Alpha and Beta Quadrant joined into one chapter. For most planets it is difficult or impossible to decide which Q they belong to.
Known locations could be designated by "AQ"/"BQ".
List of (un)inhabited planets (moved from Vfd)[]
- List of inhabited planets and List of uninhabited planets -- These should be consolidated under List of planets. I think the term "inhabited" is too subjective. A planet could have many cities and a population of billions (i.e. Earth), or just one colony (i.e. Norpin V), or just a starbase or outpost with no permanent population at all (i.e. Trelka V), or was one of those but no longer inhabited at all (i.e. Iconia, Omicron Theta), or have just one or two beings "inhabiting" them (i.e. Gravesworld, Vagra II), or truly uninhabited (i.e. Nelvana III). In most cases we can't even tell which of these categories a given planet currently falls under, and I don't think there's a reasonable way to sort them as "uninhabited" or "inhabited". Also, these lists duplicate the much more comprehensive lists already found on the specific territories and other pages. -- EtaPiscium 10:39, 29 Oct 2004 (CEST)
- This is where I was suggesting we go by creating the List of planets article in the first place, i concur with deletion, pending the merge into List of planets (although I think there is a possibility down the line to note planets that have populations or not, perhaps as part of our Category Tree. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 01:10, 18 Nov 2004 (CET)
- I've merged the lists with List of planets, excluding colonies (which should be on a separate list). -- EtaPiscium 01:36, 18 Nov 2004 (CET)
- I disagree with deletion. The distinction between inhabited and uninhabited might be a difficult one, but it still is a valid topic and useful to at least someone in my opinion. Additionally, it is the "best" way we have to make this distinction until we finally get the category tree. My suggestion is to keep both pages for the moment (it isn't really harmful to have them around) and find a way to include the information in the tree... -- Cid Highwind 10:00, 18 Nov 2004 (CET)
- Quite honestly, the eighteen different "lists of planets" baffle me to no end. Everytime I make a planet article, it seems as if I have to add it to more and more lists. --Steve 23:12, 22 Nov 2004 (CET)
- I think that this list issue will be solved once we bring in our category tree... I suggest anyone who is interested in sorting this out pitch in, as work seems to have stopped on that. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 23:49, 22 Nov 2004 (CET)
- Category tree? I know not of which you speak, since I've only jumped back into MA after being out of it since summer ended. -Steve 19:25, 23 Nov 2004 (CET)
- I think that this list issue will be solved once we bring in our category tree... I suggest anyone who is interested in sorting this out pitch in, as work seems to have stopped on that. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 23:49, 22 Nov 2004 (CET)
- This is where I was suggesting we go by creating the List of planets article in the first place, i concur with deletion, pending the merge into List of planets (although I think there is a possibility down the line to note planets that have populations or not, perhaps as part of our Category Tree. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 01:10, 18 Nov 2004 (CET)
Recent changes[]
Recently some sections of this article were removed and replaced with links to specific articles. I'm wondering if such a major change should have been discussed first, and if these changes are something we want. --31dot 19:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. Also, I don't think all the planets listed on the various planet pages (i.e. Klingon planets) were specified as inhabited. This list currently suggests that all planets listed on the various planet pages are inhabited. I think the changes should be reverted. --From Andoria with Love 08:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Performing the revert shortly. If there's an objection, we can use that opportunity to discuss it.--31dot 10:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- ALL planets under Klingon planets and Romulan planets are or were inhabited! Furthermore, merely 3 out of 36 Cardassian planets listed are possibly uninhabited and marked as such. In my eyes, what you are proposing is bureaucratic double-listing ;-) --36ophiuchi 09:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think its a matter of bureaucracy, it's a matter of both making things easier to find for people and having all pertinent information in one place. If I want to know all the inhabited planets in Star Trek, I shouldn't have to look through four or five different articles to find them. It also is different to have a list of inhabited planets and to have a list of Federation planets, the two are not mutually exclusive. Also, there are many examples of information being duplicated here.--31dot 11:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Protected again[]
I've protected the page for a week due to constant editing by User:StarStorm, despite having been warned. The next step will be to block him/her for a week or so. --From Andoria with Love 13:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)