Talk:Unnamed moons

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 dont think it warrants it's own article anymore than the rest on that page -- thats 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 canononical distinction, then so be it. :) --Short Circuit 17:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merge?
I don't think the Moons of Jupiter were ever named as a distinct item, like the Teneebian moons. Therefore, the convention would be to (with some rewriting) place this information under Unnamed moons. -- Capricorn (talk) 14:29, August 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * I would think it would be better to merge it with Jupiter. - Aatrek  17:17, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, almost forgot I proposed this :-D - anyway, could you elaborate why you would merge it with Jupiter? As I understand it, it's been long-standing practice to place visually-confirmed unnamed moons of named planets at unnamed moons. -- Capricorn (talk) 17:48, August 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe you're right, I didn't know the policy. I just figured since Jupiter is a real planet with named moons, the pages would go together since there's not much to this Moons of Jupiter page. - Aatrek  17:59, August 27, 2012 (UTC)