User talk:Revanche/Archive 2017

Award

I also spotted that you hit the 8000 edit mark and I can't believe you don't already have this award so I'm presenting it to you now Long overdue I think! - Dark Jaguar (talk) 04:57, 13 June 2017 (EDT)

LOL! You're awesome. Thanks so much, DJ. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:13, 13 June 2017 (EDT)

Edits

Hi Rev - I just wanted to say it's really nice to see your name cropping up in the recent edits again. Makes the wiki feel more like home again! Hope you're keeping well. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 07:51, 29 July 2017 (EDT)

Thanks, man. I'm using BTW to distract myself from my thesis research/writing. So far, it's working perfectly. ;) --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:03, 29 July 2017 (EDT)

How are you doing?

Hi Rev, I got your PM via my email address but I could not enter the CBT forums to reply, 504 error apparently. I am well, thank you for asking. I have not updated the coordinates list since the release of the Touring the Stars books as I've focused on RL stuff and have not made any new BT-related book purchase since McEvedy's Folly I think. As such I don't know if there are any new maps released or historical data on worlds that are usually written in the Touring the Stars books. I don't know if I'll be coming back to CBT anytime soon to update the cartography data because I don't have new reference documents to work with.-Volt

Volt, can we talk via email? If so, click on 'Email this user' in the sidebar (when you're on my page). --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:15, 29 July 2017 (EDT)

I can't seem to find the 'Email this User' link so I made a burner email address instead. You can email me initially at volt.kva@gmail.com, sorry for the hassle -Volt

Got it; maybe we can chat there. OTW. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:37, 29 July 2017 (EDT)

Astronomical Features

Hi Rev, I appreciate what you're doing with Category:Astronomical Features vs. Category:Planets (which should really be Category:Systems!). However, there are two distinct instances I'd like to raise with you:

• Cygnus X-1 is not an astronomical feature, it is quite clearly a binary star system (blue supergiant & black hole) and thus belongs into the planets/systems category, not the Astronomical Features category imho.
• The Dark Nebula, Erit Cluster and Camelot Command are one big mess:
  • I agree with you that the Dark Nebula is an AF, not a system or planet; however, in fiction it is unfortunately oftentimes treated as the system where Camelot Command is located. The most prominent example I can think of is Operation ICE STORM (novel) part 2, where the epigraph of the climax chapters is captioned as "Fredasa-class WarShip Whelp, Dark Nebula" (at the jump point of the system containing Camelot Command) and later "Camelot Command Ops Center, Dark Nebula, Clan Ice Hellion Occupation Zone". This, to me, suggests that "Dark Nebula" may arguably refer to not only to the nebula, but also to the specific system therein with Camelot Command in it.
  • The Erit Cluster was determined to be a cluster within the Dark Nebula by means of exclusion - it is the only possible location, but this was never explicitly confirmed. The question is, how do we treat clusters - should they be "super-systems" with a defined middle point (c.f. Flannagan's Nebula which is the poster child for essentially one really big multi-star system) or should be track individual sun systems within such connected systems? What about regular clusters that are just a bunch of individual but very close star systems?
  • Finally, Camelot Command. Technically, it's a SLDF ship maintenance yard. The term can, however, also be applied to the hollowed-out asteroid that encompasses the facility, and then via established canonical BattleTech terminology it could even be applied to the entire system it is in (which is otherwise unnamed, even explicitly described as "unnamed" in some canonical source I can't find right now, and as mentioned above apparently also wrongly referred to as Dark Nebula).

I'm travelling with little if any internet access for the upcoming week, so I'll leave you guys with that to ponder for now. :) Frabby (talk) 06:18, 12 August 2017 (EDT)

• Cygnus X-1: you're right; I focused in on the black hole, disregarding the star. I'll fix that now.
• Dark Nebula: I'll wait to make any changes/revisions until consensus is reached, but I think this can be resolved with a note and disambiguations. One page will refer to the typical stub article about the nebula, while the other will re-direct to Camelot Command (with the appropriate note indicating why). In fact, I'd use those exact examples as citations (page numbers would be helpful).
• Erit Cluster: my issue with the use of the word 'cluster' is the real-world scientific definition: clusters are noted for having hundreds of stars (open), and upwards of thousands or more (globular). What TPTB describe here is a system with (from the article): "at least seventeen pulsars and numerous red and white dwarf stars". My first instinct is that we're talking about an extremely small cluster, as a mis-use of the term; however, in hindsight, that's probably on me: there's nothing indicating there couldn't be well over 100 total stars. In that case, it's definitely not a "super-system" as all of the hundred+ stars would not be orbiting a singular barycenter. So, from that conclusion, I'd argue the Erit Cluster is indeed intended to be an actual cluster (probably an open one) and that Drovahchein II should be broken out as a system article. (Will await consensus, before being bold.)
• Flannagan's Nebula: wasn't there a productive discussion some where about this? As I seem to recall reading, a good argument was made that the depicted systems were most accurately thought of as an embedded graphic of a multiple-star system within the nebula. In lieu of a definitive statement by TPTB, I think a noted decision on the relevant articles (Flannagan's Nebula, Jamestown, Ishtar, and Samantha) should be added. (Really wish I could find that discussion; I liked how it defined the coordinates as the only likely means to jump into the overall system and then use thrust to reach the individual planets.) (Will await consensus, before being bold.)
• Camelot Command: as above (Dark Nebula). The article should be named 'Camelot Command', referencing the system and the primary inhabited body (be it an asteroid or asteroid-covered maintenance yard). It's not a bad idea for us to make a decision in lieu of an official determination, as long as we note it as such. In fact, doing so may invoke Cunningham's Law, which would be a good thing. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:21, 12 August 2017 (EDT)

Looks like I worded my comments poorly (tends to happen when I'm in a rush - sorry). To elaborate, we're not told just how many systems the Erit Cluster encompasses; but no such cluster nor any of the named systems therein (Drovachein II, Drune?) is mentioned anywhere on any map, which leaves only the Dark Nebula as its possible location. The conclusion is that the Erit cluster is within, and/or a part of, the "largely unexplored" Dark Nebula - probably the explored part of it. And it is the Dark Nebula that was described as including "at least 17 pulsars and numerous red and white dwarfs", not the Erit cluster. About Flannagan's Nebula, its nature was discussed on the HBS forum. A search should get you to the thread. Frabby (talk) 09:32, 12 August 2017 (EDT)

PS Very glad to have you back as an active editor. I can already see how you're making me work harder on Sarna! ;) Frabby (talk) 09:32, 12 August 2017 (EDT)

Aaah, I see now. The ambiguity of the cluster's location also leaves you in doubt regarding the make-up of the nebula (in which it could be located). To be fair, I think your conclusions are good: with no evidence to counter, it does appear the only location for the cluster is within the nebula, and I don't see why the "at least 17 pulsars and numerous red and white dwarfs" cannot also describe the make-up of the cluster (if it is co-located). There's nothing mutually exclusive stated. I like it, and I want to say, "Until indicated otherwise, Sarna's perspective is the cluster resides within the nebula". Any issue with me making article changes to support that now?

I'll look on HBS; thank you. I think I'll import that discussion to Flannagan's Nebula, so we can make a decision. And as for being back: Sarna is a great way to avoid my thesis work. Challenging you: while I enjoy the collaboration, I don't intend to make it challenging. If it results in a better process, ok then, but apologies otherwise, mate. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:57, 12 August 2017 (EDT)

Regarding Camelot Command, I've been careful to use the phrase "planet or habitable construct" in the planets articles, as we can't be certain in a lot of cases if they were actual planets, or domed communities (Sirius), stations (Gulf Breeze) or even just notable fixed spacecraft (Rest Stop). I'd say that on that basis, Camelot Command should have its own article, like a planet. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2017 (EDT)

Legacy Anthology

Hi Rev, I rolled back your rollback of the IP edit to the Legacy anthology - because that was editor Phil Lee himself, who had also emailed me about it, pointing out that the summary of the last story's (epilogue's) contents was against our own Policy:Moratorium and also a bit of a spoiler. I therefore suggest to leave the summaries out of the article, at least until I go back after the moratorium period and provide summaries for all stories therein. Frabby (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2017 (EDT)

Gotcha. Thanks, Frabby. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:12, 20 September 2017 (EDT)