Opaka's moon[]
Is there an article anywhere on the moon that Kai Opaka was stranded on? Even a mention of the star system, or its general whereabouts? I don't want to create an article if a better destination for the link exists somewhere. --Short Circuit 19:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think we have anything on it. It would probably go on "Unnamed moons", a la "Unnamed planets". --Gvsualan 20:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Added, as Ennis Penal Planet, under Unnamed planets. ISTR there being something fancy about the star system, though, possibly enough to warrant its own article. I'll watch the episode again, when I have time. --Short Circuit 00:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think it warrants it's own article anymore than the rest on that page -- that's why the "unnamed" pages are created in the first place. Additionally, it was clearly identified as a moon, hence the suggestion to create "unnamed moons". --Gvsualan 02:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'd left it under Unnamed planets since Star Trek has, in its run, made little distinction between planet and planetoid, as far as function, or even ecology, is concerned. Off the top of my head, Bajor had an inhabited moon that had to be evacuated to allow the construction of power facilities that had harmful side effects.
But having a separate page for moons is fine, I suppose. --Short Circuit 03:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I follow your reference to the Bajoran moon, inhabited or not, its still a moon. As far as the original moon discussed, it was clearly stated as a moon, both by you, the episode/script and I. Since a moon is not a planet, and Memory Alpha makes such distinctions it quite clearly didn't belong with the unnamed planets. Again, I'm not following where this conversation is going. --Gvsualan 04:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My point was that, with little distinction of the function and capabilities of moons, I didn't see any reason to separate a list of planets from a list of moons, and I had/have no intention of fighting it. Upon further reflection, though, it makes sense. If there is a canonical distinction, then so be it. :) --Short Circuit 17:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)