Talk: Planet
An Alternative Template
I was experimenting with some templates from wikipedia and adapted one for use on this site. While the fields are the same, the presentation is different. I was hoping to get your feedback before I actually put it into action -- what are your thoughts? (P.S. I forgot to sign earlier) RMF 21:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- It's gorgeous! ---- Inmobilus 21:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC) It's quite pretty. StarNeptune 01:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- Looks good. But will all the planets be represented with this color scheme? -- Riffsyphon1024 05:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Yes, that is the intention. I tested the template across several planets, and the appearance was satisfactory, though we can always adjust the colors. Believe it or not, brown is considered a neutral color [1]. Gray is even more neutral, but we're already using it excessively for starship/vehicle infoboxes (particularly pls and plfs). I can't really claim originality here, as I essentially copied it from wikipedia and just changed the fields ;-) On a somewhat related note, I was feeling ambitious this evening and attempted to modify the skins (white text on a blue background, or something similar) as discussed in the chat, but without success. Modifying the skin is apparently quite challenging unless you're proficient in CSS. RMF 06:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
How to Use
To use the Planet template, copy and paste the following code.
Regarding Species
Should the native species list really be under the "Physical" section? It doesn't seem quite right to me. --SparqMan 06:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- I agree; it seems more appropriate under the societal section. — Silly Dan (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC) In my opinion, the current placement of species is correct. Societies are a product of the evolution of a physical species, not the other way around. But that's just my opinion. --Xwing328 22:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC) This issue has been resolved. RMF 21:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Is "Astrological" Correct?
Shouldn't that be "astronomical" or something similar? Or is "astrological" actually used in canon (yuck)? —Silly Dan (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Currently, it's set to Astrographical, but of course, this can be adjusted. RMF 21:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Astrographical works well. I believe I misinterpreted the example on the talk page as being an example of the actual template. —Silly Dan (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
A Suggestion for "Length of day/year"
What about changing these to "orbital/rotation period", similar to what's used on Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Coruscant)? I think it would be more in line with an encyclopedia. - Sikon [Talk] 16:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm in agreement. I've made the change. RMF 21:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
What About Wildlife?
How about a field for wildlife, to include the non-sentient creatures inhabiting the planet? It could also include plant life, etc. I'm not suggesting we go overboard with a massive list, but I think it could be beneficial. --Eyrezer 01:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Alternatively, this information could be added to its own "Flora and fauna" section within the main article, allowing for a more detailed explanation without cluttering the infobox. -- Imp 01:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC) That's true, but how often does that actually happen? --Eyrezer 01:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Segment Title Considerations
Hello, I've been away for a while, but I was pleasantly surprised to see that my proposed expanded info box was implemented with some excellent formatting modifications. I noticed an ongoing discussion about the segment heading names. I agree with Sikon, and the change from "Length of Day/Year" to "Orbital/Rotation Period" definitely sounds more encyclopedic. Furthermore, I still believe that Astrometric better conveys the type of information being presented ([2]), as opposed to "Astrographical," which pertains to the visual representation of astronomical objects. Similarly, Planetology and Socio-political are more appropriate scientific/encyclopedic terms than "Physical" and "Societal." Just some food for thought... --Shiaic 01:36, 05 Feb 07 15:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Proposed New Planet Template
The primary discussion has been relocated to: Wookieepedia:Consensus track/New planet infobox template
Which Fields Should Be Included?
It might be a good idea to remove some of the existing fields and introduce a few new ones. Here's what I'm thinking:
-
Remove: Distance from Core (This information is rarely available for planets) Surface Water (Same as above)
-
Rename: Number of Suns to Suns (This would allow us to include the names of the suns) Major Species to Native Species (This would include human groups with long-term habitation on the planet, such as those on Naboo)
-
Discuss: Population (This field is problematic because planetary populations are constantly fluctuating. Should we only use the most recent figure, or include all known figures from different eras? I suggest removing it altogether)
What are your thoughts? --Imp 08:45, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with all of the points above, and I'd also like to suggest: Changing Number of Moons to Moons (to list all moon names) Adding Other Species, in addition to Native Species Adding Capital City, and possibly Other Major Cities
--Azizlight 14:44, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)
-
The issue with the "Moons" field is that it could create problems in cases like Yavin , which has 23 moons. I do agree with your other suggestions, though. -- Imp 15:13, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)
-
What exactly would go in the Other species section? Non-native species that are populous? Or just creatures in general? If it's the former, it would be nearly impossible to manage, especially for planets like Coruscant and Tatooine , which are home to thousands of different species. -- Imp 22:51, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)
-
This is precisely why I prefer the old infobox, as we can freely remove and add sections based on the available information. Planets featured in the movies would typically have Distance to Core and Surface Water data, but not much else. -- Riffsyphon1024 15:46, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC) Other templates also allow for adding and removing sections as needed. This is simply a collection of commonly used fields. Regarding suns and moons... No one is suggesting listing all 23 moons of Yavin – that's what the List of moons is for. We could simply have "Moons: 23". For Onderon, for instance, we could say: "Moons: Dxun and 3 more". - Sikon 16:15, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)
-
I think it would be better to include numbers in the Suns and Moons fields, and list the names (if known) in a separate section of the article. In fact, since there are usually only a few suns, we could potentially name them in the infobox and simply provide the number of moons. The number could then link to a section titled Orbits or Orbiting bodies that lists them all by name. This would help minimize clutter in the infobox. – Aidje talk 05:02, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC) This information is already included in the system articles. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:04, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC) Are you suggesting that we shouldn't include information about a planet's moons in the planet's article? – Aidje talk 05:11, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC) No, we should definitely include moons, but I was referring to suns. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:24, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)
-
"Capital and Major Cities" is too lengthy and doesn't leave much room for the city names themselves. Perhaps we could shorten it to just "Major Cities"? - Sikon 04:41, 12 Aug 2005 (UTC)
-
Does anyone object to removing the Population field? -- Imp 23:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
The Working Area
- I'll post the updated version here, incorporating the changes we've discussed. -- Riffsyphon1024 15:51, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Are we good to proceed with this? --SparqMan 05:37, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- It's fine with me. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:39, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC) So, should we go ahead and implement the new template now? - Sikon [Talk] 06:24, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC) Yes, since Riff has given the go-ahead. I'm eager to start using it! And by the way, great job on all of this, Sikon. --Azizlight 22:29, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Planetary Governments
I think we should borrow the structure from the government infobox template and integrate it into the planet infobox. This way, instead of needing a separate infobox for planetary governments, the information would already be included in the planet infobox. We would still maintain the government infobox, of course, but for example, on Naboo, we would have fields for native species, etc., and then below that, fields for the type of government, the Chief of State, etc. I was advised to propose this here instead of just adding it myself.--Vaklu 23:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- I realize this is a bit late, but I could see adding some of these fields, at least the type of government. —Xwing328 (Talk) 16:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
What Constitutes an Immigrated Species?
Does "Immigrated Species" refer to a situation where a group of Wookies relocates to Endor and begins to reproduce there? --DanMat6288 01:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Spanish Translation
I'd like to include the Spanish language link [[es:Plantilla:Planeta]] (the template page is protected). --Palpatine81 23:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to create a similar template on a sci-fi wiki, but I'm having trouble getting the CSS to install correctly.
Template Transfer?
If anyone has experience with this, please contact me at z@demon-sushi.com... I'm also using mediawiki and have installed the CSS functions, so I'm not sure what the issue is. It's a complete mess.Gogoicarus 04:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Regarding Water
Where should I put the link to a body of water (e.g., an ocean) on a planet, in the water field or in the points of interest field? I'm unsure how to complete the water field. In some planets, I've seen the percentage (%) of water, while in others, I've seen links to points of interest that are rivers, lakes, seas, or oceans. I want to know if the second option is correct, because some planets have many points of interest, and a way to reduce or categorize them would be to put water-related points of interest in the water field. However, I'm not sure if that's the correct approach. --Palpatine81 21:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think that either percentages or links to bodies of water are acceptable for the |water= field. —Xwing328 (Talk) 02:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Notable Natives
I believe this info box should include a "notable natives" section, so that for Tatooine, it would list Luke Skywalker, Anakin Skywalker, etc. GTQ 02:29, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
New Category
This template needs to be recategorized into Astrographical infobox templates. Stake black msg 19:03, January 10, 2013 (UTC)
Typo
Someone needs to correct the spelling of "demonym" within the infobox, as it's currently spelled incorrectly as "denonym." Endymion105 (talk) 04:09, April 23, 2015 (UTC)