Tier 5 Revision

[CloverDragon03]

Could also use more input on the proposed Tier 5 change of Tier 5: Planetary -> Tier 5: Substellar.

Currently stands as:

Agree: GyroNuts, Everything12, Just_a_Random_Butler, Planck69, Agnaa, DarkDragonMedeus, CloverDragon03
Disagree:
Neutral:

@Antvasima This list includes everyone who supports the change from Planetary to Substellar. So, as far as voting staff go, just everyone on this list except me

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Given that I also support the change, I think that it can probably be applied.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Okay. Given that I also support the change, I think that it can probably be applied.

I applied the change.

Tiering System

The following is a comprehensive overview of the hierarchical system which this wiki utilizes in order to properly categorize and index fictional characters, entities, and objects based on the scale of their feats, and the varying scopes which they can affect or create/destroy. However, it...

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out.

So how should we proceed with the "Brown Dwarf level" renaming issue?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Thank you for helping out.

So how should we proceed with the "Brown Dwarf level" renaming issue?

The vote is 6-4. Do you consider that sufficient to accept the change?

 

[Antvasima]

No, not for such an important issue.

Does anybody here have a suggestion for another, also considerably less inaccurate, title that we can use for the "High 5-A" tier, which more staff members may find acceptable?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

No, not for such an important issue.

Does anybody here have a suggestion for another, also considerably less inaccurate, title that we can use for the High 5-A tier, which more staff members may find acceptable?

Two synonyms for "brown dwarf" are "hyperjovian" and "planetar", but both are technical jargon utterly unsuitable for the tiering system. "Brown dwarf" is by far the best term; no others are available that capture the range of High 5-A so perfectly.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

If you or Epyriel write a summary post of the arguments here so far, I can send a notification to our bureaucrats and administrators again if you wish.

 

[Epyriel]

Okay.

If you or Epyriel write a summary post of the arguments here so far, I can send a notification to our bureaucrats and administrators again if you wish.

Ok, here we go:

Tier High 5-A is currently precisely defined by the GBE range of brown dwarfs. ‘Dwarf Star level’ is unsuitable as it is not a synonym of brown dwarfs, but in fact a mutually incompatible designation (as brown dwarfs are not stars) applicable only to higher tiers (such as Low 4-C which covers red dwarfs and 4-C which covers yellow dwarfs, although both these have appropriate synonyms for names). It is a serious flaw in naming convention if you have a designation that applies exclusively to objects outside of the tier you want to name.

- The first argument against the change was that it was simply too much of a burden to make all the edits for all the individual pages that reference the tier.

This has been solved by an offer to fix it all with a bot swiftly.

- The second argument against the change was that ‘dwarf star’ was still colloquially understood as brown dwarf.

In response, it has been pointed out that the main reason it is understood as such on the forums is because the tiering system itself makes the error, and that this has not prevented the distinction becoming a point of confusion in several discussions (in fact pretty much every time the nature of ‘dwarf stars’ gets raised) amongst anyone with any prior knowledge of either term.

- The third argument against the change was that there might be a overlap with red dwarfs infiltrating High 5-A from above.

In response, I have pointed out the upper limit of the tier is VB 10 which is near the theoretical limit for the smallest possible red dwarf star. The number of non-brown dwarfs inside High 5-A is absolutely minuscule compared to issues of overlap/infiltration in pretty much any other tier.

- The fourth argument against the change is that some people simply don’t like ‘brown dwarf’ as a name.

Not much I can do about that, as brown dwarf has been the overwhelmingly dominant accepted name for the class of objects in question for the last half century, pretty much since they were first theorized. The only synonymous alternatives like ‘planetar’ or ‘hyperjovian’ are far too unknown to be seriously considered (if you try and google ‘planetar’ the only thing you will get are links to a DnD monster by the same name, while ‘hyperjovian’ won’t get you much at all).

‘Substar’ was proposed as an alternative, however it was pointed out such originally meant to apply for objects all the way from the size of tiny moons to the largest brown dwarfs (a range that covers all of Tier 5), so such was used instead to revise the name for Tier 5 as a whole.

 

[Antvasima]

If you or Epyriel write a summary post of the arguments here so far, I can send a notification to our bureaucrats and administrators again if you wish.

Ok, here we go:

Tier High 5-A is currently precisely defined by the GBE range of brown dwarfs. ‘Dwarf Star level’ is unsuitable as it is not a synonym of brown dwarfs, but in fact a mutually incompatible designation (as brown dwarfs are not stars) applicable only to higher tiers (such as Low 4-C which covers red dwarfs and 4-C which covers yellow dwarfs, although both these have appropriate synonyms for names). It is a serious flaw in naming convention if you have a designation that applies exclusively to objects outside of the tier you want to name.

- The first argument against the change was that it was simply too much of a burden to make all the edits for all the individual pages that reference the tier.

This has been solved by an offer to fix it all with a bot swiftly.

- The second argument against the change was that ‘dwarf star’ was still colloquially understood as brown dwarf.

In response, it has been pointed out that the main reason it is understood as such on the forums is because the tiering system itself makes the error, and that this has not prevented the distinction becoming a point of confusion in several discussions (in fact pretty much every time the nature of ‘dwarf stars’ gets raised) amongst anyone with any prior knowledge of either term.

- The third argument against the change was that there might be a overlap with red dwarfs infiltrating High 5-A from above.

In response, I have pointed out the upper limit of the tier is VB 10 which is near the theoretical limit for the smallest possible red dwarf star. The number of non-brown dwarfs inside High 5-A is absolutely minuscule compared to issues of overlap/infiltration in pretty much any other tier.

- The fourth argument against the change is that some people simply don’t like ‘brown dwarf’ as a name.

Not much I can do about that, as brown dwarf has been the overwhelmingly dominant accepted name for the class of objects in question for the last half century, pretty much since they were first theorized. The only synonymous alternatives like ‘planetar’ or ‘hyperjovian’ are far too unknown to be seriously considered (if you try and google ‘planetar’ the only thing you will get are links to a DnD monster by the same name, while ‘hyperjovian’ won’t get you much at all).

‘Substar’ was proposed as an alternative, however it was pointed out such originally meant to apply for objects all the way from the size of tiny moons to the largest brown dwarfs (a range that covers all of Tier 5), so such was used instead to revise the name for Tier 5 as a whole.

Thank you.

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath @Dereck03 @Planck69

What do you think about this? I personally support such a change.

 

[Just_a_Random_Butler]

Thank you.

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath @Dereck03 @Planck69

What do you think about this? I personally support such a change.

I had already agreed to the proposal though, so nothing changes even if I am tagged again.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

On a minor note, even "Small Star level" and "Large Star level" have been argued as not very accurate either. Because it has been stated that some Blue Giant Stars actually have less GBE than the sun mainly due to less density. While there exist Dwarf Stars with GBE that would be Large Star level. Likewise, Neutron stars are 4-B; smallest stars in terms of volume but greatest in density. And I remember proposals to rename them to Low Star level and High Star level as opposed to Small Star level and Large Star level. But I believe they were rejected for reasons similar to this proposal.

I mean be willing to be okay with the changing the name if there's some better alternative. Like if there was a name more accurate than Dwarf Star level, but at least sounds better than Brown Dwarf level (By that logic, Large Planet level should be called Gas Giant level, and Small Planet level should be called Rocky Midget level). Maybe might sounds worse, but how about?

• High 5-A is Sub Star level
• Low 4-C is Low Star level
• 4-C is still Star level (For obvious reasons)
• And High 4-C is High Star level

 

[Epyriel]

On a minor note, even "Small Star level" and "Large Star level" have been argued as not very accurate either. Because it has been stated that some Blue Giant Stars actually have less GBE than the sun mainly due to less density. While there exist Dwarf Stars with GBE that would be Large Star level. Likewise, Neutron stars are 4-B; smallest stars in terms of volume but greatest in density. And I remember proposals to rename them to Low Star level and High Star level as opposed to Small Star level and Large Star level. But I believe they were rejected for reasons similar to this proposal.

This is an extremely false equivalence. The individual tiers of the tiering system are named after their most common class of objects, but they don’t have to be all inclusive terms for every conceivable object which requires sufficient energy to destroy to fall within the joule values of a given tier.

Neutron stars and blue giants are extremely rare. They are not the most common reference objects for their given tiers. Making a less intuitive name in a vain attempt to cram them in next to more common reference objects that populate the tier makes little sense. “Low” and “High” are ambiguous qualifiers when referencing a physical astronomical object.

By comparison, Tier High 5-A is very uniformly comprised of brown dwarfs - they represent the only common class of object you can use as a reference (and much like small stars and large stars, the chosen joule values match the GBE of the object the name makes reference to).

I mean be willing to be okay with the changing the name if there's some better alternative. Like if there was a name more accurate than Dwarf Star level, but at least sounds better than Brown Dwarf level (By that logic, Large Planet level should be called Gas Giant level, and Small Planet level should be called Rocky Midget level). Maybe might sounds worse, but how about?

• High 5-A is Sub Star level
• Low 4-C is Low Star level
• 4-C is still Star level (For obvious reasons)
• And High 4-C is High Star level

Once again, changing High 5-A to a name like ‘Substar’ (which can refer to anything from tiny moons to large brown dwarfs) misrepresents what is actually inside the tier. This makes it both less intuitive and less accurate, failing on both metrics.

‘Low Star level’ and ‘High Star level’ would need a revision thread of their own, but from what you have said that has already been shot down. But for the same reasons above both seem a poor choice to me. After all, if you want to get really granular you could argue both tiers include objects that aren’t stars at all, like interstellar nebulas. Those are hardly the first things that come to mind as a reference, but by the logic of needing to cram rare examples of the tier into its name shouldn’t those also be included? This kind of logic could be applied endlessly, giving you a more general and general name that just becomes all the less intuitive at every step.

Better to just use the most common general class of object within the tier (basically the general form of whichever object you used as a reference marker for the joule values that mark off the tier). As we already do for basically every other tier.

 

[Antvasima]

I still agree with Epyriel here.