Talk:Nchak
Quarter size and geometry
I can't find any source that states that Nchak's diameter (not to be confused with size, which usually means mass) is a quarter that of Golarion. If its density is roughly similar to that of Golarion (which does seem to be the case, seeing how it's described as rocky), and its diameter is a quarter that of Golarion, then its mass would have to be 1/64 times (1/4 raised to the power of 3) that of Golarion. - HTD (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- OK, I'll bite to avoid furthering the edit war: let's agree here what we should have in the infobox and then publish that text. For now, I am blanking the fields. Your new 'diameter' field is different from the '½' you put in under diameter first time round that I reverted as your explanation above did not relate to why '½' was added. No explanation is given for the splurge of characters currently in the infobox for diameter either, bar 'quarter size not quarter diameter'. If I look at the markup in edit mode, I think it is supposed to signify one over the cubed root of four (0.63). It is unreadable, though, so we do need a better way of displaying the data.
- All we have in the original text is 'On the hive moon of Nchak, roughly a quarter the size of Golarion,...' With just that, I'd be happy with having 'roughly a quarter the size of Golarion' in the diameter field. I'd agree that improves on the lack of clarity of the original raw '¼'. Alternatively, we could use a decimal number, so 'x 0.63', if we equate size to volume and quarter it, like you've done second time round, and which is perfectly reasonable; we should add a footnote to explain why.
- By the way, size is not mass, which I don't think we can say much about without making assumptions, so I suggest we leave that field blank.
- OK? --Fleanetha (talk) 09:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- That's intended to be the cube root of 1/4, yes. It does display mostly properly for me (except that the bar above the 4 does not touch the radical sign, which looks like an issue with the font) and I have no preference on whether to display it as-is or as a decimal number. I don't think there's a source for the mass, so I guess that field should be left blank. - HTD (talk) 10:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)