This needs some. --SparqMan 02:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Sigh, in the time it takes to add this to the talk page, you could add the sources yourself, or at least start the section...--Eion 02:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • No, that's incorrect. When you add new content to an article, specifically highly detailed information (for example, the religion section) on a topic that appears in multiple sources, you should add a source. They should not just be applied as potential points of interests, but as specific bibliographical support. --SparqMan 05:10, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that contributers should add sources when they add information, but they didn't, so why bitch about the past. I didn't contribute anything to this article except some minor grammer tweaks, but I went ahead and added the majority of the sources for the information. I guess what I'm saying is, less talk, more action.--Eion 23:33, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • What purpose does it serve to have you add the sources? Unless you can identify (and if you can, you should note it in your summary) exactly what information comes from those sources, adding some sources doesn't help at all. --SparqMan 23:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Given that they appear in only two novels, I took a shot. It's better than nothing, which is what was there before.--Eion 23:50, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I can tell you the "Black Ssi-Ruuk" and the stuff about their religion doesn't appear in TAB or the NJO books. --SparqMan 23:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Then I would guess it comes from Alien Species or Alien Encounters. There is very little direct citation on this wiki, not that there shouldn't be, but just having the damn books listed is enough for me now.--Eion 23:55, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Most of the sources for both the history and religion sections from a fan website called The Midas Array - Ssi-Ruuvi Imperium. This page contains lots of uncanonical information. For example, it states that the first species that the Ssi-Ruuk encountered was a mammalian ape like species called the Elo'wai. --222.152.162 20:53, 5 June 2005

Saurian Edit

The replacement of "saurian" with "reptillian" is a step backwards. Ssi-Ruuk are, in fact, saurian by description and image. The only logical argument I can see for the replacement would be that the Star Wars galaxy does not contain the sauria clade, or that it goes by another name, although given the diverse societies (and presumably equally diverse genus categorizations) that isn't much of an argument. --SparqMan 01:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • The suborder Sauria refers to all living diapsids (reptilians with holes in each side of their skulls). The term used to refer to a suborder of Squamata (large lizards), but that classification is no longer used. Since there is no evidence that Ssi-Ruu have two holes in each side of their skull, they per definition do not belong in the Sauria suborder. (whew) --Imperialles 10:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Except that they are explicitly refered to as saurian in sources. --SparqMan 11:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah, good point. :P The "skull-holes" should probably be mentioned in the article. Although I'm pretty sure the authors were using the old definition, and meant 'saurian' as in 'dinosaur-like'. --Imperialles 11:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • You know, I believe that the word that would technically be the most accurate would be to call them "therapoid," as the specific type of dinosaur they are like (bipedal predators such as the raptor or T-Rex) is called "therapod."Darth Ceratis 21:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ssi-Ruuvi? Edit

I noticed Ssi-Ruuvi is used both as the plural and singular form of the name within the article, though we know that the plural form is Ssi-Ruuk, and the singular form is Ssi-Ruu. Explanation?--Lord OblivionSith holocronSith Emblem 22:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Most likely the fact that the proper usage of the three words takes a little getting used to, and whoever was writing the article slipped up. jSarek 09:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The term Ssi-ruuvi is used as an adjective, so it can refer to the singular or plural.-- 17:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Capitalized R? Edit

Every source I've looked at does not have the R capitalized. I'm moving this to Ssi-ruu, unless I am given any reason why it should be Ssi-Ruu..--Lord OblivionSith holocronSith Emblem 23:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Extra-galactic species? Edit

What source states they are from outside the known galaxy? Every map show's Lwhekk being in one of the arms located at the galactic-west end of the galaxy, past Bakura. Lwhekk may be in the Unknown Regions, but it is still within the known known Star Wars galaxy. If we call the Ssi-ruu extra-galactic, then the Chiss, Yarkora, and Tchuukthai all must be relabeled as extra-galactic as well. - JMAS 05:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Sorry. Parts of the galaxy are considered unknown due to "problems getting there". The hyperspace lanes are either not discovered or nearly impassible due to various gravimetric anomalies. Will (Talk - contribs) 01:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    • That does not make them from outside the galaxy. The Unknown Regions while uncharted, are still part of and included in the known spiral galaxy. Hence that comment is innaccurate and should be removed. - JMAS 01:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say that the Ssi-ruu are from outside the galaxy? I don't see that in the article. Will (Talk - contribs) 13:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Wasn't their star cluster a tiny galaxy in its own right, rotating around The Galaxy Far Far Away just outside its borders? If so, they are technically extragalactic. Evir Daal 13:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Appearance Edit

Which appearance is considered the most official? The depictions range from almost humanoid (Bluescale) to Deinonychus-like. Some of the depictions also resemble the Skeksis in Dark Crystal. The Skeksis might actually be the original inspiration for the Ssi-Ruu, seeing as the depictions below looks very similar, and both have methods of draining life force.