Template talk:Planet

Proposed Planet Template
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

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

Explanation of planet templates
For most cases, planet will suffice. It is the complete table with standard fields, no additional templates are required. However, if you need additional customization of specific planets, the following low-level templates can be used:
 * plh - header, begins the table; takes two parameters, name and image.
 * plh-std - incorporates plh and the standard fields. After it, additional fields can be added using pl.
 * pl - used to add an entry (row) to the summary. Usage:.
 * plf - footer, ends the table.

Hope this helps. - Sikon 05:55, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Fields to include
We should probably drop some of the fields in this template, and add a few new. Here's what I'm thinking


 * Remove:
 * Distance from Core (Almost no planets have this information provided)
 * Surface Water (See above)


 * Rename:
 * Number of Suns to Suns (We'd put the name of the suns here instead)
 * Major Species to Native Species (Human groups that have lived on the planet for an extended amount of time would also be counted, i.e. Naboo)


 * Discuss:
 * Population (This is pretty much a failure, as the population of planets go up and down all the time. Should we use only the last recorded number, or add all known numbers from all eras? I say remove it)

Thoughts? --Imp 08:45, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC) --Azizlight 14:44, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with all the above points, and would like to add:
 * Change Number of Moons to Moons (list all moon names)
 * Add Other Species, in addition to Native Species
 * Add Capital City, and possibly Other Major Cities
 * The problem with the "Moons" field is that it would mess up the template in cases like Yavin, which has 23 moons. I agree with your other points. --Imp 15:13, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * What's to go in the Other species section? Nonnative, but populous species? Or creatures? In the former case, that would be impossible, especially for planets like Coruscant and Tatooine, which house thousands of different species. --Imp 22:51, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * See this is why I'd rather stay with the old infobox, as we can remove sections and add them at will depending on how much info we have. All the planets in the movies would have Distance to Core and Surface Water, but nearly nothing else. -- Riffsyphon1024 15:46, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Other templates allow to add and remove sections as well. This is just a set of commonly used fields. Considering suns and moons... Well, nobody says one should list all the 23 moons of Yavin - that's what List of moons is for. We can have just "Moons: 23". For Onderon, for example, we can have: "Moons: Dxun and 3 more". - Sikon 16:15, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better to have numbers in the Suns and Moons fields, with the names (if available) listed in a section of the article. Actually, since there usually aren't a whole lot of suns, perhaps we could name the suns in the infobox, and simply give the number of moons. The number would link to a section with a title such as Orbits or Orbiting bodies which listed them all by name. This would reduce clutter in the infobox. – Aidje talk 05:02, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * This is all already in the system articles. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:04, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that we not include info about a planet's moons in the planet's article? – Aidje talk 05:11, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * No, we should include moons, but I was refering to suns. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:24, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * "Capital and Major Cities" is too long and leaves little space for the cities themselves. Maybe reduce to just "Major Cities"? - Sikon 04:41, 12 Aug 2005 (UTC)

The Workshop
Can we go with this? --SparqMan 05:37, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll post the corrected version here based on our changes. -- Riffsyphon1024 15:51, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok to me. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:39, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * So, shall we adopt the new template now? - Sikon [ Talk ] 06:24, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, since it got the ok from Riff. I'm looking forward to using it! By the way, nice work on all this, Sikon. --Azizlight 22:29, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)