Template talk:Astronomical locations in fiction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Template title

Just one small point: shouldn't the title of the template be "Astronomical Locations in Fiction"? --Bruce1ee 13:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably, but it sounds a bit odd given the current usage of "astronomical" to mean "of immense magnitude".RandomCritic 14:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, let's try it on for size anyway. RandomCritic 21:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit

I don't like the elimination of the v·d·e tab. And in general the look of the table is a bit sloppy; Planets/Moons/Other aren't lined up, and the remainder isn't centered. And why is there a link to interstellar space? or small solar system body, given that Pluto isn't one? RandomCritic 00:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry to see you're not keen on my attempts at revision. The primary motivation was to add a little more structure to it.
    1. I feel v·d·e tabs on templates are made redundant if/when it's possible to link the template's title to the template.
    2. Planets/Moon/Other appear lined up here, but perhaps a further column is required after all.
    3. Interstellar space was the link I found that seems to pertain to "Extrasolar". I suggest "Extrasolar" is linked in some way as otherwise its bold black appearance seems to draw undue attention.
    4. Pluto not a small solar system body..?  Well, I did try to speed through the revision following your enquiry. Sorry to overlook.
...Regards, David Kernow (talk) 05:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I've tried for a simpler look for the template, with fewer subheaders. I guess the linking without the v·d·e works, though it's not what I'm used to. Got rid of the "Other stars" inline link, and used it as a replacement for "Extrasolar", making it parallel with the "Solar System in fiction" link. "Other stars" is intentionally ambiguous, as "Other star systems" is inappropriate for the Andromeda Galaxy link. RandomCritic 17:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  1. Am creating Template:Tnavbar-header-left to see if placing a v·d·e on a title's left-hand side might work (leaving the right-hand side clear for the [Show]/[Hide] button). Unfinished at present.
  2. Removed that wide gap between lines in the Solar System section (created by using separate rows; I don't know how or whether it's possible to alter this row spacing).
  3. Star systems in fiction rather than "Extrasolar" – of course!  I was sure I'd seen something more appropriate. Thanks for inserting. To follow "Solar System" above it, I've amended the link text to read "Other systems"; yes, no...?
  4. Line dividing the two sections a good idea; have switched colo/ur "#E8E8E8" to "lightgrey" as it appears a little too faintly here. Hope it now doesn't look too dark to you. I guess you favo/ur this method of creating a line over the wikicode "----" or HTML "<hr>"...?
Yours, David (talk) 03:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Looks great, thanks! RandomCritic 18:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rebuild

I've rebuilt the template to stop including everything into this category. The articles are already in proper categories, and the category Astronomical locations in fiction has been reused as an umbrella category, and also now slots in under Astronomical Objects. 132.205.93.33 04:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be missing the equivalent: Category:Fictional astronomical locations that would umbrella fictional stars, fictional planets, etc. 132.205.93.33 04:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)