Template talk:Planet infobox

Proposal

As well as splitting up the planets location, actual physical description and the description of what faction occupies it and in what capacity it does so into separate sections, how is also adding a section detailing any significant and important infrastructure and installations that the world may have? (Also added would be the world's nature as either being a faction's homeworld or colony, the date it was founded (This one is only really applicable for a colony) and what the world's main function was usually regarded as.) An example below:

|name=
|image=

Location

|star, position= 

Physical Description

|moon(s)= 
|satellite(s)= 
|diameter= 
|gravity= 
|daylength= 
|yearlength= 
|atmosphere= 
|temperature= 
|composition= 
|adjective= 

Affiliation

|species= 
|population= 
|nature= (Homeworld or colony)
|date founded= 
|principle function= (E.g agriculture, economic, cultural, military, industrial, leisure, etc)
|societal approximation= 
|government= 
|technology tier= 
|current threat to array= 

Notable Infrastructure (???)

|government= (E.g. HIGHCOM Bravo-6, FLEETCOM HQ, etc)
|industrial= (E.g. Shipyards, Armories, orbital tethers etc)
|commercial= (E.g. Traxus, Asklon, etc)

-Anton1792 16:28, 4 October 2011 (EDT)

Nice work, should "Demonym" be used in favour of "Adjective" though? -TheLostJedi 07:43, 12 December 2011 (EST)

Tagged to be updated. On the above note, to the best of my knowledge, I don't think there was any demonym used in the Halo fiction but I am prepared to be enlightened. :P — subtank 07:54, 12 December 2011 (EST)

In addition to the existing demonyms for the worlds in Sol, Bungie's "Meet the Squad" feature has demonyms for Draco III (Draconian) and Madrigal (Madrigali).--Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 08:48, 12 December 2011 (EST)

Enlightened! — subtank 15:28, 12 December 2011 (EST)

Moons/Satellites

I think it would make more sense to merge the fields for "moons" and "satellites" into a single field. In common usage the term "satellite" refers to a moon, and listing artificial satellites in the infobox would often result in a massive list, at least with prominent worlds like Earth and Reach. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 02:19, 11 June 2012 (EDT)

Agreed and removed. :) — subtank 06:27, 11 June 2012 (EDT)

Another proposal

Just an idea: maybe we can have separate fields for system, body it orbits (star in case of planet, planet in case of moon), and orbital position (for example: "Five" for Hestia V, "Seven" for Meridian). The latter would also be more useful when we know position but not system name, as is the case with Duraan. With how it is right now, it feels kind of weird that system and orbital position are sharing a field. Any thoughts? --NightHammer^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:03, 1 May 2016 (EDT)

Also, I've been wondering whether it is even necessary to include the Tech Tier field in the infobox. The Tech Tiers seem to be based on species majority, rather than individual planets. We really only officially know the Tech Tier for a handful of worlds, as I'd expect there to be some difference between tech on Aleria compared to Earth, Mars, or Tribute. It's made even more confusing when we have contested worlds with Tier 2 Covenant species living with Tier 3 humans. --NightHammer^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:52, 2 May 2016 (EDT)

The tech tier field isn't very necessary and could well be removed. I suppose we could add fields for orbital position and parent body, though the latter would be synonymous with the system's name in most cases. Maybe the parent body and orbital position could be incorporated into a single field? --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 00:49, 3 May 2016 (EDT)

Yeah, it's possible, though it would end up looking similar to what we have now. --NightHammer^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:55, 3 May 2016 (EDT)

Mostly, though it would introduce the ability to separately identify the system and parent body. My main doubt regarding a separate "orbital position" field is that it may not always be clear whether it refers to the article subject's orbital position around its system primary star or possible parent planet, as with Meridian. That's why it may be more clear to list the orbital position in the "Parent body" field while keeping the "system" field separate. However, I can see your point about Duraan where the system nor the parent body have been given a name, though it's a very rare case. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 07:43, 3 May 2016 (EDT)

Personally, I'd hope it would be clear enough, though I do see your point. A possible resolution for moons would be to list "Primary satellite" or "Seventh satellite/moon" instead of "One" or "Seven". --NightHammer^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:09, 3 May 2016 (EDT)

Any other suggestions? If not, I can handle the necessary changes. I'd be easier to do it all at once. --NightHammer^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:32, 11 May 2016 (EDT)

Actually, thinking about it now, putting "Second planet" or "Seventh satellite" (for example) in the "Orbital position" field should be effective enough, rather than simply putting "One" or "First". --NightHammer^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:58, 17 May 2016 (EDT)

Agreed, that should be more informative than the current format. How many changes does that leave us with? --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 23:47, 17 May 2016 (EDT)

(reset indent) Let's see: remove tech tier, and have fields for system, orbiting body, and position. I can make the necessary changes. --NightHammer^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:50, 17 May 2016 (EDT)