Template talk:Planetbox 2.0

Why is this a separate page? Just merge it with the old one.--Craigmt1 (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I've modified the old one so that if an argument is specified as "N/A", that row won't show up. This way we can add attributes for atmospheric properties, for example, without polluting the infoboxes of celestial bodies with no atmospheres. — Elembis (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You mean, if the argument's blank? I can set up RoboJeb to delete N/A from planetbox args, if you'd like. -- N3X15 ^{(C · T · E)} 02:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

My thinking was that a blank argument might simply mean it was added to the template and not specified on some pages that used it -- in that case, you'd want "??" to appear (or something similar) until someone filled the information in. In other cases, fields are simply not applicable, so it seemed like using a value of "N/A" for that was the right thing to do. — Elembis (talk) 02:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

If you could do that, that would be great. That is kind of the reason why i also put in the value: Atmosphere Present. That way you see it real quick. The reason i added atmosphere is because i see it becoming ever more important and i believe it wil occupy an ever growing role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azivegu (talk • contribs)

It's already done. =) Check out how Template:Planetbox uses Template:PlanetBoxRow, especially down toward the end. The latter takes 3 arguments: name ("Radius"), value ("320"), and units ("km"). If the value is "N/A", the row isn't displayed.

By the way, you can sign a comment easily by adding "~~~" to the end of it. The wiki will turn that into a signature automatically. (Four tildes will make your signature include the date, too.) — Elembis (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

*facepalm* I am sorry, i keep forgetting to add my signature. I know i should. So if i change the ?? to N/A, the name should disappear??? Thanks! I will admit that i pretty much used the old template (because it was pretty good) and just updated it completly. No to finish off with my signature;) --Azivegu (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Redundant template?

Does this mean that no pages should be using this template any more?

Currently I see there are two pages that use this template. Thecoshman (talk) 07:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This is an updated version of the original Planetbox Template. The reason why is because we know have lots of information on atmosphere (which will play an ever larger role in the near future) and i completly reorganized certain values so it is clearer and more informative. --Azivegu (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I know why there is this second version, but has it not been decided that he wiki shall switched over the this version, and as such the V1 should be updated to the new method and this one 'removed'. (as a side note, those first two lines are both mine) Thecoshman (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

We could get rid of the V1 or update it to V2. The reason i didn't completely alter the V1 is because i cant and there was the necessary debugging that needed to be done. Currently the only bug is the removing of N/A values. So it is pretty much good to go. If it is necessary, I'll transfer the lines of V2 to V1 and change the references on the pages linked to V2.--Azivegu (talk) 15:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understand why you used this alternate template whilst you where designing it, but now that you have it all resolved, I think it should replace the original template, and let this template be deleted. Thecoshman (talk) 10:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't understand why we have a template with "2.0" at the end. It's stupid and confusing, especially considering this one is being used on just about every article now.

If we're going to keep using this code, move it to planetbox. I don't see any reason why we need two, we can just use one and hide the atmospheric characteristics on ones that don't have any.--Craigmt1 (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed -- we should just move the contents of this template to Template:Planetbox and use that. — Elembis (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Usage of SI units

We should try to only use SI units as that will give consistency and accuracy.

That also includes the usage of Kelvin (K) next to Celsius. Celsius is good for knowing how 'hot' or 'cold' a place is, but if you need to do gaseous calculations, you will need kelvin. Kelvin is also a SI unit whilst °C is not. This way somebody only has to look once to know what it is.

This is the same story for density. you should use kg/m³ instead of g/cm³. The latter is rarely used in everyday mechanics.