I know that this is frequently an area of debate on Wikipedia (where I would agree that it was a bad idea), but I'm willing to risk bringing it up here: would it be a good idea for us to standard(ise/ize) on American spelling? I know that there are people out there who would rather use British spellings, but, in reading Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Manual of Style, I have noticed that, in the section titled National varieties of English, it gives the example of an article concerning Tolkien's Lord of the Rings and states that such an article should be written using British spelling and style. It seems to me that, following that rule, any Star Wars article on Wikipedia would use American spelling and style, and that Wookieepedia should therefore standardize on American spelling. Thoughts? (By the way, in the event that anyone should attack me as an ignorant and arrogant American who cares nothing about others' culture(s), please know that I spent many of my formative years (the ones where I was learning to read and write) in Southeast Asia, where the predominant form of English is British English—as a result, I often prefer British spellings myself, so I'm not entirely biased towards the U.S. in this matter; I simply think that uniformity is good. I'm sure that no one on this wiki would resort to personal attacks, though, right? (-:) Uh, all of that aside, any thoughts? -- Aidje 00:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Not to be US-centric or anything, but if Star Wars originated in the United States, then the Wiki should follow the American format. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
    • One could make the argument (as Robert Brown did) that looking at the scripts and production designs, the word "lightsaber" is spelled using the British form, "sabre", rather than the American "saber", and as such should be the way it is spelled in all cases. However, I think the best way to go, at least in this regard, is the most common spelling in official materials, and since probably 99% of the Star Wars novels, reference books, video games, etc. are all made using American English, then it is probably best to standardize on that. In my own writings (off Wookieepedia) I'll still spell it "lightsabre", if only b/c I think it looks better, and in the end, that's the only reason words are spelled the way they are, it looks better that way.--Eion 00:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm certainly not US-centric (having lived my entire life in Canada), but I agree that US English should be the standard. However, Commonwealth/British/Canadian spellings for article titles, like lightsabre, should definitely be kept as redirects. Silly Dan 00:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

This issue will be decided by consensus, so if they are more people happy with the US spelling, the way it looks in 99% of merchandise, then that is how we go. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

  • There is some post-structral debate over the reason words are spelled the way they are. But I agree. US spellings all around. --Kosure 00:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Wow. No flames! Cool. And everyone (so far) seems to agree, as well. I certainly feel better about bringing this up now that I see people's responses. I was afraid I might offend someone. -- Aidje 01:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I must disagree. Proper names or items that are named in canon sources should be spelled properly. For example, lightsaber is spelled that way in all canon sources, and we should reflect that here. If an author uses an alternative English spelling method consistently in an article, any Wookipedians who edit or add to the article should respect it. If an author writes uses the spelling "armour" in a phrase, such as "Han Solo's shot bounced off Darth Vader's armour", and he is consistent throughout an article, it is acceptable. If an author uses the spelling for, say, a unit name, as in "The Rebel Alliance feared the 3rd Imperial Heavy Armour" -- it would be correctable via canon sources. If we take a hard and fast rule about the use of American English spelling, we may scare off or alienate potential participants, which would be unwise at this stage. In the end, we can make a decision on the final editing stance (perhaps having both US and UK versions of articles), but for now, it should be left alone. We have greater concerns to focus on. --SparqMan 01:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with SpargMan. It's just tiresome to have to revise my typing style just to Americanise words that really have no bearing on the article as a whole, and I suppose being 'corrected' for using your own language may not make some contributors happy. -Fade 15:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • First: I'm British, not American (just in case you wanted to know). Second: My view on this is that names and objects that are particular to the SW galaxy should always use American spellings (eg: lightsaber). However, I think that words that have no significant relevance to the galaxy (eg: colour/color) are fine however the author spells them normally, as long as it is a correct spelling of course. --Beeurd 00:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I think that is pretty much the consensus that came out of this frenzy. I personally, have enough problems with my own spelling to start worrying about the correctly spelled words of others.--Eion 00:35, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't mind people typing British English, but I think it would make sense to have a standard for spell checking—it would make the job quite tedious if one had to check every article before spellchecking to see which dictionary to use, and then switch back and forth accordingly. And what if an article is already half/half? – Aidje talk 00:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Dating SystemsEdit

I noticed that it seems like the standard for dates here use the Battle of Yavin system, with that battle as a zero years. Would it be possible to use the Great Resynchronization system instead? I prefer it greatly to the BBY/ABY system; it just seems more 'realistic' from an in-universe perspective; that, plus it's used by both the modern Holonet News and the old Galaxy News Net breifs in the Star Wars Adventure Journal. I realize that almost everyone is more familiar with the BBY/ABY system, but that could be rectified by linking each year mentioned to an article about it (much like Wikipedia does) which not only has a list of the events that year, but also the corresponding date using the BBY/ABY system. I realize that many might not agree with me, and that it will take a bit of work to convert everything, but I think it's the best way to go. It's also more neutral, considering that the BBY/ABY system would only be favored by the Rebels and the other one was in use much longer. Gladius 06:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

  • While you have valid reasons, it's a lot of work, and for that reason alone I don't think it ends up as a net good result. It's hard enough getting people to work on articles, without the learning curve of a new calendar. This would cause a lot of people a lot of grief. It would be similar to requiring all Wikipedia articles about the Aztec to use only their calendar system.--Eion 06:49, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Its possible that it could be implimented in articles detailed those years defined by BBY/ABY, but hardly anyone would enjoy trying to learn a new dating system based on the Holonet's. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Besides, the average fan can grasp BBY immediately, but may never have heard of the Galaxy NewsNet or Holonet News systems. Silly Dan 11:31, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Alright, I understand where y'all are coming from. I'll stick to BBY/ABY from now on. -- Gladius 23:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Refering to named Ships Edit

For the Manual of Style, we should establish how we would like to refer to named ships in regards to the use of the article "the" before a name. For example:

"At the Battle of Endor, the Executor was the flagship of the Imperial Navy."
"At the Battle of Endor, Executor was the flagship of the Imperial Navy."

Is this a mere matter of choice in style, or does it demand a decision? --SparqMan 06:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Matter of choice I think. Maybe personal preference, just like our discussion on American/British English. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Standard navel practice use "the" before a class name, as in "The Executor Class Star Dreadnaught" but not in the ship's name, as in "HIMS Executor"--Eion 06:49, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Actually, naval communications uses the when the full name is used (as well as a class name), as in "the U.S.S. Nimitz", but would say, "We will dispatch Nimitz as soon as possible." --SparqMan 14:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
We're not talking about comms, but articles about the ships.--Eion 21:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm glad this has been added to the Manual of Style, but I have one question: must HIMS be used every time a given (Imperial) ship is mentioned by name, or is it okay on subsequent mentionings to omit the prefix? -- Aidje 13:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I think in most cases, only the first mention should be so formal.--Eion 21:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
HIMS is canon? --SparqMan 14:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
even if it is not, it is a reasonable conjecture. Lucas based the Imperial navy on terrestrial navies, and as such some carryover of terminology is acceptable.--Eion 21:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
        • HIMS isn't canon, but as Eion says it's a reasonable conjecture. Although the Revenge of the Sith novel reveals that RSS (presumably for Republic Star Ship) is the proper prefix for Republic vessels, so perhaps Imperial ships should rather be ISS or HIMSS? -- Gladius 23:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
          • An empire doesn't commission ships, the emperor does. Just as the government of the United Kingdom is referred to as "Her Majesty's Government", likewise are their ships referred to as "Her Majesty's Ship". Technically, the entire government of the UK (And by extension, the Galactic Empire), exists at the sovereigns’ pleasure. Unlike the US’s citizen government, in which the government is sovereign, in the UK and GE sovereignty rests with the sovereign herself. Further, the double SS on your second suggestion is redundant, HIMS stands for "His Imperial Majesty's Ship", as the use of the word "ship" in the astronomical sense has replaced the nautical sense.--Eion 23:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
            • That makes sense, thanks. I only suggested HIMSS since the Republic apparently used Star Ship rather than simply Ship-- although it was probably for asthetic reasons. RS sound stupid, as does HIMSS. HIMS it is then. -- Gladius 00:18, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
              • Actually RSS would perhaps stand for the "Republic Senate's Ship", stating that the senate commissioned the ship, like "His Imperial Majesty" commissioned the later vessels. It would also take into account why "the RSS Whatshername" is grammatically valid, while "the HIMS Executor" is not. -- Gen.d 19:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
I've never seen a reference to HIMS in any books or sources -- I had always assumed that the Empire used numbers to identify the ships (as they do with everything else), and allowed the names to stay for morale purposes (and psychological purposes against insurgents). --SparqMan 23:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
They likely do, but just as the USS Enterprise of the US Navy is CVN-65, that is her hull classification symbol and registry, not her name.--Eion 23:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Still, I see no reason to be inserting the non-canon "HIMS" everywhere. We've never, in all the thousands of pages of print out there, seen even one reference to this prefix designation for these ships. Even if there *is* a prefix - which, given its absence in material that should have it, I doubt - there's no guarantee it'd resemble Earthly systems. It could include the extra "S" Gladius suggests, or it might be slightly tweaked ("His Majestically Imperial Starship"), or it could be an abbreviation of a High Galactic phrase instead of a Basic phrase, or any of a number of possibilities. I think they should be stricken until we see them in canon material. JSarek 04:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, no, it couldn't be "His Majestically Imperial Starship". B/C we are SOD, we accept that the films dialogue (and in one case, its text) are being translated for use. This is why everyone appears to be speaking english/french/german/etc. Ranks, Titles, terminology are all, for the most part, also translated. When they are not, it is b/c our language lacks such a term, owing to the complexity of the SW universe (e.g. Moff). Ship names (at least in the Imp SF) are translated for us, it is therefore reasonable to assume a ship prefixes would be as well. The story is being told to US, it is written for US, and when you are writing a story for someone, you write it in terms they can understand. No source need be provided, b/c the statement is not contradicted in the canon. One is free to infer when there is limited information, and so as to allow ship names to be easily located, and to add a bit of uniformity to articles, I chose the most common (and most reasonable) translation of whatever ship prefix the Imp SF uses. EVEN if they do not use one, one must remember that this story is written for us. As I posted earlier, the Japanese navy does not use ship prefixes, but for western books, the prefix HIJMS is often used. It is used for continuity’s sake, nothing more.--Eion 06:45, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I concur with JSarek. HIMS should be removed unless a source can be provided. Vote? --SparqMan 05:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Would HMS (standing for His Majesty's Ship) work instead? -- Riffsyphon1024 06:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    • HMS would not a worthy title for an Empire. Emperors are Imperial Majesties (outranking Kings), and as such their ships are titled, "His Imperial Majesties Ships". Palpatine is an Emperor, has ships, and as such it is reasonable to conjecture (b/c of SOD) that his ships are titled thusly.--Eion 06:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Might I ask what SOD is supposed to mean? -- Riffsyphon1024 07:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Suspension of Disbelief. I do not allow the fact that humans, english, flying yellow letters all exist in the SW universe to color my perception or analysis.--Eion 07:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
          • Things that only exist in "Fanon" should not be stated as fact in our articles. For all you know, the prefix for Imperial ships could be GES (Galactic Empire Ship), HMS (His Majesty's Ship), or anything else you can think of. That's IF a prefix even exists. JimRaynor55 08:01, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
            • NO, it couldn't, see above.--Eion 06:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
          • It is also logical to rename all of the starships to "Earth" standard ship types, but that would be breaking canon. --SparqMan 14:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
            • No, because we have evidence of the ship types and an explanation for their existence, in addition to the fact that the Imperial Starfleet operates on a scale beyond which terrestrial ship typing is useful. This is not the case with prefixes, as we have seen the Republic still uses them--Eion 06:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm gonna abstain on this vote. I don't want anything non-official in this wiki, but HIMS is also a logical conjecture (and the most common one). As I said before, we know from the RotS novelization that Republic ships used RSS (Republic Star Ship, presumably) as prefixes. --Gladius 02:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

How is HIMS any more logical than GES (Galactic Empire Ship), ESS (Empire Starship), or anything else? HIMS is just a fan-created term that has spread throughout the fandom. We shouldn't use it in Wiki, since doing so makes it look official. Less knowledgable fans could be mislead. JimRaynor55 02:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I'll use Ps & Qs then,
  • The Galactic Empire (as portrayed in the films) is based on terrestrial sources
  • and, Ships of a terrestrial empire are properly prefixed His/Her Imperial Majesty's Ship
  • and, The Galactic Republic was shown to use ship prefixes (RSS, Republic Star Ship)
  • and, the nautical use of the word "ship" has been supplanted by the astrological.
  • It is logical to assume that the Galactic Empire would continue to use ship prefixes
  • and, that they would use a prefix in style with an empire
  • the most logical prefix to use would be HIMS.

That is the argument, as simply as it can be portrayed. If you accept the whereas statements, you are logically led to accept the therefore. Now, this does not mean HIMS is canon, and I do not believe it should be treated as such, but it is a logical choose as placeholder. I would fully support (and would be happy to create) an article that HIMS would link to, explaining it is a conjectural term, as well as providing the argument for its use.--Eion 06:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

"The Galactic Republic was shown to use ship prefixes (RSS, Republic Star Ship)" --> then wouldn't it be His Majesty's Imperial Star Ship? If you're using it as a cornerstone for a logical conjencture, must it not follow the same form? On a side note, the Empire may share bonds with terrestrial empires, terrestrial empires/governments that use a naval prefix make a point of, indeed, using them. HMS Gallant. USS Nimitz. Never is anything spoken or written that suggest the Emperor or his Starfleet chose to use this same method. That's why I can't support its use. --SparqMan 06:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
No, because as I explained, in any autocratic state, sovereignty resides in the person of the ruler, not the government. The Galactic Empire only exists because of the Emperor. If tomorrow George W. Bush declared himself Emperor of the United States, their ships would be properly prefixed "His Imperial Majesty's Ship". An Emperor is an Imperial Majesty, a King is a Majesty. Anything used in the name of a sovereign (a ship) is styled with their proper address, as such ships of emperors MUST be prefixed as HIMS, at least in our world. I do see the virtue of your second point, but based on the fact that the Republic used prefixes, and as the Empire was sold as a reorganization (not replacement) of the Republic, I am led to believe they would maintain the use of prefixes.--Eion 06:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Additionally, the use of ship prefixes terrestrially is an anachronism. Many modern navies use them out of a sense of nostalgia, but rely on hull classifications, pennant numbers and registry IDs. With the Emperor purging things left and right, and showing a predisposition towards uniformity and removal of identity (giving ID numbers to Stormtroopers, pilots, etc.), perhaps he struck the use of the prefixes to CUT a bond to the Republic. But that's conjecture too. Despite the strength of your argument (I can imagine them using a prefix), it is still unsupported by sources. There is plenty of content that we could add based on logical conjecture (especially if we base the SW universe upon the realities of our own), but that would be a whole different thing than recording the universe of Star Wars that we have been shown. --SparqMan 06:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Ah, the rare valid point. Conceded. Well argued Sparq. I too agree that the SWW needs to accurately record the SW universe, and I now realize the posting of HIMS in an article about a ship gives unusual credence to what is (though entirely reasonable), an entirely conjectural term. I still think an article about HIMS would be appropriate, explaining it is conjectural, but also providing evidence for its use, but that is another day.--Eion 06:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Hm, I'm actually pretty much undecided on this now, but leaning towards removing the prefix. --Fade 14:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


  1. Remove. Unsurprising, I'm sure. ;-) JSarek 05:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. Remove. It is not canonical. --SparqMan 06:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. Remove. SW Wikipedia should be used to clear up misinformation, not spread it. JimRaynor55 08:01, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. Remove. For the sake of not wanting to spread possible errors --Beeurd 00:41, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
  5. Remove It's bad conjecture at best --Death Regis 02:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
  6. Remove until a canonical, consistently used Imperial ship prefix appears. Silly Dan 02:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
  7. Remove Don't really have anything to say that wasn't already said. Shadowtrooper 02:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  8. Remove. Even if this is good fanon (I'm undecided on that point), it's still fanon, which has no place on Wookieepedia. – Aidje talk 14:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  9. Remove. Joining the debate a bit late. ^_^ --GenkiNeko 10:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


  1. Keep. Conjecture is often required to fill in the holes; It's spackle.--Eion 06:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. Keep. For now it's logical, likely, and helps presentation and realism. It's not exactly a massive unfounded assumption, as such I think it should remain unless something more official comes along. --Fade 14:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

In/Out of Universe Perspectives Edit

Didn't see any other discussion on this. Should a policy on whether an article is written from an in or out of unvierse perpective be put in place? Personally, I'd like to see any articles on characters and such written from a totally IU POV, without any references to OOU stuff at all except for a Appearances or Behind the Scenes header at the bottom-- and even that should have a notation like I put in my Soontir Fel article. It just makes this whole wiki more realistic, especially if we format all the articles like they are on the regular Wikipedia. I noticed that a bunch of articles say in the middle of it what books a character appears in, or that they're from the star wars universe or whatever. To me it just detracts from the sense of realism.

I do think that articles about any OOU stuff, like books or merchandise, should obviously be written from an OOU perspective and perhaps noted be noted as such.

What do y'all think? -- Gladius 06:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I have merged your OOU article to the Manual of Style. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks! -- Gladius 23:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Gee I wish I had wings too. Seems needlessly complex and draconian. You need Suspension of Disbelief when viewing this kind of material, or else you have to accept that giant yellow letters zoom throughout space, all heroic actions are accompanied by orchestral music, and giant wipes whisk characters from scene to scene.--Eion 06:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Addendum, A clear IU/OU boundary is perhaps a mark of a great article, but even a fuzzy one drastically improves the "believability" of an article. Though I doubt anything from this wiki could be C&Ped direct into a novel as an "in universe" writing, it's nice to try.--Eion 06:57, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Look, I don't think it's that big of a deal. I'm just saying that any articles about characters an other IU stuff should probably, from now on, be written form as realistic and IU perspective as possible. It's not all that hard. I realize it sounds nitpicky, but reading about how a character was a bit part in ANH and played by so and so kinda yanks you out of the moment. Just look at the Biggs Darklighter or Thrawn articles. I realize that it's because they were shifted from the regular Wikipedia, but they sould probably either be redone as a 'real' type of article in the style of the real articles on main Wikipedia. I tried to emulate that style, for instance, in the Baron Fel article I submitted, and it wasn't that hard. I just used articles about folks like Rommel, Eisenhower, and Lee as examples to work off of. -- Gladius 23:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
        • No, I actually agree with you. Sorry if it came off otherwise, it was late. I try to do so as well, even if it is with tongue firmly in cheek on occasion.--Eion 23:57, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
          • Hah, alright, thanks. I get what you mean. -- Gladius 00:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Would it be helpful to create a template tag for articles that require IU/OOU cleaning? Or should the {{cleanup}} tag include it, now that it has been merged into the Manual of Style? --SparqMan 07:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I think that would be a great idea, to tag all the horribly OOU articles with that so someone can fix them up. Maybe the maual of style can have more detailed guideline on how to write new 'realistic' articles. The boxes describing eye and hair color, for example, are kinda tacky and could be included in the article (although that's just my opinion). -- Gladius 23:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Such boxes are used in the EGTC & NEGTC, and IMHO having to start each char article with "He had blue eyes, brown hair, and stood 1.8 meters tall" would be more tacky.--Eion 00:22, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't the box portray vital information? I fail to see how hair or eye color (unless a distinguishing feature) is important to grasp immediately. Their need is particularly useless when the article is accompanied by an image (or multiple images). --SparqMan 01:03, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Are you willing to assume that all images will readily show eye color? I'm not, and I don't see anything wrong with a brief, uniform space for vital statistics, especially when it saves us from sounding like 3rd graders in the writing, not to mention precedent in the EGs.--Eion 01:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The current boxes list species, gender, home planet, and affiliation, all of which should be described in the article anyway. The only two that normally wouldn't be are hair and eye color, and those can be determined from a provided picture (which is available for all characters about whom that information is known). The boxes are unnecessary and look unprofessional; this is supposed to be an encyclopedia-type site, not another essential guide. -- Gladius 02:32, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
    • You don't think it possible that a character may warrant a mention of their eye or hair color, but not a picture, in official sources? Or one is not available? I think the boxes summarize vital statistics in an efficient, and provide a continuous design element., which I feel is an element of any professional work. We clearly disagree on this.--Eion 02:41, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Clearly. My reasoning is that, in real life articles hair or eye color is never mentioned, and putting it in a box especially just looks odd. You may as well put RPG statistics while you're at it. I suppose if it must be included, and no picture is available, than it could easily go in a "Trivia" section at the end of the article along with other things that don't fit elsewhere, such as favorite foods or nicknames. It would look much better that way. -- Gladius 02:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I view such char articles as that person's official record, and a person's official record ought to include such vital statistics. Imagine if an FBI file listed hair color under trivia. Does that make sense? No, it should be in large bold letters in a standardized box under your picture. If they gave us Han Solo's blood type, I'd want it in the Vital Statistics box. If they gave us his favorite song, I'd want it in the Trivia. Form must follow Function.--Eion 02:57, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
        • The way I'm looking at it is that this isn't a FBI database or whatever, this is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias don't generally include inane stuff like eye or hair color unless it's somehow unusual or relevant, and especially not in a tacky big chart at the top of the page. A George Bush article wouldn't say Hair Color: Brown Eye Color: Brown Affiliation: United States and so on, for example. It's a difference of asthetic opinion, I guess. -- Gladius 20:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • While In Universe is a good idea, we gotta have some OOU content in IU articles. For example, if you want to compare a character or ship to real-world people/vehicles. I think the best thing would be to seperate them in each article. For example, Jar Jar Binks is completely OOU at first, talking about fan reaction and who acted him and the like, than going on to talk about the actual story. Perhaps we should do it like that, only flipping it, so character stuff is first, than there's a section for each thing about real world stuff, like a list of where the topic was featured and introduced, and how heavily, real-world inspirations and comparisons, etc. Like in SW databank when they have movies, EU, and "behind the scenes" sections for each entry.-LtNOWIS 03:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree, that is the best way to handle such mixed articles. Certain articles (The Films in particular) defy this though, as certain OU infomation (casting, poster, gross, etc.) should appear at the top of the page.
  • picture (which is available for all characters about whom that information is known)
I doubt this is the case. I'm sure there are EU characters who's physical characteristics are described, while the character is not portrayed in any official artwork. Broad sweeping statements using words such as all, every, never, always, etc. are almost "always" wrong :-) -- Aidje 03:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • You're right, sorry. I shoud have said "most characters"-- most main characters, at least, have some picture of them somewhere, although alot minor ones don't. -- Gladius 20:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
I have created the template {{oou}} to mark articles that contain inappropriate OOU content. The listing can be viewed here: Out of Universe cleanup. Many of the articles simply require a little fix at the top (removing the "in the fictional universe..." bit), but some require a more comprehensive workover to focus the articles in IU content and/or separate out valuable OOU content into a section. Please add the template tag to articles that require it as you see them. --SparqMan 06:34, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Whoa, wait a second. That part you just mentioned is wookification. It's already covered, because that kind of statement is just left over from Wikipedia. I thought you were talking about more subtle differences, the kind of thing that would be written on this Wiki rather than the kind of thing that would be written on Wikipedia and then moved here. Doubtless, OOU cleanup would be a vital part of the wookification process, but I'm not sure that outright "This is Star Wars" statements quite fit into that category. I thought it was more like "In blahblah book" statements that were merely trying to tell people which book something was in, rather than the statements that assume one doesn't even know it's fictional to begin with. I hope I'm making sense. I think there should be somewhat clear lines here—totally blurred lines can cause great confusion. We must take care. -- Aidje 14:24, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Right, we would certainly want an article on Luke to mention Mark Hamil. To clarify what I was saying, a segregated or semi-segrated system might work fairly well. I think each IU article should have a section saying where it's from or introduced, especially the minor stuff, so we can look it up and see that it actually exists. This would prevent fake stuff from being inserted, and also let people make their own decisions on canon. I pesrsonally don't mind having phrases like "featured heavily in Star Wars: ..." in article titles, but I think it's better to at least divide it by paragraphs-LtNOWIS 15:45, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't have anything to say, other than I'm watching this thread closely. FYI--Kosure 14:31, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
The OOU tagging is being used for articles with glaring issues that can be easily corrected. While it's wookification, I've created the tag to make them easier to see, just as there are multiple types of {{cleanup}} tags. I agree with LtNOWIS: a good reference section should handle a large number of the issues, and the rest (particularly movie related articles) can be segregated within the article. --SparqMan 16:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, forget what I said. I see that there's overlap between the two, but that neither is a complete subset of the other. This worried me at first. Not sure why. I think I understand why it's okay now. -- Aidje 16:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I'm thinking that basically the whole article should be IU, then at the end have a "Behind the Scenes" heading where you say who created him/her/it, what actor played a character, misc. stuff about the design process of the subject, etc. Then in the References heading list all the sources the subject appears in. That way the article is realisitically IU with not "then in X book so and so did this," but readers can still see where they appeared and click on the source links for summaries. -- Gladius 20:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
      • The Yoda article is like this already isn't it. Use that as an example. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:07, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Well... the Yoda article isn't quite what I had in mind. It includes alot of OOU references inside the article. IMO I'd move all of the references of the materials he appears in to a "References" heading at the the bottom, above "External Links," and move all of the stuff like the Sanskrit origin of his name, George Lucas keeping his species secret, and so on to a "Behind the Scenes" header above "References." I think the Baron Fel article serves as a good template for this sort of thing (but then I wrote it so I may be biased ;) ). -- Gladius 22:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
          • I have edited Ponda Baba, Wedge Antilles, and Doctor Evazan in more-or-less the same way. Silly Dan 22:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
            • The Ponda Baba article was written completely from an IU perspective to begin with, although you did add some new sections, like the Appearances thing. Another article which I think has been properly wookified and perspective-shifted is Geonosis. Is that on target? (The one thing I'm particularly not sure about is the mention of architecture: I would only say was if it wasn't like that anymore, but to say is assumes that it hasn't changed). -- Aidje 03:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
              • Sorry Aidje, I meant to say I formatted Ponda Baba, not edited. The only oou stuff in there right now is stuff I added. Silly Dan 02:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
                • Well, I guess formatting is a form of editing. Whatever, it's okay. I don't mean to be possessive or anything; whatever the case, it's a good example of the kind of separation being discussed. – Aidje talk 20:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
            • Yeah, those are more or less what I was thinking of. IMO the format should go Wikipedia-style article (introductory sentences then headings if necessary), then in-universe trivia about the subject, then a behind the scenes heading about the subject, then references where the subject appeared, the external links. Keeps it nice and neat that way. -- Gladius 05:10, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
              • I’m a casual user of the Star Wars wiki who likes Star Wars but doesn’t know a lot of the detail (hence my visits here). I have a few thoughts from my outside perspective that relate to what’s being discussed here that I thought you might find of interest. As a casual user I would find it very helfpul if, for each entry, it could be stated where the subject can be found in the Star Wars universe (and expanded universe). This would be particularly useful if, for example, you wanted to follow all the appearances in books, films, comics etc of a particular character (eg Boba Fett). Some pages don’t have any reference at all to where they appear (eg the recently added ThonBoka Nebula entry). Other pages (such as Soontir Fel and Ponda Baba) do have the information but the headings ‘Appearances’ and ‘References’ seem to be being used to mean the same thing. May I suggest that both be used but to mean different things – ‘Appearances’ for where the subject is actually featured and ‘References’ for where the subject is mentioned in a significant way but not actually featured (I’m sure Darth Vader might feature heavily under both headings). The other thing I wanted to suggest is that the source of information should be cited. This isn’t always the same as the ‘Appearance’ or ‘Reference’. To use Ponda Baba as an example again, the entry correctly states that the character appears in ‘Star Wars IV: A New Hope’ but clearly all the information given doesn’t come from the characters brief appearance in the movie. So, where does the information come from? The novelization? The radio version? The role-playing-game? Not only would citing the source be useful for the user but for future wikipedians who might want to corroborate the information should it fall in to doubt. I do hope you don’t think I’m being cheeky or rude suggesting all the above. I realise that this wiki will always be a work in progress but I just thought that these are things that might be considered for the future. After all, I’m sure you want the wiki to be as useful as possible. --Mantrid 08:34, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the last poster makes some good points. We should definitely try harder to pad out Appearances sections, but I think that the References cuurently mean cited works at the moment- perhaps it would be better to rename the References sections 'Sources' to avoid confusion? --Fade 14:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Abbreviations Edit

What are the acceptable abbreviations for the various governments? Does GE for Galactic Empire, NR for New Republic, RA for Rebel Alliance, GR for Galactic Republic, and EotH for Empire of the Hand all work? Or should it just be EH for the Empire of the Hand? I'm wondering because saying "Empire of the Hand" multiple times in a single paragraph gets clunky, and the only 'standard' or official abbreviation that I'm aware of is CIS. Are the above ones all reasily recognizable enough, or is there something else for each? -- Gladius 00:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I try to avoid using abreviations in articles, but of course I get lazy on the talk pages. That's just my preference. It could be solved in this way:
The Empire of the Hand (Hereafter refered to as the EotH (or Empire).
using this text at the top of an article would allow you to use whichever abbreviation suited you. Over time, an accepted list of abbreviations will emerge, but I'm uncertain any such meme exists yet.--Eion 00:31, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I would agree. Abbreviations, unless used "in universe", should be kept out of articles. We should follow the Wikipedia style guide on the appropriate use of abbreviations beyond that. --SparqMan 01:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm guessing that NR would work for New Republic. After all, NRI is an accepted abbr for New Republic Intelligence (used in JKII). Shadowtrooper 01:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
      • That sounds reasonable. A minor question: what would the adjective for the Empire of the Hand be? Imperial? Hand Imperial? I can't think of anything that sounds right and isnt' confusing. -- Gladius 02:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't know 'bout Empire of the Hand, but there are some vehicle abbrs I've found: ISD and ISD II for Imperial Star Destroyer and Mk II, CORT for Colreelian transports. Shadowtrooper 03:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
        • SO are we putting a behind the scenes Section Heading before any OU stuff? Beacuse someone OOU'd the Thrawn article for two sentences at the very end. --Kosure 14:01, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Tense Edit

I am assuming that we should write as if the latest source (furthest in the future) is the present tense. So that an article about the New Republic (now the Galactic Alliance) should be in the past tense. Correct? --SparqMan 01:38, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Talk:Main_Page#Tense Shadowtrooper 01:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Past tense is the safest bet in most cases, Planets (unless destroyed) could be in present tense.--Eion 01:49, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Spoiler Warnings Edit

While I respect the need for spoiler warnings, I think they are vastly overused in articles. Isn't it safe to assume that if a user clicks on "Leia Organa" they want to learn everything about her? The only place where this seems to make sense is for EPIII where people don't want any related info before they see the films. I imagine that users would come here seeking information fully aware that they will uncover "spoiler" information. Thoughts? --SparqMan 21:07, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

  • That was the point of the Ep III spoiler templates. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:08, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
    • So could spoiler warnings be removed from all but the RotS-related articles? And will those be removed about a month or so after RotS comes out? -- Gladius 22:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Believe it or not, some people might have to wait until the DVD comes out. They stay for now. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
        • What about the non-RotS spoiler warnings? -- Gladius 22:50, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
          • That will require consensus from the community. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:51, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
            • Gotcha. I vote for dropping them; spoilers should be inherent just from the nature of this site. Maybe a disclaimer could placed on the front page though, just in case. -- Gladius 22:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
            • My opinion: drop them for everything that's been out in paperback or TPB for more than a month. JSarek 22:55, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • My vote is ditch everything but RotS spoiler markers, but make sure plot sections of articles about books, films etc. have a clear heading. --Fade 23:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that's a good idea: spoiler warnings for book summaries (although it should still be obvious from the article), and for a month after any new releases. -- Gladius 23:03, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Here I thought a spoiler warning was a pretty clear heading that the plot is about to be revealed.--Eion 00:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Excellent. If the vote goes forth, we should add that to the Manual of Style.
    • Keep for all unreleased materials, and for 3 months after material released (To allow for international releases and such), however a goal of all good articles should be a spoiler free synopsis and a full plot summery.--Eion 00:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep, the SWiki isn't about ruining old books for people that havn't read them. I agree that the placment is a bit careless. So, I propose, if you've read a book, look through the article, and see if things can't be edited, so the spoilers fit into a little paragraph at the end. Its more work, but its much more nice. --Kosure 02:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with Kosure. There are many old books that I haven't read. -- Aidje 03:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Why not just divide them into a safe 'blurb' and then a section entitled Story or something, so that there is a clear summary and then in depth stuff, without the need for spoiler warnings. Anyone not wanting to spoil the book wouldn't read the 'Story' section, would they? --Fade 07:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
    • People are inherently stupid. They will keep reading until they realize that was something they weren't suppose to know, because there wasn't a spoiler template to stop them. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:44, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Then they deserve to be spoiled :P --Fade 07:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Exactly. The fact is, explaining a lot of topics in Star Wars can't be done without spoiling *something*. How do you discuss the Imperial Remnant without discussing the fall of the Empire? How do you you talk about Anakin Skywalker's life without revealing he's Luke's father? Having a spoiler warning in every article - which you'd come close to needing - only serves to break up the flow of articles and make them harder to write and harder to read. So I say, give people a chance - a month after paperbacks and TPBs (and probably a month after the release of RotS, too) - and then spoil away. JSarek 07:53, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm willing to concede a few points, the movies, shouldn't be spoilers. If you're here, you've seen the movie, and if you havn't yet, you don't care about spoilers. Barring Ep III of corse.. But your one moth rule? Jsarek, some of us don't have the money to buy every star wars book, comic, videogame, and TPB as soon as they come out. --Kosure 14:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm still agreeing with everything Kosure has said so far (although I don't know what a TPB is—I'm guessing it's inconsequential). -- Aidje 14:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Consiquently TPB stands for Trade Paperback, as in a collection of comics into a softbound book. --Kosure 15:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
        • No, not everyone has the money to buy all of the books when they come out; there are a vast number I still haven't read. But we also can't expect everyone to tiptoe around the structure and content of their articles because somebody out there hasn't read the Thrawn Trilogy yet. If you went to the store to buy the Star Wars Encyclopedia, would you be insisting every relevant entry was structured with a spoiler warning? How about the Essential Guides? We have to assume at some point that people have had sufficient opportunity to read the primary material our work is based on. One month seems enough to me, but was rather arbitrary; two or three months would be just as workable. Much more than that, though, and you're hamstringing our authors unnecessarily. JSarek 19:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Then these are the four exceptions that need to be covered by spoilers:

  1. Anything involving the death of a character, especially a popular one.
  2. Anything Ep III for now.
  3. Anything that appears to be something that a person would not do normally, like switch sides suddenly, however the Emperor can be disputed as he is integral to the entire timeline of Star Wars.
  4. Anything that involves destruction of something, including Alderaan and the Death Stars.

Those four exceptions should be what is covered, and everything else is fair game. -- Riffsyphon1024 19:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean that those should be spoilers, or that we need to decide if they will be or not? I still think that spoilers should only be put in place for RotS and on summaries for any new material (in the main article) for a month or two. Other than that, spoilers should be an expected part of this sort of project. As JSarek said, someone who reads all the entries in the Star Wars Encylopedia or the Essential Chronology or Guide to Characters should fully be prepared to be spoiled. Spoiler warnings halfway through the page are redundant and break up the pacing of the article. Maybe a broad spoiler warning on the front page would suffice? -- Gladius 05:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
All those points covered are indeed for spoilers, and one person is not enough to make sure big decisions. Just like at Wikipedia, consensus will decide what is needed. So below post whether you Support a removal of spoilers or Oppose a removal of spoilers. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


  1. Support removal, except for items relating to RotS and new (<1 month old, give or take) material. JSarek 05:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support removal, except for RotS and brand new material for a month or two; maybe put a general warning on the front page. -- Gladius 18:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support removal, except for new material for the first month. Users will not click on the name of a character, event, etc. that they are not familiar with (and therefore spoiler sensitive) if they are not interested in discovering the content. --SparqMan 23:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support removal, except for RotS and brand new material for a month or two; maybe put a general warning on the front page. Like Gladius said.--VT-16 00:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support, subject to the exceptions the above voters have mentioned. Silly Dan 01:01, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support, all of the above statements, including exceptions. Entries should have a spoiler free 'lead in' paragraph, anyone who reads a larger, in depth summary of a book/character/whatever cannot reasonably expect no spoilers. I avoided KotOR 2 spoilers well enough by simply not searching for characters from the game or reading the 'Story' section of encyclopedia articles, it's no stretch to imagine that everyone can do the same. Still support warnings on new materials though. --Fade 22:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support removal, except for the four categories listed above and material less than three months old. WhiteBoy 19:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support but the graec period should probablyh be just a bit longer, like anything published in the last year. --Death Regis 02:06, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support, but keep EIII warnings. Let's be serious: how many people will read this Wiki before watching the movies? I know books are grayer area, but I think it's silly; every article would have a spoiler tag, practically. Also, they're kind of unpleasant visually. --GenkiNeko 18:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


  1. Oppose -- Riffsyphon1024 05:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose -- I agree with the four things posted by Riffsyphon. -- Aidje 14:02, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose -- Please. --Kosure 14:27, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose -- ALL summaries should have a spoiler-free and a spoiled version. This is the most permanent solution. Spolage of unreleased material (1 month after release) should have a special spoiler warning.--Eion 22:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose -- We should not have two versions. That's more work than getting rid of the spoiler tags already on the site. I think the tag does need to be redesigned to make it less intrusive though. However, I think they need to remain because we cannot assume every visitor has a deep understanding of Star Wars. They come for information and it should be their decision as to how much they want to learn. And no matter what we do, it's probably not going to make articles any easier to write. The thing is that I cannot honestly see a compromise regarding this because such a decision is not as cut and dry as people want it to be. P. Cobbs 02:14, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
    1. Note, I said summaries, not articles. The first summery (sort of the back of the book teaser) should be spoiler free, followed by a spoiler warning (Which by its very nature SHOULD be intrusive; it's saying "Abandon all hope of surprise, ye who enter here.", then the spoiled version of the summery. To repeat, for emphasis, I DO NOT, IN ANY WAY, SUPPORT THE CREATION OF TWO ARTICLES, ONE FOR EACH SUMMERY. IN FACT, I OPPOSE THIS!!!. Sorry if this wasn't clear before--Eion 16:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

The decision according to majority is to remove all spoilers except on articles that follow one or more of the four exceptions, previously stated by me. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Uh, we have a problemEdit

I was searching around on Google under the search term "Star Wars Wiki", and of course I found our site sitting at the top, however, lo and behold, there is another Star Wars Wiki out there, already functioning as of at least February. What do we do???? -- Riffsyphon1024 21:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Never mind that. The creator had not much on there, it was formatted nicely, looking like it had stuff on there, but then I checked the new articles and there were only 10 total. So instead I will request his help (User:Beeurd) for this wiki. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  • There are always other Star Wars encyclopedia's out there, wiki or not- what's another bit of competition to keep us on our toes? :P --Fade 22:09, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I know, but this one was nearly identical to ours, using the same software. Enough for confusion between the two. Here's the link to it if you want to see it. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I do like their home page, tho. That is something similar to what I had in mind for our site. I just haven't had time to work on it. Another site that I ran across quite a while back was I'd like to own that domain and point it to us.  :D WhiteBoy 19:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
        • It just appears to be one guy. You should contact him.--SparqMan 20:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't know how much control you have over the site, but a few changes to the page title system would help users find us when searching for Star Wars info. --SparqMan 22:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
    • What do you suggest? I'll see what I can do. WhiteBoy 19:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
      • "Star Wars Wiki" should probably appear in the page title of every summoned page, as a start. --SparqMan 20:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Wow, I didn't realise I was mildly famous. lol. Yeah, I started the Wiki back in February, but due to commitments I haven't been able to do much with it. I have already spoken to Riffsyphon1024 via email and have agreed to move my decent stuff over here. If you like my main page you can steal it if you want. When everything relevant is moved from there I'll close that wiki and redirect the URL to here, so that anyone who finds mine or already knows about it will find there way here. Plus, there is already a team and lots of articles here so mine's redundant already =P --Beeurd 00:52, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Welcome :) --Eion 00:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Alrighty, the domain my wiki was on now redirects to here. Any problem with that or suggestions, just let me know. :) --Beeurd 23:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Conflicting Sources Edit

The method for addressing conflicting, equally canonical sources is inconsistent across articles. We should add a method for discussing it to the Manual of Style. Preferences? --SparqMan 05:42, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Currently I just make an In-universe reference to conflicting historical sources (as you tend to get in 'real' history), though perhaps I should also add a Behind the Scenes section to explain it in future. --Fade 14:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Vote: Titles in Article Names Edit

I'd like to get a vote, or at least a sense of the body, on the topic of using ranks in article titles. Several article talk pagaes have discussion over it, and we might as well get a vote to place it in the Manual of Style.

Articles will be titled the name of a character, excluding his/her/its title.

Example: [[Sedriss]], not [[Executor Sedriss]]


  1. For. Follows encyclopedic standards --SparqMan 19:11, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
  1. For.--Eion 19:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. For, with all titles being redirects to the name (this is probably assumed). – Aidje talk 19:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. For, with the same stipulation as Aidje. JSarek 22:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. For --Beeurd 22:32, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
  5. For It only stands to reason.--Kosure 22:45, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
  6. For, again with the same stipulation as Aidje. Shadowtrooper 02:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  7. For. WhiteBoy 03:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  8. For. --Fade 14:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  9. For, with exceptions however on names most commonly used. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  10. For. --Imperialles 18:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


Starship Article format Edit

Anyone interested in forming a project to develop a consistent format for articles on starship classes and specific starships? The content and organization in articles varies widely, and it would make them easier to read and edit. --SparqMan 17:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Consider me up for it. --Beeurd 21:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

For all future interested parties, here is the scratch page I put together for the project: Star Wars Wiki:WookieProject Starships We'll have to fill it in and then start developing a structure we like, as well as the template and infobox. Cheers. --SparqMan 21:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I'll help out as well. JimRaynor55 20:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Categories for Jedi Edit

Jedi Characters seem to be placed in several categories, often without rhyme or reason and rarely consistently. The categories are: Jedi characters Jedi Masters Jedi Council Members Old Republic Characters Perhaps we could organise some sort of rule here? My suggestion is that they should be placed in one only, ie the "highest" category. All Jedi Council Members are masters (except Ki-Adi-Mundi and Anakin), and all Masters are Jedi Characters, and all Jedi are Old Republic, except for NJO Jedi. What are people's thoughts here? QuentinGeorge 06:53, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, all Jedi characters should be marked as such, regardless of their title, so that a user can quickly see all Jedi entered into the wiki. As you pointed out yourself, the Jedi Council was not exclusively Jedi Masters, and its ranks were rather prestigious, so I see no reason that it cannot continue as a category. As for Jedi Masters, it may not be a necessary field, but it depends on the numbers behind it. Old Republic characters, again, is so that a user can see all Old Republic characters. Now, if they are applied inconsistently, that is another issue. For the time being however, I believe we should be focusing on content. There are plenty of major Star Wars people/places/events/things that still require articles, are in terrible shape or are just stubs. We should prioritize on that. --SparqMan 07:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I vote for two categories: The category Jedi character and the subcategory Jedi Council. Reason: All Jedi masters were once knight, padawan, and youngling. Take Barriss Offee for example. During Episode III, she is Jedi Master. During Episode II, she is padawan of Luminara Unduli. Now where to put her? Under Jedi character. Less clutter, more content. --Gen.d 16:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Year Categories Edit

It would be nice to have events with specified years (2 BBY, 8 ABY, etc.) categorized so that we can see "Events in 2 BBY" similar to what Wikipedia does. Thoughts? --SparqMan 03:07, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

  • That is what I was thinking of doing. One timeline cannot hold everything, and maybe then the years can link to those pages. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:09, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I also considered something similar (and promptly forgot about it), so I'm for it, too. --Fade 19:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Plus you could link them all together with a timeline template, much like what they do on Wikipedia.
        • Important years could certainly have their own pages, as well. (I'm not sure if I've fully followed this discussion.) Although other pages could handle Galactic Civil War. --GenkiNeko 10:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
          • I have already created a few basic pages and linked them together with a timeline box. I also have done the same with the real years (e.g. 2000). -- Riffsyphon1024 17:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

More Naming IssuesEdit

SparqMan has redirected Rebel Alliance to Alliance to Restore the Republic. He insists that it follows the precendent of the new naming scheme, however I find this unnecessary. I want a vote here determining what the name of that article should be and what should redirect to what. Refer to his talk page for more info. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Riffsyphon1024 is under the impression that articles should be titled based on "the most used form" -- which was his vote on the naming scheme, but no one else's. All articles must be named with their full, proper name, as long as redirects are in place. Otherwise we are no better than the hundreds of Star Wars "encyclopedia's" on the Internet. If we make this change, we must change "Galactic Empire" to "Empire", "Imperator-class Star Destroyer" to "Imperial Star Destroyer", "Confederacy of Independent Systems" to "Confederacy" and others. There should probably have been a discussion before the vote, but oh well, that's democracy for you. --SparqMan 12:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
    • And democracy will decide. -- Riffsyphon1024 17:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
      • On a note of that: have we established rules for how votes work? When are they over, if it is simple majority, who can call them, etc? This, in addition to a thorough discussion before any vote, might help keep things democratic rather than convenient. --SparqMan 00:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
        • The man does make a point, oh well.--Eion 22:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
          • At least it isn't Imperialistic like some people on this site. A consensus to a decision wins that decision. If there's no real consensus however then things remain the same, much like Vfd. -- Riffsyphon1024 17:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep name of article as "Rebel Alliance"Edit

  1. For. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. 'A begrudging For --Kosure 04:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. For, but retain the more formal name reference.--Eion 06:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. For, but the formal title should be kept as a redirect. Silly Dan 10:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  5. For. Even Wikipedia doesn't always use full names for states ("Italy" for "Italian Republic," or "Mexico" for "United Mexican States," for instance), and "Rebel Alliance" is the far more widely known and used term. JSarek 18:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  6. For Absolutely. It's the freakin' Rebel Alliance, people! --Death Regis 19:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  7. For (mixed). In short, what Silly Dan and JSarek said. But I definitely think the full name should be a redirect and it should be included in the article. WhiteBoy 05:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  8. For It never gets called the "Alliance to Restore the Republic" in the movies, and they are what matters. SeanR 08:29, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Change name of article to "Alliance to Restore the Republic"Edit

  1. Change - this would go against the precedent set for other articles and against the encyclopedic style. --SparqMan 12:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. Alliance to Restore the Republic is the full title as far as I am aware. I don't see any harm in creating a redirect anyway. --Beeurd 15:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. Change- after all, its a redirect either way, and we should probably go with their formal title, as Sparqman outlined above with examples (though his statement 'against' confuses me- sounds contradictory? --Fade 15:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. Change, with some reluctance. It seems unnesessary, but the full name should probably be the article title. -Vermilion 16:09, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  5. Change, I am a little hesitant, on the grounds that "Rebel Alliance" seems almost official, like, say "Grand Old Party" for the Republicans. But I think that the title ought to be "Alliance to Restore the Republic," with something like "(commonly known as the Rebel Alliance)" there. --GenkiNeko 18:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  6. Change --Imperialles 17:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  7. Change For consistencies sake.--Eion 02:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  8. For the formal title. Come on guys, you'll still find it under Rebel Alliance, the redirection takes almost no time. We're writing an encyclopedia here for crying out loud. --Gen.d 16:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Why do I get the feeling that this issue will not be resolved? -- Riffsyphon1024 06:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't see why it should even be an issue- why should we make a special exception here, when everywhere else we go by official names? For example, the Separatists are almost always referred to as such in moves, but we put them under CIS. The same with people with ranks, acronyms such as AT-AT etc. Basically, I see no reason to suddenly turn back on a collective decision for the sake of one article. --Fade 12:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Style Issues Edit

Hopefully, it's appropriate to post this here. I'm still learning my way around the wiki context.

moved from main page talk also, condensed...full version on my own page

A few style issues that I see coming up again and again:

  • Be sparing with superlatives and hyperbole. When articles are too full of them, it's dull to read. If something is remarkable, explain why. Imitate Wikipedia's very readable, casually neutral tone. Employ dramatic/strong words sparingly.
  • Short is better than vague. Eliminate rambling sentences, especially when there isn't much material there to begin with.
  • Sense of perspective. Avoid OOU perspective. Imagine you're an IU historian. What's important?

--GenkiNeko 18:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

We're Doomed! Edit

I'm sure that this will get a rise out of some participants here, but I've created a template message and begun tagging articles on major Star Wars characters, planets, events or organizations that are in serious need of development, additions and cleanup work. Before we continue adding obscure items, it seems wise to make sure that we have thoroughly covered our bases on the basics like Han Solo or C-3PO. The template is available at: [[Template:doom]] and insertable with {{doom}}. When applying, try to indicate what is needed, and leave a note on the Talk page once you've added something to advance them. Feel free to modify the template -- I've given it a beige tone that shouldn't upset too many users' eyes (and also matches C-3PO's golden hue). =D --SparqMan 04:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm sure that this will get a rise out of some participants here You're dang right it did . . . when I first saw it on the Lando page, I LOLed for about 30 seconds straight. ;-) You're right that these things need to be done, though I don't know if I'll personally be able to tackle any in the near future. Right now my time is mostly available for tweaks, rather than much in the way of new material. JSarek 04:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
    • It looks awesome, Sparq. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree too. Its a really good idea. But I feel complelled to say this, as well as with the OOU tag. DON"T BE LAZY I see people for one reason or another, tag an article, for two words in the first sentence. It almsot takes as much effot to fix some of these things than it does to tag them. If you don't want to be spoiled by an Shadows of the Empire, but know something is out of place, by all means, tag it. But don't go around tagging Tatooine, if you know how to fix it. --Kosure 05:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree, it's good to make sure our basics are solid. I've been personally doing a couple major articles per day - Palpatine, Anakin Skywalker, Yoda, etc. It's embarassing when such important articles are in such a poor state. --GenkiNeko 10:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Here is the category page to view what is currently tagged: [[Category:We're Doomed!]] --SparqMan 12:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Naming of Equipment Edit

Should it just be the name of a particular model, or the name followed by what it is? E.g., Power 5 Blaster or Power 5? I'm talking about the main article here.

Myself, I think I prefer Power 5, DX-2, E-11, etc., because the latter part is somewhat arbitrary ("heavy blaster," "blaster pistol," "blaster," etc.)

Perhaps a quick vote is in order?

--GenkiNeko 11:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I think the convention has been (echoing Wikipedia) to use the full name of the device, and include the most accurate (while not overly descriptive) noun after the proper name. So "RT4 blaster pistol" is fine, but "RT4 super-light shoulder-holstered repeating blaster pistol" would be too much. --SparqMan 12:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I still disagree. There shouldn't be any cases where there'll be overlap between, say, a blaster and a spaceship. Notice that Wikipedia uses Wikipedia:AK-47, not "AK-47 assault rifle." It seems too arbitrary to decide on what noun to use, and it's also superfluous.--GenkiNeko 13:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps it should depend on whether or not the noun is required. Classes of ships, for example, will require it as there might be Avenger-class gunships and Avenger-class starfighters, but for something like an E-11, unless it is a part of the proper name (TIE Bomber), it isn't required as long as the full name is used. I'm indifferent as long as we follow those items and are consistent.--SparqMan 14:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to open votes. But I'll do so, and it can always be deleted.

Proposal: Articles on equipment should not include a suffixed noun. For example, E-11 not E-11 blaster, T-65 not T-65 fighter, etc.

Exception: Classes of ships should still include nouns, inasmuch as such nouns are part of their names: Imperial-class Star Destroyer not Imperial. (Spacecraft with serial numbers, e.g. YT-1300, do not require nouns.)


  1. Agree. Unsurprising, I suppose. --GenkiNeko 10:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


  1. Against. Only out of concern that we'll end up with a bunch of meaningless letter-number combinations that give no clue as to what the article contains. While I understand the difficulty involved in choosing a suffix noun, I think the inclusion of it is just, well, prettier. E-11 Blaster tells me the article is about a weapon, E-11 could be someone’s apartment number.--Eion 10:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. Against. Per Eion's statement. How would anyone new here know what something was based on a letter and number designation anyway. At least leave a little bit on there. -- Riffsyphon1024 17:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. Against. Manufacturers generally only leave off a descriptive noun if they only make one type of product, or if it is always introduced as a part of a line. In the former, it would require the listing to be BlasTech Industries E-11, or E-11 blaster with the former. --SparqMan 18:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


  • Hmm. I suppose if we decided on the correct nouns for each type. Like 'blaster' for all blasters, 'starfighter' for all starfighters, that'd also work. I just want to avoid arbitrary nouns. --GenkiNeko 10:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Tense of Equipment Edit

On a related note, should one use past or present tense when describing equipment? "Electrobinoculars often had nightvision capabilities" or "Electrobinoculars often have nightvision capabilities"? Specific models? "The E-11 was a high-powered blaster rifle" or "The E-11 is a high-powered blaster rifle"? --GenkiNeko 11:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

  • We're doing it all in past tense. While it will require some sentence structure juggling, it is only logical because even if we were writing this from the "present tense" of GFFA (right after NJO), we cannot be sure when a piece of equipment is considered old enough to be out of use (Wikipedia:Model T)) or still in use (Tomahawk Missile). So we're just playing it safe and assuming that we're writing this after the destruction/implosion/deletion of the Star Wars galaxy, when everything is gone.--SparqMan 12:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Request Tense Clarification - Characters Edit

What about characters that are still living some time into the New Republic? e.g., should Luke Skywalker be referred to in the past tense? --GenkiNeko 13:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I believe the descision was that as we have set ourselves as observers of the films (Which according to them happend a long time ago, etc) then all these people, planets, technologies are long gone, and as such are refered to in the past tense. That is my understanding anyway.--Eion 13:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Source templates Edit

Wikipedia is rather vague about the prefered form of source listing, so I figure it might help us to create some templates for consistent listings for commonly used sources (Dark Force Rising, Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, etc.) so that we could simply enter {{Template:sourcedarkforcerising}} under == Sources == and have it appear consistently. Also, if we later decide to change how we do sources (commas instead of periods, or something), we only have to change the templates, and not each article. Thoughts? --SparqMan 00:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I think that simply linking to the appropriate source is sufficient; someone wanting author or publication info can find it there. We just have to make sure that the entry on the appropriate source is throrough in those areas. JSarek 00:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
    • While I agree with you for simplicity, the proper citation of sources (not appearances) is an important process of a Wikipedia-like enterprise. --SparqMan 00:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, they'd still be properly cited; author, publisher, and year of publication should all be easily visible in the articles about the sources. If they're not, the sources need to be fixed, not the articles. Edit: Ah, I misunderstood part of what you were saying. Yes, we need to regularly use a Source section, and properly cite sources in it; I just think that linking to an article which should already have all necessary citation information in it would be the tidiest and most efficient solution for the citations themselves. JSarek 00:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
        • I agree. Just include, say:

(Sources header)

--GenkiNeko 10:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Dark Lord of the SithEdit

Ok, there is some MAJOR problems with the succession box that someone put in for the "Dark Lords of the Sith".

  • Zannah is NOT Darth Andeddu. Andeddu is male, for one. (And that's about all we know about him)
  • The tradition of one person holding the title "Dark Lord of the Sith" continues only up until Kaan. Please, actually read articles before you add to them.
    • Kaan named all leaders of the Brotherhood of Darkness with the title, and Darth Bane's reformed order has BOTH master and apprentice bearing the title.
      • Therefore, Sidious is Dark Lord of the Sith simultaneously with Darth Plagueis, Darth Maul, Darth Tyranus and Darth Vader.
        • I'll fix it up, but I just thought I'd explain it so we don't get into any edit wars. QuentinGeorge 05:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
          • I'd suggest two succession boxes, both a "Dark Lord of the Sith (Master)" and "Dark Lord of the Sith (Apprentice)" box. This would eliminate stylistical problems as well as making it compatible with the pre-Kaan era. --Gen.d 12:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I simply put them in the order described under the "Dark Lord of the Sith" section of the Sith article, with a few adjustments. For example, Darth Vader was Dark Lord of the Sith in the small time between the Emperor's death and his own death. Imperialles 06:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, but you neglected the note at the top of that list: Only one Dark Lord exists at a time until the reign of Kaan. Anyway, the way the Sith are listed on that table is a bit crappy, and should be changed. QuentinGeorge 08:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    • But technically when he made the decision to destroy the Emperor and save his son, I would say that he betrayed the Sith and effectively resigned his post as Dark Lord. --Beeurd 20:35, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, but there is no evidence of that. Perhaps he killed Palpatine in order to rule the galaxy alongside his son? Perhaps he realised he would die fighting Luke, and so turned on the Emperor, allowing them both to live? As you see, pure speculation. He was, however, the Dark Lord of the Sith in that short period of time before his death, as is Sith tradition. --Imperialles 20:49, 22 May 2005 (UTC) BlogsEdit

Anyone here a Hyperspace member? I was thinking that perhaps we could devise some way of maybe using a blog to kinda promote the wiki, somehow. Don't know what we would use it for, or if we could get away with using it to promote a site. --Beeurd 10:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Discussion: KFan IIEdit

Despite repeated requests, KFan II has continued to redirect or merge the Palpatine and Darth Sidious articles. As a community, how can we deal with this in a productive way? --SparqMan 20:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

  • His intentions are good, but he continues to ignore what others have to say about the subject. I say a short ban should get the message through to him. --Imperialles 20:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    • One block coming up. :) -- Riffsyphon1024 21:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
      • It has been done. He should learn eventually that we take this serious. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, if he's being truthful on his user page (i.e. not changing his mind later on) then it looks like he'll be leaving soon, as he thinks everyone hates him. – Aidje talk 04:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
          • And maybe thats a good thing. We can sacrifice one bad apple and get 10 more in his place that will not force an issue. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Making character pages more uniformEdit

I propose we try to make character pages more uniform. As it is now, the pages are just messy biographies. My proposal:

  1. Start with a short summary of the character's greatest achievements, ranks, and time of birth and death.
  2. A detailed biography section
  3. Personality section (if applicable)
  4. Behind the Scenes section, with crazy fun trivia and such
  5. Appearances section

What do you think? --Imperialles 20:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Should be tried out on a few pages, see if it works with a variety of subjects, and should be a template, not an inviolable structure.--Eion 12:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Implemented on Darth Sidious. --Imperialles 13:44, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it makes sense to describe the characteristics of the character (including personality...which drives their actions) before biography. --SparqMan 21:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I second that. – Aidje talk 21:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


Anyone here a Lord of the Rings fan?, then head over to LOTR wikicity right now and help us in our work --Darth Mantus 15:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Wow. Two articles. That thing must be young. I wrote an article (a bit stubby though) on the Fellowship of the Ring. By the way, it would probably be helpful to provide a link. :-) – Aidje talk 17:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I have written some more since you last looked and thanks for providing a link

--Darth Mantus 12:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

    • Why must we be syphoning people away from this site now? -- Riffsyphon1024 02:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I plan to remain here. I've written two articles on the LOTR Wiki, but I do plan to still do most , if not all of my work here. – Aidje talk 04:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)