Category talk:Planets
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Would it be better to have a "Unicron Trilogy planets" category instead of separate "Energon planets" and "Cybertron planets"? Since it is all one continuity, presumably all of the planets are in both time eras (even if they aren't featured). - Starfield 18:50, 29 April 2010 (EDT)
- I think this falls under the same rule as disambiguation tags, it is done by franchise not cotinuity family. Khajidha 21:21, 29 April 2010 (EDT)
- I don't think there's a rule, I think it's whatever is most useful. Perhaps we should have both? --Jimsorenson 21:26, 29 April 2010 (EDT)
- "Unicron Trilogy planets" with "Cybertron planets" and "Energon planets" as sub-categories? That's a good option. - Starfield 21:30, 29 April 2010 (EDT)
- I don't think there's a rule, I think it's whatever is most useful. Perhaps we should have both? --Jimsorenson 21:26, 29 April 2010 (EDT)
- Why is this an issue? We don't have an overarching planet category for the G1 continuity family either. --abates 21:57, 29 April 2010 (EDT)
- I was just thinking. There are a few Armada planets that are just under "planets"—which doesn't seem quite right—and since there is only a couple, I could put them in "Unicron Trilogy planets". But maybe it would be better to make an "Armada planets" category. If you include Earth and Cybertron, that's at least six entries. - Starfield 22:05, 29 April 2010 (EDT)
- I am more in favour of that option. Putting them in a Unicron Trilogy planets category would suggest that they appeared in all three UT series, which isn't the case. --abates 22:14, 29 April 2010 (EDT)
- I was just thinking. There are a few Armada planets that are just under "planets"—which doesn't seem quite right—and since there is only a couple, I could put them in "Unicron Trilogy planets". But maybe it would be better to make an "Armada planets" category. If you include Earth and Cybertron, that's at least six entries. - Starfield 22:05, 29 April 2010 (EDT)