Forum:TC:List of planets

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:List of 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 keep; no consensus. Graestan(Talk) 22:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

List of planets (including List of planets A-Z) (talk - history - links - logs)

Horribly unwieldy, prone to fanon, redundant with the existence of Category:Planets and intermittently in the process of being nothing more than an overglorified list of links to lists of planets. Since we're currently engaging in a list deleting crusade, might as well delete this in the process too. -- I need a name (Complain here) 12:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete

  1. I need a name (Complain here) 12:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. Per INN. --Imperialles 15:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. Toprawa and Ralltiir 16:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  4. Gray Jedi 17:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  5. This DOES contain useful information that the category dose not. But is there any reason we need a table to compare the sector and capital city of one planet to another? And even if so, for comparative purposes (the table's only use), you can only use it with planets that start with the same letter. The information in the table is better suited to infoboxes on individual pages, and is easier to defend from fanon there. Wildyoda 17:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  6. Always for the individual pages and categories over things like this, which many, many times I have seen turn into receptacles and facilitators for fanon. Graestan(Talk) 19:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  7. Deleting the list of planets: More efficient than a Death Star. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 05:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  8. IFYLOFD (And now, young Skywalker, you will die.) 06:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep

  1. I think I'm gonna go with keep. This contains info that the category doesn't. It's useful, even if it needs improving. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 16:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. This list (or its sublists, depending on how the split ultimately ends up) is clearly a different sort of list than others on our ongoing purge. It's actually a table with useful information, rather than just, well, a list. jSarek 16:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. Per AdmirableAckbar and jSarek. DolukTalk 00:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  4. At least this page provides something more than just a simple list. Compared to the other lists we are about to purge, I'd say let's keep at least for now. Mauser 09:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  5. It's a useful table, so much more than a list. --Azizlight 10:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  6. Strong Keep. This is much more than just a list as it provides information that is related. In addition, I believe that separating the lists by letter will allow for easier navigation instead of dealing with one gigantic page. -- Riffsyphon1024 10:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
    • To add what jSarek said earlier. Once completely converted into tables, it will not be a list persay, but a larger reference. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  7. Per Riffsyphon. The info provided in the other columns is a big help. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 07:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
    • A big help to what? And that's not sarcasm, I really want to know a legitimate use for the tables. Wildyoda 21:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  8. Chack Jadson (Talk) 23:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  9. JMAS Hey, it's me! 14:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  10. Jaywin 15:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  11. Agreed, it's a useful chart. -- Cato Neimoidia 19:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  12. Another Keep here. Yes, yes, the Garbage Man wants to keep an article. Go figure.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 07:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  13. Wipe them out!Keep them in! QuiGonJinnBe mindful of the Living Force...Quigonheadshot 10:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  14. Well, I still find it useful....JustinGann 13:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  15. Yeah, I have to agree...that table is good. And no ideas as to how to do it better.WhiteBoy 02:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments