Template talk:Planetbox 2.0
- 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)
- 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:Infobox/Body 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)
Does this mean that no pages should be using this template any more?
- 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)
- 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)
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:Infobox/Body 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.
- How about anyone who wants to do gaseous calculations reads the temperature in C and adds 273.15 to it? =) I think it's messy to add information to the planetbox that someone could figure out in 3 seconds with a single mathematical operation. This is also why I think the gravitational parameter argument should be removed. — Elembis (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)