Category talk:Planets - Revision history

Abates at 02:14, 30 April 2010

2010-04-30T02:14:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:14, 30 April 2010
Line 5:		Line 5:
	:Why is this an issue? We don't have an overarching planet category for the G1 continuity family either. --[[User:Abates\|abates]] 21:57, 29 April 2010 (EDT)		:Why is this an issue? We don't have an overarching planet category for the G1 continuity family either. --[[User:Abates\|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. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 22:05, 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. - [[User:Starfield\|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. --[[User:Abates\|abates]] 22:14, 29 April 2010 (EDT)

Starfield at 02:05, 30 April 2010

2010-04-30T02:05:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:05, 30 April 2010
Line 4:		Line 4:
	:::"Unicron Trilogy planets" with "Cybertron planets" and "Energon planets" as sub-categories? That's a good option. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 21:30, 29 April 2010 (EDT)		:::"Unicron Trilogy planets" with "Cybertron planets" and "Energon planets" as sub-categories? That's a good option. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 21:30, 29 April 2010 (EDT)
	:Why is this an issue? We don't have an overarching planet category for the G1 continuity family either. --[[User:Abates\|abates]] 21:57, 29 April 2010 (EDT)		:Why is this an issue? We don't have an overarching planet category for the G1 continuity family either. --[[User:Abates\|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. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 22:05, 29 April 2010 (EDT)

Abates at 01:57, 30 April 2010

2010-04-30T01:57:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:57, 30 April 2010
Line 3:		Line 3:
	::I don't think there's a rule, I think it's whatever is most useful. Perhaps we should have both? --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 21:26, 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? --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 21:26, 29 April 2010 (EDT)
	:::"Unicron Trilogy planets" with "Cybertron planets" and "Energon planets" as sub-categories? That's a good option. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 21:30, 29 April 2010 (EDT)		:::"Unicron Trilogy planets" with "Cybertron planets" and "Energon planets" as sub-categories? That's a good option. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 21:30, 29 April 2010 (EDT)
			:Why is this an issue? We don't have an overarching planet category for the G1 continuity family either. --[[User:Abates\|abates]] 21:57, 29 April 2010 (EDT)

Starfield at 01:30, 30 April 2010

2010-04-30T01:30:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:30, 30 April 2010
Line 2:		Line 2:
	:I think this falls under the same rule as disambiguation tags, it is done by franchise not cotinuity family. [[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] 21:21, 29 April 2010 (EDT)		:I think this falls under the same rule as disambiguation tags, it is done by franchise not cotinuity family. [[User:Khajidha\|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? --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 21:26, 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? --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 21:26, 29 April 2010 (EDT)
			:::"Unicron Trilogy planets" with "Cybertron planets" and "Energon planets" as sub-categories? That's a good option. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 21:30, 29 April 2010 (EDT)

Jimsorenson at 01:26, 30 April 2010

2010-04-30T01:26:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:26, 30 April 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	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). - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 18:50, 29 April 2010 (EDT)		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). - [[User:Starfield\|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. [[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] 21:21, 29 April 2010 (EDT)		:I think this falls under the same rule as disambiguation tags, it is done by franchise not cotinuity family. [[User:Khajidha\|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? --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 21:26, 29 April 2010 (EDT)

Khajidha at 01:21, 30 April 2010

2010-04-30T01:21:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:21, 30 April 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	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). - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 18:50, 29 April 2010 (EDT)		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). - [[User:Starfield\|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. [[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] 21:21, 29 April 2010 (EDT)

Starfield: New page: 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...

2010-04-29T22:50:03Z

New page: 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...

New page

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). - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 18:50, 29 April 2010 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:14, 30 April 2010
Line 5:		Line 5:
	:Why is this an issue? We don't have an overarching planet category for the G1 continuity family either. --[[User:Abates\|abates]] 21:57, 29 April 2010 (EDT)		:Why is this an issue? We don't have an overarching planet category for the G1 continuity family either. --[[User:Abates\|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. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 22:05, 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. - [[User:Starfield\|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. --[[User:Abates\|abates]] 22:14, 29 April 2010 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:05, 30 April 2010
Line 4:		Line 4:
	:::"Unicron Trilogy planets" with "Cybertron planets" and "Energon planets" as sub-categories? That's a good option. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 21:30, 29 April 2010 (EDT)		:::"Unicron Trilogy planets" with "Cybertron planets" and "Energon planets" as sub-categories? That's a good option. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 21:30, 29 April 2010 (EDT)
	:Why is this an issue? We don't have an overarching planet category for the G1 continuity family either. --[[User:Abates\|abates]] 21:57, 29 April 2010 (EDT)		:Why is this an issue? We don't have an overarching planet category for the G1 continuity family either. --[[User:Abates\|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. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 22:05, 29 April 2010 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:57, 30 April 2010
Line 3:		Line 3:
	::I don't think there's a rule, I think it's whatever is most useful. Perhaps we should have both? --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 21:26, 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? --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 21:26, 29 April 2010 (EDT)
	:::"Unicron Trilogy planets" with "Cybertron planets" and "Energon planets" as sub-categories? That's a good option. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 21:30, 29 April 2010 (EDT)		:::"Unicron Trilogy planets" with "Cybertron planets" and "Energon planets" as sub-categories? That's a good option. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 21:30, 29 April 2010 (EDT)
			:Why is this an issue? We don't have an overarching planet category for the G1 continuity family either. --[[User:Abates\|abates]] 21:57, 29 April 2010 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:30, 30 April 2010
Line 2:		Line 2:
	:I think this falls under the same rule as disambiguation tags, it is done by franchise not cotinuity family. [[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] 21:21, 29 April 2010 (EDT)		:I think this falls under the same rule as disambiguation tags, it is done by franchise not cotinuity family. [[User:Khajidha\|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? --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 21:26, 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? --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 21:26, 29 April 2010 (EDT)
			:::"Unicron Trilogy planets" with "Cybertron planets" and "Energon planets" as sub-categories? That's a good option. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 21:30, 29 April 2010 (EDT)