Talk:List of planets

I've put this up for deletion as the Category:Planets does the exact same job and more. There is no benefit to this page, and it would actually better serve as a redirect to the category page. The Thirteenth Doctor 13:13, September 22, 2010 (UTC) The fact is that no planet articles can possibly link to this under the manual of style and a category would be the only way to do such a thing anyway. Revanvolatrelundar 14:52, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I contest. This article helps to group the planets together and much more easier to navigate. An article like this should be kept as it is relevant. The Star Wars wiki has the same sort of article like this and there hasn't been a problem. This article doesn't seem to violate any rules either. And a redirect of a former article to a category isn't really that good. Plus from what I've noticed going through nearly every article about each planet, the categories are in a mess and confusing as they are and this article will help to sort it out. --Vitas 13:15, September 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * The planets are categorised into sub-categories which are applicable to the planet rather than just lumping them into one all mighty "planet" category.
 * This page seems to do what a big planet category does and that's recreate the A-Z format of a category.
 * I'm not sure how more useful organising planets by name (the categories at least attempt to place the articles).
 * Perhaps this page could be re-purposed to link off to the various "confusing" categories to define them more clearly? Currently it's just a list, which doesn't give any information, other in-universe list articles do have some form of information and layout that forms the information to make it usable. --Tangerineduel 15:06, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could list them by Galaxy and then System with galaxy. obviously there would be planets un definable by that bit they could be put somewhere else. Revanvolatrelundar 15:11, September 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * We could, but that would just be replicating the category system. Say Vortis, if it's listed under Isop Galaxy then you'd just find the category Isop Galaxy.
 * If the issue here is the "confusing" layout of the planets categories, I think that's what needs to be addressed and defined. --Tangerineduel 15:37, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

How can all the planets not link here. This article is something that's relevant. Look here for example on the Star Wars wiki [] Put aside that this article is only planets starting with A, it lists every planet from different regions even if they're not in the same sector. The same here on the Star Trek wiki [] Every planet from different galaxies listed here. So how can this wiki not have the same type of article? And when I meant confusing with the categories, like looking under planets that are colony planets, you go there and there was another planet just Earth colonys with a whole heap of planets already under the colony planets category and others under the Earth colonys and not mention multiple categories listed on different articles. --Vitas 23:07, September 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, colony planets are relatively simple, they're planets that are colonies that can't be further sub-categorised (the way that all categories work), the Earth colonies are a further sub-categorisation of that.
 * There is a fairly large difference between Memory Beta's Wiki and the Wookipedia and this Wiki. Both of those wikis had/have fairly consistent continuity and universe. Through various stories the terms system, galaxy and universe are often used interchangeably.
 * This wiki could have something like Memory Beta's and the Wookiepedia, but a lot of our planet articles don't have consistent information to be able to allow us to organise into categories, for instance location; galactic coordinates is mentioned for a handful or planets, which galaxy they're in is another handful, a large amount are in the Mutter's Spiral. What planets are like could be done though I imagine it would be skewed towards "rocky".
 * It's also worth considering the Wookipedia's article has been up for deletion (twice) and very few pages link to Memory Beta's planets and planetoids article.
 * I think this article is worth exploring, just not as a list and not by copying the two examples efforts. Looking at the examples however I think that a combination of exploring the planet category structure and the examples' form of organisation would be a way to go. By creating a pool of information about the planets and the categories within it would allow users to explore the information more easily. --Tangerineduel 17:58, September 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * But as you can see, this article lists all planets that are pretty much well ... "planets". I mean keeping the article, what harm is there? as you can see right now it does nothing to harm the wiki and is in order so I can't see it causing further trouble. And Tangerineduel how you said "creating a pool of information about the planets and the categories within it would allow users to explore the information more easily", a great idea is on the article, next to each planet have next to it whether it's a colony planet or, what galaxy (if stated) for example either Mutter's Spiral or E-Space and it's moons if any. This could easily work. --Vitas 23:29, September 23, 2010 (UTC)