Forum:CT:Astro Categories: The Basics

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Astro Categories: The Basics
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Support all. —spookywillowwtalk 17:38, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

So, some of you may have seen or otherwise be aware that I recently undertook a significant comprehensive overhaul of the Category:Astronomical objects tree with feedback and consultations with other members of WP:ASTRO. Prior to the overhaul, there was a wild inconsistency between various categories; sometimes we'd have system-level categories, sometimes we'd categorize planets within a particular system, and the names were inconsistent as well, not to mention that a good quarter of all our astro objects were missing at least one of the relevant categories. This overhaul is now complete, and thus, it's time to codify the structure into policy, and start fleshing out our Wookieepedia:Category policy. There's a lot of concepts, so I'm doing it in pieces, starting with the following lines that will go under an "Astronomical objects" subheading of the In-universe Categories heading.


Vote #1: The Basic Idea

  • An astronomical object's type, physical characteristics, and location should be categorized separately, with the exception of the major galactic regions. For example, all planets that are located within the Expansion Region should be placed directly in Category:Planets in the Expansion Region, while any planets whose galactic region is unknown should be placed in the top-level Category:Planets.
  • When categorizing locations by sector, system, hyperlane, and other more specific groupings, such categories should not be combined with the astronomical object type or the physical characteristics of the location. For example, planets in the Coruscant system should be placed in Category:Planets in the Core Worlds and Category:Coruscant system locations, rather than a "Coruscant system planets" category. Similarly, physical-characteristic categories such as Category:Gas giants and Category:Waterworlds should not be subcategorized by galactic region or other location, or by the intersection of multiple attributes, i.e. rocky planets with Type I atmospheres.

Support

  1. Further codifying the basic "don't subcategorize by multiple attributes" concept that we've been aiming for with untangling category trees. I originally debated putting *every* planet in the top-level category, but it felt too bloaty, and there's significant benefit from being able to see planets within a specific region. Limiting the nesting in this manner ensures that Category Intersection still works across the top-level categories, as intersection supports up to two levels of nesting, and prevents any further convoluted nesting of multiple attributes. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 15:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  2. —spookywillowwtalk 20:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  3. Imperators II(Talk) 16:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  4. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 18:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  5. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 14:54, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
  6. Yasen Nestorov (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
  7. CometSmudge (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
  8. Lewisr (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
  9. ThePedantry (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  10. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 09:46, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Vote #2: What Categories Are Needed?

  • For a given astronomical object, the article should be placed in the relevant <Object Type>s in <Region> categories for all applicable regions in Category:Galactic regions, with a few exceptions. As an example, Kashyyyk is located in both the Mid Rim and the Slice, and thus is placed in Category:Planets in the Mid Rim and Category:Planets in the Slice. However, astronomical objects in the Arrowhead and Hutt Space should exclude the categories for the Slice, as they are subregions of the Slice that fall completely within it but are still considered major galactic regions. Similarly, objects in the Deep Core should exclude the categories for the Interior, as it falls entirely within the Interior.
  • Locations within a given sector should be placed in a corresponding Category:<Sector Name> locations category, unless a dedicated system location category exists, as indicated below. The sector category should be placed in the appropriate Category:<Region> locations category, as well as the parent Category:Locations by sector category.
  • When a star system contains numerous locations, a Category:<System Name> locations category should be created, and placed in the Category:Locations by star system parent category as well as the appropriate sector and route locations categories; if no sector is known for the system, it should be placed in the appropriate region locations category instead.

Support

  1. Pretty simple, I think. The Arrowhead/Slice, Hutt Space/Slice, and Deep Core/Interior are exemptions because while they're subregions, they're still considered proper galactic regions by the Atlas and other sources. The Big Ten, as we've come to call them, are the priority regions, and should always be treated as the master categories. This also standardizing the naming for all sector and system categories, and permits nesting along the locations tree as locations by their very nature are nested—larger-scope locations contain smaller-scope locations, and on and on down the tree. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 15:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  2. —spookywillowwtalk 20:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  3. Imperators II(Talk) 16:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  4. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 18:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  5. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 14:54, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
  6. Yasen Nestorov (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
  7. CometSmudge (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
  8. Lewisr (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
  9. ThePedantry (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  10. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 09:46, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Vote #3: Assorted Rules

  • Additionally, the following rules apply:
    • When a dedicated system category exists, the relevant location categories should be applied to the system category and not individual locations in the system. For example, Ord Mantell should be listed in Category:Bright Jewel system locations, but not in Category:Bright Jewel sector locations or Category:Locations along the Celanon Spur, as the Bright Jewel system locations category is a subcategory of both the sector and route categories.
    • The top-level Category:Locations by region categories should only be used on individual articles when the subject is known to be located within that region, but it is not known to be an astronomical object or a structure, and it has not been placed within a particular sector. If the sector or system is known, the article should be placed in that sector or system locations category instead if one exists. If it is known to be an astronomical object or structure, it should be placed in the appropriate Category:Astronomical objects by location or Category:Structures by region category.
    • Grid square categories and the other astronomical tracking categories that are applied by infoboxes automatically based on the infobox's fields should not be manually applied to articles, with one exception: if the infobox would otherwise be empty aside from the name field, an infobox should not be used, and the relevant tracking categories should be applied to the article. See {{AstroCategoryDoc}} for documentation on these categories and the criteria for their application.

Support

  1. Wrapping up the first batch with some assorted notes that further refine the practices; the first rule prevents category bloat by moving the common-to-system categories to the parent category, which is what we do for similar grouping categories already, like how individual R2-series astromechs aren't directly in Category:Astromech droids. The second codifies some edge case usages for Category:Locations of unspecified type and similar cases, and the last one is rather self-explanatory. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 15:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  2. —spookywillowwtalk 20:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  3. Imperators II(Talk) 16:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  4. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 18:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
  5. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 14:54, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
  6. Yasen Nestorov (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
  7. CometSmudge (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
  8. Lewisr (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
  9. ThePedantry (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  10. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 09:46, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss