This is the talk page for the article "Darkness on Umbara." This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for a discussion about the topic in question. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.

"This point forward, we are entering uncharted territory." Darkness on Umbara is within the scope of WookieeProject: The Clone Wars, an effort to develop comprehensive and detailed articles with topics originating in or related to the Star Wars: The Clone Wars television series. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice or visit our project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Production codeEdit

I think the code of this episode is 3.25 from the last images of the slideshow... Mihai1803 109.96.87.30 10:23, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

The 501st AT-RT design was designed for 4.02. That is most likely the code for this episode. That would mean it was the last episode produced for the arc, and it reused designs from the other episodes (including 3.25 and 4.01). It should be easier to know for sure when all four episode guides are fully released. --Sido-Dyas 03:46, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

• It would be more prudent to leave it as the earliest known production code for now (seeing as this episode is the first in the four-part story arc and was probably produced first), until we have more information. CC7567 ^(talk) 04:05, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
  • Which part of a story arc it is is actually pretty irrelevant, as evidenced by many of the production codes for the first three seasons. DigiFluid 17:33, November 3, 2011 (UTC)
    • One of the 3.25 images was referring to the conception of the millicreep, which we so far only know has appeared in this episode. Let's just be patient and utilize this production code for now until shown otherwise. CC7567 ^(talk) 03:19, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
      • I agree with what you said on prudence a couple comments back. If we have the picture as our evidence, that's what we should use until we have alternative proof and then proceed from there. I only wanted to point out that we probably shouldn't be using airing order as our benchmark for production order, since to date the two don't have a lot to do with one another. DigiFluid 16:27, November 4, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, after a lot of examination, it looks like the last three images in the Concept Art gallery support the 3.25 code. The concept art in question depicts the ridge, jungle road, and millicreep, which have so far only appeared in "Darkness on Umbara." The rest of the concept images marked with production codes don't seem to be consistent. CC7567 ^(talk) 04:43, November 5, 2011 (UTC)

Appearances Edit

Just a couple notes on the Appearances in this episode. First of all, Artoo also appears displaying a Hologram in the hangar at the beginning of this episode, so it's not only the in the flashback. Also, the two Jedi Starfighters seen during the Newsreel are piloted by, at least what appears to be, Barris Offee and Ahsoka Tano. Bane7670 16:40, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

• What about the thing originally stated as a Z-85 here, is that really a z-95 as its been changed to? Are we certain this time? pic for reference - I called it a z-85 cause thats what was listed here and when I put as the main pic for the page z-85, but now its called a z-95 and this picture needs a home - Skyhawk 00:31, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

Flying Creatures Edit

What about those flying creatures that attacked the 501st Legion but were soon killed by Pong Krell? Shouldn't they have an article too.—Unsigned comment by 115.186.130.127 (talk • contribs).

Venator, Providence and Munificent ships Edit

All three of those ships appeared in the newsreel, not the actual episode. So shouldn't the newsreel caption be there? What's the code for it?—Unsigned comment by 124.109.38.19 (talk • contribs).

How is it an error? Edit

We have in the BTS section that Rex being referred to as "CT-7567" is an error. However, we changed his title to "CT-7567." So shouldn't we remove that mention of it being an error? Or instead say, it was established in this episode that Rex's number is CT-7567 rather than CC-7567. Also, if Rex is CT-7567, shouldn't we change Fives to ARC-5555? Because ARC Trooper Nate formerly had a CT number, but it was changed to A-98. So isn't it possible that Fives' number was changed to ARC- instead of CT-?--ARC Commander Colt 21:53, December 1, 2011 (UTC)

• Fives' nickname is still an inconsistency and I'll make a note of it in his behind the scenes section. As for Rex, his Encyclopedia entry confirmed his new number. JangFett ^(Talk) 23:25, December 1, 2011 (UTC)