Talk:Star Trek planet classifications

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Template 2 Sol Planets 3 Borg 4 Class-C Mars 5 Canon 6 Worlds from other shows 7 Vulcan is Class M 8 Mercury redux 9 Plagiarism

[edit] Template

I think it would be usefull to put a template with a table containing an overview of all the types on each page, so one could navigate between different types verry fast

It's Done Cyberia23

[edit] Sol Planets

I note that class B includes the description "Their surfaces are partially molten and may feature active volcanoes with an overall high surface temperature", and presents the real-life planet Mercury as an example. However, the real-life planet Mercury doesn't have a molten surface or any known vulcanism. Is this example taken directly from some Star Trek guidebook? If so a note should be added that it's not accurate. If not, it should just be removed. Bryan 00:25, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree - Mercury does not match this description (in fact Class C or D would be closer - I may change it to this if no one has an argument against). Also, in real life, Neptune & Uranus are considered to be a different type of planet to Jupiter & Saturn (different formation, atmosphere & internal structure). Are there different classes available to show this distinction ?

Where would Saturn's moon Titan fit in ? (currently it doesn't seem to, though its likely to be a pretty common type). And what exactly is the difference between an A and an E ?!?

The Yeti 22:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The intro section states that "In our real world (and present time), only 3 planet types exist, those of our own solar system: Terrestrial, Jovian and Icy".

But we have more than that. Earth is Terrestrial. Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus are Jovian. Pluto (and probably Quaoar) is icy. But Mercury is geomorteus (though, as noted, without lots of volcanic activity). And Venus is Reducing, not Terrestrial. And though Mars does have ice, it is hardly classifiable as an "icy" planet. Nabarry 08:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I made some changes to include other classes represented by planets in our system. Also, astronomers have discovered planets in other solar systems, but I think these are usually really massive gas giants because bigger planets are detectable because of the noticeble wobble they give to their star. Also, we have noticed a small, rocky planet or two when it transits in front of its star. But I think these fall into the classes of Gas Giant and Geomorteus or Geoinactive, so we don't really have any other categories represented yet.

I included Bryan's note about Mercury.

Nabarry 22:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Class S and T ultragiants are not anything like real-life newly discovered exoplanets. Though real-life scientists have discovered planets much more massive than Jupiter, these planets are nowhere near the 6-50,000,000km that is described in the Class S and T section of the article. They would have long since collapsed into stars.

Due to the decisions of the IAU should Pluto not be a Class D planet, as it is a dwarf planet? Damarse 23:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Borg

Borg Prime* Terrestrial planets conquered by the Borg are usually forcibly terraformed into Class L worlds as a result.

Where in the canon was "Borg Prime" actually mentioned, or anything about Borg-controlled planets being terraformed into class L ? Taw 12:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

"First Contact" (the movie) had the Enterprise briefly examining earth converted into a Borg planet - high concentrations of Oxygen and Argon.

The Star Trek Star Charts book puts Borg Prime at Class L, and since it is known that the Borg, during assimilation, change their environment to more favorable conditions, it is likely that any world fully-assimilated by them would eventually become a Class L planet like their homeworld. Cyberia23 01:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Class-C Mars

In Star Trek Star Charts, Class- C planets are described as having their atmosphere frozen away. Mars' atmosphere is known to be substantial and gaseous, not frozen. As much as I commend your labeling the Sol system planets, this particular class posssibility must be removed.--Whytecypress 23:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that Mars is now (more appropriately) a Class K.

[edit] Canon

If "only a few classes have been mentioned in the Star Trek canon", then where does the rest of this info come from? Adam Bishop 04:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I know of at least two spin-off books with lists of class types: Worlds of the Federation and the recent Star Trek Starcharts : probably other works have similar lists. And I bet they are all different. Presumably it was taken from the latter. I have this at home and shall consult it. The article is in a poor state at the moment, making no differentation at all between classes that have been mentioned on screen, and those that have not. Morwen - Talk 14:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have looked at the Star Trek Starcharts, and it is clearly taken from pages 22 onwards. it has rephrased stuff into prose, but had exactly the same data, in the same order, with the same example planets. I would consider the level of translation and amount of material taken to be falling into copyvio territory, and have therefore removed the text. I appreciate this cuts off a useful part of the article, the list, and will ponder what can be done to get a list back. Morwen - Talk 01:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

WHOA! WTF??? You deleted it all??? Most of it was from the book yes, but paraphrased as much as possible, you can't paraphrase numbers when it comes to sizes, and "In the same order?" Of course IT WAS AN ALPHABETICAL LIST!!! So was the book, but it should be seriously reworded not completely trashed. Cyberia23 05:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I delete copyvios on sight. I am shocked you have reverted a claimed copyvio : please don't do this again until we work this out. Even if it isn't a copyvio, it is quite blatant plagiarism to take a fictional work, and thinly paraphrase it without citing it. When i say "in the same order", I mean that the informaton data within the entries. Let us compare some random entries. I shall choose A, I, and M.

Class	Text on article	Text in book
A	Very young planets, Class A worlds are less than 2 billion years old. Their diameters range in size from 1,000 to 10,000 km. They are located in the biozone or coldzone regions of a stellar system. Their surfaces are partially molten and may feature active volcanoes. Their atmospheres, if any, are primarily hydrogen. Class A planets cool over time to evolve into Class C worlds. They almost never have life forms. Example: Gothos	Age 0-2 billion years Diameter: 1,000-10,000km Location: Ecosphere/Cold Zone Surface: Partially molten Atmosphere: Primarily hydrogen components Evolution: Cools to become Class-C Life-forms: None Example: Gothos
I	Class I planets range in age from 2 to 10 billion years old. Their diameters range in size from 140,000 to 10 million km. They are usually located in the coldzone region of a star’s solar system, but can exist in any region. They are comprised entirely of gas, tenuous, comprised mostly of hydrogen and helium compounds, and may have water vapor as well. Temperatures vary in the cloud layers. They may contain a solid metallic mass core. They also radiate heat. A Supergiant can have hundreds of moons and also water ice rings. Life existing on a Class I is uncertain. Life forms, if any, have to exist in the biozone layers of the upper atmosphere. They may be single-celled organisms, or creatures and plants that would have to be constantly airborne. Example: Q'tahL	Age: 2-10 billion years Diamater: 140,000-10 million km Location: Cold Zone Surface: Tenous, comprised of gaseous hydrogen and hydrogen compunds; radioates heat Atmosphere: Zones vary in temperature, pressure and composition; water vampor may be present Life-forms: Unknown Example: Q'tahl
M	Class M planets range in age from 3 to 10 billion years old. Their diameters range in size from 10,000 to 15,000 km. They are always located in the ecozone region of a star’s solar system. Their surfaces are comprised with a relatively thin tectonic layer floating on a molten rock mantle, usually with active volcanoes present. Class M planets have an abundant amount of water necessary for life to exist. Their atmospheres contain oxygen/nitrogen with other trace gases. Life forms are almost always present, flourishing as extensive plant and animal life. Usually a sentient race is also present. Class M planets are also called Minshara Class, a Vulcan term. Planets with more than 80% surface water fall under Class O or Class P. Examples: Earth (Sol III), Vulcan, Cardassia Prime, Risa, Bajor, Delta Vega, Rigel VII, Qo'noS	Age: 3-10 billion years Diameter: 10,000-15,000 km Location: Ecosphere Surface: Surface water abundant; if water or ice covers more than 80% of surface, planet is considered Class-O or Class-P Atmsphere: Nitrogen, oxygen, trace elements Life-forms: Extensive vegitation, animal life, humanoids Examples: Earth, Vulcan, Cardassia

Now, anyone looking at these will be able to spot the structural similarities. One could write a perl script to do this sort of paraphrasing. I am posting elsewhere to get further advice. Morwen - Talk 07:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Last I knew, there was a citation to the book - someone removed it. I didn't. I'm working on a rewrite of it making it as generic as possible. Even if it;s from a book, there are hundreds of Star Trek articles that use information from books and shows on Wikipedia. This one being singled out and deleted because it's similar to a published work isn't fair. Cyberia23 07:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are hundreds of such articles. Very few of them slightly paraphrase several pages of fictional works. If you know of any other pages that do this, please let me know and they will be squelched as well. Note I just did the same thing at The Rules of Acquisition, which features the entire content of a book!

Furthermore, please bear in mind WP:WAF and also Canon (Star Trek) when doing a rewrite. It is useful to readers to know what class types have been established on screen. Quite apart from the copyvio issue, it is not useful to have this type of table, with on-screen material not indicated separately from stuff they just made up for the book. Morwen - Talk 07:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, here is where it got inserted. No cite. Sampling recent revisions at random, I can't find any, either. Morwen - Talk 07:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"Squelched as well" Wow, go get em tiger... I'm sure we'll butt heads again on other stuff as well. Anyway check out what I did. Proper source is listed and I dumbed down everything as much as possible so you can't say it's plagiarism now. If you still think so then take this to arbitration. Cyberia23 08:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, ArbCom has nothing to do with this. If this is agreed to be copyvio and you persist in it : you get blocked. I am officially warning you. Morwen - Talk 08:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Does it meet your standards now? Cyberia23 08:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an improvement. Morwen - Talk 08:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you have ideas for improvement let me know or edit it yourself. I popped off on you, becasue I get pissed when I see work I do get trashed and it's because of one person's opinion who isn't willing to get a second opinion. It doesn't justify it enough for me, and I don't believe because you have access to a BAN button on your screen makes you right. I think the situation could have been handled differently instead of seeing somebody on a article stomping spree killing whatever they think violates the rules. You could have simply contacted me (since you've shown to be patient enough to search the history looking for a source tag - you would have seen I contributed to the brunt of this article. I would have fixed it if asked as best I can. No need for threats and hostilities, besides, this crap isn't worth getting worked up over. It fan crap and not a major article. Cyberia23 09:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I am very willing to get a second opinion, which is why I posted asking for advice at Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problemss after you disputed mine. However, it is not policy to let potential copyvios stand whilst we get things sorted out. Especially as the table had little encyclopedic merit, it seemed wise just to get rid of it for the moment : I said "I appreciate this cuts off a useful part of the article, the list, and will ponder what can be done to get a list back.".

I said that "if this is agreed to be copyvio", referring to the advice I have sought from others. It would help if you would acknowledged that not citing the source in the first place was bad, at least. Morwen - Talk 09:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Worlds from other shows

No one's probably going to read this, but anyway; planets from non-Trek sources, like Stargate SG-1 and Star Wars don't belong in this article, and I ask that they stop being added. The UFP planet classification system only exists in Star Trek, therefore, adding planets from other shows as example is purely fan speculation since those shows don't use the UFP system and it would be based only on someone's opinion. Cyberia23 01:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vulcan is Class M

There seems to be some debate over Vulcan's class. Most published sources and websites mention Vulcan's class as M — despite the fact that it looks more like a harsh desert planet and it's known to have a thin atmosphere that is difficult for humans to breath (see Amok Time). It probably barely meets Class M requirements — but for the record it's a Class M world. Cyberia23 01:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mercury redux

I don't understand why Mercury would be considered class B, as "molten surface and active volcanoes" seems to be the defining characteristic of that class, and Mercury is geologically dead or dying. (Mercury and the Moon are quite similar, although Mercury is larger and more ferrous, and it might still have a molten core.) I've added a caveat to the Class B section pointing out that Mercury is not molten nor active; I would remove Mercury from the section altogether, but as Nabarry seems so confident above I'd rather ask for justification first. --ScottAlanHill 01:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plagiarism

This is blatantly plagiarized from this book. The canon references to these are already documented at Memory Alpha's page, which is actually more encyclopedic and less illegal than our page. That should not be the case. I am not yet tagging it with a copyvio tag, but this must be addressed. It is not our business to repeat verbatim what is in a book about nonexistant planetary classifications. The classifications that are in the show are the important ones, and can be substantiated without use of this book (plagiarized or not). Inclusion of extraneous material from this one book also strikes me as far too in-universe anyway. --Cheeser1 08:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, here we go again. This time I could care less - I'm sick of defending articles anymore so do with it what you want. I suggest instead of bitching about it and adding stupid tags you take the initiative yourself to edit it the way you think it should be. Your tag will only get the entire article deleted. Thats the quick fix. Cyberia23 21:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, please do not violate Wikipedia policy in these matters - I would ask that you assume good faith and that you behave appropriately. Weeks ago I pointed out that the content of this article is clearly and indisputably plagiarized (rephrasing or putting into sentence form is still plagiarism) from that book. The book isn't even listed as a source - and yet all of the content in this article is lifted directly from the book. If you're such a huge fan of this article, and insist that you are "sick of defending it" to people who are "bitching about [violations of copyright law]," I suggest you fix it. Don't blame me for creating an article that blatantly violates copyright law. All I did was point out that we are required, by law, to delete or change the content of this article. It's one of the most straightforward, no-nonsense policies on Wikipedia. --Cheeser1 01:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This article was through the plagiarism wringer before and all should have been settled back when I first wrote, but it appears that overtime people have added more from the book than before. Your gripe about it seems to stem more from anti-fancruft - "oh it's from a TV show and doesn't belong on Wikipedia" - than you think it looks like it's word for word form a book - and it's not by the way. Have the book next to you? Read it and read this. You'll find a plethora of differences. You seem to be what I call a "tagger and bagger", throw up a tag and hope it gets deleted. Cyberia23 02:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Your attitude is offensive and out of line. You're explicitly accusing me of bad faith because I placed a 100% justified copyvio tag on this page. My concerns are easily demonstrated as copyvio concerns. If you want to accuse me of bad faith, the least you could do is not start by cursing at me and acting like I'm not allowed to touch your precious article. This article violated copyright law. It had no place on Wikipedia. If you believe in some conspiracy of people who enforce copyright policy just to get your favorite pages deleted, I suggest you check your head and adjust your attitude. I pointed out that there was a problem and waited several weeks for someone who knows the subject to fix the article. I am not knowledgeable enough to do so. You are. But rather than fix it, you'd first want to insult me, accuse me of bad faith, and link me to some group of editors who apparently are out to get articles deleted (when in fact, deletion is a normal part of copyright-protection policy). --Cheeser1 08:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I got rid of the classes taken from Star Charts book and kept the ones only mentioned in dialog in the series and movies. I added references to those instances where they are mentioned in the show. This should now be legit, but if you want to argue it then go ahead. I'm not changing it again. Cyberia23 05:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You might be here to argue, but I'm not. Don't act like an indignant child forced to clean his room. I am simply doing my part to keep Wikipedia free from copyright violations, and instead of appreciating or at least accepting it, you've accused me of bad faith from square one, even now after the offending material has been removed. What did I do that was so terrible? Answer: nothing. This is how copyvio problems are supposed to be resolved (minus your insults and assumptions of bad faith). --Cheeser1 08:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but see, "insults" and "assumptions of bad faith" just add more flavor and make it so much more interesting. Sorry if I'm a little ticked off because I had to deal with this crap before. You crawl out of the woodwork and bring it upon me now, for a second time, so expect a negative reaction not a card and flowers pal. I can be as hugely annoying right back as that copyright violation banner is. Cyberia23 14:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Insults and assumptions of bad faith are not "flavor" - they are violations of policy, and they are counter-productive. Your behavior is clearly quite inappropriate, yet you continue to rudely insist that you have acted appropriately. In light of this, I have reported you to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. --Cheeser1 15:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Where did I say I acted appropriately? I never confirmed or denied it. Now your putting words in my mouth. You want a mediator on this matter now, so be it. I'm done talking to you. Cyberia23 17:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)