Forum:Northstar (world) vs. Northstar (system)

From Traveller Wiki - Science-Fiction Adventure in the Far future
Revision as of 18:51, 15 February 2008 by Dcorrin (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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)
For a Rosette or other multi-world system, only the main world would have the writeup under the (world) designation. A technical pet peeve of mine that I am sure I have listed elsewhere, according to the rules* there cannot be more than one A or B starport planet in a system, even when distant stellar companions means that one would have to jump to get to other planets in reasonable time. Dcorrin 22:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
*"The main world within a system is the single most important planet or satellite in the system. most often the world with the greatest population, the dominant local government type, and the star system’s starport." MT referee's guide (because it is handy) note the singular on starport.