Talk:Kerbal Space Program

Improve this article to GA and get a BARNSTAR!
Fazbear7891 (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

A need for new pictures
The Kerbal Space Program page could use a better feature image. The current image (the screenshot of the rocket - file titled KSPscreenshot.png) is nice, but I think to keep consistency with other video game pages, an image of the game's official title/logo/insignia would be better suited (at least for putting next to the introductory paragraph at the top). We could still use the current screenshot of the rocket, putting it further down - probably on the Gameplay section of the page. GabeIglesia (talk) 05:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The official logo of the game is now the feature image of the page. Additional screenshots of gameplay mechanics should be added to improve the article's quality. They would be much appreciated. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's just keep the current picture for now. Though it is old, the screenshot still is accurate. Longbyte1 (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, since the article's on a low-priority for now, there's no dire need to get newer screenshots presently. We can fetch newer ones in the future as the game continues developing. In that meantime, I had re-added KSPScreenshot.png to the article. Thanks for providing that, by the way! GabeIglesia (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Although this thread is old, I added a picture of Jebediah and Valentina. File:Kerbals - Jebediah and Valentina Kerman.png --Fazbear7891 (talk) 04:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Version History
Is the 'Version History' section really needed on the page? Perhaps an external link to a page containing it would be better, or at least perhaps toning down the colors on the page would be better. Scruce (talk) 09:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It's Mün - not the Mun
I'm new to Wikipedia, and don't know how to edit the captions of an image, but it should be written 'Mün', not the Mun. It's like if you were to call Earth's moon - Luna - 'the Luna.' Also, the accent on the 'u' makes it pronounced 'Moon.' Get it? ;)

Never mind, I got it. I think I corrected them all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panichio (talk • contribs) 06:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I hope I didn't sound too amateurish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panichio (talk • contribs) 04:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it is Mun. That's what it is in the game. 174.59.63.6 (talk) 02:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it isnt. before we start an edit war, look into the game again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.240.119.31 (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * kerbalspaceprogram.com has this entry supporting "The Mun" rather than just "Mun" or "Mün": "Apr 23, 2014 - Video Wednesdays: Munar 1 ... Based on the true story of PuffballsUnited's first attempt at landing on the Mun, MUNAR 1 is a charming take on a conversation between a...  Read more" --Treekids (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Naming isn't consistent. Sometimes it's Mun, sometimes Mün, and sometimes the Mun. A source will pretty much always grant you one of these. Anybody can get a source that says one of these things. Best to just say 'Mün or Mun' in the article and get on with it. Ingame, it almost always says Mun, however. Don't know if that changes anything as Mün is popular outside the game. SpeedyAstro (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The starting menu screen shows a vessel with "Mün or bust!" painted on it, but the game doesn't support a complete charset for textual data. There's no agreement on the matter. Myk (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Necessary expansion
I've overhauled the article a bit to be more in line with the guidelines for video game articles (WP:VG/GL). However, as I've never actually played the game, I can only contribute in a limited manner. I may have gone a bit overboard with the amount of problem tags I added, but they're a good place to start if you're looking to improve the article. The gameplay and development section definitely need to be expanded, with the development section including the technical aspect of the game's development, pre-release development, and notable(!) version milestones. The reception section needs many more quotes and specific attributions. In general, the article should read a bit less like an advertisement; I've tried to tone that down. And finally, links to wikis should generally be avoided (WP:ELNO, so if a link to the Kerbal Space Program wiki can be substituted with a link to a more reliable source, please do so. Knight of Truth (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You did go overboard. The existence of a modding community is self-evident. 70.172.214.70 (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It should mention MechJeb in my opinion, which is pretty much a feature of the game to most people. 64.251.57.9 (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've just majorly overhauled the article. I've also added MechJeb as referenced above. Spikitiger (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Multiplayer
The section stating there is not going to be any multiplayer is somewhat incorrect. In the earliest stages of development it was stated that multiplayer would not be added until after the game is completed.

That being said, it is listed on the "What not to suggest" page on the forums as "Will not be in the game", but upon contacting the Kerbal Space Program information address they repeated "It has not been decided when this will be added to the game". I am awaiting further clarification.

Here is the email I received from info@kerbalspaceprogram.com 7/26/2013:

"Hi,

Slow down, as you said, it may be implemented sometime after the final release, which hasn't happened yet (and is still pretty far). We haven't officially discussed anything concrete about multiplayer, everything posted on the forums are just user's opinions, speculation and gossip.

Best regards, KSP Info"

Which seems to contradict the thread at http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/36863-What-not-to-suggest Leonassan (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

There is some form of Multiplayer using mods (like DMP, Dark MultiPlayer) or the good old pass-on-the-save-file. 80.6.22.83 (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Adding a link ?
Hello ! Sorry but I have zero fluency with editing wikipedia pages, I just saw XKCD mentioned KSP ( http://www.xkcd.com/1244/ ), would somebody think this is worth adding to the page ? No idea, so, well, at least I mention it in the Discussion area. Greetings everyone ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.147.158.9 (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:XKCD Jessica Ryan (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There might be a good argument that this would be an appropriate mention of XKCD, on the basis that a substantial percentage of KSP players may have first heard of the game through XKCD. Myk (talk) 06:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in what can be modeled
While propellers can be created in the game, saying you can make a Blackhawk, let alone an Osprey, is patently ridiculous, due to the lack of axel mechanics, which mean that, while there are approximations, a V-22 would fall out of the sky when you have to swivel each wing individually. Therealpirateblue (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Detailed article at Polygon.com
http://www.polygon.com/features/2014/1/27/5338438/kerbal-space-program Chris857 (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Atmospheric friction?
In the last line of the "Gameplay" section, it notes that Squad will add "damage from atmospheric friction", but shouldn't it be "atmospheric shock heating" or something similar? Mythbusters844 (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Squad are referring to it as "reentry heating" Myk (talk) 07:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Overly Detailed
I think the Overly Detailed tag could be removed soon, since Mnethercutt's removal of "Planetary bodies", "Easter eggs", and "Mods" and Metnik's removal of "Inaccuracies" have probably satisfied the reduction of details. There's still some extraneous detail in the "Gameplay" section, perhaps. Hubcapp (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Overly detailed template
Do we really need this still? I've scanned the article and nothing in any of the sections seems drawn out, intricate, or out-of-place. I was about to go ahead and remove the template, but then I decided to gather consensus here. If we have another supporters, we'll get rid of it. StewdioMACK (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's better than the last time I read through it. Some unnecessary detail lingers, such as references to unannounced features and fanfic physics including "super-dense cores." DPRoberts534 (talk) 06:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've addressed both of those points. How's it look now? Myk (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed some additional detail which was sourced from the forum and wiki. I'm ok with removing the tag now. The physics section could still use some weeding. DPRoberts534 (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

CNN using Kerbal Space Program for animations
It seems CNN at least are now using Kerbal Space Program for informational graphics, as per this piece on SpaceX (See from 2:42). Is that significant enough to be added to the page? Myk (talk) 07:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I guess not. i think it is not relevant enough to the article. i have seen only one article outside of wikipedia that uses in-game footage for non-KSP related usage, so its use outside of KSP-related articles is insignificant, and i wouldn't mention it. Fazbear7891 (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

NASA SLS person expressed interest in KSP on reddit
I'm not sure if it's worth mentioning in the article on top of what's already there, but it happened. --Rose (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

"good support"
I removed the word "good" from "the game has good support for game mods".  Mr. Spink  talk ★ contribs 19:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Pictures
Is it useful for a picture of a modded station to be in the page? Because some people will skip over the caption and think that those parts on the space station are in the game or if they are trying to find the parts of the station in different mods may cause an overload of issues. NHPluto (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed the image because no other, at least featured, game article has the mods as a central point like this one. Minecraft  Mr. Spink  talk ★ contribs 17:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Infobox and mention of console release date
RE: the infobox release date, I don't think that the "early 2016" date for consoles belongs there. "Released" is past tense, and implies that the game has been released for consoles. Not to mention, Squad in particular is notorious for pushing back internal deadlines-they originally expected to have the console port done by Q4 2015. I think changing the infobox line-item or removing the console release date entirely would do a better job of communicating the release situation. --159.191.192.32 (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * How is removing information more helpful? Just state it's 2016, since that's what they clearly said. The "early" though, I agree doesn't have to be there. ~ Dissident93  (talk)  22:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Soundtrack
I'm fairly sure that not all of the soundtrack comes from Macleod and SQUAD's composers. I think some of it is from other games-I seem to remember some of the space music being from Dwarf Fortress or something. Hobbes Novakoff (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

"Notable Updates"
Using the Good Article indie game page Minecraft as an example, this section is a big fat no.

Wikipedia is not a version history database; the article should go into detail on the added features, not the updates themselves. I do not believe that deletion of the section in its entirety is necessary, simply better integration. Thoughts?  Mr. Spink  talk ★ contribs 16:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay then. I'm not entirely sure how I should that (and I don't necessarily have the time or patience to work on the article for hours on end) and I agree that the article as a whole is a bit janky and unbalanced. Perhaps two or three paragraphs, describing features added in prose-that is, without mentioning version numbers? While I'm a pretty big fan of KSP, I made sure to only include versions covered in external sources-I'm still kind of figuring out where the line is between thoroughness and excessive detail. Perhaps I shouldn't be working on a article for somehing that I'm a big fan of... Hobbes Novakoff (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly fine to work on the article if you are a fan--I am a fan of KSP--as long as you can remain neutral. Your information is also perfectly valid. You, also also, don't have to integrate all that information alone, or at all; Wikipedia is a community-edited site.


 * I think the whole thing can be compressed to a smaller history section with some information about the first official release, to the possibly notably short beta phase, to the first official release and notable events afterwards. Just not detailed changelogs. Information about gameplay features should be used to improve the sections we already have on gameplay features; I don't know how good of a source change-logs are for this task, as they usually simply state the addition of a feature.  Mr. Spink  talk ★ contribs 20:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds pretty good-I will see if I can redo some of the article later. Luckily, the KSP devs are pretty forthcoming regarding details of features and programming, and will sometimes go into even more detail on significant parts of the game (for instance, this blog post about creating female Kerbals, or this one about upgrading the game to Unity 5) which can at the very least be mined for quotations, methinks. And while I now agree that a detailed changelog isn't a good idea, there are some sections that probably should be kept-the pre-development section is pretty notable in my view. Hobbes Novakoff (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I was thinking of maybe doing Alpha, Beta then full release, but I'm not sure... NHPluto (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * i went ahead and cleaned up the secion quite a bit, but i still feel like it needs a better prose. it had too many little factoids that really were not notable. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 23:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

improvements for GA
i'm trying to get this article ready for GAN, starting with the section redo, and adding sources. also have an open request with the GOCE, but that usually takes time for them to get to it, so i'm hoping to have the article otherwise ready by that tiem. anybody see anything else that needs to be fixed/changed? -- Aunva6talk - contribs 00:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Kerbol
The name Kerbol is not used is the game, which only uses the name "The Sun". It was a fan term invertet before The Sun was named in the game and somehow stuck in the fandom. But this article should stay with the oficial material and therefore should not use the name Kerbol. Therefor I would requestt it to be removed from the article, but I don't want to to start an edit war. Otherwise, it should al least be made clear that it is a fan term, and not an official name. , : Could you explain why you put that name in the article depite it not being official? 78.94.53.130 (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The term is in common use, therefore we should use it. The Kerbal wiki uses it as the canon page name for it. We will also have readers here looking for "Kerbol", and we ought to answer that search. I've no objection to you clarifying that with a footnote though. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with . The term is used by video game-related reliable sources, as shown here if you search for "kerbal space program kerbol".  Anarchyte ( work  &#124;  talk )  13:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * kerbal+space+program+kerbol returned no resultes in the search you linked. Gial Ackbar (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you are using the correct search engine? This direct search gave me a couple thousand results; this article even has "Kerbol" in the title. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 16:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, with the new link, it worked. With the one above, however, it did not. Therfor I sugesst leaving the name Kerbol in, but make clear that it is a fan name, like I did in my newest edit. Gial Ackbar (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You probably typed the search into the wrong search box (the correct one is the in the center). Your link leads to a search engine that only provides google.com links, which are blacklisted on the VG search engine. But yes, the current way of saying it is fine. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 16:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Near parabolic trajectory 01.png

Can we trim some fat here?
It feels like this is being written as the fandom page instead of |the wiki article.

Look at this paragraph for example: "As of version 1.9.1, the major celestial bodies in the game in order of their proximity to the parent star, the Sun, are Moho, Eve, Kerbin, Duna, Dres, Jool, and Eeloo (respectively analogs of Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter, and Pluto). Community modifications are able to expand this planetary system to include analogs of the missing outer planets, as well as fictional bodies and faraway exoplanet systems. Moons in the system include the captured asteroid around Eve, Gilly; the two moons of Kerbin, Mun and Minmus; The singular moon of Duna, Ike; the technically unlimited "moons" of Dres (albeit with player input), being asteroids which randomly spawn in, called the Drestroid Belt by fans; and the five moons of Jool. The innermost is an ocean moon dotted with sandy islands, Laythe, the only moon to have an atmosphere and only other body in the solar system to have liquid water besides Kerbin; Vall, an ice moon; Tylo, a moon the size of Kerbin; Bop, another captured asteroid; and Pol, the outermost moon of Jool. Eeloo has no natural satellites."

The "Community modifications are able to expand this" was already stated in the previous paragraph with "Players may install mods which implement destinations...". I feel like the section on the moons of dres should be cut since it looks either outdated or just wrong (I have personally never seen dres with captured bodies nor have I seen anyone say anything about a "drestroid belt"), additionally it looks out of place since they aren't real moons. With the jool moons part it looks too in-depth.

If we implement a few changes we can skim it down to "as of version 1.9.1, the major celestial bodies in the game in order of their proximity to the parent star, the Sun, are Moho, Eve, Kerbin, Duna, Dres, Jool, and Eeloo (respectively analogs of Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter, and Pluto). Moons in the system include the captured asteroid around Eve, Gilly; the two moons of Kerbin, Mun and Minmus; the singular moon of Duna, Ike; and the five moons of Jool. Innermost to outmost the moons of jool are: an ocean moon dotted with islands, Laythe, (the only moon to have an atmosphere or liquid water); an ice moon, Vall; a moon the size of Kerbin, Tylo; a captured asteroid, Bop; and the outermost moon of Jool, Pol. Eeloo has no natural satellites."

These of course are just my two cents Thedumbestone (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Scott Manley in studio.jpg

Inclusion of release year in the short description.
Hello, I was wondering why the year of release isn't included in the short description of the Kerbal Space Program Wikipedia article. Release years are included in the articles for other video games such as Minecraft and Fortnite. Wouldn't including the release year in this article maintain consistency? Obi1kaboomi 17 (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Additionally with other articles on video games the genre is not stated in the short description, but it is here. therefore shouldn't the word spaceflight be excluded in the short description? Obi1kaboomi 17 (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)