[Invention] KGSS Continent Naming Committee

[HOC]

POST YOUR CONTINENT NAME SUGGESTION BELOW IN A REPLY. (Continents 1, 2, and 4)

I have been granted permission to decide, as fairly as possible, the names and locations of Kerbin\'s continents (and other relevant information) with the KSP community by the Kerbin Geographic And Science Society. Guess what? That\'s exactly what I\'m gonna do.

MISSION: To decide on names and locations of Kerbin\'s continents.

MISSION STATUS: 'Number of Continents?' Poll finished. 'Continents\' locations?' Poll initiated.

The Committee\'s Kerbin Map- Current Draft

This thread is quite simply the place to have your say on what Kerbin\'s continents are called, how many of them there are, and where they should be. We absolutely need your vote in all the polls you can enter into! By reading all this and not entering the poll you are giving up your say in what happens- as ultimately the poll shall have the final decision.

See what the current poll is voting for BELOW!

How \'it\' is going to work:

Based on replies to this forum and the results of previous polls, I shall propose an answer to the current decision-to-be-made for reasons x, y and z, which shall be displayed on the post below this one, and everybody shall vote whether they agree or disagree with it in the poll. This may include more than one proposal, and of course the option to disagree with them all will be present.

IMPORTANT: If you disagree with a proposal, let us know why in a reply! This way we can hope to spot trends in the opinions of the community and best prepare the next proposal to meet the majority of them. If we can\'t come to a decision after three or four new proposals a board of 10 chosen members shall be called upon to make the final decision in the particular matter.

Right, that\'s about it. With any luck it\'ll never get that far- but it\'s best to be as prepared as possible.

Now we need you to vote in the poll and reply stating your opinion on the current decision being made, thanks guys.

-HOC (Naming Committe leader)

[HOC]

SUGGEST CONTINENT NAMES

The last poll, including maps you may want to look at.

The results are in for the Kerbin CNC\'s first poll, with wonderfully constructive results. 53 unique members cast their votes over a 7 day period, and we have a tie (Six had one more vote) between having:

Five or Six continents.

I think the reasoning is fairly straightforward, we can see that Kerbin\'s surface lends itself toward five distinct landmasses. If one or two weren\'t so damned big it\'d likely have been a clear majority for 5 continents, I\'m guessing. So, I am going to move the poll onto our next topic which should ultimately solve the debate between having either 5 or 6 continents.

Where should these continents be?

I\'m proposing two suggestions for both five and six, and a third option (as you can see in the poll above- click your vote!) is 'none of the above'. If you have your own preference, click that. These proposals are based off of replies posted on this thread.

Without further ado:

This is my personal choice. The only thing I really have to note is the fact that both 'continent 2' and 'continent 3' are subject HIGHLY to polar stretching. This basically means that by making a 3d sphere into a 2d map the north and south poles become distorted slightly and therefore seem larger than they actually are. Also, the border between 'continent 4' and '5', while over land, is suitable as there is a mountain range in that area that acts as a convenient separator.

This second suggestion includes the addition of splitting 'continent 3' into two in order to create a sixth continent. This does divide up the land nicely, however my reasons against it are as follows. The border between 'continents 3 and 6' is over a large stretch of land (there is no convenient separator there) as opposed to the others bar one, and makes a sixth continent that\'s very small- especially in comparison to 'continent 2'.

EDIT: This proposal is a bad idea guys, there\'s I reason why I haven\'t chosen it. Take a look at map view in the KSP and you\'ll realise just how small 'continent 6' actually is, it\'s minuscule. I really don\'t think it is a good decision, but of course it\'s your decision what to vote for.

Just don\'t vote for this one.

Last thing, we can decide which continents the islands should be a part of in a later poll.

Vote above, reply below. Thanks guys.

Now, moving on.

Here\'s what I\'ve just posted about the current situation with the Continents.

\'Aight, I want to get this thread active again. Sorry about the super long wait.

After some discussion with togfox and a few others it\'s clear that the best thing to do now, seeing as we have nothing that remotely resembles a majority consensus for the first Continent Location poll, is to start the next poll.

Let\'s name some continents.

Now, this is presuming that we agree on Continents 1, 2, and 4? That majority seem to, so I\'ll continue as if they have been largely decided upon. This is the part where you guys reply with name suggestions for any one of those continents. A simple:

CONTINENT NUMBER:

NAME:

REASON:

...system shall suffice, I think. To clarify: If you want to suggest calling Continent 1 'Periculo', because it sounds cool, that\'s the info\' you\'d put in each appropriate field.

Hope that sorts some things out. I\'ll end the current poll when we have a good number of suggestions to vote upon. All this is, of course, subject to change.

Onwards! Reply, reply, reply! Last thing: Don\'t forgot to post your opinions on other people\'s suggestions, it helps us gauge the community\'s opinion. Thanks guys.

We need your suggestions. Reply with them below, and vote in the current poll if you haven\'t already done so above.

Thanks.

[MaverickSawyer]

Looking at the map provided, it seems to show five:

(all directions assume North is up)

The Africa-resembling region with the prime KSC (I\'m going to dub it the home continent for this post alone);

The large landmass west of the home continent, and north of the New Zealand like archipeligo;

The south polar landmass;

The landmass southeast of the home continent, across the land bridge;

And the area due east of the home continent.

However, the largest landmass could be split into two if there\'s a highly distinctive mountain range or canyon crossing the entire (or at the very least, about 80%) of the landmass.

Also, I am looking at the 'choke points' as the dividing lines between the continents at this point. We may find a geographic obstacle such as a non-cart passable ravine or mountain range that could be a much more effective dividing line. I\'ll throw together a craft and a plan to start searching for such geography, if there\'s not already a preferred means of doing so.

:cheers: and :hailprobe:!

[togfox]

Nice post. Well thought out with forethought. I\'ll just note this little line in the original KGSS post

Note: names are not canon and won\'t be recognised by Squad.

That means the community can do this for fun but no one is obliged to recognise what we do here.

With the formalities out of the way, I suggest six continents. Two in the top left. The large mass running from bottom centre to top right can be divided into four. I\'ve voted on the poll.

[khyron42]

It looks like there are distinct landmasses on both poles, but that may not be right. Can anyone do a north and south polar projection, to clarify just how the landmasses relate to each other near the poles?

[Radion]

I feel this is the best manner in which to divide them, based on my preferences for non-eyesore-ic lines, old roleplay borders, mountain chains, height differences, and general comparison to Earth\'s continents. There are 6 in total.

I had voted for 5, but later found that 6 were much more practical.

[ping111]

I feel this is the best manner in which to divide them, based on my preferences for non-eyesore-ic lines, old roleplay borders, mountain chains, height differences, and general comparison to Earth\'s continents. There are 6 in total.

I had voted for 5, but later found that 6 were much more practical.

Precisely the borders I wanted.

[togfox]

@Radion: Thats a good start. I think the big red continent and the yellow can be split into two. Definately the red one. Less hung up over the yellow one. Purple can be a continent but I see it more of a chain of islands belonging to the polar region. New Zealand (google it) is an island off Australia (google that too), which is also an island, but New Zealand is not large enough to be considered a continent (no offence).

[cardgame]

If you want to split up the red continent, here\'s a possibility:

Also great for naming.

[Radion]

@Radion: Thats a good start. I think the big red continent and the yellow can be split into two. Definately the red one. Less hung up over the yellow one. Purple can be a continent but I see it more of a chain of islands belonging to the polar region. New Zealand (google it) is an island off Australia (google that too), which is also an island, but New Zealand is not large enough to be considered a continent (no offence).

The Red continent is plagued by polar stretching and as such is much smaller than it appears to be. However, they yellow continent could be split up along a particular mountain chain.

Also, I know what Australia and New Zealand are, why tell me to Google it?

[togfox]

Hmm. I see. Granted, if you \'wrap\' the map around it wouldn\'t be that large at all. I can live with that. As for yellow, meh, split it, leave it. Doesn\'t matter. It is large but so what - nothing wrong with large. If there were a natural geological boundary then we could use that. I doubt a natural river or mountain range would split the yellow region adequately.

[Radion]

Hmm. I see. Granted, if you \'wrap\' the map around it wouldn\'t be that large at all. I can live with that. As for yellow, meh, split it, leave it. Doesn\'t matter. It is large but so what - nothing wrong with large. If there were a natural geological boundary then we could use that. I doubt a natural river or mountain range would split the yellow region adequately.

There\'s a mountain range that covers around 75% of the distance between to water bodies that would effectively divide the continent as follows -

[togfox]

Really? Neat. I checked the terrain map. I assume you\'re referring to the range below the tentative name of touchdown valley.

That will work. Lets see what others think.

If anyone has the skills, it might be useful to take the terrain map above and overlay proposed boundaries in a partially transparent colour so we can see boundaries in relation to mountain ranges.

[cardgame]

I\'m afraid I don\'t have time to do that tonight or anytime soon, sorry.

off topic: hehe, my previous nation follows the coastline heightmap almost perfectly, just as planned.

[Zephram Kerman]

I see nine. But that\'s just me.

Continents are different from nations. A continent has no clear boundary. ('Is our village in northern Eurasia or southwestern Siberia?' 'Which one gets more rain?') So while I\'m very happy to see the places labelled, I don\'t think the boundaries should be drawn at all.

[dylan1234]

I feel this is the best manner in which to divide them, based on my preferences for non-eyesore-ic lines, old roleplay borders, mountain chains, height differences, and general comparison to Earth\'s continents. There are 6 in total.

I had voted for 5, but later found that 6 were much more practical.

I voted for six

[togfox]

I agree that continents don\'t need boundaries. They serve no purpose. Who cares if the boundary is this side or that side of a mountain range. Once we decide on the number of continents and general locale, we should not attempt to draw boundaries - or to remove them from the final map.

[dylan1234]

I agree that continents don\'t need boundaries. They serve no purpose. Who cares if the boundary is this side or that side of a mountain range. Once we decide on the number of continents and general locale, we should not attempt to draw boundaries - or to remove them from the final map.

Why not boundrys I want them waaahh :\'( :\'(

[HOC]

Woah, a lot of very quick replies. Nice.

While I don\'t disagree that the continents shouldn\'t have specific boundaries, I still think that we should at least do some slight colour changes on the map to indicate their rough location. If we had no visual reference as to their boundaries, it won\'t be obvious which continents a lot of islands on Kerbin fall under.

Perhaps just different, subtle, shades of green. That way things aren\'t too \'set in stone\', and yet we shouldn\'t have the above problem.

Finally, I\'m currently leaning towards Radion\'s suggestion for the continent locations. That mountain range seems too perfect to pass up and I\'m fine with all the other locations.

[CarolRawley]

Sorry to break up the discussion, but there was already a thread about this floating around. I\'ll grab the link if I can find it.

It was dedicated to finding the tallest mountain, naming it, deciding borders, naming oceans, etc.

[dylan1234]

Woah, a lot of very quick replies. Nice.

While I don\'t disagree that the continents shouldn\'t have specific boundaries, I still think that we should at least do some slight colour changes on the map to indicate their rough location. If we had no visual reference as to their boundaries, it won\'t be obvious which continents a lot of islands on Kerbin fall under.

Perhaps just different, subtle, shades of green. That way things aren\'t too \'set in stone\', and yet we shouldn\'t have the above problem.

Finally, I\'m currently leaning towards Radion\'s suggestion for the continent locations. That mountain range seems too perfect to pass up and I\'m fine with all the other locations.

good idea

[dylan1234]

Sorry to break up the discussion, but there was already a thread about this floating around. I\'ll grab the link if I can find it.

It was dedicated to finding the tallest mountain, naming it, deciding borders, naming oceans, etc.

Try this then

[CarolRawley]

Well, it appears that the General Discussion board was purged a while ago, and the old thread was lost. We truly had a thing going, but oh well. No familiar places for the veterans.

[Rich]

You mean this one? http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=11388.0, it was also moved to the fan fiction forum.

These threads focus on different aspects, one focuses on features and the other on continents. The KGSS encourages all threads which aim to promote geographic and scientific endeavours.

[Commander Zoom]

IMO, continents do need specific boundaries.

We are fortunate here on Earth that most continents are (presently, at this moment in geologic time) isolated or connected to others only by thin isthmuses (sp?). A notable exception is Eurasia, which is usually divided along mountain ranges (the Urals and/or the Himalayas.) So for us, it\'s almost a non-issue.

Kerbin, however, is highly connected and the continents and regions are much more subject to interpretation. Consider that the OP needs/includes a poll!

So yes, if we\'re going to define these things, they need to be defined.