Template talk:Celestial Bodies
Have the moons in columns
Whilst my change removing the 'official' name from Kerbol I accept as wrong, I really think the alternate style I had done was much better, where the Moons of Jool are in one column, rather then two. I know it takes up more space, but it is not that much. Thecoshman (talk) 08:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with you, but others have asked me to keep it this way. Personally, I don't feel very strongly about it either way though.--Craigmt1 (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- I can accept going with the consensus, but, and don't take this the wrong way, who are these 'others'. Should not all discussion about wiki related issues be kept on the wiki it self? It provides a proper log detailing why things are done the way they are, which will help prevent new people from repeatedly changing something that has been decided to be done in a certain way. Thecoshman (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- I thing that at Russian wiki I'll keep this version of template: Template:Celestial Bodies/ru
- I can accept going with the consensus, but, and don't take this the wrong way, who are these 'others'. Should not all discussion about wiki related issues be kept on the wiki it self? It provides a proper log detailing why things are done the way they are, which will help prevent new people from repeatedly changing something that has been decided to be done in a certain way. Thecoshman (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
This is big enough, but easy to understand. --Varden (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- You should try to avoid translation having differing formats, it will help provide a more professional look if all languages presented the information in a consistent way. Thecoshman (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- I want restart this disucsion about having the moons of Jool in a single column. I think it is a much better format for the data, [User:Craigmt1|Craigmt1]] and Varden have both said the agree, but apparently there are some mysterious 'others' who say other wise. Unless these people come forth and present a valid reason to keep the current format I will change to the single column approach soon. It provides a much clearer way of representing the star system at the very insignificant cost of a few extra lines of space. Thecoshman (talk) 07:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Please edit and put you signature ~~~~
- For Single Column:
- Against Single Column:
Why don't we just ask N3X15?--Craigmt1 (talk) 04:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- This is a community wiki, so the views of the community should be considered, it also helps save his time for more managing other things in the wiki Thecoshman (talk) 06:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I nominate that we keep it the way it is for now, and consider shifting to single columns when the game is updated and new bodies are added. Once we see a planet get an odd number of moons (like 3 or 5), then we should definitely think about moving to straight columns but right now there isn't enough stuff to justify it so it would look clunky. That was the conclusion that Trinexx and I came to when we set this template up and that is where I stand at the moment.--Craigmt1 (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see why it makes difference if a planet has an odd number of moons or not. It also look a bit confusing at the moment, as it could be that the last two moons are actually some sort of odd pair of moons the orbit about Kerbol in a sort of binary system. Still, if that is your view, do you mind marking as such. I think once I have seen about five people vote, we can just go with the majority. I would say once more people have voted, but there does not seem to be that many people involved. Thecoshman (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I nominate that we keep it the way it is for now, and consider shifting to single columns when the game is updated and new bodies are added. Once we see a planet get an odd number of moons (like 3 or 5), then we should definitely think about moving to straight columns but right now there isn't enough stuff to justify it so it would look clunky. That was the conclusion that Trinexx and I came to when we set this template up and that is where I stand at the moment.--Craigmt1 (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- DECISION TIME **
This has been open for about a while now, and there have been no arguments put forward for keeping the multi column format, nor has there even been much support for it. I will now change to the single column format, and if anyone has any problems with this, they should refrained from simply editing it back and come forward with some reasoning for it. Thecoshman (talk) 08:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Sun or star
As I know, Sun is a name of solar system star, why than we call Kerbol as Sun, but not as a star? Maybe language difference, don`t know? --Varden (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed, 'Sun' is the name of the real world star the we orbit. From my understanding, in game, the primary star is also called 'Sun', the name 'Kerbol' apparently was coined in the forums, and so whilst used by more or less every one, it is not the official name. Thecoshman (talk) 08:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Preparing for KSP2 interstellar
This template appears to be made under the assumption that all celestial bodies are from the Kerbol system. In KSP1 and current KSP2, that is the case, but interstellar is planned for KSP2, and we already have pages for some extrakerbolar stars and planets, meaning that we either have to change it or move it to, say, "template:Celestial Bodies (KSP1)" and make a new one for KSP2. Or we could make this one specific to Kerbol and make other star-specific navigation boxes. Does anyone have any takes on this? --Tecanec (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
