Editing Category talk:Realistic add-ons

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

Latest revision Your text
Line 2: Line 2:
 
The name is open ended and the content type confusing. It should be deleted and replaced by two categories: - ''Real'' and ''Ficticious but possible with today's technology'' - obviously the names will need tweaking. --[[User:GW Simulations|GW_Simulations]] 19:42, 18 March 2006 (MSK)
 
The name is open ended and the content type confusing. It should be deleted and replaced by two categories: - ''Real'' and ''Ficticious but possible with today's technology'' - obviously the names will need tweaking. --[[User:GW Simulations|GW_Simulations]] 19:42, 18 March 2006 (MSK)
  
:I disagree, I don't think there's a need to differentiate between, say, Soyuz TMA and Hotol on the basis that one was never built. Realisitc should be defined in its header as meaning realisitc with today's technology, though, not realistic if you presume carbon nano-tubes can be made that are 30,000km long, etc. --[[User:BadWolf|BadWolf]] 20:32, 18 March 2006 (MSK)
 
  
 +
----
  
 +
I disagree, I don't think there's a need to differentiate between, say, Soyuz TMA and Hotol on the basis that one was never built. Realisitc should be defined in its header as meaning realisitc with today's technology, though, not realistic if you presume carbon nano-tubes can be made that are 30,000km long, etc.
  
:I disagree too, realistic addons is a valid category. Realistic should be understood as realistic because it was already build or can be build based on todays experience. A good indicator would be the time it is planned to get into service. If this date is further in the future than 10 years, the designers have more Unk-Unks than known unknowns to solve.
+
--[[User:BadWolf|BadWolf]] 20:32, 18 March 2006 (MSK)
 
+
----
:Also, i would like to discourage from too many good-intended deletion nominations. We only have very few articles yet. Please try to limit delete requests only to articles, which are not related to orbiter or categories, which are not fitting into the current category layout.--[[User:Urwumpe|Urwumpe]] 22:45, 18 March 2006 (MSK)
 
 
 
I think we have too many categories for the number of addons on the system, a rationalisation is what I'm trying to achieve by supporting the removal of realistic futuristic addons, and not supporting the splitting of the realistic category into two.
 
 
 
Shouldn't realistic not be based on dates, but on technology? Remember nuclear fusion is 50 years away. As it has been for the last 50 years. Date predictions are unreliable.
 
 
 
Can we build it now? --> realistic
 
 
 
Can we build it in five years? --> no realism category
 
 
 
Is it obviously bollocks? --> Sci-Fi
 
 
 
IMO.
 
 
 
--[[User:BadWolf|BadWolf]] 02:59, 19 March 2006 (MSK)
 
 
 
***Ok.  --[[User:GW Simulations|GW_Simulations]] 21:49, 20 March 2006 (MSK)
 

Please note that all contributions to OrbiterWiki are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 (see OrbiterWiki:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following hCaptcha:

Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)