Difference between revisions of "Forum:Northstar (world) vs. Northstar (system)"

From Traveller Wiki - Science-Fiction Adventure in the Far future
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 6: Line 6:
 
:The system was originally intended to detail all the planets in a system, as opposed to the single main world that a world article deals with.  
 
:The system was originally intended to detail all the planets in a system, as opposed to the single main world that a world article deals with.  
 
:For ring worlds one would might assume that there are no other worlds in the system in any case but that should not make much of a difference, there are several single world systems. If the UWP doesn't handle ringworlds then we need to either adjust the UWP, or use a different template. An asteroid belt is somewhat similar to a ringworld (a lot of settlements spread out in an entire orbit), so I think we should still use the (world) page. [[User:Dcorrin|Dcorrin]] 15:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 
:For ring worlds one would might assume that there are no other worlds in the system in any case but that should not make much of a difference, there are several single world systems. If the UWP doesn't handle ringworlds then we need to either adjust the UWP, or use a different template. An asteroid belt is somewhat similar to a ringworld (a lot of settlements spread out in an entire orbit), so I think we should still use the (world) page. [[User:Dcorrin|Dcorrin]] 15:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 +
 +
::'''Bottom line up front'''; adjust the UWP to include extremely large artificial inhabitable objects that orbit stellar bodies (ring worlds, dyson spheres, and the like) and then list the entry as a world. Start that world write up explaining the unique UWP.
 +
::The ring world is the system (if you go with the thought that all the material, minus stellar mass, within the system was used to create the ringworld)... that  sounds like its a push either way.
 +
::On the flip side... is there an instance where two worlds within a single system are significant enough to warrant separate entries? Kind of like Earth of the 1930's with its human content and that other "planet" with the advanced civilization that succeeded in over-running those scrawny humans (at least it seemed that way in that famous radio play).
 +
::How would rosettes be written up? ((Rosette 1 (world), Rosette 2 (world), Rosette 3 (world) etc.)) or would you use Rosette (sytem) and lump three or more planetary bodies into one entry. 
 +
::In my thoughts, I'd go with '''Northstar (world)''' because this wiki is currently structured for that kind of data to look at a single inhabitable spot within a stellar system. ''Northstar (system)'' implies that the data represents all of the "stuff" that orbits the stellar body or bodies (wonder if Northstar is a binary system now...too lazy to look.)
 +
::Large non-stellar bodies do present a unique challenge. Norhtstar with its large landmass and isolated areas with vastly different habitable zones (for each of the alien races within NITS) is just such a unique thing.--[[User:Sstefan|Sstefan]] 04:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:36, 15 February 2008

Forums: Index > Watercooler > Northstar (world) vs. Northstar (system)



In the Paranoia Press version of Beyond, the Northstar (world) is a ringworld. When I copied the data into the Wiki for this article, I decided that Northstar belongs as a Northstar (system) article, not a (world) article. The UWP doesn't handle ringworlds, or Dyson spheres, or other such weird structures. And the Ringworld isn't really a world. So I'm putting this up for discussion. Tjoneslo 02:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The system was originally intended to detail all the planets in a system, as opposed to the single main world that a world article deals with.
For ring worlds one would might assume that there are no other worlds in the system in any case but that should not make much of a difference, there are several single world systems. If the UWP doesn't handle ringworlds then we need to either adjust the UWP, or use a different template. An asteroid belt is somewhat similar to a ringworld (a lot of settlements spread out in an entire orbit), so I think we should still use the (world) page. Dcorrin 15:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Bottom line up front; adjust the UWP to include extremely large artificial inhabitable objects that orbit stellar bodies (ring worlds, dyson spheres, and the like) and then list the entry as a world. Start that world write up explaining the unique UWP.
The ring world is the system (if you go with the thought that all the material, minus stellar mass, within the system was used to create the ringworld)... that sounds like its a push either way.
On the flip side... is there an instance where two worlds within a single system are significant enough to warrant separate entries? Kind of like Earth of the 1930's with its human content and that other "planet" with the advanced civilization that succeeded in over-running those scrawny humans (at least it seemed that way in that famous radio play).
How would rosettes be written up? ((Rosette 1 (world), Rosette 2 (world), Rosette 3 (world) etc.)) or would you use Rosette (sytem) and lump three or more planetary bodies into one entry.
In my thoughts, I'd go with Northstar (world) because this wiki is currently structured for that kind of data to look at a single inhabitable spot within a stellar system. Northstar (system) implies that the data represents all of the "stuff" that orbits the stellar body or bodies (wonder if Northstar is a binary system now...too lazy to look.)
Large non-stellar bodies do present a unique challenge. Norhtstar with its large landmass and isolated areas with vastly different habitable zones (for each of the alien races within NITS) is just such a unique thing.--Sstefan 04:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)