Talk:Luna-Mars Trade

I mirrored the Lunarpedia article as a starting point. Would it be better to create a separate article in each Wiki, or one shared article between the two?--Nate 00:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the mirroring good for? As far as I understand, the content shall only be edited on Lunarpedia, and then be copied to Marspedia, keeping the contents identical. What is the advantage over a simple interwiki link, e.g. lunarp:Luna-Mars Trade? -- Rfc 19:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, seemed like a good idea at the time. It would be easier, I suppose, to do it that way. The downside is that any hyperlinks will only direct to the Lunarpedia versions of pages. It also is another step for the user to follow. I am open to the idea though.--Nate 00:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Keeping and maintaining two pages is more work than having just one of the pages. Moreover, there is the risk of inconsistency. What about the following idea: We can have an article Interplanetary trade on Marspedia that deals with interplanetary trade from the Martian viewpoint. This article will have a paragraph Luna-Mars Trade. On the other side we can have an article Interplanetary trade on Lunarpedia that deals with interplanetary trade from the Lunar viewpoint. Also, this article will have a paragraph Luna-Mars Trade. More paragraphs could deal with Venusian and Jupiter Moon trade, etc. Of course, the two articles should be linked to each other. I think, the articles will differ heavily, also for example, the Martian landing details will be only on Marspedia, whereas the Lunar space access will be described on Lunarpedia more detailed. What do you think? -- Rfc 16:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Those ideas sound good. I will work on organizing the "business" stuff. How does this outline look?:

• Commerce

• Interplanetary commerce - Already exists (though most content is earth-mars near term concepts)

• Venus-Mars Trade
• Earth-Mars Trade
• Luna-Mars Trade - Already exists, but mirrored from lunarp, and lunar-centered.
• Jovian Moon-Mars Trade

• Inter-settlement commerce
• Intra-settlement commerce

--Nate 17:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Great!!! You are full of good ideas. -- Rfc 19:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• In looking over the history of "Luna-Mars Trade" I get the idea that I may be editing to cross purpose of others. Comments?--Farred 18:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Farred, I am not sure about the meaning of "cross purpose", but I think you are somehow upset about others editing only one of the two articles, either on Marspedia or on Lunarpedia. To be honest, I think the maintenance of two identical articles makes no sense. As I explained above, there is a number disadvantages. Moreover, the angle of view is different. I should like to suggest that we write the Marspedia article strictly from the Martian point of view, and the Lunarpedia article from the Lunar point of view. For example, the atmospheric details and Martian landing and lifting methods are best described in Marspedia, while the Lunar space access technology is best placed in a Lunarpedia article. Generally, the trade article should be about trade, while there are other articles about the space access technology already. How about moving all that space access stuff out of the trade article and into the respective technology article? -- Rfc 20:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• I was not angered by anyone else's editing. I merely had difficulty understanding what was desired. I try to conform to style and organization conventions within the limits of my skill and knowledge, though I can get careless with eagerness on occassion. If you can set the article right, feel free. The time that I can devote to such things comes in irregular clumps.--Farred 19:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Farred, actually there is nothing particular desired. We all here are at the very start of Marspedia, still. My thoughts about the maintenance of two identical articles are only my personal opinion. I am very happy about the work of every team member. Every person and every view is important for such a great task. I am just interested to find the best way of doing it, that's why I am taking part the discussion. Can you explain a little about the intention of maintaining two identical articles? Maybe I missed your point. -- Rfc 12:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• I was not actually determined to keep two identical articles on two web sites. The expand section template seemed to give the impression that an important consideration making Luna-Mars Trade practical was lacking. Having two articles is fine. Having one that gives a false impression that an idea I suggested is incomplete seems inferior.--Farred 22:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)