User talk:Wl219/List of fictional weapons of mass destruction

Is an alphabetical list the most effective way to present these weapons? I am not sure that the names of the devices are as well known as the devices themselves. Perhaps by medium+name of book/show, or maybe chronologically ordered so it would be possible to see how the idea grew and developed? RandomCritic 21:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think medium + name of work would make sense if a straight alpha list is undesirable. Most people know planet killers by the works they appear in, except for rare killers like the Death Star that have gained independent notability. I don't think chronological is the way to go, since there's such a wide variety of killers and they don't all conform to any literary/film trend. History of planet killers can probably be consolidated into an intro paragraph; after the AfD I don't think the deletionists will tolerate all that OR-ish text in the existing article. Wl219 08:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WI219 - thanks for your comment on my talk page. I'm not sure a list is the best way to present the information, partly because a) lists of this sort are prone to deletion as "listcruft" and partly because b) I think in most cases it's right to delete them for that reason. Wikipedia is intended as an encyclopaedia, and it's rare to see lists in encyclopaedias except where a list is really the best format, eg a list of presidents of a country, where it's a discreet set, 1, 2, 3, 4, down to present day. You wouldn't see a list of plants, or a list of motor vehicles, so I don't think a list of planet killers is appropriate either. OTOH, an article *about* planet killers is appropriate if say it covers the history of the planet killer idea, discusses different types of planet killers, and most importantly cites reliable sources for this information. Such an article wouldn't need to (and shouldn't) cite every single instance of the idea used in fiction, because that could go on forever: it should just give a couple of particularly notable examples for each section, eg the earliest couple (for fiction), a couple example nuclear types, a couple example nanotech types, etc.

I'm barely back from a conference and very tired so don't know if this makes sense - let me know if not and I'll try to explain better. But basically I think the article as it is, minus the "Planet killers in fiction" section, would make a good basis for a decent article so long as it's properly referenced. --Zeborah 09:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]