Talk:Conference Planet

I think this is really stretching it....said information could easily be explained in the Parliament article. Also, unless this is the actual named of a planet, it probably shouldn't be categorized with that category as if "Conference Planet" was the name of a planet. --Alan 15:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The script makes it sound like a "Conference Planet" is simply a type of planet, of which Parliament is one. "We are to deliver these delegates to this sector's neutral Conference Planet called "Parliament" in the hope their dispute can be resolved." makes it sound like other sectors have Conference Planets for similar purposes.  Perhaps a better category would be Astronomical objects (similar to Class M, which is similarly a type of planet). Overall, the decision doesn't matter much to me, I was simply adding an article for a redlink I found in the episode's reference section. -Rhinecanthus rectangulus 16:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I just don't like the idea of creating articles off randomly capitalized terms in "to be heavily edited" drafts of scripts (especially TNG S1&2) that are not always known for being grammatically infallible. As for "planet type" in terms of a environmental/compositional classification, when it refers to a function, like "the neutral planetoid code-named Babel." Anyway, my overall rationalization is the same as stated here. --Alan 20:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think both of you have good points. I'm not convinced that the capitalization was entirely random, given the line of dialog.  That said, I'm also not convinced that it should have its own article, since it was the only mention of such a phenomenon.  I would suggest a merge and redirect with Parlaiment.--31dot 20:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Renegade54
Hi there. In the script for, "Conference Planet" is used with both words capitalized, hence why I created the article as such. Common sense tells me that it should be "conference planet" (what you changed it to) - but I wasn't sure how to proceed. I thought we erred on the spelling/grammatical usages from the scripts unless words were seen onscreen, but perhaps I'm wrong? (No big deal at all, I'm just trying to figure out if I've been placing too much emphasis on the script utilization of words.) Cheers. -Rhinecanthus rectangulus 19:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was wondering how it was in the script. I tried to find it online to check, but didn't have any luck. I suspected that you capitalized it specifically that way because it was that way in the script, but I was too lazy to ask you about it. ;) And you're right, we normally do defer to spellings, etc. in the scripts if there's a question. I'm not 100% sure myself what to do here, since, like you pointed out, the usage, context-wise, seems to indicate a generic term of "conference planet" rather than a proper name or title of "Conference Planet". I guess we should open it up to discussion to the community. -- Renegade54 19:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Cobra, I moved the article for the reasons Alan stated above, and for the reasons I stated above. I agree that we normally use the script for spelling and/or usage guidelines, but we also need to be open to exceptions, especially in the cases that Alan points out. In this case, it appears that the term was meant to be a more generic one that shouldn't be capitalized, rather than a specific one that should be. If it even remains as a separate article. -- Renegade54 00:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait, there was a conversation? Crap, I've been dealing with so much April Fool's day crap on various sites and stuff today that I only saw the discussion on your talk page. Oh well, it will all work out in the end. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)