Category talk:Special Astronomical Features

Definition

I think this category's definition needs to be re-worded. I remember something distinctly different but cannot find the discussion we had. In short, I thought this category should encompass "anything on the starmaps that isn't a system in the classic sense", mainly nebulas (nebulae?). Cygnus-X1, for example, is a pretty normal system as neutron star-black hole binaries go. It shouldn't be in this category. Systems with multiple suns are nothing extraordinary, though come to think of it we might start subcategories for binary, trinary, etc. star systems. But that's another question. Frabby (talk) 15:32, 13 November 2020 (EST)

I agree that it should be revisited, though I am less firm on what it should look like. I found this discussion because I was going to put Pleiades Cluster in here, but the definition prohibits.--Talvin (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2022 (EDT)

Talvin, I concur as well. I am admittedly a bit of an outsider to the in-unverse astronomial lore, but I concur that precise definitions are key to categorization. Either the definition or name (or both) may need to be reveiwed. Some starting questions for discussion:

1) Does this need to be mutually exclusive from other astronomical/system categories? or can it overlap?

2) Related to point 1, is being uninhabited a critical feature of being an astronomial feature? (I personally would think not, as the term simply suggests something interesting about the astronomy. The presence or absence of colonies (or anything manmade) would seem to be something independent in my book.)

3) Is there an explicit list (or at least a partial list) of features that could serve as a helpful set of examples? (The current definiton seems to delineate nebulae, star clusters, and black holes as items definitely belonging to the category. Is there anything else?)

4) Are there any helpful anti-examples? Are there things that would clearly disqualify something as belonging to this category?

Talvin, given your perusal of much of the planet and system articles, I suspect you are starting to develop an interesting birds-eye view. So please share any insights that have arisen from that perusal process. --Dude RB (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2022 (EDT)

My perusal has been almost entirely category-focused, and for the last 48 hours or so almost entirely focused on "Damage Control", sad to say. This one just jumped at me as "odd". The person I normally defer to on such matters is a serious Astronomy Nerd (familiarly respectful form of that appellation) but she is dealing with RL stuff and not available right now. All I have is *questions*. :D --Talvin (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2022 (EDT)

I saw the various notes regarding the replace tool issues with systems and planets. I hope that is working out even after the added time for damage control.

I am in the 'adding questions' group too, but I will share two thoughts. i) It is currently unclear to me how much of modern astronomy explicitly appears in the BattleTech literature. (I am sure some things (quite wisely) are left implicit in the literature both to reduce the potential for technical gaffes and to focus on narrative/world building.) I surmise that Sarna will need to stick with the level of detail or simplification as it is actually expressed in BattleTech literature. So a `BattleTech astronomy' expert will actually have to have some base astronomical knowledge but also a good BattleTech literature knowledge. The latter may be the more critical element. ii) I will drop Frabby a note and see if he can elaboarate on his original note. --Dude RB (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2022 (EDT)

Dude RB raises all the relevant questions. In fact, I think we're all on the same page here (figuratively as well as literally...) and I think I have a good idea for a proper definition of Astronomical Features: "Anything on the star map that isn't a system." And the definition of system in turn should be along the lines of "A single sun, planetary system (sun with planets) or star system (multiple suns with or without planets) that is considered a single stellar object in astronavigational terms, to the point where travel across the entire system is possible without the use of a Kearny-Fuchida jump drive, and which is accordingly mapped as a single item on political maps."

I think that nails it. Thoughts? Frabby (talk) 03:45, 5 July 2022 (EDT)

Addendum I: For the purpose of the "system" definition, black holes and neutron stars would be considered "suns" as well as they would have standard jump points just like regular suns.

Addendum II: The only reason why "not having standard zenith and nadir jump points" is not a suitable definition is that suns without planets and multiple-sun star systems do not have standard zenith and nadir jump points, for lack of a proper accretion disk.

Addendum III: The Category:Systems should be linked from the Astronomical Features category page, but it would be going against our own definition if we made it a subcategory so I'm advising against that for dogmatic reasons.

Once you have the definition down/updated, I submit "Non-system Astronomical Features" or "Non-standard Astronomical Features". Wikipedia's apparent category is a bit too vague: "Concepts in astronomy". The term should immediately serve to make the category stand-out without requiring a definition as a title. Let your actual category description do the heavy (i.e. precise) lifting. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:40, 5 July 2022 (EDT)

I think I see what you mean, but it appears to be unworkable as I can’t come up with a good name.

So, plan B: Retain "Astronomical Features" but make Category:Systems a subcatecory. That wiuld also allow us create further subcategories down the line if required. The definitions would have to be adjusted to explain why Systems are their own subcategory, but aside from that things wouldn’t change much. Frabby (talk) 16:07, 5 July 2022 (EDT)

Where does Category:Planets fit?--Talvin (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2022 (EDT)

Honestly, it doesn’t belong here at all. Systems is the smallest item of astrological relevance for the purpose of BT starmaps. Frabby (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2022 (EDT)

Thanks for the thoughts. FYI: This also ties to the definitions of system over at Category:Systems and Category talk:Systems. Frabby, I like some aspects of the definition you have for classical system. Below is a merge of what you mentioned along with the definition currently at Category:Systems.

In BattleTech, a system denotes the region of space surrounding a specific star or star system plus any orbiting non-stellar objects (e.g., planets, asteroids, space stations) that is treated as a single stellar destination in astronavigational terms, i.e., travel across a system is considered practical without a Kearny-Fuchida jump drive. A system is accordingly represented as a single point on political starmaps. Note: A system's name may, and often does, differ from the name of the star itself. See Jump Point for further details regarding jump destinations.

Some further notes: 1) For an interesting Wikipedia resources see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_object#Categories_by_location. 2)Star clusters and nebulae are too big be considered star systems (and thus not a system in the above sense. A black hole however could be considered a star or part of a star system. So a black hole would not seem to disqualify something from being a classic system. --Dude RB (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2022 (EDT)

Some thoughts regarding categories.

"Astronomical Objects" would serve as a category of categories, so categories like systems, planets, moons, would all fall as a subcategory of this. (but this might not be wanted)

If we want to focus on star maps and astronavigation, then perhaps "Astronavigation Points of Interest" or "Starmap Points of Interest" would be the master category, with 'Systems' being a subcategory.

Sharing ideas, please feel free to add, revise. comment. --Dude RB (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2022 (EDT)

I am not entierly why we would need "Astronavigation Points of Interest" or "Starmap Points of Interest" or even to redesignate this category as a metacategory, when I created Category:Stellar Cartography back in january to serves EXACTLY the purpose you are proposing.--Dmon (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2022 (EDT)

I think you guys are overthinking this quite a lot, think about how much info we have about the BT universe from a genuine scientific view. BT is very light on detail most of the time. What I have been working towards for roughly the last year or so is to have a category tree built around Category:Universe Regions > Category:Republic of the Sphere Regions > Region related category (yet to be implimented) > Category:Systems > Category:Planets & Category:Moons > Category:Places (thinking that planetary locations might be better) > Category:Continents. and then split out to cities, academies manufacturing sites etc. This is meant to be a top to bottom location based tree.--Dmon (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2022 (EDT)

Thank you for clarifying that. I am someone who tends to be very skeptical of Category Abuse (as you know), but this makes much more sense now that you have spelled it out. --Talvin (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2022 (EDT)

Dmon, thanks for your notes. Is there a page where the category tree stucture you mentioned is shared/explained? I think one of the issues is that those navigating into (or editing within) these categories have a limited picture of the definition/purpose of the category. Then different interpretations multiply (as each makes their best guess as to what is intended) and inconsistencies grow. A brief overview page, to which each category page could link for an overview of the category structure, would be helpful. --Dude RB (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2022 (EDT)

Suggestion: Category: Stellar Cartography Tree. A meta-category that is *only* for categories in that tree that explains what this all *is*. No articles should be categorized to it. And from that example, consider other "Tree" metas to help bring some sense to it all. Because yes, it is all just oral tradition. (I am also a big Not-a-Fan of the Oral Traditions around here...you can get three different versions of the same Consensus and a link to none of them.)--Talvin (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2022 (EDT)

Addendum: good place to use the Family Tree template to show how they all relate.--Talvin (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2022 (EDT)

The classifcation page could simply be given the category Category: Stellar Cartography if the latter is the master category. Also for an example in terms of purpose (but not necessarily format), see Product Type Classification Tree. The tree structure is much more `regular' for stellar cartography (and perhaps involves deeper trees) so a different way of expressing the summary may make more sense. But I think the purpose is similar. --Dude RB. 21:29, 5 July 2022 (EDT)

I did some rough article trees using the family tree template about a year ago that show how articles could intergrate with wikiprojects and categories, even the new generation of infobox with the colored headers where intended to create a subject based color coding system but got no real feed back from people when I posted about it so it has been a semi-abandoned idea. User:Dmon/Article Trees, very rough but it should give an idea of what I was thinking to include in project pages about various category structures.--Dmon (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2022 (EDT)

Dmon, thanks for the links. I have created a page called Cartography Classification Tree. This reflects the current category structure, but I have only included depth one subcategories (counting a master categroy as depth zero). I realize that continents, cities, and those things would not be properly considered part of stellar cartography, so there really is two master categories, Category: Stellar Cartography amd Category:Places (for planetary cartography). The classification page may be a proper place for some of the discussions needed. This is simply a start. There may need to a lot of addition and revision to this (with definitions added), but it provides an easier way to visualize the whole category tree itself in a single view.

Talvin, affirming your point about the pitfalls of relying too much on oral tradition, I think this may provide more durable documentation than the "oral tradition" route. --Dude RB (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2022 (EDT)

I have revised the definitions/descriptions of Category:Systems and Category:Astronomical Features based on the ideas expressed here thus far and in a way that hopefully make the interrelations clearer. Of course, please continue to express any comments regarding the definitions/descriptions themselves and possible further revisions.

The name of the category is of course still unresolved. While Category:Stellar Cartography serves as a master category, a master category is not exactly the role of Category:Astronomical Features. It is really a category of "others". Something meaning 'non-system astronavigational points of interest' seems to be the essence of the category. What about "Special Astronomical Features" or "Exotic Astronomical Features"? Please feel free to share suggestions or thoughts. --Dude RB (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2022 (EDT)

Something I am going to make a point about is that I am pretty amused with Cartography Classification Tree actually being included in the stellar cartography and places categories as an article. Considering the article exists because of a desire to be ultra specific about what belongs in what category. I am going to have to insist on these articles being included in some sort of help category as they are an "internal document" not a lore article, as such should not be included in lore categories. --Dmon (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2022 (EDT)

My intent was that it would be a category that other categories are part of, with "Tree" categories providing the intended structure so people don't add new ones willy-nilly, stick to the plan, Bob! But this has taken wild turns far beyond my imaginings, so I am mainly munching popcorn and watching at this point.--Talvin (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2022 (EDT)

For a real fun one, create the category "Non-self containing categories" and determine whether the category should belong to itself. Or consider the Grelling–Nelson paradox or Russell's paradox.

But to the point at hand, the tree pages could be placed under a different category instead, either "Help" (as Dmon suggests), "Category Trees" (as Talvin suggests), or some type of "Sarna Structure" category, and then a link to the category tree placed within the respective master category. It does not seem completely unreasonable (excuse the double negative) for summative documents to belong to the category they describe in the absence of a better alternative. The novels category contains both pages about individual novels and pages describing various lists of novels. But I can see the point about a page being for "readers" (both individual pages and summative pages) and a page being for "editors" (i.e. meta-pages), and the category trees definitely fall into those of the latter type. (So summative pages differ from meta pages.) So I have no objection to the development of a category for those tree pages. But it sounds that Dmon may then want a "Category Tree Category Tree" page <grin>. --Dude RB (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2022 (EDT)

I've got too little time on my hands to contribute properly at this time, but the issue is important to me so I’ll chime in with a brief comment: I love the category trees as such; but I loathe Category Tree articles. Perhaps because of my general dislike of administrative articles which imho have no place on wiki mainspace. At the very least they need to be condemned to the BattleTechWiki: space; but really, they’re superfluous. Just put that stuff into the master category. ("Stellar Cartography" gets my vote, btw.)

We don’t have to reinvent the wheel over this. Just check out BattleTechWiki:Spacecraft Portal, which is effectively the same as what is now called a tree article. For categories I am still unconvinced that we need this though. Frabby (talk) 03:38, 7 July 2022 (EDT)

I came here with a specific question that has yet to be answered, and the conversation has since blown up and totally (IMHO) lost focus. I am exiting, have fun.--Talvin (talk) 08:33, 7 July 2022 (EDT)

Frabby, that example (BattleTechWiki:Spacecraft Portal) is quite helpful. That is the sort of master category explanation or overview document that would be ideal to have for both Stellar Cartography and Places both. I can give the Cartography Classification Page the BattleTechWiki prefix and park such in the BattleTechWiki space.

Talvin, I think your original question directly concerned the classification of the Pleiades Cluster. I will spin that off into a separate talk section, recognizing that the wrap-up of the definition/name question might possibly be needed first. --Dude RB (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2022 (EDT)

On second thought, the BattleTechWiki prefix and Category:BattleTechWiki seem to be for articles that represent more established and vetted policy views. Cartography Classification Tree is still an early draft with portions still being hammered out (and it is intended to be a visualization to facilitate that hammering-out process). Hopefully it will eventually be developed into a full-fledged BattleTechwiki article, but in its present form it needs work yet. I have updated things so that it is not categorized within Category:Stellar Cartography nor Category: Places, but there are links from those master category pages to that Classification Tree page. Cartography editors should feel free to update it to show the community's master plan. --Dude RB (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2022 (EDT)

I had my own "Laundry List" project in the works a year or so ago, but it was steamrolled in the sweeping changes that came with the Discord server and ended up sidelined.

Part of my Laundry List was that content shold be grouped into several large, possibly interwoven category trees (spacecraft, Mechs & vehicles, stellar cartography, history & politics, characters, BT Fiction, etc.) and I imagined a "Portal" page like the spacecraft portal for each of them on the main Sarna masthead page. The Cartography Classification Tree seems to be basically the same idea with another name: A root Portal page that provides definitions and establishes a category tree for the articles, both as entry point fir users to find their way around and as a framework for editors to work in. Frabby (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2022 (EDT)

Frabby, the Portal page idea is good one. I think such can serve as an intro and navigation aid for readers seraching through an area and also give clearer guidance to editors as to the current structure and any caveats or transition notes. So I affirm that idea as a general strategy. (I am thinking what that may look like for products, but that is an aside.)

To bring some closure to the orginal point of this discussion, I propose that we change this category's name to "Special Astronomical Features" at this point. This will avoid the confusion that the title "Astronomical Features" tends to raise. (The intent of the category is appearing much more clear in its definition/description so the issues seems to be purely one of category name now). If a better name comes to mind down the road, then great it can be changed then. --Dude RB (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2022 (EDT)

Pleiades Cluster

Talvin orginally posed a question about the classification of the Pleiades Cluster in a prior thread concerning the general issue of the scope/definition of this category. To separate off that specific question, I am opening this thread. Changes in the category definition will of course affect the answer. --Dude RB (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2022 (EDT)

Even though we are hammering out the finer details of the tree structure, I think it’s clesr that the Pleiades Cluster falls squarely into this category. It exists mainly for clusters and nebulae (clouds) which are features that span much more space than single systems, and cannot be traveled from one end to the other without a KF Drive. Frabby (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2022 (EDT)

Portal Page

Sooo, following up on the lengthy Definition discussion above: What now? I think we have come to a conclusion and reached an agreement. Does anyone have the time and resources to create a portal page for Astronomy & Navigation and really design this from the bottom up? Frabby (talk) 03:02, 15 July 2022 (EDT)

Frabby, I'd be happy taking periodic breaks from my current gig to do so. However, I'd need a summary of what the decisions & consensus were, so it's not left up to my individual interpretation. Would you be willing to write that up?--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:45, 15 July 2022 (EDT)