User talk:XZise

From Kerbal Space Program Wiki
Revision as of 07:10, 31 July 2014 by Brendan (talk | contribs) (Clarifying. +whitespace.)
Jump to: navigation, search

Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Threads older than 31 days may be archived by RoboJeb.
Edit this box

planed features changes

both the massive parts and the astaroids are confermed by harvisteR in that streem, he says that astaroids will be in the main game, but other things that include the nasa pack will be separate, i will post a better link to the stream in a second. i actually took the geysers from a post on gas planet 2. also look at today's dev note it confirms everything — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krona (talkcontribs) 03:15, 19 February 2014‎ (UTC)

Calculation Tools page is done

Just bringing this to your attention, as you might have missed my last edits to that. It's ready for evaluation and inclusion at your discretion :P I don't need anything done, just making sure you know.

--MechaLynx (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2014 (CDT)

Thank you

Thank you for changing my section about Falcon heavy the site was confusing and I did my best to make the rocket similar. I am just happy that you did not delete it as what happened on another wiki... or as I do on one wiki I am a moderator for.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LABHOUSE (talkcontribs) 00:08, 22 April 2014‎ (UTC)

Simply deleting is the easy way out. Although I might delete something as adding the Falcon Heavy twice only increase maintenance. For example on the tutorial to the Salyut programme the Proton-K was referenced but with a link to the Tutorial: ISS article. Also we don't know if the Falcon Heavy will be used for the ISS, so maybe the Falcon Heavy should only be referenced in the Mars One article, and the Falcon 9 in the ISS tutorial. — xZise [talk] 05:09, 22 April 2014 (CDT)
Yeah, deleting is the easy way out I cannot imagine how many trolls are on here 10 come every month on a smaller wiki. Should I also but in the description that you can make a normal falcon nine rocket by making a falcon heavy without boosters? And NASA has a contract with space x to send a crew to the iss in 2016 I think and Dragon just won't make the cut I think so there is a chance for them to use the falcon heavy. It would not surprise me if space x buys the iss after nasa and esa and csa and the Russians are done with it. LABHOUSE (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2014 (CDT)
Now of course you could, and maybe should, mention that the Falcon Heavy consists of three Falcon 9 1.1 first stages and one second stage. So there could be the Falcon 9 in the ISS tutorial and you could reference the Falcon 9 from the Mars One tutorial (that the Falcon Heavy uses two additional Falcon 9 first stages).
I also don't think that a Falcon Heavy is necessary for the manned Dragon capsule, but I can't find any sources for that. — xZise [talk] 03:22, 23 April 2014 (CDT)
Well given the fact they will launch the mars transit vehicle in two pieces my guess is they do need it and certainly do for when they launch the tonne of food tonne of habits and stuff. This is beginning to just be a place to speak of Mars One so I will go to the site to get more info on them using the falcon heavy I will see how much it will weight as well to be sure. 8580 pounds and they will send 6 of these on one launch and the mars transit vehicle I cannot figure it's weight. The falcon heavy can put 75000 pounds into EARTH orbit and mars is pretty far away so that explains it kinda. LABHOUSE (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2014 (CDT)
Ehrm resupplying the ISS and going to Mars are two different things. Especially as you need more space for the crew when you travel to Mars. — xZise [talk] 05:46, 24 April 2014 (CDT)

Marking Thumbnails

Hey XZise, just wondering. I know uploading a newer version of a file is faster and easier, but all the placeholder thumbnails are jpg, which don't allow for alpha channels. Should I mark these thumbnails for deletion? To make them easier to find? Or just leave them be? Only changed 2 images right now. Let me know what you think. — Chuzzard (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2014 (CDT)

Hi Chuzzard, first of all thank you for those thumbnails. A little site note there: You don't need to make them squaresit square, so there is not so much whitespace above and below the part for example in Inline Advanced Stabilizer/Box. About tagging the jpgs, I'm unsure. In theory my bot could mark those automatically, but currently this won't simply happen. Also if you aren't updating too much, I'll can see that in the Special:RecentChanges. So it's up to you whether you want to mark them or not. I'm fine with both, because if I need to find thumbnails which aren't used anymore I can quickly write a script for my bot. — xZise [talk] 02:17, 2 May 2014 (CDT)
Update, I changed the IAS to minimize the whitespace, but the image looks squished now. It looks fine on the IAS box, but not on the stats table. I don't know what's wrong. — Chuzzard (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2014 (CDT)

Can I take over old tutorials

I know I should have asked before I edited a tutorial but I just now thought about it and the person who started it has not been on since March of 2013. I think it is ok to take it over completely and not just edit it but I want to make sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LABHOUSE (talkcontribs) 01:08, 27 June 2014‎ (UTC)

Because the original version is still in the page history I would say it's okay. — xZise [talk] 05:05, 27 June 2014 (CDT)

Sorry again

I've uploaded 3 more misspelled pictures, please rename them! - Rovermax Model 1.png -> RoveMax Model 1.png, ... And a question - what is the optimal size oft these pictures of parts? Thanks! NWM 14:41, 27 June 2014‎ (UTC)

Hi, not a problem. But could you update File:Ruggedized rover wheel.PNG? I guess it was your intention but it's case sensitive (and I want to preserve the version history). The other three are jpegs and you can't change the file format so it's not possible with them. I'll move them shortly. — xZise [talk] 12:30, 27 June 2014 (CDT)
And about size, I'm not sure. Currently the part infoboxes scale the images to 190x190 pixels. — xZise [talk] 12:39, 27 June 2014 (CDT)
there is Ruggedized rover wheel.png - I've updated the tables and the part infobox. Is there anything else for image manipulation? (apart from part-pictures - I on them)— Preceding unsigned comment added by NWM (talkcontribs) 20:34, 27 June 2014‎ (UTC)
You misunderstood ;) I wanted that you re-upload your image in the file with uppercase PNG so I could move it to the name with lowercase png. This way the old image is still there and nothing is lost. But I was able to delete the .PNG version first then move the .png to .PNG, restore the .PNG changes and move it back again. — xZise [talk] 16:16, 27 June 2014 (CDT)
You see also in the file usage which pages use it as an image. If it's empty you caught them all. And what links here does list all usages (also when you only link to it). — xZise [talk] 16:19, 27 June 2014 (CDT)
I'up-loaded/dated File:Clamp o tron Sr.PNG, but it looks like the reduced old one, instead of the new... — Preceding unsigned comment added by NWM (talkcontribs) 23:24, 27 June 2014‎ (UTC)
You need to reload without the cache. On Firefox it's ^ Ctrl+F5. — xZise [talk] 18:30, 27 June 2014 (CDT)
its uploaded 2x - uoch! and Clamp-o-tron_shielded_docking_port..png -is an another error needs a repairing - sry,sry,sry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NWM (talkcontribs) 04:35, 28 June 2014‎ (UTC)
What is uploaded twice? I fixed the shielded docking port image and removed all remaining thumbnails of the docking ports. Thank you for the hi res images. — xZise [talk] 05:52, 28 June 2014 (CDT)
the clamp o tron sr.PNG is uploaded twice - you can delete the newer one. I`ll upload more hi-res images as arrived at home (Monday?). I hope, I`ll do it with their proper naming. NWM 20:17, 28 June 2014‎ (UTC)
Do you mean the two latest file revisions? That is fine. Or is there another file anywhere? But you didn't upload a second file of that docking port. — xZise [talk] 06:38, 29 June 2014 (CDT)
The first has note ~ "hi res +trans.", the second ha no note. They are same file, uploaded twice.
and a note - illuminators are uphiresed — Preceding unsigned comment added by NWM (talkcontribs) 08:52, 30 June 2014‎ (UTC)
But there is the green border from hovering with the mouse above that part. — xZise [talk] 05:01, 30 June 2014 (CDT)

"Product description" with Template:description

We'd mulled earlier on my talk page about how to consistently format the in-game textual descriptions that accompany each part. To recap, yes just “Description” is too ambiguous for a section title. The problem with “Manufacturer's description” is that many of these are clearly not what the manufacturer themselves would say about their product; the voice is much closer to being a narrator. Though sometimes, it is what they'd say.

I think I've hit on a great solution to cover both voices − it's basically this topic title. Title the section “Product description” − it is the description accompanying the part, but “Part description” sounds awkward. Also, the description template I created a while back deliberately doesn't include a "who said it" field. Saves complication, especially if they change Rokea's name again. --Brendan (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2014 (CDT)