Template talk:Orbits

	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Spaceflight This template is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight

I added a link to the article on Gravity turn, which I recently started, to this template. There are currently no articles that link to it and I couldn't seem to find text in other articles to add a link so I thought I would add one here. However I feel that if the community sees that the article exists they can work in some links to relevant topics. If there is a template where this topic might fit better feel free to relocate it. -AndrewBuck 20:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be better if the parameters section were above the "other topics" section, since other topics seems like a catch-all that belongs at the end, and parameters sort of get lost down there. — Swpb^talk.edits 16:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• I moved the parameters section to the bottom of the template so its titlebar could sit in place of the 'below' bar and the template thereby resembles other Navbox templates more closely. I see your point, however. On the other hand, most of the "related topics" linked in the template don't seem as loosely related as they can in other templates. Than again, given this is a template for convenience more than comprehensiveness, providing links to the various orbital parameters might seem more along the lines of providing links to related topics... So, I'm undecided! Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Orbital parameters are pretty central to a discussion of what an orbit is, don't you think? — Swpb^talk.edits 18:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but I'd understand if someone said they didn't think they were that high a priority for inclusion in a template; perhaps instead, for example, a link to a "List of orbital parameters" or something like that. How about placing the Orbital parameters section at the top of the template and moving the "List of orbits" link back below? Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. — Swpb^talk.edits 22:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Done! Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! — Swpb^talk.edits 01:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I added Two-line element set to the Geocentric row of the Types section several days ago. After glancing at the full template today, I was wondering if anyone thinks it fits better in the row named Other in the Parameters section, since even though they are only used for geocentric orbits at the moment, they are better thought of as an alternative description of the orbit parameters by including a list of mean parameters. --Dgroseth (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I noted a right extension off the page of the Parameters navbox child in my IE9 browser, and it did not supply a bottom slider. So the final parameter links in both subgroups were partially obscured and ususable in the Orbit of the Moon article. This was cured by including appropriately placed <br /> line-wrap code. – PIE ( CLIMAX )  21:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
PS. If someone has a better solution, please let me know.

I have tried adding some {{allow wrap}} templates to the bits that include math. Seems to have fixed the problem. Please feel free to revert again if it is still not working for you. Ever tried Firefox? Much better browser :) See you around. --Dianna (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that works. No offense, but it seems like a lot of extra work when a couple of BR tags did the job, although I'm sure the Allow wrap templates, which I didn't know about (thank you), do the job much better. As for Firefox, yes I have it and use it to check some of my edits. My edit-browser of preference is IE, and precisely because it exhibits the most problems. If I can get it to work in IE, it'll probably work in most any browser. – PIE ( CLIMAX )  04:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The break tags might not help someone looking at the template on their cell phone or other mobile device, so this is a better solution. The {allow wrap} is a new super excellent template. You are brave to work on IE! The dark side, as it were. Regards, -- Dianna (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)