Destruction of Tililix: Date?Edit

Galaxy Guide 12, pg. 85, under "Tarro":

Their homeworld, Tililix, was destroyed about a century ago when the Til sun exploded with little warning...

However, same book, pg. 86, in Tarro entry, "Story factors"

Near-extinct: The Tarro are nearly extinct, as their homeworld was consumed byt heir star approximately a year ago.

Quite an approximation, only 99 years wrong. However, both sentences are canon. Thus, are we to understand something like this?:

100 BBY: Til sun explodes. holocaust in Tililix. No survivors on the planet. Tililix becomes a barren rock, still in orbit.

1 BBY: Til sun becomes big enough to absolutely consume Tililix, by then a sterile planet.

--Skippy Farlstendoiro 19:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Ultimate Alien Anthology, p.156, says "the Tarro homeworld was destroyed nearly a century before the Battle of Yavin when its sun exploded with little warning." I'm guessing the second GG12 reference should be considered a typo. —Silly Dan _(talk) 00:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm 99% sure that it is a typo, specially as the same source (GG12) contradicts itself. However, IMHO, the encyclopedic nature of Wookieepedia should not assume. I see this point as something similar to the destruction of Uba contradicted chronology - with the only difference being that the conflicting sources are less popular. IMHO, this apparent typo, until officially corrected, is a new datum which should be included in the entry, with some effort to reconcile all the available information.

BtW: "the Tarro homeworld was destroyed nearly a century before the Battle of Yavin when its sun exploded with little warning." (UAA). 100 ABY is, again apparently, not the exact date (Unless we consider that "nearly a century" means "99 years plus 200 days" - in this case, the event would have taken place in 100 ABY).

--Skippy Farlstendoiro 11:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• "Nearly a century BBY" could also mean "exactly a century before whenever the in-universe text of GG12 was supposedly written," which I would guess to be around 97 BBY. As for the "nearly one year" note, I'm still convinced that's just a mistake. —Silly Dan _(talk) 12:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)