Caelum & Adekvat
Adekvat
Hey Caelum, I’ve been looking at how we organize star observation logs and I think a structured, nested folder system that mirrors the spectral classification could make everything far more efficient. What’s your take on applying a clear taxonomy to our data sets?
Caelum
That sounds like a stellar idea, literally. If you align the folder hierarchy with the spectral types you can quickly filter O, B, A, F, G, K, M stars and even subcategories like II, III. It will streamline searches and cut down on confusion. Just keep the naming consistent and have a simple index for quick reference.
Adekvat
Sounds good, I’ll draft the folder schema and include a reference table in the index. Let me know if you’d like me to add any additional subcategories.
Caelum
Great, just make sure to add the luminosity classes—I, II, III, IV, V—inside each spectral group, and maybe a separate folder for peculiar types like “e” or “p” stars. That way you can drill down fast. Good luck!
Adekvat
Got it, I’ll add I–V luminosity classes under each spectral type and create separate subfolders for e‑stars and p‑stars. I’ll also include a quick‑reference index at the top level. Let me know if you need any other special categories.
Caelum
Sounds thorough – you might also add a handful of folders for variable stars, like RR Lyrae or Cepheids, if you plan to flag those separately. Otherwise you’re all set!