Template talk:Parts
Contents
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)
- This may be old, but it seems quite useful. It would certainly help to have labels for the subcategories, especially because of the constantly growing number of parts. --dgelessus (talk · logs) 17:31, 7 June 2013 (CDT)
- Maybe this should be splited up into the different categories? Even the current box is huge.
- So something like this:
| Command Modules • Propulsion • Control • … | |
| SAS Modules | Avionics Package • S.A.S Module • Advanced S.A.S Module • Advanced S.A.S Module, Large |
| RCS Thrusters | Place-Anywhere 7 Linear RCS Port • RV-105 RCS Thruster Block |
- Some of the categories have already their own page like Command Module. — xZise [talk] 11:51, 8 June 2013 (CDT)
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)
What about adding some colors? No more poor #ccc color
Something like this(added color to subcategory too, so you can see where it ends):
| Manned pods | Mk1 Cockpit • Mk2 Cockpit • Mk3 Cockpit • Command Pod Mk1 • Mk1-2 Command Pod • Mk1 Lander Can • Mk2 Lander-can • PPD-12 Cupola Module |
| Command seats | EAS-1 External Command Seat |
| Probe cores | Probodobodyne QBE • Probodobodyne HECS • Probodobodyne OKTO • Probodobodyne OKTO2 • Stayputnik Mk. 2 • RC-001S Remote Guidance Unit • RC-L01 Remote Guidance Unit |
| Control surfaces | Small Control Surface • Standard Control Surface • AV-R8 Winglet • Delta-Deluxe Winglet • Standard Canard • Advanced Canard |
| Static wings | AV-T1 Winglet • Tail Fin • Swept Wings • Wing Connector • Structural Wing • Delta Wing |
| Nose cones | Standard NC • Aerodynamic Nose Cone • Tail Connector • Protective Rocket Nose Mk7 |
| Air intakes | Radial Air Intake • Circular Intake • Ram Air Intake • Engine Nacelle • Radial Engine Body |
Piotrulos (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2013 (CDT)
- I think it's a good idea, but the colours should be brighter (more "cream") and warmer. Fifi (talk) 06:55, 8 August 2013 (CDT)
- Did you follow any specific color scheme? — xZise [talk] 10:39, 17 August 2013 (CDT)
Smaller layout
Hi, I tried to tweak some css parameters to make the list a bit smaller (although it is still huge). I didn't used colors there, but may be added. You can find my test on User:XZise/Parts. It mostly simply removes a lot of whitespace. On User:XZise/test2 I tried to place the title of the entry on the left, but I don't think this is that useful. But maybe somebody of you have an idea. — xZise [talk] 15:08, 16 August 2013 (CDT)
Small reclassification to cargo categories
With the addition of the ground clamp in 1.12.2, would changing "Lamps" (currently only the uncreated work lamp pages) to "Deployables" or similar be a good idea? That way, it could cover both the lamps and the clamp, and grouping them would help show that they're deployed in the same way. If I don't get feedback on this, I'll go ahead and make the change. AlpacaMall (talk) 01:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Changing link from parts#category to parts/category
The parts page has ballooned in length since alpha, and now loading the parts page is slow and data-intensive. Right now, clicking on a category name redirects you to the relevant section in the parts list, meaning we have to load the entire page just to see the requested section.
I think it'd be better to link instead to the subpage; for example, instead of linking to Parts#Electrical, link to Parts/Electrical. That way, only the section you ask for is loaded, and you don't have to load every other part in the game.
Should I go ahead and do this? (Similarly to above topic, I'll go ahead if there's no feedback) AlpacaMall (talk) 03:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- The length (and load time) of the parts page has been discussed several times in the past, but nobody came up with a better solution to improve the length AND keeping everything on the same page. But we definitely can link a category to its respective subpage. --ArnePeirs (talk) 08:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- I tried to update the category links; however, the subpage only exists in English, and so linking to the subpage would break the links for all other languages (unless we wanted to link every language to the English page). AlpacaMall (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
