Talk:List of fictional doomsday devices

message: Re: the AfD, I have begun to listify and prune here. Wl219 07:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re:afd

message: In literature, quick methods of destruction are also used.  An example (which I've seen in a couple independent novels, and which also is a method of planet destruction that doesn't require one ultimate one-of-a-kind weapon): In the Honor Harrington series, in Vernor Vinge's A Fire Upon the Deep, and probably in many others, relativistic missiles are used to destroy planets with kinetic energy. --SpaceCaptain 00:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, actually using cee-fractional kinetic strikes to obliterate a planet is a violation of the Deneb Accords, and it'll bring the Solarian League down upon you like there's no tomorrow. . . ;)  --Anville 20:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preferred methods: really preferred? 

message: Is 'planet killer' the most widely used term for this type of device (outside of Babylon 5)? As I noted in the article, Star Wars uses 'superweapon'. A Fire Upon the Deep uses 'world-wrecker'. Some non-canon Star Trek materials used 'planetcracker' or 'planet wrecker'. I seem to recall having read 'God-weapon' somewhere. Is there a generic term at all? --SpaceCaptain 00:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I find the current title more fictious and poetic than scientific. After all a planet is not a living organism in itself, so can we really use the verb to kill for masses of stacked elements? We should perhaps consider renaming the title to "Planet Destroyer" or "Interplanar Weapon". --Unissakävelijä 10:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course the name is fictitious - there are no real weapons of this power. It would be an acceptable name if it were the standard science fiction term, but it isn't. What did you mean by "interplanar weapon"? I've never heard that term. --SpaceCaptain 18:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I think Planet killer is a good name as any, Planet destroyer or Planet buster could work too, though many of the weapons listed don't destroy the planet as such, merely kill everyone and everything on it. Maybe something like Weapons of planetary mass destruction could be used (or should it be Weapons of planetary scale mass destruction, a bit unsure about the propper grammar of that one). Other "random" names off the top of my head: Extermination level event trigger, Planatary extermination weapon, Planetary steriliser (yeah, I'm just making those up). Personaly I'm fine with Planet killer though, the planet might not be alive, but IMHO stripping all life from a planet could best be described as killing it. Dead world is after all fairly commonly used to describe for life-less planets (at least in fiction) even though planets are neither alive or dead. --Sherool 23:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We should just stick with "Planet Killer" and make redirects for the more plausible names.  They all mean much the same thing anyway, and there is little terminological consensus. --maru 17:34, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a plan. I added a bunch of redirect pages for some of the more "likely" names (IMHO). Check the "what links here" page for the article for a full list. If anyone know of more "synonymes" for "planet killer" that people would be likely to search for pleace add those too. I merely added some of the ones mentioned on this page (and some variations on the same). --Sherool 22:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: The link for Base Delta Zero (Star Wars) is to Orbital_bombardment, which does not quite refer to Star Wars itself. Should the link be changed or removed or should there be an added article or is there an article available that refers to the actual text of the link -- namely, Base Delta Zero itself?
* Last time I checked(when I made the link), there was no article for Base Delta Zero, so I just linked it to the closest (neutral)article.  - SAMAS
::Probably best to just redlink it, then, so that people will know that Wikipedia doesn't currently have any information about the subject. Bryan 03:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Base Delta Zero's link 

message: It is impossible for the Death Star to produce thirty-thousand years worth of Sol's output in a single blast.  The STAR WARS novelization even states this. Darth Sidious 18:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death Star edit 

message: Mass Shadow Generators do not kill planets (except Centerpoint Station). They drag ships out of hyperspace. If it was so, then Interdictor cruisers would be able to wipe out planets. I'm removing that one.
*That one refers to the specific Mass Shadow Generator that appeared in Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II, not just any old MSG.  I don't have the game, so I can't be sure how well it does the job, though. SAMAS 22:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass Shadow Generator: a planet killer? 

message: Wasn't the Borg Cube in Star Trek a planet killer?--Dan 17:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that was the prototype Xindi weapon from Enterprise, not the Borg. Bryan 17:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Borg Cube? 

message: Couldn't Unicron be consitered a planet killer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.78.220 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's already listed on the page, you may have overlooked it. Bryan 23:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unicron 

message: Aumaan is supposed to be capable of destroying the entire solar system. Would this be classed as a Planet Killer?--82.20.221.220 23:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zone of the Enders: The Second Runner 

message: What about the Obliterator weapons used by the Honoured Matres and later Omnius in the Dune science fiction novels? They are able to destroy all life on most planets hit by them, the exception being on Dune, where the giant Sandworms survive. Erasmus  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.9.254 (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obliterators. 

message: This article is completely pointless, please remove as it serves no redeeming value and is of no benifit to anyone.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.132.218 (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Negative feedback for article

message: I would not like to see this article deleted. It shows an extrodrinary amount of research in litrature, film and TV.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.157.126 (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya, original research, that is the whole problem. 1 != 2 15:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno, although it nowadays seems that there are as many interpretations of OR as there are editors, it is not and it has not been a practice to consider uncontroversial descriptive claims about the content of a work OR. Have you ever tried writing an article about Romeo and Juliet without the play, entirely on the basis of its reviews and other third-party sources? Me neither, and I'd rather not try. =) --Kizor 16:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Not Delete

message: The ultimate doomsday device from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: a device that short-circuits all stars in universe through the hyperspace, and makes them all explode like supernovas. That's a planet killer indeed, and of course forgotten! Said: Rursus (☻) 17:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Supernova bomb missing of course!

message: I think there was such a device in Janet Kagan's novel Hellspark, but I read it too long ago to be sure. Thnidu (talk) 00:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hellspark? 

message: I thought the Star Wars part of this list was falling behind, so I updated it using the wookieepedia articles for the respective superweapons. I don't know if this is the right thing to do, but wookieepedia far surpasses wikipedia in terms of SW articles. I tried to put in only weapons capable of destroying or wiping all life on a given planet. --Scott (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We generally don't consider other wiki's to be reliable sources on which we base our content. If these weapons have been discussed by something that would qualify as a reliable source then its inclusion may be an improvement. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 19:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Well if those are those rules, those are the rules. I must say it is pretty stupid considering how poor the wiki SW articles are compared to the well referenced and detailed articles on wookieepedia. I am going to at least post a link at the bottom of the page to provide a good list of Star Wars planet killers/superweapons. --Scott (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Your argument is a form of WP:UNDUE.  Looking over the article, I do not think that Star Wars isn't weighty enough in the List article here:  It's one of only two fictional references that gets mention in lead, for example.  There is no "race" or "competition" in a List article:  It's incumbent on the target article to address the specific type of Planet killer fully, and little explanation is needed or desired in this article.  However, I do think an external link to the appropriate subject (specifically, "Planet killer" in Star Wars in the Wookieepedia) is perfectly appropriate in the case.  —Aladdin Sane (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Wars Superweapons 

message: Black Sun does not destroy planets. All it actually does is the destroy the ability of people from using th quantum gate network, which is kind of like the stargates from any of the Stargate series.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.57.208 (talk) 06:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black Sun from Supreme Commander? 

message: Why fifth element's evil moon is not included? 95.132.245.155 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 11:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fifth element? 

message: Just replaced the cleanup tags on the article which Dreamfocus in good faith removed.  My reasoning is that the list still has many non-notable entries and the vast majority of entries are unsourced.  This list is not capable of being an exhaustive (complete) list of planet killers, and it therefore needs to be careful to only include planet killers which are notable (ie, themselves the subject of significant discussion in reliable independent sources).  That notability needs to be backed by sources.  The article does not yet meet that standard, hence the tags remain.  Thanks. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup tags 

message: What does this mean: "save for the series of monuments that produce them."? What is "them" referring to? Can someone fix it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Riddick

message: I came across this article and I must ask: Why is the literature section broken up in three entries, which are two short entries for specific series, then a major entry named "Other literature"? This seems incoherent, so I'm just going to eliminate the subcategories altogether. Akesgeroth (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Other literature

message: Why is there a Dead Space 3 spoiler that has nothing to do with planet killers? 80.99.221.200 (talk) 01:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Space 3 

message: As within the line of Dragon Ball enemies, none of the enemies (except for Birus in Battle of Gods) and Goku (supposedly, in the fight against Cell) were to destroy the Earth. Both Raditz, Vegeta and Nappa were only to conquer Earth in the name of Frieza (as it was Kakaroto's mission). Buu and Cell only wanted to fight the strongest warrior, even if that means destroying humanity in the process, but not Earth itself. Cell even seemed threathened by the idea of Goku destroying the Earth
PlissandrO (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dragon Ball 

message: There are already plenty of examples in the Star Trek section - the list is not meant to be exhaustive.  More addition are just crufty, and we could say that sources are needed to classify most of these as true "planet killers" - for example:
* According to Trip Tucker, a thousand NX-class starships would be required to replicate the Xindi super weapons effects, implying that the Enterprise itself was capable of large-scale planetary devastation to some degree.
This is not a planet killer according to the article definition.  Also, addition of text beginning with "Interestingly" generally isn't.
WP:BRD applies here - Bold edit made, Reverted - now Discuss.  Thanks  Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Trek additions 

message: How about Neo, since he/it devours planets; wouldn't that count?
— 2601:183:4000:D57A:24A6:833A:47C1:C7AC (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, if I understood your request correctly and you are referring to characters from Toriko, I don't see anything related to planet devouring with NEO. Did I miss something? Altamel (talk) 02:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toriko? 

message: There are several objects able to annihilate a planet in fantasy franchises, is there a purpose for limiting this article to science fiction ? --89.13.139.128 (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  What examples in fantasy are there though?  Dream Focus 22:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this article limited to Science Fiction planet killers only ?  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of fictional doomsday devices. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101110034614/http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/nuclear/f.htm to http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/nuclear/f.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'll assume my edits were removed because of me not citing sources, but does the stellaris wiki count as a reliable source seeing as it's directly supported and referenced by Paradox themselves?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.126.40.61 (talk) 02:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stellaris sources