Template talk:Parts
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 Mk1 Cockpit • Mk2 Cockpit • Mk3 Cockpit Pods Command Pod Mk1 • Mk1-2 Command Pod
- 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). As for the "——" solution: We could of course try it, but I do not think it would clear up the arrangement very much --CookieCrunch (talk) 10:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think I like this idea of yours, perhaps you could play around with suggestions at the bottom of this page, it would be better if we can work it out first, rather then changing the main one ever five seconds. I think taking up more space is ok, if it results in a more useful table. Thecoshman (talk) 11:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- 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). As for the "——" solution: We could of course try it, but I do not think it would clear up the arrangement very much --CookieCrunch (talk) 10:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Proposal for rearranged table
Here's my proposal for the rearrangement of the table. Does anybody know how to get all text to align to the top of the cells? I tried class="toptextcells" but couldn't get it to work. The "Miscellanous" subcategory could still need some work.
--CookieCrunch (talk) 20:36, 9 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)
