Forum:TC:List of -aan planets

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:List of -aan planets

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Graestan(Talk) 01:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

List of -aan planets (talk - history - links - logs)

We have a gradually improving List of planets. Do we need any smaller lists of planets that sound the same at the end? I think not. Darth Xadún(Consult the Holocron) 10:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete

  1. Darth Xadún(Consult the Holocron) 10:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Silly trivia list. --Imperialles 12:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. Per Imperialles. Graestan(Talk) 20:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  4. Really something I don't feel couldn't be categorized. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  5. Really no use for it. Ifindyourlackoffaithdisturbing (You're all clear kid!)(Now let's blow this thing and go home!) 03:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  6. List of planets does indeed do the same thing this page does. -Thunderforge 00:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  7. Delete, per Imp. Greyman(Talk)
  8. Generally-speaking, IU lists aren't necessary. Categorizing isn't really an option either; what would be next, Category:List of -tooine planets?--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 03:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep

  1. I think this and its sister list have merit. There are a lot of planets ending in this suffix, enough that it appears to be more than mere coincidence. While it's fanwankery to suggest WHY such a large number of planets with this ending exist, it's not fanwankery to collect them all in one place, and such information is useful for the curious. Since I suspect a category would be going to far, we ought to keep the list. jSarek 21:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. This is a list of very limited scope (unlike a list of Humans) which would not be appropriate as a category. —Silly Dan (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. Per JSarek. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 22:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  4. Unit 8311 10:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  5. Agree. KEJ 17:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  6. This is pretty much what lists are for. Collecting relevant information on something that's not really appropriate for a category (Category:Chalmun's Cantina patrons, I'm looking right at you with murder in my eyes). Havac 03:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  7. There's a reason they all share this bond. If only someone worked on one. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  8. Per jSarek. And myself on the other vote.-LtNOWIS 02:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  9. Ozzel 21:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  10. Per jSarek and Riffsyphon. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 15:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  11. Per jSarek and Havac. Let us not allow our perfectly justified list purge to go too far. Gonk (Gonk!) 15:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  12. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 00:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Create Category:-aan planets

  1. Per Ifindyouryadayadayada's Xwing's comments below. A good middle ground. Graestan(Talk) 02:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. —Xwing328(Talk) 02:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Until and unless it's explicitly stated in a licensed source, any in-universe connection implied would be fanon. Graestan(Talk) 12:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

  • So we'd have to write them as OOU articles ("Here are some planets with similar names. Note we are not trying to explain the connection, or to claim there is one. Or to claim there isn't one.") —Silly Dan (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It could possibly become a category,and that would be much better than having it as a list. Ifindyourlackoffaithdisturbing (You're all clear kid!)(Now let's blow this thing and go home!) 03:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I think that would be a good solution: Category:-aan planets and Category:-ooine planets. —Xwing328(Talk) 02:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Is it better, though? It seems that some things, such as this, might be better as lists than categories. I'm not actually *opposed* to the idea, just uncertain. I'm keeping my vote where it is for now since that's the place most likely to keep outright deletion from happening, but I'm open to the possibility of categorization instead. jSarek 07:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I swear we already did this and then someone changed it over to the list. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Gah, it was me that did it. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
          • The page is actually much less useful than the category would be, as the page is currently linked to by nothing. The category would be visible in each of the articles, and when opened, would function much like the current page does. Graestan(Talk) 12:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)