Jump to content

Talk:List of Star Wars planets and moons

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List criteria

[edit]

I changed the list from the previous bulleted list presentation to a table presentation. This way, information about each planet or moon can be presented cleanly. Due to the franchise having many planets, it would help to limit the list with certain criteria. Here is what I suggest:

  1. Planets and moons that are main settings in the Star Wars films or at least have key appearances (e.g., Alderaan)
  2. Beyond #1, planets and moons mentioned in secondary sources to reflect their real-world notability

To show that this stand-alone list is notable (see WP:NOTESAL), I have implemented three references. Per WP:NOTESAL, "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." This is why I suggest #2 to ensure that planets and moons that have received real-world coverage should be included. If there is interest in including planets and moons from non-film sources (e.g., novels, video games), provided that secondary sources exist, it may be ideal to have separate sections for these, keeping the film-based list as the top and foremost grouping. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources always exist. They are called "The Star Wars Encyclopedia", "The Essential Guide to Planets and Moons" and "A Guide to the Star Wars Universe". The idea of a planet mentioned in the video game / novel where it actually appears and then never again is exceedingly rare. I plan to add back all the EU stuff with the sources above. Connor Behan (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erik and Connor Behan, I want to thank you and anyone else who added citations and is maintaining this list with some criteria of notability. This list is well done and I imagine there are other planets that would meet the criteria for inclusion. Since the new film has reignited interest in the franchise from all kinds of editors who may not have contributed to Star Wars-related articles recently, I wanted to cite Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Star Wars planets (A–B) here, I suppose as a cautionary tale. As you may know there were once TEN standalone lists of Star Wars planets that were ultimately deleted in that AFD (this is why so many Star Wars articles have planet redlinks). The primary issues were a lack of notability and a lot of in-universe presentation. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 17:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jakku

[edit]

I added Jakku, the planet seen in previews of The Force Awakens, to the list with a reference from USA Today. For now, I've kept the planet unlinked in the list. The planets from the original trilogy tend to be the most written about, and most of the planets from the prequel trilogy did not get much coverage except for Naboo (from what I can tell). We'll need reliably sourced coverage about this planet to warrant a stand-alone article. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This mentions Jakku. This as well. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dantooine

[edit]

Dantooine needs added to the list. It was first mentioned in Star War A New Hope (1977) It was the Rebel base before it moved to moon Yavin 4

Legends and canon

[edit]

I'm generally unfamiliar exactly with how the list is organized and what determines what goes where, and I'm hesitant to screw it up, but I do know Dathomir appears in The Clone Wars in season 3 and 4. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TenTonParasol: Thanks for noting this, I found Clone Wars citations and moved Dathomir up to the canon section.— TAnthonyTalk 00:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate your thoughts and input back on the project talk page at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Star_Wars#Canon_language. Might have implications for how this list is structured (or not), and perhaps relevance for other SW-related content. --EEMIV (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Planets of unknown notability

[edit]

The deletion of the previous 10 lists of Star Wars planets has created a lot of red links, and I'm in the process of updating these unfortunately piped links with direct ones. I'm creating redirects for planets already on this List of Star Wars planets and moons, like Ambria (Star Wars), but I have also been coming across many that are not on the list. Since I know nothing about extended universe planets, I'll be collecting these links below:

Notable ones that meet the criteria may be added to this list, and I can redirect the others to their source novels or games if someone with that knowledge can guide me. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 19:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: The strikethroughs are planets that have been added to the articlespace List since my post. — TAnthonyTalk 19:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What a long list! I'd be impressed if anyone found the majority of this recognizable. Looking at Wookiepeida, it seems that about 30 entries are unsuitable for a general article listing planets.
Another 30 or so planets are canon. These are Ansion, Antar, Anteevy, Bogden, Boz Pity, Clak'dor, Denon, Devaron, Eriadu, Ilum, Iridonia, Malachore, Malastare, Mimban, Mortis, Nam Chorios, Nar Shaddaa, Neimoidia, Nubia, Onderon, Ord Cestus, Phindar, Polis Massa, Rattatak, Rhen Var, Rishi, Ruusan, Saleucami, Shili, Stenness and Taris. For the ones in Star Wars: The Clone Wars, it should be easy to find a source reviewing the plot points of that particular episode. For the ones in Tarkin, a sufficiently detailed review might not exist. This book seems like it was designed to pull as many old planets back in as possible.
The remaining planets are on the same footing as the other Legends planets already in the article. The only problem is that they are new enough not to appear in the Wallace book I have been citing. Possible sources where they can be found include The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia (ISBN 0-345-47763-4) and Star Wars: The Essential Atlas (ISBN 0345542754). Connor Behan (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is crazy long and there are still more! Thanks for all this info, I'll get into it when I'm done "collecting" links.— TAnthonyTalk 15:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Canon planets from the new batch: Castell, Cerea, Chandrila, Concord Dawn, Dorin, Fonfor, Gand, Glee Anselm, Iktochon, Kalee, Kalist VI, Maridun, Ojom, Ord Mantell, Ruuria, Skako, Thisspias, Tibrin, Toola, Toydaria, Trandosha, Yag D'hul, Zolan.
Everything else is a recurring EU planet. Connor Behan (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mm. I was coming over to mention about Concord Dawn. According to the StarWars.com databank it's a system. It appears in the Rebels episode "The Protector of Concord Dawn". It's not to be confused with Concordia, a canon moon of Mandalore. Mandalore itself isn't in this list or the actual article, though it's a recurring location in The Clone Wars. Just to note that. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Funny enough, while I was typing that, Connor Behan took care of the Concord Dawn stuff. Striking that part. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amccann421, from this edit you seem to have some knowledge of extended Star Wars worlds, perhaps you'd be interested in this discussion and helping add notable planets to this list. I can help you with any technical table and citation issues but I'm not well versed on the topic itself.— TAnthonyTalk 17:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more than happy to help. Give me a little time to do a little research and I'll let you know on any suggestions. If you have anything in particular you'd like my help on, I'm more than willing. Amccann421 (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, so I made one edit, adding Dxun, Ealor, and Elom (which did appear elsewhere, apparently). I've fixed their respective redirect pages and added strikethroughs to the list above. I have several points that I'd like to open to discussion:
  • Duro is canon, as it is mentioned (in several places) to be the homeworld of Cad Bane of the Duros species. The first mention is here, in the Star Wars Encyclopedia (which has since been replaced by the Databank). However, I have found no evidence the planet has actually appeared in any work. I would guess the Clone Wars series is the most likely place to find it, but my Clone Wars knowledge is far inferior to that of the 7 films and Legends. Any help would be great. Otherwise, I will just add Duro to the canon section with the prior reference.
  • In regards to Sourcebooks, which I am quickly discovering have good info on planets: should they just be named "book title Sourcebook" (as I did for Elom with the Heir to the Empire Sourcebook), or just lumped in with the corresponding book? Also, as mentioned above by Connor Behan, these are just reference books, so many of the planets form there may be relegated to the Star Wars expanded universe article, or removed all together, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. After all, when you play the Game of Clones, you win or you die.
  • As for the rest of the list, I will continue to research. I expect Boz Pity, Falleen, Hypori, Jabiim, Kalee (homeworld of Grievous, if memory serves), Nar Shaddaa, Nemoidia, Ord Mantell, Raxus Prime, Rhen Var (original Battlefront, anyone?), and Saleucemi to be the most prominent, since they're the only names I've seen before now.
If anyone has any specific requests/questions/issues/bad Star Wars puns, my talk page is as empty as the deserts of Tatooine. Amccann421 (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think something that only appears in a reference book should qualify. If a 1995 sourcebook mentions a planet but there isn't a book where a character travels there until 2000, then its "first appearance" is the 2000 book according to my original thinking. However, other contributors might want to be less stingy so I don't plan to remove Elom right away. As for the other planets you mention, I'm sure there will be sources available for us to cite one day if there aren't right now. The Rhen Var maps for Battlefront are boss and I would love for that planet to appear here. The only reason I didn't add it before is because its only non-EU appearance is a "mention", not a genuine appearance. So to follow the same pattern we've been following, we would have to list Rhen Var as a "Legends" planet which isn't strictly correct. Connor Behan (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think there needs to be a certain threshold of both mainstream notability and notability within the franchise for planets on this list, in that they are notable settings in a film/novel/comic/TV series and not just mentioned in passing. There were originally 10 lists of Star Wars planets, and while they were deleted primarily because of inadequate sourcing, I don't think we need a list (or lists) of hundreds of incidental planets just because we can find citations in reference books or other reliable sources. Like, I would think a planet merely mentioned as the birthplace of a major character would not be notable unless it has been featured in some way in a notable work. That said, I am not qualified to judge what is notable or not in the franchise.— TAnthonyTalk 03:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very disappointed to see that this list has gone backward in quality. There are now too many indiscriminate planets. The fictional universe is full of too many planets for us to be using primary sources here. All planets that use only the Wallace book should be deleted. It is a book published by LucasBooks, so it is faux notability. We need to use reliable secondary sources to list the appropriate planets. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted. Your claim is incorrect per WP:ABOUTSELF. We can walk down the list of criteria that make ABOUTSELF applicable to this situation, but I am skeptical that you have any real qualm with any there. Perhaps #5, but that seems to me a small comment on WP:N, which is about a page topic as a whole rather than the content of that page. --Izno (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ABOUTSELF is about questionable sources and self-published sources, both which are defined in the preceding sections. The Wallace book is a primary source, and Wikipedia needs to be based on reliable secondary sources per WP:PSTS. By using the Wallace book, if you want to apply WP:ABOUTSELF still, it makes the article based primarily on this primary source, which is problematic. A planet being listed in the Wallace book gives it zero credibility to be listed here. If that is appropriate, then it is appropriate to list all planets that appear in primary sources. If a planet from the Wallace book has only a brief appearance in the fictional universe, where some works of fiction write about a planet in detail that never appear in the Wallace book, then within this set of logic, that planet should be included as well. Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, the fictional universe is far too vast to list every single planet. Wikipedia should focus on the most notable ones as indicated by secondary sources to provide a discriminate list that general readers can understand. Wookieepedia can list the remaining hundreds of planets. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Erik, you may be correct and we may or may not be able to find other sources for some of these planets, but in that case individual entries should be removed, not necessarily the entire section.— TAnthonyTalk 14:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I doubt anyone has even tried looking since the "Wallace" planets were added, and now that you've challenged them, an effort should be made. I do agree with you that this should not become an indiscriminate list of every planet every mentioned in a Star Wars work, but I'd be surprised if there were no Legends planets that meet our threshold of notability.— TAnthonyTalk 14:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TAnthony, that entire section is solely based on primary sources. It was appropriate to remove. The first list has a mix of primary and secondary sources, and the items based only on primary sources should be removed. The second list does not need any scrutiny. Primary sources are not representative of a planet's noteworthiness to be listed in an encyclopedic article. It's tautological. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another guideline: MOS:INUNIVERSE. The applicable passage here is that an inappropriate feature is, "Giving equal weight to a fictional topic's appearances in major works, and in obscure spin-off material." The following section, MOS:FICTIONPLOT, says, "The rule of thumb is to use as much secondary information as necessary and useful to give the article a real-world perspective, not more and not less." Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I totally agree with you, but don't you think it would be more constructive to register your complaint and give time for editors to try to rectify the issue? — TAnthonyTalk 14:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I originally revised this list to be based on secondary sources, so it is frustrating to see primary sources creep back in like they did in the past. Very few planets outside of visual media are actually noted in secondary sources. There's very little to rectify as opposed to removing. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Connor Behan noted his intention above to use the Wallace book etc. and no one commented, I didn't realize it was an issue and I guess you weren't watching lol. Technically, the Wallace book is an acceptable source. While I suppose we don't want every planet listed in that book to be here (I'm guessing it's a lot), the current list isn't huge and there should be some consideration of notability within the franchise. In particular, if multiple other articles for notable works are referencing a particular planet in a meaningful way, there would be encyclopedic value in having an entry here to provide readers with a basic blurb on the location.— TAnthonyTalk 18:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Wallace book is a primary source, and primary sources have to be used with care. Wikipedia needs to be based on reliable secondary sources. An example of proper use of the Wallace book is for an article about a Star Wars planet that has multiple secondary sources, the Wallace book can be referenced to provide a good basic description of the planet. The problem here is that the Wallace book is being used as a reason to include a planet. Since it is a primary source, it cannot make any claims as to a planet's notability. The book was published to entertain based on LucasBooks's whims. Secondary sources are apart from the makers and thus more impartial. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From what I just counted, all but four sources in the Cannon list are unaffiliated with Lucasfilm and all but two sources in the Legends list are affiliated with Lucasfilm. This disqualifies the Wallace book as a "reliable secondary source" but there is dynamic tension here. It is clearly more reliable than an Atlantic article which mentions Mygeeto offhand and is really about Wikipedia rather than about Star Wars. If we actually treated secondary sources as the more reliable ones in this case, we'd be able to cite outrageous claims like "Chewbacca lives on Endor". A work of fiction does a better job than any secondary source ever could if the question we want to answer pertains to the fictional work itself. This is why I think WP:ABOUTSELF is perfectly applicable here. At any rate, the current article is still better than the 10-part one because the need for citations and inclusion criteria has been enforced. Maybe you think they are still too loose but the criteria I've been using for EU planets is the following: a planet needs to appear as a setting in at least two "Star Wars fiction" works and be mentioned in at least one "Star Wars reference" work. Connor Behan (talk) 19:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Kamino (Star Wars)

[edit]

Not apparently notable. Izno (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Izno. FixCop (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. — TAnthonyTalk 19:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well. Appears briefly in EpII, but not enough, IMO, to warrant its own article. Amccann421 (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreement from me too. Connor Behan (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only content from Kamino that may be salvageable is the below, which is the content with the only citations in the article:

It is inhabited by a race of tall, elegant, long-necked creatures, called Kaminoans, who keep to themselves and are known for their cloning technology.[1] During Obi-Wan's stay on Kamino at Tipoca City, he discovered the source of the Clone Army's genetic code, one Jango Fett and his "son" Boba Fett.[2]

Tipoca City is the capital of the planet of Kamino. It is the home of Lama Su, the prime minister of Kamino, Jango Fett, Taun We, and Boba Fett.[3]

References

  1. ^ Daniel Dinello, Technophobia!: Science Fiction Visions of Posthuman Technology (University of Texas Press, 2005), 211.
  2. ^ Capps, Kriston (November 28, 2014). "Of Course There Are Black Stormtroopers in Star Wars". The Atlantic. Retrieved January 17, 2016.
  3. ^ Robert Schnakenberg, Sci-Fi Baby Names: 500 Out-Of-This-World Baby Names from Anakin to Zardoz (Quirk Books, 2007), 135.

The citation for Technophobia may actually be a good addition for the list entry for Kaminoan, but barely mentions the planet. The black stormtrooper article may be okay for the basic verification of content in this article. I can't access p135 for the third citation and don't have the source, but given the title of the work, I'm skeptical that it has anything much of worth to the planets list. --Izno (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

what canon with disney

[edit]

since disney took over the only canon stories are the tv show Rebel, the 7 movies, and all new comics and books 2014 or later. A bunch of stuff on the "canon" list don't count as real anymore; although I think you could grandfather in the CLone Wars show because it is frequently referenced on the show Rebels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.53.138.190 (talk) 01:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Clone Wars, the 2008 CGI television series, is indeed canon. From the announcement about Legends and what is canon going forward, emphasis mine: "He [Lucas] set the films he created as the canon. This includes the six Star Wars episodes, and the many hours of content he developed and produced in Star Wars: The Clone Wars. These stories are the immovable objects of Star Wars history, the characters and events to which all other tales must align." ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For any future reference, especially the above discussion of planets, here is the list of what is canon:
Things that are not canon:
Sources: [1], [2], [3]
MTFBWY. Amccann421 (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dromund Kaas

[edit]

I added Dromund Kaas last night and I see that it has been reverted but it is ok. I understand that Wookieepedia isn't a reliable source. The reason that I put it (Wookieepedia as my source) was because that is where they told me of the first appearance. Otherwise I have learned about Dromund Kaas from the novel (Legends) Star Wars The Old Republic: Revan by Drew Karpyshyn. A lot happens on that planet and they travel to it quite a bit. So if anyone could maybe add it back or just make it again that would be great and if you like I could help out Except I am quite new to Wikipedia so I am still learning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob yo (talk • contribs) 20:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Since I don't have all of the "essential guides", I wonder if one of them gives a definitive list of Dromund Kaas appearances. This one at least has a mention of it. I went with a blog reviewing MotS for now. Connor Behan (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Legends" locales/sources in Canon list

[edit]

The Legends list is separate from the Canon list for a reason. So why are there so many Legends locales and sources in the Canon list? I'd suggest removing them. Disney has established what's canon and what isn't; it's pretty self-explanatory.PacificBoy 03:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you look closely, you'll see that any Legends locations in the canon section were initiated in aLegends work but have since been made canon. Original works have been added for clarity.— TAnthonyTalk 05:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add new source to Batuu?

[edit]

Batuu is one of the settings in Thrawn: Alliances, so should it be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.198.152.116 (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will someone please add Obroa-Skai

[edit]

Will someone please add the planet Obroa-Skai to the list. I'm not familiar enough with the organization of the list in Wikipedia to know where best to put it. But it's certainly a Star Wars planet that should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.77.108.15 (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really want to list appearances instead of first appearances?

[edit]

A Dec 23 edit by an IP, which adds excessive in-universe detail (I have reverted some of it), also changes the format of the table. Instead of listing the only first appearance, it lists the first appearance plus other appearances that are recent. Is the end goal one of the following?

  • All appearances period: This would make each row extremely long because a single planet can easily appear in 50 books.
  • First appearance plus all other appearances that are canon: This might result in a short list for now but over the years the new canon will become as extensive as the old one.
  • First appearance plus all film appearances: This option does not have a size problem. But we would have to explain the "rules" of the table to the reader.

Personally, I propose that we go back to "first appearance" which is well defined. Moving away from this in a consistent way makes things more difficult and/or less encyclopedic. And yes, I watched The Rise of Skywalker today in order to have this argument. Connor Behan (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Tana (Star Wars)" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tana (Star Wars). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 20:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Standard Galactic Grid" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Standard Galactic Grid. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 18:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SW Jedi: Fallen Order

[edit]

Some planets, such as Dathomir, are present in the game “Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order”, however the game is not present in the canon appearances. NubNublet (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The column listing media is for the planet's first appearance. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 14:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Tipoca City" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Tipoca City. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 30#Tipoca City until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Talk 17:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raxus

[edit]

Raxus should be here 24.140.201.102 (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 August 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved - Consensus is that this would involve a change in scope of the article. FOARP (talk) 10:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Wars planets and moons → List of Star Wars locations – It is strange we don't have a list of SW locations, just a list of planet and moons. I recommend renaming this and increasing its scope. I don't think there is a need to have separate lists for locations and planets and moons, it's better to have one list for all SW locations (if it would grow to big we can split it by alphabet or such). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. "Locations" implies filming locations, which this article does not list. Walrasiad (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Some planets on this list are prominent enough that there are dedicated articles discussing their locations. Others are obscure enough that only a couple reliable sources refer to them at all. Some people might like a list of locations covering the middle ground but I think it would work best as a separate article. Connor Behan (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New planets from Andor?

[edit]

Andor has introduced a number of new worlds, such as Morlana, Ferrix, Kenari, and Aldhani. Is there any hope of having these included? 2603:8001:9D00:CC0E:AD54:3383:B529:38BB (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add Narkina 5 - planet with Imperial prisons. 89.218.17.56 (talk) 07:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alderaan, Coruscant and Tatooine

[edit]

I just edited the page by adding TV Series "Obi-Wan Kenobi" to planet Alderaan. As matter of fact also "Revenge of the Sith" should be added as there is a brief scene on Alderaan toward the end of the movie. Similarly, for Coruscant and Tatooine, there are quite a few missing media, but this goes beyond my editing capabilities. Maybe it would be easier to change the entire column to "First Apparence". 93.43.229.160 (talk) 08:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Lah'mu appears at the beginning of the movie "Rogue One" (Galen Erso's farm) 93.43.229.160 (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone Needs to Add Jedi Survivor to Jedha.

[edit]

The game came out a little over a year ago. Jedha was a significant part of the story. And it should be added to this article. Aidensdaddy2k9 (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC) 70.168.88.163 (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While following up on this, I see in other talk discussions that only the planet's first appearance is listed. So I guess I am answering my own question. If this particular discussion can be deleted, I have no problem with that if any admins choose to do so. I would myself, but I don't see that as an option. This conversation that I started/posted is just a waste of space. Aidensdaddy2k9 (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Star_Wars_planets_and_moons&oldid=1248843743"