Talk:List of fictional doomsday devices

Re:afd

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

Halo?

Is Halo really a planet killer? It doesn't really kill planets, or even mess up their enivironments. As far as anybody knows, it just kills sentient life. I guess it'd qualify as a super-weapon, but it's not technically a planet killer.

Preferred methods: really preferred?

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)

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)

Terminology

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This has to be one of the poorest written articles I've ever read. "Nigh-indestructible"? "These were destroyed by pitting them against the only foe that could defeat them-themselves."

Base Delta Zero's link

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)

Death Star edit

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)

That's a case of a common phenomenon: canon/science conflict. The Death Star is not supposed to have the power to destroy a planet significantly larger than the Earth-like planets it demonstrates capacity to destroy - but the blast it produces is such overkill that it could obviously do much more. SpaceCaptain 03:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Mass Shadow Generator: a planet killer?

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)

Niven's Bussard Ramjet?

IIRC, wasn't the Known Space Bussard Ramjet supposed to destroy life on the planet via the direct application of its magnetic fields? I know that Niven makes repeated references (albeit poorly explained) in multiple stories to the point that being exposed to the field of an active ramjet is violently fatal to complex life forms. Reference The Ethics of Madness for example.--5th earth 12:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

1. I don't recall its ever being used on an entire planet; you'd need a pretty big field for that. If you have such a reference, please supply it.
2. Even so, that wouldn't amount to a planet destroyer.

Thnidu (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Borg Cube?

Wasn't the Borg Cube in Star Trek a planet killer?--Dan 17:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Not that I recall. (Their rivals, Species 8472, did have a planet killer...) And please sign your comments. SpaceCaptain 00:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought there were flashbacks of Florida being torn in two with a giant laser running down the center from top to bottom. I don't think Earth was destoyed, but it could have been, right? I am not sure.--Dan 17:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that was the prototype Xindi weapon from Enterprise, not the Borg. Bryan 17:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Unicron

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)

He's already listed on the page, you may have overlooked it. Bryan 23:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Daleks

The Dalek bombardment of Earth seen in The Parting Of The Ways were clearly shown warping continents. Could we call that Planet Killing technology? I can't see much surviving after that... CSkankRabbit 13:28, 11 October 2006

Zone of the Enders: The Second Runner

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)

Supreme Commander game

Obliterators.

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)

Negative feedback for article

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)

(This was originally not given its own section, so was confusingly tucked under an irrelevent heading - I moved it to its own spot. Lethesl 21:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC))

Wow

Just horrible, its like a list with an essay from a really bored guy with too much time on his hands. I'm deleting the parapgraphs of original research, opinion and plot explanations, you want to right it somewhere, go make a website, this is not the place to explain how to theoretically in your opinion destroy a planet. It is not vandalism, putting it back would be vandalism though. Bloody bot thinks its vandalism and isn't a great conversationalist so I posted I message where its said and that should get cleared up, feel free to try and fix the article first, but I don't think its possible unless Star Trek and Star Wars writers got together to make a "How to Destroy the World" book, realistically, this would make a great List article.

Deletion

Alright, I set it up as a candidate for deletion, following policy, my first time so it might not look quite as clean as others. Reasons, well in the words of the last person to nominate it for this, "Total original research, from premise to execution. Takes a contrived term ("Planet killer") and then sets about thinking up all the times that a planet has ever been destroyed in the entire history of speculative fiction". In addition, several of Keeps in the previous discussion said "but expand and source" or similar, in the months since it has not notably improved, not following the rules of Wikipedia. Keep in mind that as you vote, your supposed to be voting for what best follows the rules of Wikipedia, not how much you like or think the artical can improve. As an alternative, I offer the suggestion that this article would make a much better List article, List of Planet Destroying devices for instance, as the worst part that without doubt cannot possibly be sourced is the bulk of the actual sentences the "To Kill a Planet" section, Death Stars and Vorlon ships can be sourced, even if a unified explanation for how to destroy a planet with all of these terms cannot.

Delete as per above.

The "prod" has been removed... it seems you are looking for a deletion discussion, rather than the "auto-delete after five days if there's no objection" that a "prod" brings. Please indicate if this is the case. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, right, that would be the right one then, sorry, as I said, I've never deleted an article and to be honest I've gotten to bit rusty on the rules and everything here, but yes I think this should be deleted. No reliable source I've ever heard of groups all methods from various science fiction and fantasy sources for destroying a planet together and attempt to explain them. Lacking reliable sources its original research from a fan boy and has no place here.

Actually I've changed my mind, this could be an okay article. First it would need to become a List of Planet Killers or Planet Destroyers or some such, as that is the part that really has any future. The text on how to theoretically destroy a planet is completely original research from some fansite, completely inappropriate material for wiki here. Sources can also be gathered for a List type, Death Star comes from Star Wars Ep 4, Death Star II comes from 6, Vorlon Planet Killer comes from Babylon 5 season 3 episode ??, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 09:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Submitted again to AFD. "Planet Killer" is, by itself, a pretty vague term. Its only meaning is "that which kills a planet". Also, at present anyway, none are known to actually exist. Naturally, therefore, the article contains no useful information about them. It just boils down to the basic definition, and a list of references from sci-fi. It's something that would be great to have at TV Tropes, I'm sure (actually, they've got one - "Earth Shattering Kaboom"). It boggles my mind that this wasn't deleted last time around. Maybe there was some hope that the article would turn into something useful, somehow? It's been three years, the article is nothing but a trivia hoard. Zaku kai (talk) 04:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Not Delete

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)

Ya, original research, that is the whole problem. _{1 != 2} 15:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

I think the argument here goes:

If:

  There is a secondary work that treats the subject of the article in question with significant coverage.

Then:

  Keep--The article may be fleshed out with claims made by that secondary work.

Else: If:

     The creation of the article requires no more than naive operations from other primary or secondary sources.

Then:

     Keep--The article is not original research.

Else:

     Delete--The article makes substantial transformative claims not made outside of wikipedia.

That seems to be the basic rundown. Limiting reporting on facts in wikipedia is an important goal if we are to rely on amateur editors. It sometimes results in crappy outcomes (articles like this one might get the axe), but it makes our claims to legitimacy that much stronger. Protonk (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC) ^^Whoa. I wonder how that code markup is supposed to be used?  :) Protonk (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What we really need is a new Wikiproject specifically for this sort of article. It could be called WikiTrivia or something along those lines (assuming someone hasn't already used that name for something else). It would fix the problem of these sort of articles making Wikipedia look less serious. Also, less formal content guidelines would benefit these kind of pages as well. Reading and contributing to these more fun articles is something I certainly enjoy, and I wouldn't want to see them all disappear in the name of making Wikipedia look more formal and professional.The Phool (talk) 06:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Too much repitition

Many of the items in this article are listed two or three times. I think the whole "misc" secion was a bad idea.

Supernova bomb missing of course!

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)

Hellspark?

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)

Star Wars Superweapons

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)

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)

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)

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)

Black Sun from Supreme Commander?

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)

Fifth element?

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

Cleanup tags

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)

Riddick

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)

Other literature

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)

Dead Space 3

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)

Dragon Ball

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)

Star Trek additions

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)

Toriko?

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)

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)

Why is this article limited to Science Fiction planet killers only ?

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)

I agree. What examples in fantasy are there though? Dream Focus 22:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 24 September 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain ^t/c 16:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

---

List of planet killers → List of fictional doomsday devices – I do not see what is particularly notable to something being a "planet killer" rather than a doomsday device in general. Especially since the article contains several doomsday devices that are not planet killers, like the Halo (megastructure). Given that planet killer redirects here, it doesn't seem like a notable concept in itself. I think that planet killer needs to redirect to doomsday device, which in turn can link here for notable examples. (P.S. "Planet killer" itself is open to interpretation - global warming is a real life "planet killer" and the article doesn't specify whether it has to be fictional). _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support per the nominator's rationale. The list is pretty broad and includes a number of "doomsday devices" that aren't specifically deployed against planets — like those meant to destroy stars (e.g., the Tox Uthat) or even the entire universe (e.g., Hactar's bomb). The proposed title more accurately describes the true nature of the list. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Stellaris sources

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)