Difference between revisions of "Template talk:Parts"
From Kerbal Space Program Wiki
Thecoshman (talk | contribs) (→Divide into better catagoires) |
CookieCrunch (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
:: Perhaps we should look at having another page/table that categorises the parts by their practical use, like [[Parts]] does, or maybe have this table link to it. At the least, I think I prefer your idea or using a wide dash to separate the parts, rather then new lines. [[User:Thecoshman|Thecoshman]] ([[User talk:Thecoshman|talk]]) 08:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC) | :: Perhaps we should look at having another page/table that categorises the parts by their practical use, like [[Parts]] does, or maybe have this table link to it. At the least, I think I prefer your idea or using a wide dash to separate the parts, rather then new lines. [[User:Thecoshman|Thecoshman]] ([[User talk:Thecoshman|talk]]) 08:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::We definitely need to keep to the VAB categorization, using another one would only confuse newbies who come here to look things up. I'm still struggling with creating tables in a wiki but here's a little example of what I actually intended it to look like: | ||
| + | :::{| | ||
| + | |rowspan="2" valign="top" | '''Command Pods''' | ||
| + | || Cockpits || ''[[Cockpit Mk1]] • [[Cockpit Mk2]] • [[Cockpit Mk3]]'' | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | || Pods || ''[[Command Pod Mk1]] • [[Command Pod Mk1-2]]'' | ||
| + | |} | ||
| + | :::This solution does however still take up a lot of space. Considering the template is generally found at the very bottom of a page where it does not disturb the rest of the article, I still find it preferable to the mess we had before. The only way to find an entry in there was using Ctrl+F (so you could just have used the normal wiki search function instead).--[[User:CookieCrunch|CookieCrunch]] ([[User talk:CookieCrunch|talk]]) 10:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
== recent change to grouping of items == | == recent change to grouping of items == | ||
A recent change has put a lot of new lines and this is now taking up a lot more space, I think it was better before. [[User:Thecoshman|Thecoshman]] ([[User talk:Thecoshman|talk]]) 06:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC) | A recent change has put a lot of new lines and this is now taking up a lot more space, I think it was better before. [[User:Thecoshman|Thecoshman]] ([[User talk:Thecoshman|talk]]) 06:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 10:52, 2 October 2012
Divide into better catagoires
The parts are currently organised based on how they are selected in the game, I think it would be more manageable if it it was broken down into the following categories. If you don't agree with the categories I propose, suggest how you would like them to be ordered.
- Command Pods
- Liquid Fuel Tanks
- Liquid Fuel Engines
- Solid Rocket Boosters
- Control Systems (things like RCS tanks and jets, ASAS units)
- Wings (including the control surfaces etc)
- Landing Gear (legs, wheels and perhaps parachutes)
- Structural (struts, fuel pipes, staging units)
- Miscellaneous (all the other stuff)
If the miscellaneous categort ever starts to get rather full, it should be looked at to see if a new category could be made, for instance when docking system get introduced. Thecoshman (talk) 10:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- At the top level, I think we should categorize them the way that the game does -- according to tab in VAB. Beyond that we can separate them by subcategory, either with blank lines (the current approach, which means a lot of extra space) or with a different kind of character separator ("——", perhaps?). — Elembis (talk) 07:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should look at having another page/table that categorises the parts by their practical use, like Parts does, or maybe have this table link to it. At the least, I think I prefer your idea or using a wide dash to separate the parts, rather then new lines. Thecoshman (talk) 08:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- We definitely need to keep to the VAB categorization, using another one would only confuse newbies who come here to look things up. I'm still struggling with creating tables in a wiki but here's a little example of what I actually intended it to look like:
Command Pods Cockpits Cockpit Mk1 • Cockpit Mk2 • Cockpit Mk3 Pods Command Pod Mk1 • Command Pod Mk1-2
- This solution does however still take up a lot of space. Considering the template is generally found at the very bottom of a page where it does not disturb the rest of the article, I still find it preferable to the mess we had before. The only way to find an entry in there was using Ctrl+F (so you could just have used the normal wiki search function instead).--CookieCrunch (talk) 10:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
recent change to grouping of items
A recent change has put a lot of new lines and this is now taking up a lot more space, I think it was better before. Thecoshman (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
