Talk:Holocron:HoloProject Astrography

Other Regions

Raith, can you develop maps for the remaining Regions, like you have done for Deep Core,Core Worlds, and Colonies. We need to make a post on the forums alerting Sector,System, and Planet controllers to fill in the information, which will allow us to mainly focus on the regions. --Prard`aga Rono 07:38, 7 May 2014 (GMT)

I've a bit swamped from work till end of May. I intend to do the other Regions and create the sector pages as well. --Raith Starlight 01:14, 17 May 2014 (GMT)

Wild Space and Unknown Regions

The definitions of Wild Space and Unknown Regions are a bit fluid even in canon but I think we ought to redefine and reclassify Wild Space as sectors that haven't been explored yet. I had created a category, Category:Unexplored Sectors but it seems better to rename as Wild Space instead. For Unknown Regions, we can maintain it as systems without a sector like Huk and Csilla. Any opinions on this? --Raith Starlight 03:29, 19 April 2014 (GMT)

It does seem fitting for Wild Space to refer the Sectors that have yet to be explored. -- Prard`aga Rono 05:44, 19 April 2014 (GMT)

Sounds logical. I agree. -- Rupert Havok 07:58, 19 April 2014 (GMT)

I don't want to seem picky, but I am. ;-) The definition "unexplored sector" is not appropriate because who knows exactly whether a sector has been explored or not? Also, the fact that a sector appears as empty on the galactic map doesn't mean forcibly that it was not explored. People can explore sectors and find nothing. I would get rid of the idea that empty sectors are unexplored, but I don't understand the difference between "wild space" and "deep space". As for "unknown regions", the canon states one or more reasons why they are unknown, one of them being that strange and strong magnetic fields make it very difficult for instruments to navigate and detect space hazards. For this, I'd keep the "unknown regions" for the canon use. --Ruben Wan 13:53, 19 April 2014 (GMT)

Okay for the definition Wild Space, how about the sectors that were empty when system search was enabled back in Year 13? Since at the moment, the admins have set them as one of two locations where hidden systems could be. The other being systems that are homeworlds for races which could be in previously occupied sectors. That gives us a tighter definition and goes with the spirit of what Wild Space was in canon, ie the frontier of exploration. As for the difference between "wild space" and "deep space", I like to think of it as "wild space" being we don't know what's out there and "deep space" being we know nothing is there (ie interstellar void and the like).

As for Unknown Regions, I agree with the canon use and so far the canon use seems to be applicable to Csilla and Huk as they lie outside the "known galaxy" (ie the contiguous sectors). Originally the Admin Sector contained both systems but it seems the admins recently moved Csilla into its own sector --Raith Starlight 15:12, 19 April 2014 (GMT)

The definition of "Wild Space" does appear to be fluid, but I do like the proposal. What I would suggest is that we start with the Year 13 and say "Do we have an areas with more than two or more adjacent empty sectors?", then those areas are determined to be "Wild Space". -- Prard`aga Rono 02:57, 21 April 2014 (GMT)

How about we modify the language of the original proposal and just change the language to mean Sectors with no revealed systems. In this way, Wild Space becomes a "bucket" where we place all the Sectors that do not have systems that are not publicly visible. From a roleplaying perspective, this keeps the "frontier feel", as only those who have visited the area know for sure what exactly is located in that sector. When a System is discovered in the Sect, we simply move it into the proper region([[Outer Rim],etc.]) --- Prard`aga Rono 10:07, 27 June 2014 (GMT)

First I have to say I like a lot of the work you've put in to the astrography-related articles, Raith. But I must say I disagree with the idea put forth about lumping "Wild Space" with empty sectors. I agree that the terms "Unknown Regions" and "Wild Space" are somewhat fluid in canon as well, but there is plenty of material that also makes clear distinctions. The Unknown Regions are separated from the rest of the Galaxy by the hyperspace anomaly known as "The Tangle" which hindered attempts at exploration. Basically what made them unknown was that no-one from the eastern section of the Galaxy had been able to reach them and most Star Wars literature is oriented around the factions and individuals in the eastern part of the galactic disc. Other sources make it fairly clear that "Wild Space" is distinctly different from the Unknown Regions in the sense that it refers to fringe areas outside defined sectors, systems and spacelanes, basically "Unorganized territories" of a sort. It did not just refer to the area between sectors in the east and the Unknown Regions, but also areas beyond colonized and settled areas in the eastern part's outer rim sectors, like the far reaches of the Tingel Arm. I tend to see empty sectors as largely a result of the game mechanics and game development history adapting to new canon (or now legends, whatever.) Wedge Antillies said in Starfighters at Adumar "If you continue to map the Unknown Regions, you'll have to call them something else." I would think that would apply to Wild Space as well. I'd agree that "Unexplored" is not a term I'd use for the empty sectors. The fact that the empty sectors actually have names and defined borders says to me that they're not so much wild in the same sense as "Wild Space" but more... "Uncolonized." In honesty I am not sure exactly what sort of category I'd lump empty sectors in, but I think to call them "Wild Space" would be bending the definition a bit too far. --Alex Tylger 23:04, 28 June 2014 (GMT)

I agree with you Alex that Wild Space should be distinct. This brings us back to our original problem: How do we make Wild Space distinct? I suggest we consult Dreighton or Syn or someone who has access to the entire map to get a common sense solution to this. -- Prard`aga Rono 03:59, 4 August 2014 (GMT)

Okay might have something here:"Wild Space is not strictly a region, nor is it a government label.It is the name applied to the unsettled galactic fringe and any similar territory with negligible colonization or industrial development."(Essential Atlas). Again, I would still like to bring in Drei in on this to make an "executive decision" on this. -- Prard`aga Rono 04:12, 4 August 2014 (GMT)

After some discussion(see here:[[1]]), Gilbert Reed suggested the following requirements for a sector to be considered 'Wild Space' A) Not controlled by a Government Organisation(or a gov affiliate) b) Less than 100 mil total Pop c)Documented Exploration d) May be a Sector without publically-known Systems. I like this definition, because it maintains the "fluid flavor" of Wild Space as a place outside of direct government rule. A sector that is considered "Wild Space" can also be located within the territorial bounds of one of the static regions(example:Outer Rim Territories). I would advocate for this solution, as it is most fair and respectful of the canon definition. -- Prard`aga Rono 09:37, 19 August 2014 (GMT)

Additional pages for Astrography

I started a page about comets time ago, and one about asteroids some more time ago. They could be included in the Astrography, perhaps adding general pages on what a planet or a star is. My idea about this kind of pages is to keep the scientific text quite simple, but adding some colour by mentioning special planets or stars. For example, the page about Star could mention the only one blue star in the galaxy (Ota system), or the Hook Nebula six-star system. --Ruben Wan 13:53, 19 April 2014 (GMT)

This is a good idea, especially the idea of pointing out weird stars (six-star Hook Nebula and blue star). We definitely could use a generic article for all the suns (probably could include a reference to some famous people sunning themselves in the past). --Raith Starlight 15:12, 19 April 2014 (GMT)

This is kind of related to history but should we classify this period of system searching after Galaxy 2.0 (Year 13 - Present) as the Second Great Manifest Period in homage to the canon Great Manifest Period? This would allow us to aggregate information about the recently discovered systems along with events surrounding them. The backstory could be that the Bureau of Ships and Services collapsed at the end of the First Galactic Civil War (apparently Clone Wars of canon, if I'm not mistaken) so the mapping of the galaxy was brought out of sync. We can retcon the Galaxy 1.0 to 2.0 transition as the Bureau of Ships and Services being reformed and the mapping of the galaxy being restandardized once again. Due to the aforementioned war, there are gaps in the star charts which are designated as Wild Space so there is a rush to rediscover systems lost since the collapse of the Bureau. The rush to explore Wild Space could be tied to the tax planet changes (deflationary changes brought by lower labor supply as a result of the colonization efforts), Metamorphosis Virus and Great Animosity Plague (substandard sanitation brought by rush to colonize intensifying its spread). --Raith Starlight 15:12, 19 April 2014 (GMT)

Star System Pages in SWC Rules and in the Holocron wiki

I remember to have read somewhere in the wiki that the Holocron must not replace or clone the pages in the Rules as for systems, items, entities such as ships and vehicles... Rather the Holocron should expand or add special or specific information to that entity or system. What is the current rationale for creating new system pages on the Holocron? What should be done and should be avoided? Thanks in advance for your suggestions and ideas. --Ruben Wan 13:53, 19 April 2014 (GMT)

I'm also aware of that rule. So far, I've been adding only newly discovered systems so they fit a certain pattern (naming convention, basic infobox). I had intended to bug whoever discovered the system to add a blurb so it gets populated with more information but never could find the time. The reason for adding newly discovered systems is because they're still fresh in our minds so we'd remember who took part in them (ie slabbing, building or even fighting over a few of them) --Raith Starlight 15:12, 19 April 2014 (GMT)

The rules pages generally only contain a fairly broad RP description of the system and its entities (and often just from a pseudo-scientific perspective rather than a social one). Few of them mention actual factions or events that occurred in SWC. My thoughts are that the Holocron is the place to flesh that out, to describe any faction activities or notable events that took place in those regions of space, with those ships/entities, etc. For example, a rules page is unlikely to tell you if a system was first controlled by X and purchased by Y until Z took over two of the planets and turned them into enormous labor camps, and is widely used as a production depot for Coronas, but that would be nice IC information to store here. It's not really feasible to properly flesh out for every location in SWC since there are so many and not much has happened in most of them, but it provides a space for people to include that information for posterity. Someone who acquires a system and has an interest in RP will have a means of looking up the history of that system, if that information is provided, even if the history is simply that Faction A has controlled it for a decade and it has always been peaceful.. for now (who knows what may become a battlefield later?). And factions that actually want to create a thorough RP history for their systems and detail all sorts of imagined events that led to the current level of civilization or lack thereof have a place to do so. Realistically, though, most of these articles will remain stubs. --Syn 21:42, 29 June 2014 (GMT)