Talk:Celestia/Archive 1

Functions

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Regarding questions related to Celestia software.

This is a reminder to those using talk pages... conversation on these pages is supposed to be related to the Wikipedia article itself. Celestia, like many open source software projects, have answers to questions on their site to get additional information. Plugins related to Celestia are on Celestia Motherlode which is linked to on both Celestia's website and in the article. I am removing questions posted in this discussion page unrelated to the Wikipedia article itself. --Ice (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Status of Celestia

I've just removed an unsourced paragraph by 67.184.74.131 claiming that Celestia has become unmaintained, without explanation, and may be superseded by "Celestia.sci". This IP user has a history of adding unsourced information, and this was no exception. However, it does raise a point; Celestia doesn't seem to have seen any activity in two years (as of tomorrow, 10 June). Does anyone know if there is any official word on its status? -- Perey (talk) 11:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that would be great to include some updated and sourced info. I am new to this software. First of all it wasn't easy to find the proper download page (this page does point to the proper source-page I believe), there are several download pages floating around the net and they does not seem to be all safe. I cancelled an install from one of these sites, due to safety concerns. 86.52.114.223 (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Fridger Schrempp (aka t00fri) mentioned [2] that Celestia development has stopped. It'll be continued with "Celestia.sci" — Preceding unsigned comment added by SinMike (talk • contribs) 12:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

fixed all that. --TheAnarcat (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I am maintaining my own unofficial copy, just to keep it compiling with recent compilers and updated dependencies. I forked it on 2017-02-13. It currently has 5 old patches by the Fedora package maintainers + 4 of my own. I'm just keeping it working on Opensuse Tumbleweed, as that's what I use. 84.208.177.71 (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

huh?

Celestia uses the Julian calendar and cannot go back or forward more than 2 billion years, and the default time-setting system cannot go further than the years -9999 or 9999.

Yes, it can! i did even set it to 650,000,000 years.

Jelle Gouw (talk) 10:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Celestia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071023211946/http://learn.arc.nasa.gov/planets/ to http://learn.arc.nasa.gov/planets/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071128195756/http://trajectory.estec.esa.int/Astro/3rd-astro-workshop-presentations/Space%20Trajectory%20Analysis%20%28STA%29.pdf to http://trajectory.estec.esa.int/Astro/3rd-astro-workshop-presentations/Space%20Trajectory%20Analysis%20%28STA%29.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071023211946/http://learn.arc.nasa.gov/planets/ to http://learn.arc.nasa.gov/planets/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

allows users to travel

Would that it did. This needs to be rewritten to describe the virtual nature of the travel (unless we've not been told something.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.207.205 (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)