Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Celestials"

Revision as of 23:39, 2 February 2013

Removal of Images

I personally think the page should not have these images included like it currently does; they take up a large portion of the page and do not add to it. Thecoshman (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I think they should remain, if somebody can figure out how to display them horizontally it would look great, and serve as a scale model of the solar system.--Craigmt1 (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

You mean like it now is on the main page? Thecoshman (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Moons should be under the planets

The moons currently have no realtion to the planets they order, they should either be removed from the diagram, or arranged so that they form columns beneath the planet. Thecoshman (talk) 07:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Fixed this all on my own, man wiki tables are crazy. Thecoshman (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Reorganisation of Table of Contents

I believe that we should get rid of the list of planets and moons and the list with planets and moons and replace it with picture imaging.

If the planets (and star) could be aligned vertically (from Kerbol to Jool) and to the right of it you could place the moons (mabey in respect to size or distance from parent body.)

This could help simplify the chart making it easier and more attractive for people to study the individual bodies.

I currently do not have the images to provid for this kind of lay out, but mabey it would look something like this:

Kerbol

Moho

Eve: Gilly

Kerbal: Mün: Minmus

Duna: Ike

Jool: Laythe: Vall: Tylo: Bop (or Tylo: Lythe: Vall: Bop)

There is already a graphic representation of the bodies. I do not see a need to remove the textual representation and leave just the graphical. Though, I think it might not be a bad idea to convert the current graphical representation to have the planets vertically, especially when more get's added. Though for now at least, I think it should be left as it is. Thecoshman (talk) 07:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Dwarf Planets

With the introduction of new, smaller planets like Dres and Eeloo (and a potential third planet closer than Moho), I propose we add a subcategory for dwarf planets and establish the cutoff at 200,000 m radius. This way we can make a better distinction in the planetbox for each body. --Craigmt1 (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you expand on Eeloo? I am trying to find info on it but cant find it anywhere.--Azivegu (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

scrap that, I see you just added it to the wiki.--Azivegu (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Comparisons to Solar System Counterparts

Recently, a section was added to the Moho page with comparisons to Mercury, its Solar System counterpart. I know that in the past, "speculative" information has been removed from the planet pages (composition of an atmoshpere, etc). Are we interested in having the counterpart information to "real-life" planets and moons in this wiki? If so, it should be uniform, and I (or whoever) can write a section for each analogue. Thoughts? Greenjinjo (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2013 (CST)

I don't think we should get too hung up on differences between the game and the real world (Mars' atmosphere vs. Duna's, the thrust of ion engines, and so on). I also would not want any readers to be confused by the comparisons, because parts of the planet articles compare KSP planets to each other, not KSP planets to real-world planets.

However, I'd be okay with counterpart comparisons being in their own article, linked (to "analogue" or "counterpart") in the introduction of a planet's article. — Elembis (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2013 (CST)