of known canon we have (the DGP dot-map and allegiance codes), and make a Paranoia Press sub-page. Visitors to the main Beyond Sector will be notified of the alternate version. That one can link to all the appropriate subsector articles, and the main one can link to all the (currently orphaned) appropriate articles. Then, I'll have to go in and fix the adjoining subsector links... and I'm not sure what to do about the fact that you won't be able to get to the alternate PP universe from there. --Rindis 21:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Arguably this is the worst of the decanoniszation overwrites. The other is the Domain of Gateway with Judges Guild vs Vilani & Vargr and Gateway to Destiny. The Vanguard Reaches Sector also has this problem.

When the Paranoia Press and the High Tortuga version of the Beyond were being entered, not much though was put into separating this data from the other non-canon version. The Beyond Sector has both versions of the sector maps, just the Paranoia Press version first (by virtue of being published first).

In previous discussions on this matter, the consensus was to include both (more data is better). And I never finished entering/verifying Peter Gray's version of the Sector.

This is a long way of saying "I have no idea". Should we pick one or the other as the only source of data (I'd say no, keep both)? And if both, how much effort should we put into separating the two datasets? Tjoneslo 21:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh good grief. I just now noticed that entire second entry for Beyond down there.

I'm fine with keeping both. I'd like to prioritize the Peter Gray version, as it does incorporate the one bit of canon we currently have. As far as separating the two, I'd be perfectly happy if we could merge a bunch of it and Meta-note the odd inconsistency, but with a completely different dot-map and interstellar nations, I don't know if we can do much of that here. --Rindis 04:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I would rather keep the Paranoia Press version as the primary. I have no logical reason for doing so, and have no arguments to convince you that it is a better choice. The Beyond article has both writeups because we couldn't decide the last time we had this discussion. Tjoneslo 04:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

We may have just had our decision made for us regarding the Beyond. On the Traveller TNE Yahoo mailing list, DED (David), who is both the mail list administrator and the host of Peter Gray's Beyond material, kicked Mr Gray off the Yahoo mail list. Apparently there was enough bad blood that DED also deleted all of Peter's stuff from his web site. Given how that situation played out, I'm not sure we want to get into the middle of that. Tjoneslo 18:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That does sound bad, and no, not particularly interested in getting caught up in drama. My main concern is that we do have a canon dot-map with allegiance codes, with no other real data, and a developed version that is no longer canon. If we had a more complete canon version, it would be clear, but as it is.... I guess we'll have to stick with status quo until someone publishes something. --Rindis 20:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Notes (2017)

Since the T5SS data has decanonized the Sunbane data, what if (instead of deleting the Sunbane subsector pages) we were to make a metadata page on each of the Beyond subsector pages, and place the Sunbane subsector-data page on the respective metadata page for the given T5SS subsector? (The same could be done for the Sunbane Vanguard Reaches as well).

• --WHULorigan (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2017 (EST)

---

That works. You could also create a /sunbane page too. Tjoneslo (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2017 (EST)

---

Sounds great to me too.

- Maksim-Smelchak (talk) 06:34, 16 February 2017 (EST)