Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Dwarf Planets"
From Kerbal Space Program Wiki
(Created page with "Defining a Dwarf Planet in KSP We obviously can't go by the IAU definition, there are no objects to clear, there is no real gravity having an effect on anything. So I propose ...") |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Defining a Dwarf Planet in KSP | + | == Defining a Dwarf Planet in KSP == |
| + | |||
We obviously can't go by the IAU definition, there are no objects to clear, there is no real gravity having an effect on anything. | We obviously can't go by the IAU definition, there are no objects to clear, there is no real gravity having an effect on anything. | ||
| + | |||
So I propose a definition more relevant to KSP: | So I propose a definition more relevant to KSP: | ||
| − | A planet that is smaller than the average moon size (212 km) can be considered a dwarf planet. | + | |
| + | '''A planet that is smaller than the average moon size (212 km) can be considered a dwarf planet.''' | ||
| + | |||
At the time of this writing, that includes two: Dres and Eeloo. Since it just so happens that these are also the two newest planets, we can likely expect to see more. Therefore, we should begin making the distinction sooner rather than later. | At the time of this writing, that includes two: Dres and Eeloo. Since it just so happens that these are also the two newest planets, we can likely expect to see more. Therefore, we should begin making the distinction sooner rather than later. | ||
Thoughts? | Thoughts? | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | :I am going to assume that you mean 212km in radius right? Maybe locking it at a nice even number of 225 or something (I like esthetically pleasing numbers)--[[User:Azivegu|Azivegu]] ([[User talk:Azivegu|talk]]) 21:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :It is difficult to make a failsafe criteria, as there's no way of knowing what the devs might put in next. In principle I like this idea, though I'd suggest picking a "straight" number as a limiter (e..g 200 or 250km equatorial ). There always will be discussion about this and "borderline cases" anyway, so better make it an easy number. Another - preferred by me - alternative would be to simply drop the term "dwarf planet" altogether, as it doesn't serve a particular purpose anyway. For the scope of this game, these bodies are planets. Off topic: Please sign your posts on Talk pages in the future. This helps identifying who contributed what part to the discussion, which becomes more important once several users attend the same topic. This can be done easily by writing <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> . More information on good "wiki conduct" can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial/Talk_pages --[[User:Senshi|Senshi]] ([[User talk:Senshi|talk]]) 22:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :I do agree with you, and unless somebody feels really strongly about Moho qualifying as a planet I think we should set it at 250. I just would like to add the distinction (however redundant it may be) to add a bit of character to some of the smaller planets, and to avoid future clutter. I imagine that at some point in the near future, we are going to have a lot of planets on our hands that we'll have to squeeze into the CoolNav bar and the Celestial bodies tab below, so I feel it's better to draw some sort of line now rather than later.--[[User:Craigmt1|Craigmt1]] ([[User talk:Craigmt1|talk]]) 00:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 00:37, 22 December 2012
Defining a Dwarf Planet in KSP
We obviously can't go by the IAU definition, there are no objects to clear, there is no real gravity having an effect on anything.
So I propose a definition more relevant to KSP:
A planet that is smaller than the average moon size (212 km) can be considered a dwarf planet.
At the time of this writing, that includes two: Dres and Eeloo. Since it just so happens that these are also the two newest planets, we can likely expect to see more. Therefore, we should begin making the distinction sooner rather than later. Thoughts?
- I am going to assume that you mean 212km in radius right? Maybe locking it at a nice even number of 225 or something (I like esthetically pleasing numbers)--Azivegu (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- It is difficult to make a failsafe criteria, as there's no way of knowing what the devs might put in next. In principle I like this idea, though I'd suggest picking a "straight" number as a limiter (e..g 200 or 250km equatorial ). There always will be discussion about this and "borderline cases" anyway, so better make it an easy number. Another - preferred by me - alternative would be to simply drop the term "dwarf planet" altogether, as it doesn't serve a particular purpose anyway. For the scope of this game, these bodies are planets. Off topic: Please sign your posts on Talk pages in the future. This helps identifying who contributed what part to the discussion, which becomes more important once several users attend the same topic. This can be done easily by writing ~~~~ . More information on good "wiki conduct" can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial/Talk_pages --Senshi (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- I do agree with you, and unless somebody feels really strongly about Moho qualifying as a planet I think we should set it at 250. I just would like to add the distinction (however redundant it may be) to add a bit of character to some of the smaller planets, and to avoid future clutter. I imagine that at some point in the near future, we are going to have a lot of planets on our hands that we'll have to squeeze into the CoolNav bar and the Celestial bodies tab below, so I feel it's better to draw some sort of line now rather than later.--Craigmt1 (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
