Talk:Ancient Order of the Whills
Back to page
Contents |
Infobox
Edit
What is the point of that info box? It contains no information. --SparqMan 01:55, 10 Aug 2005 (UTC)
- True that. Empty infoboxes are as useless as succession boxes that lead nowhere. In fact, infoboxes are quickly become the "new" succesion box - ie, overused. QuentinGeorge 06:07, 10 Aug 2005 (UTC)
- Ugh! Someone readded the info box. Palpy 20:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
NameEdit
I was just reading on Leeland Chee's blog, it states that in the only accepted and recent sources to mention the Whills refers to them as the "Ancient Order of the Whills." I was thinking maybe we should move the article there. This infers that the Whills were not, in fact, a species, but some sort of organization. Also it states that Qui-Gon learned the secrets of immortality from "a Shaman of the Whills," implying that there are several of them, perhaps every member of the order? Lonnyd 08:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
YodaEdit
I'm not very familiar with Yoda, but I'd heard he was supposedly a Whill. Though, if the Whill were an order as opposed to a Species, this would clearly be incorrect .. Sorry if it's been denied by George Lucas or whatever, I haven't kept in too much touch with the non-EU side of Star Wars in some time now ..
- Yoda being a Whill was denied by Lucas, I think. His species is meant to retain some mystique by never being named. VT-16 14:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Yoda is not a Whill.Edit
Yoda is not a Whill, as this has been denied by Lucas. That his homeworld is Grentarik has also been denied by Lucas. These incorrect statements originate on the fraudulent Star Wars fansite www.SuperShadow.com, run by Mickey Suttle of Hickory, NC, aka SuperShadow. What is stated on his website is fanon, and it is in no way Star Wars canon. So if any more about Yoda being a Whill turns up, it is false. Plus, how could the Whills be an organizaion if they had a journal and a shaman? —Unsigned comment by Darthsidious889 (talk • contribs).
- no where onthis page does it say Yoda is a Whill, it even says about how its often thought so but not true. They were vnot an organization, they were a species Jedi Dude 17:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- It has never been specifically stated that the Whills are a species. And the only canon references (aside from Qui-Gon's shaman) refer to them as "The Ancient Order of the Whills." Sounds like an organization to me. Lonnyd 18:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- They could be like the Mandalorian & be a species as well as an organization is that a fair asumption? —Unsigned comment by Darth Halo (talk • contribs).
- It is a fair assumption, bit it's nothing more than that, so it can't really go into the article as a fact. HavetStorm 17:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- They could be like the Mandalorian & be a species as well as an organization is that a fair asumption? —Unsigned comment by Darth Halo (talk • contribs).
- It has never been specifically stated that the Whills are a species. And the only canon references (aside from Qui-Gon's shaman) refer to them as "The Ancient Order of the Whills." Sounds like an organization to me. Lonnyd 18:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
midichloriansEdit
Whills as an early version of the force? How'd you plot that course? HavetStorm 19:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Keeper of the WhillsEdit
Since Lucas's comments in interviews might not be considered canon in and of themselves, how is Wookieepedia's policy on Lucas's comments in an LFL published book, like Making of ROTS? Part of official continuity? VT-16 12:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Wookieepedia:Canon_policy MoffRebus 13:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Conjecture based our own universe (with the exception, of course, of any such conjecture officially published by Lucas Licensing). Doesn't this cover Lucas's statement in that book? VT-16 16:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- The films and the word of George Lucas are final ... Production notes are considered to be part of the films. I guess "the word" can also include Lucas' comments. MoffRebus 17:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- And that conversation noted in the "Making of..." book would technically be a production note and therefore canon? :) VT-16 21:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- The films and the word of George Lucas are final ... Production notes are considered to be part of the films. I guess "the word" can also include Lucas' comments. MoffRebus 17:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Conjecture based our own universe (with the exception, of course, of any such conjecture officially published by Lucas Licensing). Doesn't this cover Lucas's statement in that book? VT-16 16:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Chee says...Edit
- "With regard to George's comments to Rob Coleman, we try to glean whatever tidbits of information we can in instances like this but we also have to take these statements with a grain of salt. Sometimes George may have been joking or he may have just been speaking off the cuff. He also reserves the right to change his mind. Sometimes we get to explore these ideas further in the EU, and sometimes we don't. In this case we don't."
- ―Leland Chee
Doesn't that mean GL's statement is not considered canon? --Borsk Fey'lya Talk 22:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- But doesn't that mean it wasn't a joke? He's also put restrictions on exploring Palpatine's past, Plagueis' biography (the book was stopped) and Yoda's species, but neither is a "joke". Simply stating another mysterious aspect of his creation is not to be further explored (strange that it was even included in the book at all). That doesn't mean his statement is in error, just that it's not be further explored. That seems to be what Chee says. I've noticed him dodging tricky questions in the past, and this seems par for the course. If it wasn't official info, he'd just say it's not official info. Saying "We didn't get to explore this further" is a sneaky answer, imho. VT-16 00:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Check this outEdit
[url]http://starwars.com/vault/books/news20090331.html[/url] It's just a picture, it could mean anything, but I thought I'd bring it up. 24.119.217.230 15:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
