Category talk:Constellations

Merging constellation pages

I've just come to a conclusion (which is different from what I had planned before to do with the constellation pages): that having so many pages dedicated to constellations is not desirable - as is separating an article about a race in multiple articles ("Utwig history"; "Utwig biology" etc.). Instead, there should be a single page listing all constellations and their stars, and the size, color and location of each star (with special notes). Matt Arnold has made such a table, but unfortunately it's in HTML code and it's not very well formatted; I've pasted in at Star data and we can work at it if we decide to use it.

What do you think? Valaggar 13:42, 16 June 2007 (CEST)

There is already a page that has a lot of this information, Star Coordinates, however, it too isn't as wikified as Star data. The problem I have with the former is that it is a simple table that could be generated from the code very easily (or so I'm told). I think Star data is starting to become more useful that such an automated list as it includes additional information (namely the notes section, though the star type information and perhaps RU and bio totals, which can also be auto-generated, could also be useful), but I don't think it's a substitute for all the constellations or stars - it's a little too reductionist. And while I understand SvdB argument against lists that can be created from the code, there are those of us who are not as coder/hacker savvy, and while I'm sure I could figure it out eventually, I honestly don't have the time at the moment. I think the solution lies somewhere in between the two options actually. There are some stars and constellations that are interesting enough to deserve their own page. My personal opinion is to draw the line at mention in the canon (and even then, there are one or two that fall into a gray area). I'm also mostly ambivalent about pages for the constellations in general, but would prefer to first start out with the notable constellations. I am against individual pages for every single star and planet.

Another thing to remember is that wiki is not paper, so we don't lose too many resources with such pages for the notable ones. Now you may argue it makes the "random page" feature a bit useless, but I don't think so. Especially if we just start at the notable level (and who knows if it'll ever go beyond), these type of pages can funnel someone to the really meaty pages on more interesting stuff. It also makes the wikii a bit more navigable when searching for information on a specific, interesting constellation or star. I do, by the way, like the replacement with the redirects to Star stub - those previous pages did make the random page somewhat annoying. But back to topic, wiki also doesn't have a strict hierarchy imo, with different objects providing similar information but with different purposes and different representations, ie categories and lists. While they're different objects, we have to do something to differentiate them, like including titles and race for characters. I don't think the "Star data" necessarily precludes the creation of constellation pages, but does provide us a place to point to if someone wants to create pages for non-notable stars (and maybe constellations). So I'll see about wikifying the table (it's a slightly daunting task) and getting rid of "Star coordinates" in favor of "Star data". I see this as a balancing act between avoiding article sprawl and extreme reductionism, though I think we all have slightly different happy medium points. Anyways, just my thoughts - I hope they make sense. --Fyzixfighter 19:20, 16 June 2007 (CEST)

(re easy generation from code) Indeed, plandata.c contains it all in a sort of table.

(re easier navigation) When you're searching just for info on some non-notable constellation, you will write its name in the search box, for example "Aquilae". It will redirect to "Star data" (the redirects to "Star stub" will be replaced). Then you will search, in that page, for the constellation name. If you're interested in some random constellation, you're bound to be also interested in the other constellations.

(re completeness) We could have planets too in the Star data page. Or we can link to Sage's planetary database.

(re funnel someone to meaty pages) The only page Aquilae can funnel someone is Coreward and Utwig. As opposed to a lot more links in larger articles. Valaggar 20:36, 16 June 2007 (CEST)

Yeah, Aquilae for me it falls into that gray area of whether or not to have pages for every constellation. Honestly I'm this close to replacing with a redirect to Star stub, but I prefer to mull things over a bit rather than to act impulsively on gut instincts. Re: some of the other stuff - we could even make Star data more navigable by adding in a kind of pseudo-TOC with html anchors for alphabetical breaks or individual constellations. The alternative to these massive, code-generated tables is to link to files (like the one Star stub is copied from) or sites (like Sage's) with the information or tools for extracting the information from the source files. I don't think there is an elegant way to create a "Planet data" page for the planet data - it's simply too large and cumbersome, and other databases already exist. I'd much rather draw the line at a "Star data" page as a necessary evil to keep people from feeling the need to create individual pages on the non-notable. --Fyzixfighter 21:34, 16 June 2007 (CEST)

So we're on the same side, now? Very well.

About Aquilae: I suppose you're talking about all Aquilae-like pages, no? Aquilae is just "a compact five-star constellation coreward of Utwig space", to quote the article. Then let's judge carefully their situation for a while, rather than send them directly to the electric chair.

By the way, about the Star data page, maybe a real TOC can be done, i.e. a section for each constellation. This way, we can redirect to the Aquilae section if someone puts Aquilae into the search box. Valaggar 08:11, 17 June 2007 (CEST)