Talk:Celestia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Celestia article.
Article policies
Free software Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Free Software, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve free software-related articles.
B rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
Low rated as low-importance on the assessment scale
A userbox relating to this topic is available:
{{User:UBX/Celestia}}
This user enjoys using Celestia to look at the virtual skies.

Contents

[edit] Functions

Maybe there are some spelling mistakes. My english level isn't very high Nikolang 12:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addons

I'll translate the addon-part from my german version of this article. So dont waste any time ;) --Nikolang 19:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blank lines

Thumperward, I'd like to keep the blank line to let the page "breathe" better; is that ok? ElChristou (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't mix content and presentation if we can avoid it. I assume you mean that the infobox image cause the article to look bunched-up without the whitespace padding. A better solution would be to reduce the size of the image, which I've now done. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Nope, I mean the disambiguation line should be slightly separated from the article (the person who came here by error will pick the disambiguation link more easily/quickly); the same way, I'm thinking in adding blanks between each sections (btw, sorry for the English...). What do you mean by not mixing content and presentation? I don't understand well, content and presentation are not part of the same doc? ElChristou (talk) 11:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
If you believe that the spacing between the hatnote and the article text is too small, this should be discussed on the hatnote discussion page, so that all articles benefit from the change. The same goes for making the default spacing between paragraphs larger. We should not insert blank lines just to separate pieces of text on the screen. Separation of content and presentation means that we should avoid adding markup just to work around problems with a specific output format; for instance, if the article were printed, those blank lines would cause the article to be longer (and thus use more paper) but would not provide any benefit. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The benefit is readability, something commonly researched in edition. Anyway you are right, this should be discuss as a general politic... Tx for your time. ElChristou (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overly enthusiastic commentary

We need to ensure that this article reads like an encyclopedia entry and not a review of the application. Recent edits are exceedingly complimentary to the program and make little attempt to stay neutral. This needs to be addressed. The information itself is good, but it must be added in a non-judgemental manner. Chris Cunningham (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean, I'll try a few change... (BTW, your Others App is just cool!) ElChristou (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Better? (more formal, no?) ElChristou (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Yup, better. I'll do a bit more work too. One thing to note: you seem to be piping things which don't need to be piped. For instance, Star Wars is exactly the same as Star Wars (view source to see the difference). We should aim to make the markup of the page as simple as possible to aid editors. Chris Cunningham (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Oops, sorry I'm still not really used to this system... ElChristou (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, you'll get used to it :) many thanks for your work here. Chris Cunningham (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
What was wrong with the educational addon part? it's a quite an important stuff... ElChristou (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea what it meant. It is also unreferenced, so it is difficult for readers to verify. Chris Cunningham (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
And now? ElChristou (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. :) Chris Cunningham (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation

Chris, what kind of Citation you want to see at the 3rd line? (I don't recall any President talking about Celestia ;) ) ElChristou (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

An independent review of the application which points out the contrast between Celestia and other applications which do not provide this feature would be the best thing. Chris Cunningham (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
not sure it's good enough but... [1] What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElChristou (talk • contribs) 20:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
That's an excellent link, and should be used as a reference for several points in the article. However, it does not make the particular statement which is tagged for citation in the article. Chris Cunningham (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Yep, the problem is to find something that is still on line... I suppose better change this sentence... I'll try. ElChristou (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Better? ElChristou (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's not really a claim which requires citation now. I've reworded it slightly. Chris Cunningham (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Nice! I think the page is much better now... Good job, tx for the patience and time. Hope you are enjoying such nice soft! ;) Bye. ElChristou (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Are the "unsourced" categories at the end of the page still necessary? (no idea how to remove them) ElChristou (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The offending tag is the fact tag on the statement "Movies can be captured up to a resolution of 720x576 pixels, with HD resolutions promised in the next release." A source needs to be found "promising" this, or the "promise" needs to be removed from the article. Chris Cunningham (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addon

I want to ask where i can get the addon "Earth's death in 5 billion years" as it's shown in a pic in this article. thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.186.13.252 (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Celestia 1.5.1

To Hautala: Celestia 1.5.1 is released on April 24, 2008. To understand, look at http://www.shatters.net/~claurel/celestia/filesUnknownquinones (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, Celestia 1.5.1 is on the official website.Unknownquinones (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)