Difference between revisions of "Talk:Kerbin"
From Kerbal Space Program Wiki
(→Links: new section) |
Thecoshman (talk | contribs) (→'Kermunist': new section) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
All the links used in the references are broken. Just an FYI. -- [[User:N3X15|N3X15]] ([[User talk:N3X15|talk]]) 09:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | All the links used in the references are broken. Just an FYI. -- [[User:N3X15|N3X15]] ([[User talk:N3X15|talk]]) 09:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == 'Kermunist' == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Should this term really be used? [[User:Thecoshman|Thecoshman]] ([[User talk:Thecoshman|talk]]) 18:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 18:28, 7 October 2012
Infobox
I've attempted to make an infobox template for planets, Template:Planetbox, to bring it closer in line to the stock parts here and planets on wikipedia. Any advice would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigmt (talk • contribs)
- So far, so good. I think you have more columns than you originally anticipated, though, so many of the cellss are floating around. -- N3X15 (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, the length of the template is breaking some formatting stuff on articles it's transcluded in. It looks good, but I'd personally trim it down to mass/diameter/etc. and leave orbital information in the article proper. -- Trinexx ► 19:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
So, leave orbital characteristics in the article itself and keep physical characteristics in the box? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigmt (talk • contribs)
- That's my personal recommendation, at least. I imagine other people have their own opinions on the matter. -- Trinexx ► 20:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Links
All the links used in the references are broken. Just an FYI. -- N3X15 (talk) 09:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
'Kermunist'
Should this term really be used? Thecoshman (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
