GG4's entry on the Columi says that Columus was first rediscovered by the Galactic Empire - presumably the material in the Columus article about being a tourist trap and the Columi activity during the Clone Wars is a recent retcon. Where does this come from? — Silly Dan 19:35, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

• From "Healthy Vacation Claims Disputed" and CIS Shadowfeed Dispatch 14:7:01 Edition. jSarek 00:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks! — Silly Dan 01:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Egads! ANOTHER candidate for the Hyperspace Aliens? That's just wierd. I mean, between them, the Celestials, the Rakata, the Killiks, the Kwa, the Starweirds and these guys, you never know WHO it'll turn out to be! Rod the... well you know the rest
  • We've had it confirmed that the "hyperspace aliens" were the Rakata in the New Essential Chronology. jSarek 00:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Though I'm not sure it confirmed that other species didn't come up with it independently, anyway. — Silly Dan 01:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Spaceflight?Edit

Well I thought it would be best to ask my question at this talk. Both the 2,000,000 BBY page, and the 100,000 BBY page say that's when they developed space travel. The reason for this is because Galaxy Guide 4: Alien Races, where the Columi were first established, says they developed spaceflight in 2,000,000 BBY. But the New Essential Chronology says they developed space travel at 100,000 BBY. Normally I would side with the newer NEC, but GG4 has a whole history of the Columi with accompanying dates that match up with the 2,000,000 BBY version. So which version is the true one. If we can decide not only can we make the 2,000,000 BBY page, and 100,000 BBY page, consistent, but we can incorporate those dates into the main Columi artical. I hope I didn't present this in a confusing manner... Dylax 04:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Similarity?Edit

Is it just me or do the Columi look like Furons from Destroy All Humans? -- Riffsyphon1024 02:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• They also have the same method of reproduction. Does it deserve a BTS mention?--Lord Oblivion^{Sith holocron} 13:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

CIS ShadowfeedEdit

They neither appear in this News-report, nor are they mentioned. Only their homeworld ist briefly referenced. Thus, there's no need to include the Shadowfeed in the Appearances. Borsk Fey'lya 13:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• That mention establishes that they were known before the Empire, an important fact in light of what is said in Galaxy Guide 4: Alien Races. It also establishes their cloning operations. jSarek 14:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • We should probably add a comment like (Homeworld mentioned only) or (Indirect mention) just to clarify matters. —Silly Dan _(talk) 14:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)