Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Celestials"

Revision as of 17:37, 16 November 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)

Can we at least get a worded list, and have a link to the giant planet image thing? The reason I started the image thing was because I didn't want to have to search through those subcategories to find the thing I need, especially if I'm not sure of the name. --Alkex (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2013 (CST)

Actually the list is in Kerbol System and I don't see why we should it order it here. This is a category not an article. Maybe the Link from the sections on the left side should be to Kerbol System and not to this category here. — XZise (talk) 05:44, 28 February 2013 (CST)

I added a link to the article in the introduction. — XZise (talk) 05:47, 28 February 2013 (CST)

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)

Suggestion: Separate the category from the article

The content of this page might fare better as something like Kerbol system, which can document supplementary information in addition to what is already transcribed here. The category would stay, but just not as a quasi-article, as that makes the categorization hard to follow and access easily. Bovell (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2013 (CST)

I took the liberty of implementing this → Kerbol System. --XZise (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2013 (CST)

Suggestion: Summary Tables (ex: surface gravity)

Below the Notes sub-section, I think it would be valuable to the community, if there was a sub-section with Summary Tables. This section could include information such as Surface Gravity for all the celestial bodies (saving the community checking each page, or parsing the spreadsheet/ascii dump). --Donfede (talk) 10:11, 16 November 2013 (CST)

See Kerbol System/Table. And if there will be other planetary system it should be either Celestial body/Table or <system's name>/Table instead of having it here. This is a category and not an article. — xZise [talk] 11:37, 16 November 2013 (CST)