I'm not entirely sure about the placement, or indeed content, of the Battles of Commenor and Kessel. The only battle of Commenor I've seen is a short X-wing/TIE dogfight over the world in one of the X-wing comics. And I'm guessing the Battle of Kessel you mean is the one from Champions of the Force? (in which the Death Star prototype destroys the Kessel moon, then goes head-to-head with the Sun Crusher).
I'll try and add more detailed Clone Wars and NJO timelines soon.
Ummm[]
It was directly stated in KOTOR that the Great Sith Wars ended as of apx. 4,045 BBY, and shortly after that the Mandalorians began raiding the outer rim, and after that the Mandalorian wars began, and ended several years before 4,000 BBY, so why does this have that all mixed up.....Kardo Sett 07:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Independent battles[]
Given the current format, what is to be done for battles which were not part of a war? The battle I'm thinking of in particular is the Battle of Nar Shaddaa in The Hutt Gambit. It was an Imperial attack that was resisted by the smugglers, not part of a big war. -- Aidje 20:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Conflicts outside of major wars can just be listed under a pre- or post-war header (for example, the Battle of Nar Shaddaa would be post-RotS, post-Clone Wars or pre-ANH) -- Kwenn 18:12, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- The addition of "Imperial Era" is a good solution. -- Aidje 20:08, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- Problem: The two civil wars (Dantooine and Onderon) of KOTOR 2, plus the Battle of Telos are not part of a war. I put them under a "Civil Wars" header, as they don't fit in with the rule established above. What is a better name for the header? --Imperialles 08:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
- Crap, my mind is blank. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
How about "Minor Post-Jedi Civil War conflicts"? --Imperialles 08:33, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
- That works. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:37, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
- Implemented. --Imperialles 08:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Ghorman Massacre[]
Is the Ghorman Massacre really a battle? -- Riffsyphon1024 19:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- The Ghorman Massacre was not a battle. Tarkin landed his flagship on a group of protesters. Not a battle. --Kosure 19:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- While the Ghorman Massacre was not, technically speaking, a battle, it seems important to list it here. Perhaps the list should be renamed, but I think things like this should definitely be on the list. since they're still very important conflicts. -- Aidje 20:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree. I feel like its important, but not enough to be placed on the List, since I don't think it belongs there. Maybe we should work a link to it, into the article on the Alliance, or maybe the Tarkin Docterine page. --Kosure 00:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC) --198.40.29.8 23:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- While not a battle in the way one would usually think of a battle, consider the following: Answers.com gives the definition of battle as "an encounter between opposing forces" (this is definition 1.a). By this definition, the Ghorman Massacre was a battle: The protesters initiated the encounter by being there to protest, the mere fact that they were protesting shows that they were opposed to Tarkin in some way. The second definition listed (1.b) is "armed fighting; combat." Admittedly, this one doesn't fit as well as the first, but consider it rephrased as an "armed conflict." Only one side was armed, and the weapon in question was a ship rather than a firearm or a blade (it would have been impractical to not simply use the ship as a weapon), but it was in fact an armed conflict (and you can't deny that it was a conflict). It would seem quite strange to not list a massacre on a list of battles—surely they should be taken into account when looking at the overall flow of a war. -- Aidje 00:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- But what weapons did the other side have. Nothing. That's why they call it a massacre. A one-sided mass killing is not a battle. Battles have two sides, with both sides armed. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- Its not a battle, its not even an armed conflict. You know what Adje, put it on the list, but make a not that its isn't a battle per se, but a massacre, but just as important to the flow of the war. or something like that... --Kosure 00:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- Bet the Imperials counted it as a battle and gave everyone medals anyway...In all seriousness, I say keep it on the list. Silly Dan 00:51, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- Argh, stupid edit conflicts:
- I was posting this but had an edit conflict with Kosure (all of the times are messed up, though):
- I gave a good (I thought) argument against that line of reasoning already. The point is that taking out the Ghorman Massacre will reduce the list's quality. If you want to do that, fine. I'm obviously the only one who agrees with me. :-) Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the purpose of this list. Oh well. Do what you will. -- Aidje 00:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- I'd like to add that I thought the name "Ghorman Massacre" already made its status fairly obvious. Still, although I disagree, I concede the point. I'm obviously outnumbered. No reason to keep picking these bones since the consensus is obvious. -- Aidje 00:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- And now Silly Dan agrees with me... hmm. -- Aidje 00:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- While not a battle in the way one would usually think of a battle, consider the following: Answers.com gives the definition of battle as "an encounter between opposing forces" (this is definition 1.a). By this definition, the Ghorman Massacre was a battle: The protesters initiated the encounter by being there to protest, the mere fact that they were protesting shows that they were opposed to Tarkin in some way. The second definition listed (1.b) is "armed fighting; combat." Admittedly, this one doesn't fit as well as the first, but consider it rephrased as an "armed conflict." Only one side was armed, and the weapon in question was a ship rather than a firearm or a blade (it would have been impractical to not simply use the ship as a weapon), but it was in fact an armed conflict (and you can't deny that it was a conflict). It would seem quite strange to not list a massacre on a list of battles—surely they should be taken into account when looking at the overall flow of a war. -- Aidje 00:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- I would argue to keep this list for military conflicts. Otherwise, should the destruction of Alderaan be included? It's people were in conflict with the Empire, and they were destroyed. I think the list would lose its purpose. Perhaps a different list should be created for massacres and tragedies. --SparqMan 01:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- Honestly if you feel that strongly go ahead and do it. I just feel like it should have an addendum. --Kosure 01:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- Also note that the Ghorman Massacre is categorized as an event, not a battle. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- Just FYI, I'm in favor of removal. Maybe it fits on a "timeline of the Galactic Civil War" or "Timeline of Imperial history," but putting it on this list is calling it a battle, and it's not.-LtNOWIS 02:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps some sort of massive timeline is in order. -- Aidje 03:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- There already is. See Also: Dates in Star Wars. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, yes. Silly me. I've only seen it a hundred times before. -- Aidje 14:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- There already is. See Also: Dates in Star Wars. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps some sort of massive timeline is in order. -- Aidje 03:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
To please our contributors, I have expanded on what can be put in this list. -- Riffsyphon1024 20:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Pre-Ruusan[]
Shouldn't that be Post-Ruusan Reformation? --Fade 18:05, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? --Imperialles 18:19, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Ho ho ho :P --Fade 18:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Pre-TPM[]
If there is a Twenty-First Battle of Zehava, isn't it safe to assume that there are 20 other Battles of Zehava between 1000 BBY and 94 BBY? -- Riffsyphon1024 00:34, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Battlefront Battles: What to do with them?[]
Since there are some "historic campaigns" presented in the Battlefront games, how should we treat these? I see some new, red titles in the GCW section (Battle of Tatooine and Bespin) and I want to see them get made, but there´s that rule of 'game-mechanics'. Does it apply to the background story for these levels? VT-16 19:29, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- As far as story goes, BF doesn't have one, while BF2 does. Original Battlefront battles probably shouldn't be called canon.--Xilentshadow900 17:54, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Cut out the 'battle before/after' parts?[]
Since there are often more than one battle taking place at the same time, wouldn't it be better to just cut out these things? You don't see 'Battle before/Battle after' on the WW II section of Wikipedia. VT-16 14:54, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. Plus, there are many pages that have one battle that is next, but when you go to a battle that is in between there, it has a whole lot of other battles in between the two main ones. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 21:33, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- I was just looking at this myself. I like to have it in there as it is convienient, but at the moment is too sporadic to be of much use.Eyrezer 03:16, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- I've stopped putting the before/after parts in battle-profiles, since they almost always get one or two new entries in-between anyway and it's hard to separate some battles timewise. The thing is, I don't know how to get rid of that part of the code altogether. VT-16 13:49, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've found that this only complicates things more and when additional battles are placed in between two existing ones, that screws everything up. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:52, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- They're all messed up now. We should either fix them all or scrap them all. -LtNOWIS 01:55, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've found that this only complicates things more and when additional battles are placed in between two existing ones, that screws everything up. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:52, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- I've stopped putting the before/after parts in battle-profiles, since they almost always get one or two new entries in-between anyway and it's hard to separate some battles timewise. The thing is, I don't know how to get rid of that part of the code altogether. VT-16 13:49, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- I was just looking at this myself. I like to have it in there as it is convienient, but at the moment is too sporadic to be of much use.Eyrezer 03:16, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- They actually do have something like this in some Wikipedia articles, but it takes the form of a modified infobox for battles which are obviously part of the same campaign. They don't attempt to do this for entire wars. There's also the fact that the wars in the real world are fairly well documented, while any author could just make up a new battle in the Star Wars universe, making the battle before/battle after stuff impossible to keep up with. I vote that we don't bother, but maybe add new infoboxes for the major battles of particular campaigns. — Silly Dan 02:07, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah I'd like to see them left out. Many battles are impossible to plot on the timeline. As it is now, most of the battles in these fields are probably incorrectly placed. --Azizlight 02:18, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- I'd like to see them omitted, as well; given how many obscure battles there are in the war, they're almost inevitably incorrect. jSarek 08:00, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Protected[]
Why is this protected? It's a little hard to wookify an article from an OOU perspective to an IU perspective. -- SFH 04:59, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, if there's no real edit-conflict going on, I don't see any need to keep the page locked up. VT-16 13:50, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Why not?[]
If duels should Have their own page I sugest we creat it! And also battles like:
- Battle of Naboo
- Blockade of Naboo
- Assault on Naboo
- Siege of Theed
- Rebellion on Theed
- Swamp Invasion
- Alliance with the Gungans
- Grassy Plains Battle
- Palace Battle
- Naboo Space Battle
- Peace on Naboo
These should all be articles on their own!!! (srry, my Englisch is bad ^^)--81.243.245.3 0.52:11, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://starwars.wikicities.com/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Naboo"
- Unnecessary. All of that would be included with Battle of Naboo. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:21, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Why is this page said to be "out of universe"?[]
- The page simply lists dates and events in different periods of conflict. What's the out-of-universe part? Wolfdog 15:38, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
- The OOU part is the names of the movies and games in those areas. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:22, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
- I cleaned it up. Bly1993 15:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- The OOU part is the names of the movies and games in those areas. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:22, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup[]
I find all this article unnecessary. Why have such an anormous list wile we have other minor ones such as Timeline of the Clone Wars? It only confuses us and we have to maintain two articles instead of one with each change. I propose the battles should be merged with the lesser articles (eg. Timeline of Hyperspace War, Timeline of the Galactic Civil War) and cleanup this one. Maybe keep it as a hub for the Timelines MoffRebus 13:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Battles of Zekava[]
Goodness, that's what I call persistency. - Sikon [Talk] 11:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
consortium tactical missions[]
would those be considered actual battles? - 09MurphyM
Updating with new information[]
I have started to update the legacy era with battles taking place during the Fate of the Jedi series. For now i have listed them under the heading Post Second Galactic Civil War, This will likely be divided into 2 parts. Battles taking place after the Second Galactic Civil war, but before the Lost Tribe of Sith resurgence, and those during the Resurgence. --Supreme Emperor 01:56, April 4, 2012 (UTC)
Vindication[]
Why aren't Vindication and all of the conflicts and duels leading up to it included on this page, when they all hppened as part of a subplot of the Mandalorian Wars? --69.126.224.39 16:34, June 26, 2012 (UTC)