Tier 5 Revision

[Epyriel]

No there really was no confusion on this tier for as long as its existed. The Brown Dwarf thing seems to be something never pointed out till now. […] We aren't here to be 100% accurate in our terminology, we need to be understood with some accuracy, and Dwarf Star has worked fine as a description.

Not quite true. This is the first time the tier has been actually challenged through the proper channels, but there has been discussions on several threads that highlight popular confusion on the naming of the tier. For example this thread: https://vsbattles.com/threads/terraria-shouldnt-they-be-dwarf-star-level-in-mid-tier.42912/, and this calculation: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:ThePerpetual/Bloodborne:_A_Call_Beyond.

Though since you are insisting on accuracy, tier 5 should be renamed Substellar shouldn't it?

Yes, exactly. I have already added that to the proposal as discussed above.

And we are not spreading "misinformation", its a term that conveys the tier in common terms compared to "Brown Dwarf" which has zero clarity as a title. You hear "substar level", you think less than star level. We aren't here to be 100% accurate in our terminology, we need to be understood with some accuracy, and Dwarf Star has worked fine as a description.

You are spreading misunderstandings by playing into points of confusion on astronomical distinctions. ‘Brown dwarf’ has as much clarity as a category as any proper name. Anyone familiar with astronomy will known exactly what it means, and those who aren’t will be enlightened by either scrolling through the Attack Potency page or a quick google search. If you want to be understood with as much accuracy as possible, use proper astronomical terms. As above, the inaccurate use of ‘Dwarf Star’ has already caused confusion, and those most engaged with the astronomy will be best served with the most accurate definitions. The token benefit of ‘substar’ being obviously smaller than a star is far offset by inaccurately restricting the term to only mean brown dwarfs when any investigation or pre-knowledge of the name will reveal its applicability to 4 other tiers.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Would it be fine with you if we renamed High 5-A from "Dwarf Star level" to "Brown Dwarf level" to account for how the tier is based on destroying brown dwarfs, which aren't stars by definition?

@Celestial_Pegasus @Andytrenom @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Just_a_Random_Butler @Agnaa @DarkGrath @Dereck03 We still need help here.
For the record, I strongly agree with Epyriel that "Brown Dwarf" is a far more appropriate name than trying to find a supposedly "more intuitive" name that fundamentally misrepresents the tier. Please don't make any more defecation jokes; that criticism does sound childish whether that's the intent or not.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

I guess it's fine? Accuracy wise and all that. I doesn't really matter to me, I'm fine with whatever people think its the more appropriate name.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Mehhh, I'm more with Qawsedf on this matter

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Mehhh, I'm more with Qawsedf on this matter

Except what Qawsedf said is objectively false in terms of what's accurate scientific terminology here.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Except what Qawsedf said is objectively false in terms of what's accurate scientific terminology here.

To echo DontTalk's own sentiments, the terminology we use is still frequently used nowadays, and as far as the ratio of effort to gain goes, it's genuinely just not worth it. And from my own perspective, there remains the issue that dwarf stars are still an actual thing. How would that be represented, then? Do we make a new tier for that while making High 5-A "Brown Dwarf level"? I'd imagine such a thing to result in an utter mess in our Tiering System, not to mention all the characters that would need to have tiers changed around and such just to account for this.

And what about the opposite solution? What if we just called High 5-A "Brown Dwarf level" without any other changes? Do we keep the AP value range the same, thus including dwarf stars in our Brown Dwarf level tier? Because that's not exactly accurate either, if you really want to go that route. Or do we change the AP value ranges such that dwarf stars are included in our Low 4-C tier? Once again, many a character would need to have their tier changed, and that's a tedious process that doesn't exactly end up being rewarding.

My point is: Regardless of what we do, we end up with a Tiering System that's "inaccurate" in some way, or with a process that just isn't worth it.

I'm fine with the other stuff, like calling Tier 5 "Substellar" instead of "Planetary" and updating the descriptions for 5-C and High 5-A, but I see no reason to go through with changing High 5-A to Brown Dwarf level with all these factors at play.

As an aside, you really don't need to come at me nigh-immediately just because I didn't agree. I don't even have evaluating rights here.

 

[Qawsedf234]

We still need help here.

My mind hasn't changed. I don't see it being worth the effort when Dwarf Star still conveys a correct meaning, even if it's not a correct scientific term.

 

[KLOL506]

My views are the same as Qawsedf. Too much effort for too little gain that may result in too much harm to our work production.

 

[Epyriel]

To echo DontTalk's own sentiments, the terminology we use is still frequently used nowadays,

As above, its ‘frequent use’ causes confusion almost every time it is brought up.

Mehhh, I'm more with Qawsedf on this matter

My mind hasn't changed. I don't see it being worth the effort when Dwarf Star still conveys a correct meaning, even if it's not a correct scientific term.

My views are the same as Qawsedf.

As I have said before, that is completely and unequivocally untrue. Dwarf Star does not convey a correct meaning whatsoever. It refers to objects exclusively outside of High 5-A. This is grossly inaccurate by any metric, and has repeatedly caused confusion as highlighted above. It is the equivalent of switching the labels Human level and Street level such that now ‘Human level’ begins at the AP value that is no longer possible for a human. It makes no sense at all.

and as far as the ratio of effort to gain goes, it's genuinely just not worth it.

Too much effort for too little gain that may result in too much harm to our work

As above, I would be willing to do the work myself or catzlaflame is willing to code a bot to change the name. You would not have to do anything. Please don’t use workload as a reason to block a correction. This would not impact your work whatsoever.

And from my own perspective, there remains the issue that dwarf stars are still an actual thing. How would that be represented, then? Do we make a new tier for that while making High 5-A "Brown Dwarf level"? I'd imagine such a thing to result in an utter mess in our Tiering System, not to mention all the characters that would need to have tiers changed around and such just to account for this.

Why is any of that necessary? Dwarf stars are a thing, but calling red dwarfs “Small stars” and yellow dwarfs “Stars” is not inaccurate like calling brown dwarfs, dwarf stars. There is no reason to change such things beyond Tier High 5-A.

And what about the opposite solution? What if we just called High 5-A "Brown Dwarf level" without any other changes? Do we keep the AP value range the same, thus including dwarf stars in our Brown Dwarf level tier? Because that's not exactly accurate either, if you really want to go that route.

Yes, we could keep AP values the exact same - the result would be one of the most accurately defined tiers in the entire tiering system. As above, the lower edge is defined by OTS 44, the of the smallest brown dwarfs theoretically possible, and the upper edge by VB 10, one of the smallest red dwarfs theoretically possible. Infiltration by non-brown dwarfs would be extraordinarily rare, and far far more rare than similar issues with pretty much every other tier. This is inevitable as the Hydrogen Burning Minimum Mass is not exactly known and could vary depending on the exact composition of the object. What we have already is an excellent bounding of low and high ends for brown dwarfs.

Or do we change the AP value ranges such that dwarf stars are included in our Low 4-C tier? Once again, many a character would need to have their tier changed, and that's a tedious process that doesn't exactly end up being rewarding.

I think you have misunderstood what is going on. Dwarf stars, more specifically red dwarfs, are already included in Low 4-C. No change whatsoever is necessary. Yellow dwarfs are already included in Tier 4-C. Dwarf stars are not being left out if we make this change, they already are accounted for in other tiers above High 5-A, which is why the change is so necessary. Dwarf stars exist and are accounted for, but not in the tier called Dwarf Star level.

My point is: Regardless of what we do, we end up with a Tiering System that's "inaccurate" in some way, or with a process that just isn't worth it.

As above, this change would unambiguously be immensely more accurate with no such drawback. It would help clear up confusion and support a far more precise and robust Tiering System without needing to modify AP tiers whatsoever.

 

[CloverDragon03]

As above, its ‘frequent use’ causes confusion almost every time it is brought up.

Patently untrue. The only instance of this you've ever linked was a lone thread over half a year ago, with no such sentiments being expressed beyond that. Confusion on this matter is evidently the exception, not the norm

As I have said before, that is completely and unequivocally untrue. Dwarf Star does not convey a correct meaning whatsoever. It refers to objects exclusively outside of High 5-A. This is grossly inaccurate by any metric, and has repeatedly caused confusion as highlighted above. It is the equivalent of switching the labels Human level and Street level such that now ‘Human level’ begins at the AP value that is no longer possible for a human. It makes no sense at all.

Once more, you equate a singular thread to "it's always causing confusion," which is a gross exaggeration. Considering that's the only thing you've linked on the matter, it's safe to say that it has not repeatedly caused confusion

As above, I would be willing to do the work myself or catzlaflame is willing to code a bot to change the name. You would not have to do anything. Please don’t use workload as a reason to block a correction. This would not impact your work whatsoever.


Why is any of that necessary? Dwarf stars are a thing, but calling red dwarfs “Small stars” and yellow dwarfs “Stars” is not inaccurate like calling brown dwarfs, dwarf stars. There is no reason to change such things beyond Tier High 5-A.

Except that terminology is used even for brown dwarfs, as mentioned by DontTalk. And before you say it, no, it has not "repeatedly caused confusion" or anything like that. In fact, the one thread you linked isn't even asking about the naming scheme of our High 5-A tier. It's asking about why moons and dwarf stars fall under the "Planetary" tier, which I've already supported renaming to Substellar.

Not to mention, this whole "inaccuracy" thing is kind of an inevitability to some degree. Why are dwarf stars not in our current Dwarf Star level tier, but instead in our Small Star level and Star level tiers, for instance?

Considering that the terminology we use is very much used in practice, and the confusion you speak of for this particular matter doesn't seem to actually exist, additional workload with no practical payoff is very much a reason to oppose this.

I was going to respond to the rest of this, but honestly I didn't feel a need since I realized my responses to each section would be parroting something I already said, so I'll leave it here so as to avoid coming off as a broken record.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Also, I should add this as an addendum: I do recognize from your own volunteering and Catzlaflame bringing it up earlier that the work isn't too bad given that a bot can be employed. That being said, I still have some reservations, even if I'm admittedly more ambivalent about the change now that the biggest concern is addressed.

 

[Epyriel]

Patently untrue. The only instance of this you've ever linked was a lone thread over half a year ago, with no such sentiments being expressed beyond that. Confusion on this matter is evidently the exception, not the norm

Once more, you equate a singular thread to "it's always causing confusion," which is a gross exaggeration. Considering that's the only thing you've linked on the matter, it's safe to say that it has not repeatedly caused confusion

In fact, the one thread you linked isn't even asking about the naming scheme of our High 5-A tier. It's asking about why moons and dwarf stars fall under the "Planetary" tier, which I've already supported renaming to Substellar.

And before you say it, no, it has not "repeatedly caused confusion" or anything like that.

[…] and the confusion you speak of for this particular matter doesn't seem to actually exist […]

You clicked the wrong link. And I gave two examples, not one.

The only reason I didn’t give more was because the tier doesn’t come up very much, yet every time it does this exact point of confusion seems to arise. But since you are pressing me on this I will look deeper for more. Here you go:
-https://vsbattles.com/threads/terraria-shouldnt-they-be-dwarf-star-level-in-mid-tier.42912/
-https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Amelia_Lonelyheart/DC_Comics:_Mon-El_moves_a_White-Dwarf_Star
-https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:ThePerpetual/Bloodborne:_A_Call_Beyond
-https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Elizhaa/Save_
-https://vsbattles.com/threads/why-is-dwarf-star-level-a-thing.68665/

Except that terminology is used even for brown dwarfs, as mentioned by DontTalk.

Not to mention, this whole "inaccuracy" thing is kind of an inevitability to some degree. Why are dwarf stars not in our current Dwarf Star level tier, but instead in our Small Star level and Star level tiers?

Considering that the terminology we use is very much used in practice, additional workload with no practical payoff is very much a reason to oppose this.

The main reason the terminology is used for brown dwarfs in error on the forums is because the site itself makes the error.

The site has essentially branded red dwarfs as “Small Stars” which is not inaccurate, and yellow dwarfs as [regular] “Stars” which is isn’t inaccurate either. Regardless, a lack of perfection is not an argument against fixing an inaccuracy we do have control over.

The payoff would be a much more accurate and intuitive tiering system, less confusion and ambiguity about nomenclature, and significantly less headaches for astrophysics students like myself.

There really is no good reason to keep this patently incorrect name.

 

[CloverDragon03]

You know what? Fair enough. I'm admittedly not too fond of the name "Brown Dwarf level" in particular, it just sounds very weird to me (Krukov explained the weirdness of the name much better than I could), but you've pretty much sold me on this. If the workload issue is addressed (again, as Catzlaflame has said, a bot can probably take care of this), this should be fine.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Also, I've done some digging on this subject, and here's what I found:

The smallest known star in the universe is the red dwarf star OGLE-TR-122b, which has a radius of 0.12 solar radii (8.3484e+7 meters) and a mass 100x that of Jupiter (1.899e+29 kg)

Gravitational Binding Energy = (3 * G * M^2) / (5 * R)

G = 6.67e-11 Nm^2/kg^2

GBE = (3 * 6.67e-11 * 1.899e+29^2) / (5 * 8.3484e+7) = 1.7287164e+40 Joules or 4.132 Quettatons

I'll also try 167,000 km (or 167,000,000 meters) since the source says that's what the radius comes out to.

GBE = (3 * 6.67e-11 * 1.899e+29^2) / (5 * 1.67e+8) = 8.641926e+39 Joules or 2.065 Quettatons

Would this realistically have any effect on our tiering? Since this is the actual smallest star we know of and all, this might be a new border between High 5-A and Low 4-C

 

[Epyriel]

Also, I've done some digging on this subject, and here's what I found:

The smallest known star in the universe is the red dwarf star OGLE-TR-122b, which has a radius of 0.12 solar radii (8.3484e+7 meters) and a mass 100x that of Jupiter (1.899e+29 kg)

Gravitational Binding Energy = (3 * G * M^2) / (5 * R)

G = 6.67e-11 Nm^2/kg^2

GBE = (3 * 6.67e-11 * 1.899e+29^2) / (5 * 8.3484e+7) = 1.7287164e+40 Joules or 4.132 Quettatons

I'll also try 167,000 km (or 167,000,000 meters) since the source says that's what the radius comes out to.

GBE = (3 * 6.67e-11 * 1.899e+29^2) / (5 * 1.67e+8) = 8.641926e+39 Joules or 2.065 Quettatons

Would this realistically have any effect on our tiering? Since this is the actual smallest star we know of and all, this might be a new border between High 5-A and Low 4-C

Your calculation is slightly off as red dwarfs with masses under 0.35 M⊙ are fully convective thus the polytropic index will be 1.5, and using the slightly more precise values from wikipedia, this would give a GBE of:

U = 3GM^2/[r(5-n)]

U = 3*(6.674 x 10^-11 N * m^2 * kg^-2)(1.82988 x 10^29 kg)^2/[(83,560,800 m)(5-1.5)]

U = 2.292 x 10^40 J

This is a bit lower than the current value of 3.139 x 10^40 J. Probably won’t change much, but if you want to change it I would support the increased accuracy.

 

[CloverDragon03]

It's not exactly significant enough to where it'd be entirely warranted imo, and that actually would be more of a hassle to go through compared to just changing the name of a tier. That one's a maybe for me.

As for the calculation itself, this is the first I'm seeing of accounting for polytropic index in the GBE formula. What's the source for how you do this?

 

[Epyriel]

It's not exactly significant enough to where it'd be entirely warranted imo, and that actually would be more of a hassle to go through compared to just changing the name of a tier. That one's a maybe for me.

I feel similarly.

As for the calculation itself, this is the first I'm seeing of accounting for polytropic index in the GBE formula. What's the source for how you do this?

I am following VSBW’s guide on GBE calculations found here:

Gravitational Binding Energy

Gravitational binding energy is the energy needed to completely disperse a celestial body. If GBE is broken, the particles of the body will not reform or be bound to each other's gravity, but instead drift off infinitely in the direction they were moved towards. There are precise calculations...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Taken from the derivation here:

https://www.astro.princeton.edu/~gk/A403/polytrop.pdf

The polytropic index correction only comes into play when calculating the GBE of stars. For other objects the formula you used is a good enough approximation.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Dang, I’ve only really used the formula for planets, so this just kinda slipped under the radar for me

 

[The_Yellow_Topaz]

May I introduce some colloquial terms for Brown Dwarfs?

"Failed Stars" is one of them.

"Substellar objects" is also a term that would be quite fitting, since it is a more technical term used to refer collectively to brown dwarfs and other objects that are not massive enough to sustain hydrogen fusion in their cores, but are more massive than planets.

Oh, OH, How about "Substellar level"? That's a great name

 

[CloverDragon03]

Ngl, "Failed Star level" just sounds mean

 

[The_Yellow_Topaz]

Ngl, "Failed Star level" just sounds mean

LMAO

Substellar level is better in my opinion, although both would be fitting for the tiering system. Well, I apologize for commenting without permission, I just thought I had a solution to this conundrum

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

May I introduce some colloquial terms for Brown Dwarfs?

"Failed Stars" is one of them.

"Substellar objects" is also a term that would be quite fitting, since it is a more technical term used to refer collectively to brown dwarfs and other objects that are not massive enough to sustain hydrogen fusion in their cores, but are more massive than planets.

Oh, OH, How about "Substellar level"? That's a great name

I am not a fan of trying to circumvent accurate naming by using colloquial terminology. Brown dwarfs are brown dwarfs. Also, "substellar" is already part of the proposal; it's the suggestion for tier 5 as a whole.

 

[The_Yellow_Topaz]

I am not a fan of trying to circumvent accurate naming by using colloquial terminology. Brown dwarfs are brown dwarfs. Also, "substellar" is already part of the proposal; it's the suggestion for tier 5 as a whole.

Substellar is scientifically accurate.

Also, a name for a tier as a whole can and is already used for individual tiers.

Example:

• Tier 10: Human, 10-B Human level
• Tier 2: Multiversal, 2-B Multiverse level

 

[Propellus]

Ngl, "Failed Star level" just sounds mean

No, it just sounds goofy af lmao

 

[Epyriel]

May I introduce some colloquial terms for Brown Dwarfs?

"Failed Stars" is one of them.

"Substellar objects" is also a term that would be quite fitting, since it is a more technical term used to refer collectively to brown dwarfs and other objects that are not massive enough to sustain hydrogen fusion in their cores, but are more massive than planets.

Oh, OH, How about "Substellar level"? That's a great name

Substellar is scientifically accurate.

Also, a name for a tier as a whole can and is already used for individual tiers.

Example:

• Tier 10: Human, 10-B Human level
• Tier 2: Multiversal, 2-B Multiverse level

As discussed above, Substellar is unsuitable for Tier High 5-A thanks to broad scope of classification. It has been used to describe everything from tiny moons to brown dwarfs, so switching out an astronomical term that precisely defines the tier with one that could be used for 4 other tiers is not preferable.

‘Failed star’ has a similar problem (on top of being a bit wordy) as the most common usage of the term is to refer to Jupiter and other large gas giants despite being nowhere near the size of a brown dwarf. Again, switching out a proper astronomical term that precisely defines the tier for a vaguer colloquial term applicable to at least another lower tier is not preferable.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Also, I'll put down the tally for the staff members' stances on changing Dwarf Star level to Brown Dwarf level:

Agree: Antvasima, SamanPatou, LordGriffin1000, IdiosyncraticLawyer, CloverDragon03
Disagree: DontTalkDT, DarkDragonMedeus, Elizhaa, Qawsedf234, Colonel Krukov, GarrixianXD, KLOL506
Neutral:
Unclear: GyroNutz

(Bolded names indicate those who have evaluation rights)

 

[Chritin]

Could Supermassive planet be used, or would it be misconstrued with Large Planet? I think it circumvents the issues of just using “substellar” while also not sounding weird.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Could Supermassive planet be used, or would it be misconstrued with Large Planet? I think it circumvents the issues of just using “substellar” while also not sounding weird.

Brown dwarfs are, by definition, neither planets nor stars.

 

[Colonel_Krukov]

Also, I'll put down the tally for the staff members' stances on changing Dwarf Star level to Brown Dwarf level:

Agree: SamanPatou, LordGriffin1000, IdiosyncraticLawyer, CloverDragon03
Disagree: DontTalkDT, DarkDragonMedeus, Elizhaa, Qawsedf234, KLOL506
Neutral:
Unclear: GyroNutz, Colonel Krukov

(Bolded names indicate those who have evaluation rights)

Disagree.

 

[Epyriel]

Also, I'll put down the tally for the staff members' stances on changing Dwarf Star level to Brown Dwarf level:

Agree: SamanPatou, LordGriffin1000, IdiosyncraticLawyer, CloverDragon03
Disagree: DontTalkDT, DarkDragonMedeus, Elizhaa, Qawsedf234, KLOL506
Neutral:
Unclear: GyroNutz, Colonel Krukov

(Bolded names indicate those who have evaluation rights)

@DontTalkDT, @DarkDragonMedeus, @Elizhaa
Seeing as your main concern was the work load, would you now be willing to let the High 5-A revision go through now that it has been addressed with Catzlaflame’s offer to change everything with a bot, or my own to do it manually if necessary?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

@DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Elizhaa
Seeing as your main concern was the work load, would you now be willing to let the High 5-A revision go through now that it has been addressed with Catzlaflame’s offer to change everything with a bot, or my own to do it manually if necessary?

Only staff can ping people. Also, DT's taking a break until the end of April.

 

[Chritin]

Could Supermassive planet be used, or would it be misconstrued with Large Planet? I think it circumvents the issues of just using “substellar” while also not sounding weird.

Also, I still think substellar is a good name of the tier instead. I mean we already use subsonic as a tier of speed, even though subsonic could include all the tiers below it. However, it’s implied that it’s a tier of speed close to but not beyond the speed of sound. Similarly, substellar implies that the tier is close to but not at the stellar level.

 

[Epyriel]

Also, I still think substellar is a good name of the tier instead. I mean we already use subsonic as a tier of speed, even though subsonic could include all the tiers below it. However, it’s implied that it’s a tier of speed close to but not beyond the speed of sound. Similarly, substellar implies that the tier is close to but not at the stellar level.

Already addressed this kind of argument above. Just swap ‘subsonic’ and ‘sub-relativistic’:

The problem is that the intuition of a substar being near, but not quite the size of a star simply isn’t the case like it is for sub-relativistic and relativistic.

The difference between relativistic and sub-relativistic is a single order of magnitude.

The difference between star and substar encompasses eleven orders of magnitude, which stretches well into 4 other tiers besides the one we want to name.

If people are unfamiliar with brown dwarfs they can simply look it up or scroll through the attack potency page to get some idea of what it encompasses thanks to the neat and precise astronomical definition of a brown dwarf. If they try to do the same for a substar what they will find is a broad and vague definition that encompasses multiple other tiers that will only further confusion and hamper intuitions.

 

[Chritin]

Already addressed this kind of argument above. Just swap ‘subsonic’ and ‘sub-relativistic’:

My bad, I didn’t read everything so far so I probably glossed over it

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT, @DarkDragonMedeus, @Elizhaa
Seeing as your main concern was the work load, would you now be willing to let the High 5-A revision go through now that it has been addressed with Catzlaflame’s offer to change everything with a bot, or my own to do it manually if necessary?

I personally think that we should use more accurate terms, even though the name "Brown Dwarf" is not ideal in terms of sounding good, and that the workload can likely be rather easily handled with a mass-editing program for Bot accounts.

Are there any better sounding synonyms that are used for this type of stellar object?

 

[Epyriel]

I personally think that we should use more accurate terms, even though the name "Brown Dwarf" is not ideal in terms of sounding good, and that the workload can likely be rather easily handled with a mass-editing program for Bot account.

Are there any better sounding synonyms that are used for this type of stellar object?

As above the only other synonymous terms I know of are ‘planetar’ or ‘hyperjovian’, both of which are extremely scarcely used.

Personally I would prefer sticking with ‘brown dwarf’ as it is the only proper astronomical term that has widespread use.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I suppose that we likely have to stick with that in lack of better options then.

 

[Flashlight237]

Seems a little weird to get that specific, don'tcha think?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Seems a little weird to get that specific, don'tcha think?

This has already been discussed exhaustively to death. "Brown Dwarf" is by far the most scientifically accurate and logical term available, and these weak attempts to belittle it as weird, awkward-sounding, or anything of the sort have never been helpful. I would implore everyone to stop throwing such unnecessary roadblocks in the way of such a simple accuracy change.

 

[Chritin]

As above the only other synonymous terms I know of are ‘planetar’ or ‘hyperjovian’, both of which are extremely scarcely used.

Personally I would prefer sticking with ‘brown dwarf’ as it is the only proper astronomical term that has widespread use.

Granted, Brown Dwarf itself is scarcely used itself outside of very specific discussions about them, so I find them all to be valid. Of the two you mentioned, I think hyperjovan works better than planetar simply because it is more distinct than the other planet tiers.