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.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:40, 5 July 2022 (EDT)