Wookieepedia talk:Community Portal/Archive4

Templates for deletion?

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"

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 Animate

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 Waxy.org's bounty for a Wikipedia revision history animator. --SparqMan 14:32, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)

We should use true Roman Numerals in movie-titles

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 as

http://starwars.wikicities.com/wiki/Star_Wars_Episode_Ⅰ:_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?:

0 ☼ Ⅰ ☿ Ⅱ ♀ Ⅲ ♁ Ⅳ ♂ Ⅴ ♃ Ⅵ ♄ Ⅶ ♅ Ⅷ ♆ Ⅸ ♇

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)
  • Exactly my reasoning. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:38, 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

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

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 Image: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

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

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

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)