Forum:CT:New planet infobox template

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 to accept the planet infobox proposal. –Sentry^Talk 08:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

New proposal (updated)

Now that we have new self-collapsing templates (see Template:Individual_ship), I see no reason why we shouldn't implement a new infobox with these additional fields. For planets with little info, blank fields will auto-hide and we won't have large, empty infoboxes. But on well-known planets, like Geonosis, we can have extensive information laid out orderly and consistently across the board. If we create a new template, perhaps {{Planet infobox}}, we can migrate slowly, although admittedly this would be quite a task. I believe the benefits outweigh this inconvenience, though. In fact, if I make the new template similar to the current one, there will be no need to update smaller articles. If I get some support, I can throw together a new infobox pretty quickly. What do you think? RMF 04:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• What would the additional fields be? Export/Imports and the like? StarNeptune 05:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, as well as many of the other fields on the infobox below (distance from core, position, number of satellites, etc). Some of the more rare fields, such as coordinates, could be left out, but I don't really see why seeing as they'd only appear on the planets with that info anyways. RMF 05:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I hope I understand this right (these types of template codes are not my forte). So with the new template, we only add fields that are relevant, and omit the others entirely? (i.e. instead of "terrain=|" we just don't include the terrain field in?) StarNeptune 05:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
      • No. All fields must be present; if a field isn't relevant then it should be listed but left blank. In the following example, name and region are known; but sector is not:

name=Coruscant|
region=[[Core Worlds/Legends|Core Worlds]]|
sector=|

As such, implementing new infoboxes would require some work. But like I said earlier, we would only have to do this for major articles—planets with nowhere near this much info can stay at {{Planet}}. RMF 06:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• I was thinking about this, and it wouldn't really be that hard—we could simply paste a list the new infobox fields into the bottom of the current template code and change the template name at the top. All we would have to do then is fill the fields with the appropriate information, some of which is already mentioned in the text. Here is a list of the new fields:

coord=|
distance=|
class=|
diameter=|
atmosphere=|
climate=|
gravity=|
lengthday=|
lengthyear=|
imports=
exports=|

Any other comments? Fields to be added/removed? RMF 19:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• In addition, I can change the new template so that colors (for heading backgrounds/text) can be customized for each planet. I don't know if this is a good idea, but it's certainly possible technically-wise. I did this with {{Government}}, so all the different govs could have their own colors without making separate templates, as an example. RMF 20:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Prototype template

I just posted my test template, which you can see to the right. Note that Geonosis does not have all the available fields filled, there are some that are hidden. To see all the fields that I included, look here. I maintained the same order of fields as Template:Planet, so they should be somewhat interchangeable. Comments? RMF 01:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• I really like this new infobox, as it contains information that we normally wouldn't include in an article at all. For example - diameter. You don't really see anyone mentioning the diameter of a planet in an article these days... that's because this kind of info only really fits in an infobox; it just looks awkward if included in a full sentence. --Azizlight 12:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

Hi everyone, I've only just discovered this wiki but I've been maintaining an Access database for a few years as a hobby that covers pretty much the same matter. Any way, here is my proposal for the planet template. It was based upon the older one already in use here and includeds additional data fields that I have found useful.

• An additional point I would raise in support for this change is that in my expeiences with databases it is better to create the most flexible architecture from the begining and have a few blank spaces rather than make incremental changes over time and have to update every entry each time a new field is required.

Cheers, Shiaic 27 Dec 2005

{{{image}}}
{{{name}}}
System	{{{system}}}
Sector	{{{sector}}}
Region	{{{region}}}
Astrometric
Distance From Core	{{{distance}}}
Suns	{{{suns}}}
Position in System	{{{position}}}
Number of Satellites	{{{numsats}}}
Moons	{{{moons}}}
X Coordinate	{{{xcoord}}}
Y Coordinate	{{{ycoord}}}
Z Coordinate	{{{zcoord}}}
Planetology
Class	{{{class}}}
Diameter	{{{diameter}}}
Primary Terrain	{{{terrain}}}
Atmosphere	{{{atmosphere}}}
Hydrosphere	{{{water}}}
Climate	{{{climate}}}
Gravity	{{{gravity}}}
Length of Day	{{{lengthday}}}
Length of Year	{{{lengthyear}}}
Demographics
Population	{{{population}}}
Indigenous Species	{{{species}}}
Other Species	{{{otherspecies}}}
Official Language	{{{language}}}
Socio-political
Government	{{{government}}}
Affiliation	{{{affiliation}}}
Major Exports	{{{exports}}}
Major Imports	{{{imports}}}
Major Cities	{{{cities}}}
Points of Interest	{{{interest}}}

Discussion

Hi Shiac. The major problem with this template is that we must design it to the lowest common denominator. There are very, very few planets for which we have all of this information. It wouldn't just be a few empty fields, it would be many. --SparqMan 22:29, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• I can appreciate that, but I just don't see empty fields as anything but an issue over aesthetics, and I think that this would only lead to people searching for the extra information to fill the blank spaces. For example, fields such as class (ie. Terrestial, Gas Giant, etc.) and atmosphere may in many cases not be written specifically (except for when it is an execption to the norm ie, Amonia Gas) but can still be included from inferance... If a human character is moving around without breathing apparatus, the atmosphere is obviously breathable, therefore Oxygen Mix.
• In the Completely Unofficial Star Wars Encyclopeadia CUSWE at theforce.net there are at least 400 planet entries with data for Length of Day and Length of Year so although there may be very few planets for which all of this data exists, there are very many that have most of it.
• Also, the argument that this template upsets entries using the previous one is moot because I have been trawling through (and updating where I can) and have seen about 3 differant infoboxes in use anyway, and the ones currently linked to the Template:Plant are only slightly affected by the new template.
• At the end of the day, designing it for the lowest common denominator is, in my opinion, just limiting the potential of this resource for fans and everyone else. Is there any input from everyone else on the issue? -- Shiaic, 27 Dec 2005
  • Shiaic, perhaps you haven't noticed that we have over 1,100 planets so far on Wookieepedia, with more each day. The 400 planets for the length data isn't even half of that. There are other fields, however, that we have no remote information on, and for most of the planets, we never will. The majority of our planets are short articles because they are only mentioned in passing or have very little offered in the way of details along the lines for which you are looking. For example: diameter, distance from Core, X-Y-Z coordinates. This doesn't even take into account the more simple areas (language, imports/exports, population) for which we have no source, and are likely never to have. Does that explain my concerns more clearly? --SparqMan 06:27, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • I realise that 400 isn't very many planets in the overall scheme of things and that most of the planets don't have much additional info beyond a name and/or region (incidentally I've read most of the 3900+ planet/moon/star entries in the CUSWE), however, 400 is still a lot of entries and that’s for just for those two fields used as an example. I believe the expanded fields add to the overall fact box medium of getting the planetary stats at a glance. Is it that big an issue if some of those fields are blank? After all that is the case at the moment for the majority of entries anyway. I can concede to your point with the X-Y-Z fields as there are only about 90 planets with that particular datum, but there is alot of information regarding things such as language, imports/exports, population. If the options are presented then people will look to find it when reading through the sources. --Shiaic 08:15, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Perhaps this is because I also am a new user, but I agree with Shiaic, up to a point. I think that the current template is somewhat minimalist--it may be the lowest common denominator, but I would rather see a little more detailed information on few planets than sparse information on many planets. Yes, I realize that that was an over-generalization, but it seems like a shame to essentially "throw-out" information on planets we know in an effort to make the template full for all planets. On the other hand, I do not agree with all of the additions. If taken in its entirety, this list, while impressive, is IMO too in-depth for all but a few planets. Many other planets would show up as just a list of unknowns, with only several fields filled. Several fields I don't like: imports/exports, XYZ coordinates, hydrosphere, and length of day/year. I like the rest of the fields, but your division of the infobox into subcategories, while appreciated from an organizational POV, makes the list 4 lines longer than it has to be. In many articles, this infobox would be far taller than the main body of text in any event, and I don't want to push it even further. One more point: for langauges, I would rather not have just an "official langauge" designation. I would prefer "Langauges" on the left and then put (official) in parentheses behind the appropriate data. The same thing could be done under "Major Citites," simply put an (capital) after the proper city. I hope that made sense. Rmfitzgerald50 05:05, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Before the new planet infobox was in use, we did have an infobox that would allow the user to change the number of sections in that particular one, not simply being a template for all planets. This helped in those areas which we knew alot more detail about a planet, and still kept the smallest articles with their minimal information. I'm not sure exactly why this wasn't fully considered before we moved to the new one. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:54, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • That would be ideal, I'd think--the only possible downside is the lack of uniformity, but the advantages well outweigh that disadvantage.Rmfitzgerald50 06:12, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with that idea. Just having an infobox with all posible fields will lead to having most planets with more than half fields empty. --Thinortolan 23:43, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • I for one like this new template for its... comprehensiveness. Adamwankenobi 05:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
        • This template is actually somewhat outdated. With our new templates, we can automatically hide fields that are unknown, which makes a more comprehensive infobox a much more viable option. See the updated proposal at the top of the page. RMF 05:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
          • How often would we actually have anywhere near that much info? I mean, coordinates? CooperTFN 05:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, you never know. At least we could use the coordinates for Coruscant, which are (0,0,0). :) Adamwankenobi 05:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Which means the maximum usage we could get out of those fields is three zeros. Exciting. =p CooperTFN 22:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
              • According to Shiaic's post above, there are roughly 90 planets with that data. I don't know the exact number, but I'll take his word for it. RMF 22:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
                • Wow. Must be WEG data. CooperTFN 22:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• The X,Y,Z coordinates might be a bit much, and I don't think we need a gravity and hydrosphere section. On the other hand, I do like the addition of a government section, as well as the main import/export section. -- SFH 23:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.