Difference between revisions of "Talk:Main Page"

Revision as of 20:57, 18 October 2012

The blog/news link needs to be changed to http://kerbaldevteam.tumblr.com/

Done! UmbralRaptor (talk) 08:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Wiki TODO list

I figure it would help out if their was a central location for things that need to be done. To help best explain what I have in mind for this list, I figure I could just start it off. In terms of using it, if you just add an idea to the list and give a quick explanation of what you think it should be, then some one else can provide some feed back on it. If the idea get's some momentum, we can add it to the wiki, or perhaps move the discussion into it's own section on this talk page. Don't forget to sign your posts with four ~ in a row. Thecoshman (talk) 10:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• A page for part categories should be added. There is currently rather good documentation for each of the parts, but a lot of what they cover is duplicated. For instance, each of the liquid fuel tanks behave in more or less the same way, the only difference is the relative sizes and stat's. I think the individual pages, whilst small, should be kept as they can keep the more characterful description of the parts and details such as changes between versions. I envision a page that will provide a description of how to use the type of part along with (most importantly) a table that can be used to compare them, so you can sort of the thrust a rocket engine provides. or the dry weight of liquid fuel pods. Thecoshman (talk) 10:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• Consistent imagery. Again, whilst the work so far has been awesome for the individual parts, some sort of guide line should be put in place for the part images. Some of the images have the part on its own in what appears to be some sort of model viewer, and I think this is the best solution. Having the image for the part on a vehicle can make it hard to see what the part actually is. We might also want to consider some sort of guidelines as to the minimum size the image should be. Thecoshman (talk) 10:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• A guidelines page. As you can see, I might have a bit of a thing for guidelines, but it can really help improve the quality of the wiki. I would also stress that I am saying guidelines and not rules, there is no need to be really strict, it's all a bit of fun at the end of the day. Thecoshman (talk) 10:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Where's the image?

I think the removal of the main image was a big mistake. It really helped anchor this as the main page. Thecoshman (talk) 08:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Personally I thought the logo was way too big and served no purpose other than pushing everything else down the page. I think it would be appropriate to keep it somewhere on the page (maybe centered above the planets?), albeit much smaller.--Craigmt1 (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm considering placing it where the Main Page title currently is. Unfortunately, the background is gray and it'd look wrong, so I'm looking for one with a white background. -- N3X15 (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
    • would something like this work? --Craigmt1 (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

link to the forums is broken

The link to the KSP forums is borken, currently takes you to '/forums' it should point to '/forum' Thecoshman (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Fixed -- N3X15 (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Planets images

Can someone update TinyKerbin.jpg with this [1], TinyEve.jpg - [2], TinyMoho.jpg - [3], TinyJool.jpg - [4]. If there would be some problems - just change link to [[File:File.png|100px]]

Can these images also be unlocked? Now that they are linked to the main page nobody can update them.--Craigmt1 (talk) 18:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Removed cascading protection -- N3X15 (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Important Articles

I would like to nominate Orbital and physics terms for inclusion on the main page, or at least to be linked to from one of the top-level pages. It's a great article for newbies to read to familiarize themselves with the lingo before moving onto the more advanced stuff. --Entroper (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it can be linked to from the tutorials page. Thecoshman (talk) 07:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Moved to Terminology, since it's more generic than just limiting it to orbital stuff and physics. -- N3X15 ^{(C · T · E)} 04:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

How the handle the demo version

Currently the items that exist in the demo version get a second page dedicated to covering them, which to me seems like needless repetition. I think the better way is to simply have the one page that covers the part as it is in the current version, then have a section towards the end that can summarise how the part differs for the demo version. Most of the differences can be seen in the change log at the bottom of each part page anyway. This approach can even be used for the removed command pod, keep a an up-to-date page that covers how it changed up the final version it was included, but don't make a huge fuss about the fact that it is only a demo part. Thecoshman (talk) 10:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good -- N3X15 (talk) 07:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

In that case, we need to go through the parts found in these following table, make them redirect to the current part, and ensure the current parts explains that is also present in the demo version. Thecoshman (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:Demo Parts

I do believe I have now redirected ALL the pages for demo pages for parts to proper pages. Thecoshman (talk) 08:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

This seems rather confusing and uninformative -- the demo parts are increasingly different from the paid version in names (eg: LF-T500 vs LF-T400), stats (most-everything), image (Mk1 Pod), or and even part types (eg: LiquidEngine vs LiquidFuelEngine) UmbralRaptor (talk) 05:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

A lot of the differences are minor details that be covered in the change section. Worse case, a section at the end can provide a quick summery of the details in the demo version. The main reason I removed the demo version pages is that almost all the content was about how the part is used and thus duplicated. The same goes for part types, which is why I (and others) have created a few pages that cover how 'fuel tanks' work or 'SAS'. It's all about trying reduce the duplication. Thecoshman (talk) 08:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Version-specific disclaimers

Instead of having to say "as of version 0.17" everywhere, can we just assume that statements refer to the latest version and will be updated when needed? Otherwise, when 0.18 comes out, it seems like we'd need to replace every occurrence of "as of version 0.17" with "as of version 0.18", and that would just get ridiculous. — Elembis (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. -- N3X15 (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

This some what ties together to the notion that 'Demo' versions of parts should not have separate articles, that they should just be part of the main article and with notes about how they differ in the demo version. Thecoshman (talk) 06:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Style guide

Can we adopt Wikipedia's manual of style as our own? — Elembis (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

This makes sense to me, I would assume we want to aim for a quality wiki. That said, I would be careful with sticking to the 'rules' too strictly, after all we should aim to cater for a 'tounge in cheeck' approach, fitting in with the comedy style of the game it self. Thecoshman (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

We do need a manual of style, but it needs to be something less formal. We don't need to be a scholarly source, we just need to have a consistent style. Stuff like links ([[IVA]]s instead of [[IVA|IVAs]], which is enforced by RoboJeb already), tables, and other things that make it mildly easier to edit a page. -- N3X15 ^{(C · T · E)} 04:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

wait... you prefer [[example]]s over [[example]]s? Oh lord! I think the first style looks ugly as sin because you end up with that one letter no part of the link, I much prefer the latter style. as for adopting a formal guide, I agree with you N3X15, as long as we have a consistent style, perhaps a page can be created where some of these guide lines can be added as they arise in very organic way? Thecoshman (talk) 08:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

ah, I did not realise that the pluralising 's' will be considered part of the link, so we can disregard my complaints about that. Thecoshman (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Adding new namespaces

This is something that will require admin attention. Would it be possible for the 'Tutorials' namespace to be properly added to the system. It would also be usefully if there was a namespace along the line of 'API' or 'DevDocs'. Instructions on how to do this can be found here. Thecoshman (talk) 10:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Done. -- N3X15 (talk) 09:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

English English or American English?

I would assume that American English is the preferred English for this wiki. Though, I think it should be stated clearly so that we can avoid ping-pong edits between American and English English. If we get to vote in this matter, I would prefer English English, on account of being English, but not that fussed overall. Thecoshman (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see how theatre/theater, etc. would result in pingponging, as either are valid and aren't worth editing over. Best thing to do would be to leave rules instructing users not to bother editing minor dialect-specific things. As for measurements, we should be using metric anyway, as KSP deals with a lot of science (obviously). I'll (hopefully) start working on rules tomorrow. -- N3X15 (talk) 09:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Units of measurement for part masses and engine thrust

At the moment, the game doesn't specify units of measure for part masses or engine thrusts. We should agree on what to show in the wiki. There has been some discussion on this, but I figured it'd be useful to get some more feedback and hopefully a consensus.

A Wikipedia-style vote, with discussion at the end, seems appropriate. =) Please cast your vote by putting your signature (~~~~) in a list, and feel free to elaborate in comments at the ends of all the lists. =) — Elembis (talk) 04:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

sign with '~~~~' to vote

kg, N

1. Elembis (talk) 04:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
2. (your name here)

tonnes, kN

1. --Jlmr (talk) 04:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
2. UmbralRaptor (talk) 05:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
3. (your name here)

just like the game, no units

1. Thecoshman (talk) 07:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
2. (your name here)

It's not really as much a matter of opinion, and as much as I enjoy the debate, it's a matter of simple physics! :) --Jlmr (talk) 04:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that Elembis's premise 3 was wrong, and rocket parts/kerbals are in different mass units from the star/planets/moons. Given that we can't push planets around, this seems workable.

Considering the game does not specify units, why are we even having this debate? If anything, there should just a page on units explaining that the game does not define units, but that they appear to be consistent with treating them in kg and N. And let's not forget, working in kg-N or Mg-N does not matter, it is just a different scale, though I would avoid using 'tonne' or 'ton' as it is a stupid term that has a bazillian interpretations. Never known of any cases where someone was wondering if you meant a UK Kg or a USA Kg. This also is some what relevant to my question above, are we aiming for UK English or US English. Thecoshman (talk) 07:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

There are multiple reasons to define the units. Several include: the wiki already defined them as kg and N (not physically possible), giving modders formulas to standardize the physical properties of new parts, converting realworld spacecraft into KSP, and above all, making the physics work on paper, the game already uses m/s L/s and meters as units of measure so it is not had to figure out that the units of measure for parts is in 1000's of kg and 1000's of N. I am not sure we should use kg and N, as it will involve a bit of work converting all the in-game part descriptions from tonnes to kg and from kN to N and probably confuse people who are looking at the in-game units and the wiki. Regardless, let's stick with SI as it is the unit already defined in-game for fuel consumption and acceleration. --Jlmr (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Justification for t and kN (or 1000's kg and 1000's of N) This is a condensed version of all my arguments. --Jlmr (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• For example, we know that the Mk1-2 Command Pod weighs 4 "units" from the in-game description. We also know that the game uses SI, meters for units of distance and acceleration and liters/sec for fuel consumption. The command pod is roughly 2 meters in height and 2 meters in diameter. Calculating it's total volume gives us about 2.09 cubic meters. Let's assume the capsule has 0.05 m (2 inch) thick walls and subtract the interior void to get only the volume of the capsule walls. This gives us a volume of 1.80 cubic meters.

• Knowing the volume, we can calculate the density of the material making up the capsule taking the 4 in-game units as kg, which comes out to be about 13.79 kg / cubic meter. This is about 72.29 times less dense than water at room temperature and closer in density to some gasses! Perhaps Kerbal's have discovered a super strong gas-like substance to make spaceships from. :D

• However, if we take the 4 in-game units to mean metric tons, we get a density of around 13793.10 kg / cubic meter, well within the range of the density of real building materials. Hopefully that cleared up my thinking.

• On the wiki pages we could just as easily say 4,000 kg instead of 4 tons, it's just a matter of a simple unit conversion and space saving.

• The wikipage on Kerbin states it has a surface gravity of 9.81 m/s2, roughly that of Earth. Given this we can calculate the following. If measured in kilograms(kg), a "9 kg" Rockomax X200-16 Fuel Tank on Kerbin, having a surface gravity of 9.81 m/s2, would be roughly the size of a 48 oz coffee tin and only hold about 1.5 L of fuel. 1.5 L of fuel would not provide enough energy to lift a 9 kg payload more than a few hundred feet! If measured in metric tons, a 9 tonne (9,000 kg) Rockomax X200-16 Fuel Tank under the same gravity would be about 0.67 m tall and 2 m in diameter, giving a volume of 2104.87 L, more than enough to hold the advertised 1600 L of fuel. Only a rocket engine with a thrust around 100 kN (100,000 N), could have any chance of lifting a 9 tonne (9,000 kg) fuel tank.

• I know it's only a mod, but MechJeb already uses kN and tons for it's calculations of mass and thrust... =)