Forum:CT:Merging Planet and Moon infoboxes into a CelestialBody one

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Support. —spookywilloww^talk 20:31, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

---

Per the corresponding Senate Hall discussion, I propose that we merge both the {{Planet}} infobox template and the {{Moon}} infobox template into a single new {{CelestialBody}} infobox template. It would be the same as the Planet template except for the addition of the Moon template's |orbited= field, like this:

• |suns=
• |orbited=
• |position=
• |moons=
• |xyz=
• |distance=

The CelestialBody infobox template would be used on articles on planets, moons, and any celestial bodies for which a) we don't know their exact type, or b) do not already have a dedicated infobox template.

Support

1. Imperators II^(Talk) 15:08, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Pog NBDani (they/them)^{Yeager's Repairs} 15:32, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
3. —spookywilloww^talk 16:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
4. OOM 224 16:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Yasen Nestorov (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
6. StarWarsFan327 (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
7. Lewisr (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
8. Fan26 (Talk) 17:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
9. Wok142 (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
10. Mor9347 ^(Talk) 18:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
11. *grumbles and revs up the RoboCade* Cade Calrayn 02:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
12. Sanathestarr (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
13. Bonzane10 22:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
14. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
15. Dr. Kermit^(Complain.) 12:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
16. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 10:18, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• Forgoing my vote for now, despite now seeing potential benefits of the merge. If they are to be merged then we need a |type= field under Physical information to denote, Planet, Moon, Gas Giant, etc. where the object is known (|class= is specific to the object type and not applicable to all types). Also, an |orbitedby= field might be useful alongside the |orbited= field for Celestial Bodies that orbit one object but are themselves also orbited by another object such as a space station, asteroid, derelict, etc. (|interest= is more suited to on-world locations only).|geopoliticalregion=?/|subregion=?/|primaryregion=?/|secondaryregion=? field, or something similar, may also be handy in de-cluttering the |region= field, keeping it for just the major regions listed by the Atlas Appendix, Outer Rim, Mid Rim, Inner Rim, etc. Same goes for |sector= and |subsector= while we're at it. Labyrinthine G0B-L1N (talk) 02:04, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
  • {{CelestialBody}} will also need to have detailed documentation attached explaining to users the scope of information to be entered in each field, as the documentation for {{Planet}} and {{Moon}} appears to have been non-existent which has caused confusion, due to the vague naming of some individual fields, resulting in infoboxes containing incorrect information due to user error. Labyrinthine G0B-L1N (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
    • I'll have to disagree with the region suggestion, chiefly on the grounds that none of those suggested field names don't necessarily also apply to the "main" regions. At some point, it just becomes more of an OOU distinction as opposed to an IU one. As for the other suggestions, personally I'm growing on the idea of an orbitedby field - would indeed make the code and presentation neater. I suppose both subsector and type fields are also reasonable ideas. All of these should probably be best to tackle one at a time as opposed to bundling it all into the new template immediately (since it'd involve the modification of a fair few articles), but yeah, adding to my to-do list. Thanks! Imperators II^(Talk) 09:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)