Template talk:Celestial body

Infobox tweaks
Working with the template, I've come across some desirable features that I'm not knowledgeable enough to implement myself. Therefore, I'd like to ask the maintainers (probably our templatier extraordinaire Moviesign) for a few features (or something along these lines):


 * A usethe field in the infobox for astronomical bodies that require it (such as the Tears of Selûne). In particular, would the Tears also require a usein field as well?
 * Automatic category generation for the size categories. Not crunchy like Category:Size A planets, but more like a translation of the sidebar on p.34 of Concordance of Arcane Space in the Spelljammer: AD&D Adventures in Space boxset, so size A translates into Category:Celestial bodies less than 10 miles across. Size B would go into Category:Celestial bodies 10-100 miles across, and so on. The table goes:


 * I have been using the standard section scheme of the Location template. Do we agree that the same scheme should be used for planets? If so, would it be helpful for these standard sections to be placed in this template's documentation as well?

Any thoughts? &mdash; Sirwhiteout (talk) 18:07, February 19, 2018 (UTC)


 * Ha ha. I already went and did the 1 one, probably while you were writing this. :) ~ Lhynard (talk) 18:36, February 19, 2018 (UTC)


 * Heh. Paraphrazing a certain admin: you, sir, are on top of things. :) &mdash; Sirwhiteout (talk) 18:38, February 19, 2018 (UTC)


 * As for point 2, I actually prefer Category:Size A planets to Category:Celestial bodies less than 10 miles across, with the idea that the category page itself defines it. I don't think that is crunchy. Or is there no indication that the spelljammers themselves used such terms as "size A"?


 * That being said, it is not a strong preference. I or Movie can add that once we have a consensus here.


 * For your third point, I agree and yes.


 * ~ Lhynard (talk) 18:41, February 19, 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok, thinking about it, I changed my mind. I agree with you: Category:Size A planets is fine, and probably better. &mdash; Sirwhiteout (talk) 18:45, February 19, 2018 (UTC)

OK, I went and replaced Planet with Celestial body across the wiki. The new template does a lot of fancy things, such as autogenerate categories and convert fields into a "classification code" using the symbols found in Spelljammer. Let me know if you have any problems or suggestions for improvement. ~ Lhynard (talk) 23:28, February 21, 2018 (UTC)


 * Wow, the template looks amazing. Great work! &mdash; Sirwhiteout (talk) 04:11, February 22, 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I am considering changing the color scheme to make it more outer-space-y, but that's a much lower priority. Movie would be better at that. ~ Lhynard (talk) 05:28, February 22, 2018 (UTC)


 * Tell me what you have in mind and I'll make it happen. Midnight blue with white letters for the title, perhaps? &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 13:43, February 22, 2018 (UTC)


 * I was even thinking so far as deep space black with white letters or star yellow. We do have a lot of blue already with the ship and bodies of water infoboxes. There is the header bar also, though. Midnight blue could still be worked in.


 * This was why I said that you would be better at this. :)


 * ~ Lhynard (talk) 14:43, February 22, 2018 (UTC)

Here is a first attempt at a "space" themed infobox: User:Moviesign/Selûne_(moon). See what you think. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 18:55, February 22, 2018 (UTC)


 * Niice! Just one detail: As many readers will not be familiar with the size system (and hardly anyone will know the values by heart), I think there should always be a link from the size classification letter to the list of categories we now have at Category:Celestial bodies by size. I could do this manually, but could you include it automatically in the template? Daranios (talk) 19:57, February 22, 2018 (UTC)


 * Done. ~ Lhynard (talk) 20:33, February 22, 2018 (UTC)


 * I like the color scheme, but I think I would prefer if all infoboxes maintained black on white for the main text. Leave the fancy colors for the headers, borders, and links section. ~ Lhynard (talk) 20:37, February 22, 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll leave it dark until I get home tonight, so BCM (and possibly others) has a chance to see it. He will likely agree with you, but if I change it now he won't be able to see what it looked like originally. &mdash;Moviesign (talk)


 * I liked the dark theme as well, except for the way red links appeared at the bottom. A colorblind reader, for example, would have a really hard time seeing those. Also, maybe it's my computer screen, but I could hardly tell regular text from links. So if people prefer light letters over a dark background, I'd suggest maybe a lighter shade of yellow for regular text. &mdash; Sirwhiteout (talk) 22:24, February 22, 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think that BadCat ever saw this thread&hellip;. ~ Lhynard (talk) 05:15, April 1, 2018 (UTC)


 * I think I skimmed it. ;) Movie knows me well. :) Yeah, I like the standard colour scheme of black text on white for the main contents of the infobox (too much pale text on dark tends to burn lines into my eyes), but the headings can be shaded any colour. — BadCatMan (talk) 05:26, April 1, 2018 (UTC)