Talk:Modules

Description change
Let's make the description more generic so the Solar Array and the Geothermal are considered modules.

Is there a good reason to change it as opposed to allowing them to be classified as they are? Maybe even a different classification altogether? Also, if you could explain your reasoning in making this suggestion I'd appreciate it, it can help your ideas get across.The Berk (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh about modules, I've started considering anything that has practical use as a module regardless of it's sizes ranging from a small solar panel to the solar array. Lemonlich (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I still think it might be more useful to leave the Solar Array classified as a discovery/space debris. It makes the most sense because modules are currently what can be built on platforms. Calling a piece of space debris a module can be confusing to anyone looking for modules. The Berk (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, now how about the smaller stuff as I said, small solar panel, storages, batteries. Can I categorise, If so I'll leave a new category for some of the large one like the vehicle bay Lemonlich (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

We already have a category system for those items if I'm not mistaken, if you want to change the system all together, I recommend starting a discussing under the category it self, but I think it's still overkill. The system works as is, why spend the time changing it? The Berk (talk) 04:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Alrighty then, I'll leave it as it is for now Lemonlich (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Didn't we decide on leaving modules as is? As-in not changing the description to what it is now and leaving the previous definition? If I missed a discussion on this, please link me, thank you. 23.126.34.42 01:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but adam in the GDC presentation, mentioned module as anything that can function as it is attached, you can't deny that one Lemonlich (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)