Templates for deletion? Edit

There are a few templates that need something done with them. For instance, Category:Articles to be merged shows duplicate templates: Template:Mergedisputed and Template:MergeDisputed, Template:Mergeto and Template:Merge-to

Should there be a templates for deletion page, similar to one in Wikipedia? - Sikon 14:11, 5 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  • These templates can be kept because not everyone will remember how each one is activated and may use another form of the code (capitalized D instead of lowercase, both will still work). -- Riffsyphon1024 00:41, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)

"Featured Articles" and "Collaboration of the Week" Edit

What about introducing these Wikipedia culture elements here in the SWW? Some articles I think are worthy of being commended as brilliant prose, and some tend to remain unattended for months, even with doom/attention/cleanup tags. - Sikon 16:38, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  • We are already working on a Featured Article for placement on the main page. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:05, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • That's good. What about BJAODN? I noticed some worthy candidates. - Sikon 09:11, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)
      • That's taking it too far. We don't need to copy everything from Wikipedia, and besides, do you see any material to even put into a BJAODN page? -- Riffsyphon1024 09:27, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, he did just say that he noticed some worthy candidates. :-) I think BJAODN would be a waste of effort. We should concentrate on things that will improve our encyclopedic side. – Aidje talk 16:18, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)
          • We (or rather, Riff and WhiteBoy) have deleted much nonsense, but nothing qualifying as a joke yet. 8) -- Silly Dan 16:25, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia AnimateEdit

For those who use Firefox and Greasemonkey, you should checkout Dan Phiffer's Wikipedia Animate script. It works on all MediaWiki sites (including this one) and it loads of fun. Read this for some background information on's bounty for a Wikipedia revision history animator. --SparqMan 14:32, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)

We should use true Roman Numerals in movie-titlesEdit

I have an idea: Why do not we use true Roman Numerals in the names of movies like?:

  1. Star Wars Episode Ⅰ: The Phantom Menace
  2. Star Wars Episode Ⅱ: Attack of the Clones
  3. Star Wars Episode Ⅲ: Revenge of the Sith
  4. Star Wars Episode Ⅳ: A New Hope
  5. Star Wars Episode Ⅴ: The Empire Strikes Back
  6. Star Wars Episode Ⅵ: Return of the Jedi

True Roman Numerals would be nice. — — Ŭalabio‽ 01:10, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  • besides making for ugly URLs, I don't see any reason not to.--Eion 01:30, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • ¿Would the URLs be ugly? Safari represents the octets of UTF-8 as the Roman Numerals. As for people manually typing the URLs and accidently using the letters i and v, we can just leave redirects where the articles are. — — Ŭalabio‽ 02:31, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • It's a pain to type. That's the main reason I can see. -- Silly Dan 01:37, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
      • In my OS (Mac OS Ⅹ) one finds the option in the menu “Edit” called “Special Characters” which causes a “Character-Palette” to appear. One can browse the various Unicode-Blocks (the Roman Numerals are in “Number-Forms”). I am certain that all good OSes have this feature and one can get this as freeware for Microsoft-Windows. (¿Did Ŭalabio just exclude Microsoft-Windows as a good OS?  ;-) This is much more easy than memorizing the hexadecimal values for all of the characters in ISO-10646. — — Ŭalabio‽ 02:31, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
        • All that just to get a Roman numeral, when we can just type out the letters? Not worth it at all, in my opinion, especially since it will perpetually lead to redirects when people try to link to the films in their articles, because no one would actually use a special character for this. jSarek 21:25, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • The URL for EPI appears asⅠ:_The_Phantom_Menace
    • in IE. I don't doubt the effectiveness of redirects, was just pointing out what I saw as the one snag. Whether or not Windows is a good OS by your limited definition, it is a popular one, and something that is difficult to do is difficult to implement as a standard.--Eion 09:16, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Well I can't see these things, so I'm not for it. I am using IE and will not switch just to be able to view roman numerals, when people can use I's and V's. Not really hard to do. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:19, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • ¿Do you see any outside characters outside of ISO-646 such as “Curly Quotes” or the description of this system?:


I guess WookieePædia is not yet ready for Roman Numerals. — — Ŭalabio‽ 05:41, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  • I can only read the sun's symbol, Venus's and Mars's. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:51, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm using Mozilla Firefox 1.0.4 and still only see those three, myself. jSarek 21:25, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm using Firefox w/Windows XP, can see all of them, but think I, II, III, etc., look better in the default font. -- Silly Dan 21:34, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • I am using Firefox 1.0.4 on WinXP and see it just fine. But as has been illustrated already, it's not readable by many people. In web design, you need always keep in mind how many people you will be cutting out of your audience when you want to try something cool. Plus those URL's would be a killer!  :p WhiteBoy 03:08, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone mentioned this yet, but people searching for things are not going to bother typing a special character. --Beeurd 23:37, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything but squares. - Sikon 14:13, 5 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • I made the example bigger and bolder. ¿Does that help? — — Ŭalabio‽ 00:07, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)
      • No, still squares. Everything I can see is 0. - Sikon 01:27, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)
        • This is what you do not see:

I use Roman Numerals for numbers except for 0 because 0 does not exist in Roman Numerals:

0 Sol 1 Mercury 2 Venus 3 Earth 4 Mars 5 Jupiter 6 Saturn 7 Uranus 8 Neptune 9 Pluto

Every planet in the solar system Sol has a symbol in Unicode. Sol is 0 because it is the base of the solar system Sol. — — Ŭalabio‽ 03:10, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  • All this unicode text jibba-jabba just strikes me as pointless showing off.--Spanky The Dolphin 08:19, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Walabio, stop this space wasting effort. I cannot see a damn thing, and neither can anyone else using an English keyboard. Your idea is flawed and cannot be put to use. And please, fix all these spaces. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:38, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. A pointless idea. What would we gain? Nothing. We'd lose readable URLs and the ability for people to find pages via Google. QuentinGeorge 09:46, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, for the record, I can see everything fine, but I still think it's worthless bullshit and just amounts to Ualabio showing off his m4d un!c0d3 skillz.--Spanky The Dolphin 18:22, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Story arcs Edit

Can someone explain to me the need for story arc articles? It seems to me that, if we already have separate articles explaining the plot for each issue of each comic series, there's no real point in making another one that combines the plot of several issues into one article. MarcK 08:08, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, it groups them all up neatly together. I can personally see how that would come in handy. By the way, how on Earth are you doing all these comic entry updates and additions so fast?--Spanky The Dolphin 08:21, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • Not many people know this, but I'm a ninja. Also I keep several pages (such as Dark Horse's official previews) open at the same time, plus templates make things even swifter. I'm guessing that's what most others do as well. --Imp 15:30, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • I try to peel away story arc descriptions as much as possible. It's frustrating to see descriptions of ROTS in articles about a shuttle craft. Some snippets are required for context, but the rest can mostly be pushed into an "Appearance" listing as long as proper wikilinks and "For more information see..." mentions are in place. --SparqMan 08:15, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Force categorization Edit

I've thrown together a diagram of a categorization structure I would like to see implemented. I'd like to hear what others think of this categorization scheme. The diagram can be viewed at File:Force categorization.png. I can update the diagram with suggestions if necessary. – Aidje talk 15:06, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  • Dia is a wonderful app. I should use it for the military categorization structure. The structure looks good to me so far. How would you connect Force powers connected to a specific sect? Also keep in mind that many unaligned items (holocron, lightsaber) are limited to the Jedi and Sith. Other Force-related organizations and sects are not connected to them. --SparqMan 16:11, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • I suppose there could be sub-categories of Category:Force powers that were sect-specific, though I had avoided this because of apparent contradictions between various elements of canon, such as inconsistencies between video games. – Aidje talk 16:38, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • I am aware that there are some items that are specific to the Jedi AND Sith, but I couldn't come up with a simple solution to that problem. Any ideas? – Aidje talk 16:38, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
      • Given that the Jedi/Sith school of Force learning is the most commonplace, it would not be unreasonable to keep them in the general Force category. --SparqMan 19:45, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Aidje, the diagram looks very good and gives me an idea of where we are going. -- Riffsyphon1024 17:33, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • Looks like a pretty solid plan; I have no critiques of it I can immediately see. jSarek 08:09, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • How long should I wait before implementing this structure? I know consensus is good, but what exactly is a consensus in this case? (I think that we could wait to sort out the minor issues brought up by SparqMan—beginning the implementation shouldn't complicate the resolution of either of those issues.) – Aidje talk 21:03, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks sweet. The only thing I see that should be changed about it is de-OOUing the character categories (ie Sith characters should be Sith individuals). --Imp 16:28, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • Do you realize how much of a job it would be to change all characters to individuals? -- Riffsyphon1024 01:01, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh, Riff, it's only a day's work. I figure I'll change all the characters to individuals before recreating the categories, to catch all of them. I'll be finished tomorrow evening if I start when I get home (in 6 hours). --Imp 08:45, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
        • So, will you give me the green light? --Imp 21:01, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
          • It's a major change to the wiki and I'd like to have a vote on it. See the next section. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:29, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Sources and Appearances Edit

As someone who is interested in Star Wars but by no means an expert on the characters and stories, I have very much welcomed the addition of the Sources and Appearances sub-headings to the entries on this wiki. However, I have a few thoughts and suggestions that I'd like to throw in to the mix for consideration.

The sources is very useful, but only to a degree. My problem is that for individuals with multiple appearances throughout the Expanded Universe, and therefore quite extensive biographies, it is not clear which bits of information come from which source. For example, although all General Grievous's appearances and sources are quoted, I am unable to tell where exactly I would find a description or reference to his assault on the planet Duro. This could become important in the future for any wikipedians who wish to check the original source for a particular fact in order to correct or corroborate it. Perhaps the sources should actually be quoted at the end of each paragraph, in brackets and/or italics? Alternatively, each source could be referenced at the end of each paragraph with a superscript number which relates to the source referenced below the Sources sub-heading. Both these suggestions are quite common ways of clearly attributing a source to a particular fact.

For the Appearances I'd like to suggest two things. Firstly, (and I think this has already been proposed elsewhere), for the characters with very long lists of appearances (eg Luke Skywalker), I think perhaps a link from the main character page to a separate page listing the appearances would be good idea. My other suggestion would be to break up the long lists in to sub-sections using sub-headings such as 'books', 'comics', 'movies' etc. This would make the list more useful, particularly if someone wanted to know which novels a character had appeared in but wasn't interested in which comics etc. I've introduced something along these lines at the Doctor Who Wiki. Take a look at the Ian Chesterton - List of Appearances.
--Mantrid 12:18, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)

A good idea, although a question would arise: should separate numbering be used for appearances and sources and if not, how to keep numbers from screwing up? - Sikon 13:12, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I think that what I'm suggesting should only be applied to sources. Appearances should be left as they are as a general indication of where, for example, you can experience the adventures of a particular character.
--Mantrid 13:17, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)
So are you proposing adding appearances that contain notable information to both sources and appearances? - Sikon 14:01, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I'm not totally sure what you mean here. What I'm suggesting is that appearances just get listed either as they are under a sub-heading or on a separate page of their own (see above). The reference to specific sources are attached to paragraphs in the in-Universe text of the main entry. Does that make more sense? Sorry if I'm confusing things...
--Mantrid 16:16, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Planet summaries Edit

Created three templates, {{plh}}, {{pl}} and {{plf}}, to simplify management of planet summaries; they use the new design of {{battle}} instead of the old pink-grid design. Malachor V is an example (the only one yet). Since most fields are common, I also propose having an enhanced header template (called {{plh-std}} or something like that) with all these fields already included. - Sikon 04:56, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • We're going to discuss this on Template talk:Planet before we implement anything. Go there if you want to have a say, everyone. – Aidje talk 06:05, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars:Help and Help:Contents Edit

These appear to be redundant, and one could perhaps redirect to the other. Nevertheless, when I attempted to redirect Star Wars:Help to Help:Contents, my edit was reverted. Why?

Perhaps the merged help section needs to be expanded. Also, the "proper use of the dash" and the BTS-Appearances-Sources issue should be split into separate articles with a proposed guideline status. - Sikon 16:38, 12 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • Sorry for the lack of an explanation. The reason for the revert is that to have Star Wars:Help redirect to Help:Contents causes some kind of strange error on Special:DoubleRedirects—it causes many many pages to show up that aren't actually double redirects, thus rendering that maintenance page useless. If you look back through the edit history of Star Wars:Help, you'll see that this redirect was attempted before, but Riff turned it into a soft redirect to avoid the aforementioned bug. I hope that clears things up. – Aidje talk 19:27, 12 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Categories and ListsEdit

An effort to setup a scheme of categories would be a good way to keep things organized and to promote the development of some areas. Further, we should decide when a list is more appropriate than a category page. For example, a list of Rogue Squadron members past and present might be more appropriate for an automatically populated cateogry page, where a list of Rogue Squadron members during different conflicts/eras would require a manually populated and updated list. --SparqMan 15:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anyone? This is going to develop into a bit of a problem. Do New Republic characters who survived NJO need to have a "GFFA characters" category tag? --SparqMan 11:52, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think they need to, as Legacy of the Force is coming. - Sikon 16:45, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Would it be possible to get a Young Readers category set up? All the JA, JQ, LOTJ, YJK and JJK is all listed under novels at the moment, which doesnt really seem to fit.Durnar 16:07, 12 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Digg listing Edit

You may have noticed a slight increase in activity, particularly some vandalism, last night. I may to be blame for this, after submitting a link to SWW to Digg. The link made it to the front page, drawing over 300 digs. So, sorry. But you know what they say about publicity... --SparqMan 19:33, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • Care to explain what Digg specializes in so that we may understand what we're dealing with here? -- Riffsyphon1024 19:44, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • If going to the website's About page proves difficult for any of you, I'll just copy and paste: "Digg is a technology news website that combines social bookmarking, blogging, RSS, and non-hierarchical editorial control. With digg, users submit stories for review, but rather than allow an editor to decide which stories go on the homepage, the users do." It's similar to Slashdot, but with a decentralized control mechanism. --SparqMan 21:13, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Hyperspace content Edit

As a non-member of Hyperspace, I am more than happy to see member exclusive content appearing on SWW. I am not certain, however, that images supplied to members will be as safe under a fair use defense or promotional claims as other images. --SparqMan 15:17, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • But they do realize now that Hyperspace content will have already filtered into the internet, with many non-members having access to pictures that were once guarded. Now that Episode III is over, wouldn't those Ep III pictures have already entered into the public domain? -- Riffsyphon1024 20:23, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • No, they are not in the public domain. Regardless of whether or not it has filtered out to the Internet, the exclusive content is not intended to be promotional material. The latest Harry Potter books is available in an illegal PDF all over the Internet, but that does not make sharing it legal. I'm not taking a stance one way or the other, just pointing out that by allowing Hyperspace images, we may be stretching the relative leniency that LFL has shown towards fan sites in regards to copyright images. --SparqMan 21:18, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • Well when does something like this usually become PD? 5 years later? How exactly do they determine that? -- Riffsyphon1024 21:38, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • Not anytime soon (see [1]). In the case of Star Wars, quite possibly not within our lifetimes, and certainly not within George Lucas's lifetime. — Silly Dan 23:10, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)
        • Oh gee, I don't think that's what I meant to ask. More like when does it become safe for us to place it here and label it fair use? -- Riffsyphon1024 23:15, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)
          • Ah, sorry I misunderstood you. I have no idea what the answer to your actual question would be. 8) — Silly Dan 23:25, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)
          • Riffs, I don't think it ever does. Almost all of the images we use here are protected by copyright (and a crapload of lawyers at LucasFilm, Dark Horse, Bantam, et al) and used without permission. Only a few fair use defenses regarding the types of uses we participate in have ever been successfully defended (promotional images and screenshots). LFL and friends has been very lenient in the use of images on the Web so far, but the use of Hyperspace content here may draw unwanted attention to our violation of their copyrights. --SparqMan 19:03, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • This was a big misunderstanding. I know now the difference between PD and Fair Use, I just got the two mixed up. And agreed about Hyperspace, if its only show to the members of the club, they'll jump on us if it gets out to the free wiki. -- Riffsyphon1024 19:14, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars Tales Edit

  • I think we need to decide whether or not the plausible stories (ie, those that don't conflict with the canon) from Star Wars Tales issues 1-20 can be considered as canon, and more importantly whether we can make articles on them without a disputed tag or anything. Personally, I think if Nathan Butler (who basically has the best public Star Wars timeline there is) can accept them as canon, then the rest of us should as well. MarcK 06:36, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • I thought the official word was that Tales was to be considered Infinities, and therefore explicitly noncanon. Should we go on that? --SparqMan 19:05, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • I thought word was that fans could decide for themselves whether the stories are canon or not. Some authors have gone on to use characters that first appeared in Tales in their own canon stories (eg. in The History of the Mandalorians, Abel G. Peña confirmed the existance of Sintas Vel and Ailyn Vel who first appeared in Outbid But Never Outgunned, therefore that tale probably is canon. I think we should include MOST Star Wars Tales events, characters, and locations, unless of course a tale is particularly unbelievable (eg. Skippy the Jedi Droid). I don't think they need a disputed tag, but just a little mention in the Behind the scenes section that the source is a Tales story and it's canonity is unknown. --Azizlight 00:41, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • Or we could make a new {{{tales}}} tag, saying This character/location/event only appears in Tales #1 - #20, therefore its canonity is unknown. --Azizlight 00:46, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
        • I've had that idea buzzing around in my head for a while but haven't got around to implementing it, so I'll fully support it if it comes to a vote or anything. MarcK 22:59, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)
          • I made a template, check it out at Template:Tales1-20. --Azizlight 01:57, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)
          • I've used the tag in two articles, but won't use it any more until it gets the thumbs up from the Admins. --Azizlight 02:10, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Searching Edit

I was pleasantly surprised to discover a Firefox search plugin for this place. I wasn't aware of it's existance before now, did anyone from here do it? If so: Thanks! In case anyone is interested it is near the bottom of this list: --beeurd 02:20, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • Sweet! – Aidje talk 04:02, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC) Edit

  • Why isn't he banned yet? He's posted numerous fanon articles, and is now blanking Silly Dan's user and talk pages. I say we dishonorably ban him, Garth Breise style. MarcK 23:11, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • I was hoping after his fanon articles were taken care of he may stop, but blanking user pages and changing user votes in a Vfd discussion is too much. 1000 hours of banning should take care of it. --SparqMan 23:43, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Spoiler Edit

When do we plan to eliminate the ROTS spoiler warnings? At the one-month mark? --SparqMan 20:43, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  • One conservative position would be to leave them up until the DVD is released, and maybe a couple weeks afterwards. In many cases, we'd want to replace them with the regular spoiler templates anyway. -- Silly Dan 20:59, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • I was under the impression that once the ROTS spoilers were done away with we were going completely spoiler-warning free with a general warning on the front page under the assumption that users look up (or click on wikilinks) with the intention of learning above the topic. Perhaps an exception would be articles about sources. --SparqMan 23:53, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
      • I strongly agree with that idea Sparq. To me, this whole site is a spoiler.  :) People are coming here to learn more info about someone/something/whatever. I can see waiting until the DVD is released, though, for those who didn't catch it in the theater. WhiteBoy 07:17, 6 Aug 2005 (UTC)

New Spoilers Edit

We made an exception to our no spoiler-warning policy for ROTS because it had not been released yet. Will we do the same for the Dark Nest series and other new books? --SparqMan 17:11, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  • We have a no spoiler warning policy? MarcK 17:15, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • "This wiki contains a plethora of spoilers for all released material relating to the Star Wars universe. Read at your own risk." - I was under the impression that the only spoiler warnings we included beyond that front page was for ROTS ones. --SparqMan 17:31, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
      • Sparq describes my view perfectly --Imp 17:33, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
        • I wasn't necessarily advocating an extension of that policy for new books, just wondering what we were planning to do. I know I'd like to continue working on major articles without fear of ruining the Dark Nest books before I've read them. --SparqMan 00:44, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)
          • This rule should extend to all new forms of literature and the television series when they come out. Ep III spoilers won't be used but we still have the regular ones you can use. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:35, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)
        • So, you're saying that all new material being added from newer sources should have spoiler warnings? For how long after release? --SparqMan 16:25, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)
          • As long as needed. There is no possible solid timeline that we can use for these. -- Riffsyphon1024 16:58, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)
            • I've created a page for info about how we handle spoilers. Right now it's pretty lacking since we haven't actually decided anything, but we can probably begin discussion on Star Wars talk:Spoilers. – Aidje talk 03:14, 4 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Hyperspace free trial Edit

Non-Official ImagesEdit

As long as you have the consent of the person creating it, would it be okay to add images created by fans? I have a few images that depict scenes from EU. Would they be okay to add? - DarthMaul431

Yes, but all things in moderation; do not upload terabytes of images. Also, WookieePædia is not a photogallery, but an Encyclopædia; so now, please use the images for illustrating articles, not in bandwidtheating photogalleries. ¿Could you also please sign your comments? — — Ŭalabio‽ 03:48, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • I always assumed fan-art was not wanted on this Wiki... Any official word on this? --Azizlight 05:02, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • It's best if they came from a canon source. I have made an exception for user created maps though. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:36, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't see a major problem with providing some fan-created images, where they are based totally on official descriptions and such, and they must say that they are 'artists representations' or something. --beeurd 16:56, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars Miniatures Edit

Howdy, as a new Wookieepedian, and as an avid player of Star Wars Miniatures, do y'all think that the inclusion of set-lists of each Miniatures set would be valuable to the Wiki? I'd be more than happy to do it, but before embarking on the journey, I'd like some approval. Thanks!

DarthIntrepidus 04:39, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • I would be interested in seeing what you could whip up. Because this is a Star Wars Wiki, all canon information is wanted, including games. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:40, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • It might be good to start with a single article containing lists of the different sets. I've been thinking about doing this with the old MicroMachines too. --SparqMan 16:18, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • I still have some of the SW MMs. Maybe this could turn into a repository of toys, a la ShopWookiee. -- Riffsyphon1024 16:23, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

HoloNet News: Website vs Insider Edit

At the moment we have articles for HoloNet News (in-universe) and HoloNet News (website). We need to make a new page for the HoloNet News that is published in Star Wars Insider.

I'm not really sure what to call this new page, perhaps HoloNet News (Insider), though I don't think I like this title. Perhaps HoloNet news items from both the Website and Insider should all be indexed on the one page? And what do we call this page? And we also need to keep CIS Shadowfeed in mind. --Azizlight 16:28, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • We have pages for the individual online issues. The ones in Insider also have numbers, so we should make pages for them too. Anyone with Insider want to start the ball rolling? QuentinGeorge 22:38, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Just let me get issue 84 before I get spoiled too much, and then I'll be up to it. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:42, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • I started doing it but looks like i won't have time to continue today :-(

Feel free to use this, or not:

Republic HoloNet News, featured in Star Wars Insider magazine, is an series of in-universe news articles detailing galactic events leading up to the beginning of Attack of the Clones. The articles were authored by Pablo Hidalgo. Holonet News articles were published in Star Wars Insider issues #63 to #76, after the release of Episode II.
Holonet News articles returned to the Insider in issue #84, detailing the events immediately after the birth of the Empire.


HoloNet News Core Edition 14:2:12 (Star Wars Insider 65) --Azizlight 00:59, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • All done now. --Azizlight 23:51, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)

"stubs go above Appearances on SWW" Edit

Uh, I've been here since June, and this is the first I've heard about this. It's no big deal really, but shouldn't this be written somewhere (namely the Manual of Style) to avoid people repeating this mistake if it is in fact policy (unless I missed it, and if I did I apologize)? StarNeptune 02:28, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • I was wondering about this myself. I've seen people move stubs in both directions, and no where does it seem to be officially stated. So, is there a policy, and if so, what is it and *where* is it? jSarek 06:54, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I don't remember seeing it stated either. I generally put the stub at the bottom of the main text fo the article... I think. --beeurd 20:46, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • If you didn't notice, there's been a discussion here trying to solidify the layout. WhiteBoy 06:54, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)

CSG madness... Edit

Who put this Consular/Guardian/Sentinel nonsense into Category:Jedi ranks again? It's called game mechanics, RPGs like Wizards and KOTORs use them to bring some character diversity. Will we also create articles for character levels and experience/health/Force points? - Sikon [Talk] 06:05, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree; we have decided previously that character classes are simply game mechanics and have little to nothing in common with Star Wars canon. I say that we should either delete these articles, or possibly leave the articles, placing them in category that explicity labels them as game elements (simply for reference). In this case, the articles would be written from an OOU perspective. They should not in any case be left in the category "Jedi ranks." – Aidje talk 22:42, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Lead-In QuotesEdit

  • Can we come to some agreement how many of these we want per article? I reckon only one, MAX of two. But they seem to be rapidly reproducing and I think we should work out some rule of thumb. QuentinGeorge 06:55, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. One, maybe two. — Silly Dan 11:40, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • I think they're annoying, and IMO should not be there at all. Definately not more than one. --Azizlight 11:42, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • On second thought, I guess they're not THAT bad... they just look tacky sometimes when anons throw them in. I guess a template/namespace thingy would solve that. Oh BTW would anybody object to me changing Luke's quote to "But I was going to Tosche Station to pick up some power converters!!!" :-D --Azizlight 06:27, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)
        • You are evil. Just try and stop me changing Darth Vader's too '"Yippee!". QuentinGeorge 06:30, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that a single, well-chosen quotation can provide some nice flavor to articles. The problem would be solved by a Wookieequote type segment of SWW. Riffs, how's that coming? --SparqMan 01:57, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • That was what I wanted to suggest, too. Let's organize a "Quote:" namespace (even if not technically a namespace) in a Wikiquote fashion. - Sikon [Talk] 04:46, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • I like the template idea. QuentinGeorge 06:30, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)
        • Wookieequote can create its own little space on the wiki just for quotes. It's acceptable to place one or two per article, but all the rest should be at Wookieequote. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:04, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • If we're going to place them in, they ought to be descriptive of what they are in, maybe even by the person themselves. -- SFH 04:54, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)
        • See Kreia (bottom of the page). Comments/suggestions? (Although indeed, Quote: should be a proper namespace.) - Sikon [Talk] 05:49, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)

New project namespace Edit

Following the discussion at Wookieepedia talk:Community Portal/Namespace dispute, WhiteBoy told me that he felt there was now consensus that the project namespace should be moved. Therefore, the namespace has changed from "Star Wars:" to "Wookipedia:". Redirects have been added from the old namespace for project-related pages. Non-project pages that were wrongly in that namespace should have been moved back. To avoid breaking links, I've put them at [[Star Wars:Title]] for now, but many of them may be better moved again to [[Star Wars: Title]] with a space (which wasn't possible when Star Wars: was a namespace). I've not added redirects for the old VfD discussions since these didn't seem to be linked from anywhere anyway. I've also not checked the talk pages since these are not often linked, but if you do find any, just add a redirect from the old page to [[Project talk:Title]]. There may be some double redirects to fix, but those would best be done after deciding which pages to remove to include a space rather than needing to fix them twice. This will hopefully not cause too much disruption, and brings the benefit of being able to title pages with the prefix Star Wars: without them ending up in the wrong namespace. Angela (talk) 04:43, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much for doing this, Angela. :-) jSarek 04:46, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • What jSarek said x45,000,000,000. MarcK 05:12, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • We love you, Angela. :-) – Aidje talk 06:49, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Hot damn. You are a god Angela! -- Riffsyphon1024 02:10, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • I have a question: I've been working on fixing all of the double and broken redirects, but I seem to have run into a problem on the broken redirect maintenance page; not all of the pages showing up on that list are really broken redirects. For instance, KOTOR II => Wookieepedia:Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords. KOTOR II already redirects to Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords. Any idea why these are showing up on the broken redirects page? – Aidje talk 01:47, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • I wondered that, but it seems that going to edit, and then saving withough making any changes fixes it. --beeurd 01:54, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah, I see you've cleaned it all up. Thanks. Maybe I somehow confused the database when I started deleting the unnecessary redirects. Whatever happened, it's fixed now. – Aidje talk 02:15, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.