Multilingual WikiEdit

Are there/will there be any plans to make this wiki available in other languages? I know the Star Trek people's wiki has at least two languages in addition to English. I know my profile says I speak Japanese, but I can't read or write it very well. On the other hand, I can read and write Spanish and would love to get the chance to translate a lot of this stuff. -- Shadowtrooper 02:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I suppose, along the way. Best way to accomplish it is translating a lot of articles, making them subpages of the translated main page subpage of your user page (whew). That's what I'm doing for the Norwegian edition, anyway. --Imperialles 10:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • After getting a look at the stats for all Wikicities wikis, I see that Memory Alpha has about 4 different languages already. We outta catch up by now and be the yin to their yang. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:49, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree. Now that I fianlly have enough time, I can probably translate tens of pages each day. --Imp 21:57, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Episode III spoilers Edit

How much longer are those going to remain up, as opposed to just the spoiler warning in general? Until the Episode III DVD release? Kuralyov 19:49, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • I asked that same question earlier to no response. I think a month after the EPIII DVD release is fair. --SparqMan 15:16, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • One month after the DVD sounds good to me. WhiteBoy 19:20, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • agree--Eion 19:01, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • That sounds fair, people should have seen it by then. -- Riffsyphon1024 19:41, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll add this to Wookieepedia:Spoilers. – Aidje talk 01:25, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)

"Stub of the day?" Edit

"Stub of the day" was recently added to the Main Page and here -- do we want to have this feature? Isn't it covered by the Improvement drive? — Silly Dan 01:29, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • True, but shouldn't the article for improvement be listed on the main page? -- SFH 22:50, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • We don't have one this week. (Though I was just about to nominate Mon Calamari.) — Silly Dan 23:04, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • Go ahead Dan. We haven't had a vote there in two weeks. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:43, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Wanted PagesEdit

  • I think maybe it's time to do another purge of the wanted pages. We have uncreated pages with as many as 65(!) referring pages, mostly for authors, comics, and young adult books that I know nothing about and thus can't help with. jSarek 21:38, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • To purge, simply use this link. - Sikon [Talk] 03:21, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • I must not know what "purging" means in the context of the software. I just meant that, in the past, we've managed to get the referring page number for the most wanted pages down into the low teens; now, there are some 60 pages exceeding that. It would be commendable if we could bring that number back down again, and so we should "purge" it (by this, I meant "create a bunch of articles to get their respective redlinks kicked out of Wanted Pages"). Apologies for using the term colloquially when there's an official meaning to it (and, incidentally, what exactly does real "purging" do to the page?). jSarek 05:27, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
        • As with all pages, "purging" means clearing the server cache, forcing the server to update the page. - Sikon [Talk] 06:03, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Looking at that list... Do we 'really' need a separate page for each Clone Wars cartoon? I'm sure one for each series would be sufficient, but if someone can fill them with usefull info that isn't repeated on every page then I have no problem with it. --beeurd 22:41, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Grah! What's with this on wanted pages:
  1. Wookieepedia:Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords (161 links)
  2. Wookieepedia:Clone Wars (136 links)
  3. Wookieepedia:The Roleplaying Game (90 links)
  4. Wookieepedia:The Clone Wars (58 links)
  5. Wookieepedia:Battlefront (55 links)
And that's just the top 5, those Wookieepedia: ones are scattered throughout the list. --beeurd 23:35, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • I've been trying to figure that one out myself. They're also all over Broken Redirects, even though the redirect pages that are allegedly "broken" actually point to the right page. Opening and resaving the redirect page removes it from the list, but what caused it in the first place? Is there some way the database can refresh the all inter-wiki links? —Darth Culator (talk) 23:51, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Legacy templates Edit

There are some templates which were copied from Wikipedia, but, in my opinion, are useless for this wiki. These are:

  • {{notenglish}} - while there may be users who create individual non-English articles, these are exceptional cases and there shouldn't really be an entire category for them.
  • {{PotentialVanity}} - Wikipedia deals with a lot of vanity articles every day, but it's not the case here.
  • {{POV check}} - not needed as there are no dedicated "NPOV checks", and we have {{POV}} for all NPOV issues. (It is truly amusing that we have one NPOV dispute on the entire wiki, yet four NPOV templates, including also {{NPOV-section}} and {{NPOV-title}}.)
  • {{incomplete}} - weak one, but aren't incomplete articles stubs?
  • {{controversial3}} - redundant with {{controversial}}
  • {{DisputeCheck}} - same reason as for {{POV check}}, redundant with {{disputed}}
  • {{idw-uo}} - what does "UO" stand for? Currently, the template is identical to {{idw}}
  • {{NowCommons}} - pointless, Wikicities doesn't support Commons
  • {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvided}} - provided what? (see template)

In general, I think we need a simpler template system for "issues and disputes", since many templates only slightly differ from each other. If not templates themselves, maybe some categories should be merged, because there are currently a plethora of maintenance categories that only include a few articles each. - Sikon [Talk] 03:16, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Not everything is useful here as I've come to realize. I'll delete what you feel needs to be deleted. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:25, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Copyright templates? Edit

I've just started uploading new pictures for the ships featured in X-Wing Alliance. They're 3-D renders based on the original game files, so they're sort of fair-use and sort of a derivative work. I'm not sure what kind of copyright tag I should be using. Can anyone clear this up for me? —Darth Culator 02:28, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)

OOU cats Edit

Can we settle whether or not we're going to us "Imperial character" or "Old Republic character", or "Imperial Starfleet officer" or "Galactic Republic politicians"? --SparqMan 17:28, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • I thought we decided against it in the vote above... I'm for the change, however. --beeurd 17:00, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous users Edit

Has anyone considered requiring user registration before editing? It seems to be working pretty well for Battlestar Wiki and The Great Machine.

Also, can we ban ASAP? It's a proxy server, and I think we should ban all proxy servers as soon as they are discovered just on general principle. —Darth Culator 04:02, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Lego Edit

  • Would anyone be interested in articles concerning Star Wars LEGO sets? I think it'd be very interesting, and would certainly bring us a step closer to being the ultimate source for Star Wars information. MarcK 04:34, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • This is a can of worms I think we should think very carefully about opening. Once we start detailing individual toys from one manufacturer, it only makes sense to do the same for all manufacturers, and I'm not sure we're ready to detail every Kenner and Hasbro figure ever made. If the community thinks we're up to it, then go for it; but we should show caution before deciding to take that step. jSarek 20:35, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • Considering how major a part of Star Wars fandom toy collecting is, this wiki really should cover it at some level. On the other hand, we should be wary of cluttering every character and vehicle page with detailed toy information. Perhaps for the action figures and associated vehicles, someone should do an article on each individual "wave", with links to the characters and vehicles. Something similar could be done with the Lego sets, which I think are also in waves. (I'm not the one to do this, as I don't know much about the subject. I'm just throwing ideas around.) — Silly Dan 22:20, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)
        • There is a very valid point that collecting is a major part of Star Wars fandom, but there are dozens of really good websites already out there that serve the same purpose, and including collecting in the Star Wars Wiki would be a huge and redundant task. - Hollis
          • One could probably have a substantial wiki just on collecting, come to think of it.... — Silly Dan 11:45, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)
            • I'm up for helping with Star Wars figure pages --Darth Mantus 14:51, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Addition to Character template for Jedi and Sith characters Edit

Moved to Template talk:Character.

Monsters Wiki Edit

We're just getting started over at the Monsters Wikicity, any help would be nice. I'm sorry if this message is directing people away from Star Wars Wiki but the Monsters Wiki needs a lot of work --Darth Mantus 14:49, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Proposal: Make appearances / sources templatesEdit

I think we should consider changing the way we type out our lists of Sources and Appearances at the bottom of every article.

Currently, especially when listing sources, it is quite cumbersome to type the title, publisher and year every single time. Sure we can copy and paste, but it's still very tedious and time consuming.

I propose that we make a template for every single piece of Star Wars literature, e.g. Twin Stars of Kira = {{TSoK}}. Within these templates will contain the full line of text that would normally be used when citing references, ie. {{TSoK}} = Twin Stars of Kira, West End Games 1993. (or whatever format we agree on).

There are at least two major advantages of such a change.

  1. It will make sourcing articles much faster and easier (this might encourage the lazier among us to include references, where they normally would not have bothered)
  2. It will finally make Appearances and Sources sections look consistent across the entire Wiki
  3. It would save room on the wiki database

I guess one disadvantage would be the large amount of time taken to convert from the old system to the new system, however Iim sure it will be worthwhile in the long-run. And I would be happy to be a major contributer to this cause.

Please discuss / vote / whatever. Cheers. --Azizlight 07:22, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm still of the opinion that, since hotlinks allow anyone seeking full bibliographic information to obtain it in a single click, we shouldn't be trying to include all of that information. Just linking the title of a work in the appearances/sources should be sufficient, and not that much harder than typing a template. Going through ALL of our articles to template the sources would be tedious and unnecessary, and then we'd have the added complication of trying to remember which template to type for which source. jSarek 07:34, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Indeed, it seemed to be a working Wookieepedia convention to list just the title, without the publisher, year etc. until someone screwed it up for reasons beyond my comprehension. So I think we should stick with the title and not introduce a thousand and one template. - Sikon [Talk] 10:04, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • Hmm, I agree that the author/publisher/year details aren't really needed, and in that case I suppose the templates aren't needed. Would everyone agree to removing the author/publisher/year though? --Azizlight 10:27, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't think it was ever a convention to omit publisher, author, and year - we tried to hash something out on Wookieepedia talk: Manual of Style, but no consensus was reached. Of course, only jSarek, Whiteboy, Tam, SparqMan, and I discussed it, and it was back in July, so I don't know what everyone else thinks now. Since then, my opinion has sort of moved over to jSarek's position, but I've been including authors and publishers in most articles I've started. For existing articles I've expanded, I've mostly tried to follow the conventions already given in the article. — Silly Dan 15:57, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • True that we never really reached a concensus on the Manual of Style, but it seems to be the more common practice to include just the title. And I agree with jSerek that that's all that's necessary with a hyperlink to the full info. WhiteBoy 02:01, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • Maybe I have a little bit of a pretentious streak, but I like listing the full info. I think it looks more encyclopedic. —Darth Culator 02:09, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)
        • While it may look more professional, for me it's quite confusing, as I can't find the title immediately. - Sikon [Talk] 03:10, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • Two more possible reasons to include titles only:
  1. It's a simple standard that can easily be kept uniform by all users, just as our "use past tense" standard is. If we were a small, centralized group, we could pick a more complicated format, just as we could say "Assume this is written by Jedi scholars in 200 ABY" or something like that. But we're a wiki, so it's best to keep things simple.
  2. It avoids possible questions over authorship (e.g. do we credit a movie to the screenwriter or the director? Do we credit a videogame to the lead programmer, the project manager, or the dialogue writer? Do we credit the original novelization to the guy with his name on the cover or the ghostwriter?)
Should we hop over to the Manual of Style talk page to start a vote? — Silly Dan 03:13, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • I've always found simply naming the source easier than including info on the book, comic, movie, etc. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:03, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • For sources, I was including the title, publisher and year, but after this little discussion, I'm only going to include the title from now on. And by the way, the Manual of Style really *REALLY* needs to be updated. --Azizlight 01:04, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Until we come to consensus on whether to use just the title or the full listing, we should not be wasting our editing efforts changing the listings in articles. As long as an article is consistent, there is no reason to make a change that may have to be changed back. For example, I support the use of full citations in the "Sources" section, but if I encounter an article that lists the titles, I will follow suit. Does this seem reasonable to avoid constany back and forth edits? --SparqMan 04:35, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Growing "Affiliation" sectionsEdit has added "Loyalisy Committee" and/or "Delegation of 2000" to a number of characters' "Affiliation" sections. Is this helpful or excessive? --SparqMan 03:21, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Excessive, I think. I'd like to keep it to the "major" org (ie Empire, Rebels, Republic, CIS, Jedi, Sith) QuentinGeorge 06:31, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Galactic locations Edit

  • Should we consider categorizing planets, systems and possibly sectors by region? At the moment the planets and systems categories are incomprehensibly cluttered, so I think for those we know the location of it would do a lot of good to put them in Category:Outer Rim planets, Category:Deep Core systems, etc. MarcK 09:39, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • A fine idea. Then just sort the various planets and systems into the larger categories. --SparqMan 10:00, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Would be good, I think. If we go ahead with this I am willing to help with a lot of this possibly tedious editing. BTW: I presume we would keep a generic Category:Planets, for places that we do not have a sector/etc. for? --beeurd 01:33, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Indeed. Admittedly it'll still be very full considering the number of ambiguously placed planets there are, but it'll be an improvement. MarcK 10:30, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Um, shouldn't we have more time discussing this before carrying it out? -- Riffsyphon1024 02:51, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)

CP restructure Edit

I reorganized the main Community Portal into a more compact table-like version, hopefully more digestible for newcomers. Any comments/improvements will be appreciated.

Also, I added the Consensus track to relieve the CP talk page of debates and votes, because before that, it was way overloaded. Old discussions, which are CP subpages, are also listed. - Sikon [Talk] 10:13, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • looking good. :) --beeurd 13:25, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Articles on stories never written Edit

So, since HK-51's article has set the precedent that we can write articles on stuff cut from games, could we also add articles on stories that were never completed or part of canon? There's a particular novel I was interested in writing about, but I might also like to see real articles about the Star Wars sequel trilogy everyone used to expect. (Right now, Star Wars Episode VII just redirects to our article on Mr. Suttle, but a rundown of real Lucas statements and non-SuperShadow fan rumours might be interesting as well.) Thoughts? — Silly Dan

  • I think it's a good idea. Having the Episode VII page redirect to supershadow doesn't really make that much sense. I'd go with your suggestion of including Lucas statements, fan speculation, and even mention supershadow. And if you're talking about Escape From Dagu or whatever it was called, this book definately needs an article explaining the synopsis/plot, and the circumstances under which it was cancelled. --Azizlight 02:39, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • What about things that were planned, then cancelled, that we don't really know anything else about? There's Crimson Empire III, the Sith Era novel, the Shaak Ti Clone Wars novel, and the Dark Horse proto-NJO storyline that pretty much nothing else is known about. Kuralyov 02:49, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • If you're looking for info on these sorts of things, Star Wars Lostworlds is an invaluable resource. jSarek 03:31, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah, thank you. Kuralyov 04:22, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • IIRC, Escape from Dagu was complete, and even had its own First Look on TOS, but was pulled at the last minute for reasons I don't know and replaced with Yoda: Dark Rendezvous. The events were referenced elsewhere (but I can't remember where atm). As for the cut NJO books (Dark Tide: Siege, Knightfall trilogy), those would be interesting to read about too. Siege was squeezed into Ruin, and Knightfall was apparently too dark and replaced with the Edge of Victory duology. I say we devote a section to these stories that never were. I find it interesting to find out what might have been, and possibly others might, too. StarNeptune 04:10, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • How exactly would these pages be organized? Into their own category ("Cut Stories" or something, I assume) - I assume lumping all cut novels, movies, games, stories, comics, etc into one category would work best. Kuralyov 04:22, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)

We really need a Wookieepedia Article Layout GuideEdit

Still nobody knows whether stubs should go above/below appearances / sources, or where the See also section goes, etc. We have thousounds of articles, many of which have inconsistent structures. I think we really need to set some sort of standard as to how articles should be structured. I started a discussion on the Wookieepedia talk:Manual of Style page, though I am mentioning it here because i don't think people have noticed it. Please continue the discussion over there. Thanks. --Azizlight 02:08, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Wookieepedia trivia gameEdit

I was thinking about a side project that would be fun for our site...creating our own trivia questions. I think it was inspired by the "Did You Know" section on the main page. Dunno if y'all have played the Star Wars Trivial Pursuit game, but the questions are pretty easy. I thought it'd be cool to have a little section of questions and answers that we could just read through and have fun. Whatcha think? I'll start the page and we'll see what happens.  :) WhiteBoy 15:15, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Sounds like fun. I haven't actually played the SW Trivial Pursuit game anywhere... Anyone know if it was actually released in the UK? lol, I got a demo CD from C3, but can't find it. --beeurd 15:20, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

History of edit wars Edit

How about a page that would list major edit wars Wookieepedia has undergone since its creation, with a brief description and links to article/Talk page revisions? I think it can help us avoid edit wars in the future, as well as provide some recreational reading material :). - Sikon [Talk] 13:34, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Great idea. When I first discovered Wookieepedia, I caused an edit war. Other new users could avoid them if there was such a page. --Master Starkeiller 14:01, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • I applaud the sentiment, but I worry that it might encourage people to restart edit wars, or lead to hurt feelings on the part of people who think they've been represented unfairly in the edit war summary. (Though a lot of edit wars over content should lead to notes in "Behind the scenes" sections.) — Silly Dan 18:08, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, I agree there. We'd have to be careful to avoid portraying edit wars in a semi-acceptable light. Some people do tend to get the wrong idea from things rather too easily. --beeurd 19:19, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)

New template Edit

Because Battles can't describe all Jedi or clone commando or other activity during the Clone wars, or any war for that matter, I think a new template would be very useful for different, smaller, but still significant events. A "mission" template would be great, and there we could put stuff that don't really go with battles, but link to other articles better. Riffsyphon1024 agrees with this idea, so I think we should go ahead and do it. What do y'all think? Xilentshadow900 19:18, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Appearances specifications Edit

  • Can we all agree, for the Appearances section, to use specific books instead of the general series name (Vector Prime instead of The New Jedi Order, Dark Apprentice instead of Jedi Academy Trilogy, etc.)? It's especially inconvenient for people wanting to know where a certain character appears, particularly in the case of New Jedi Order, which consists of over 20 novels, ebooks and short stories. Plus it just looks lazy and arbitrary. In the cases of characters etc. that appear frequently, Leia Organa Solo for example, we could just create a separate appearances list if it gets too long, considering we need more of those anyway. MarcK 20:26, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree (although for characters appearing in every book in a series, I think it's acceptable to leave it as is.) — Silly Dan 01:27, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with Silly Dan. For example, Nil Spaar appears in each book of the The Black Fleet Crisis trilogy, but it's also the only place he appears, so I think it's acceptable to place the series. --SparqMan 18:34, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • That sounds good I suppose, but in that case it should be noted as such (New Jedi Order (entire series), perhaps). MarcK 04:56, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • I concur. Adamwankenobi 07:04, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Glacial access speed Edit

Am I the only one having major problems accessing Wikicities? I was trying to relocate the LucasArts games' pages and fix the redirects when the whole domain suddenly slowed to a crawl. And I know it's not my connection, because I have the same problem here at work hours later. It took me over 10 minutes just to get this question posted! Anyone have any ideas about what's up? —Darth Culator (talk) 21:50, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Its slow for me, even on DSL. Took two minutes to save, seconds to load though. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:14, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • I've also got a high-speed connection and I'm experiencing this as well. Sometimes it can be really fast, but 90% of the time it's terribly slow. Hollis 03:41, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, looks like it's Slashdot's fault. Uncyclopedia got slashdotted, and they're also hosted by Wikia. —Darth Culator (talk) 04:09, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, Uncyclopedia: has been slashdotted three times in the last month. WhiteBoy 21:15, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • I've encountered some slowdown today but was able to get all of Carty's maps up. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:28, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Wookieepedia has outgrown Memory Alpha Edit

At least in the number of articles. As I'm writing this, we have 14555 articles and MA has 14540. - Sikon [Talk] 04:17, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • If I may say so...pwned. And also consider that they started two years ago, whereas we started seven months ago. MarcK 04:22, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • <yoda>Much work have we still to do. Many stubs have we. Many articles lacking encyclopedic style as well.</yoda> --SparqMan 09:05, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • But this number is excluding stubs. MarcK 09:08, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Should we change the look of the Stub?Edit

I have always held the opinion that "Stub" notifications make articles on this wiki look ugly. I have come up with a new look for the stub notifications, you can check it out on this page to see what you think. Please discuss here. --Azizlight 04:59, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Support, although it may be better for the "Expand this article" link to go on the same line. - Sikon [Talk] 10:16, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Support --Master Starkeiller 11:38, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, although I think it might look better with the image still beside it, but keeping the text as it is (in the test) on separate lines. I could be wrong though. --beeurd 13:23, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, but put all the text on one line, maybe? Centering it would look good, too, but not necessary. StarNeptune 23:45, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay I've added some alternative variations in response to the feedback, check them out. --Azizlight 00:00, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Of the new options, I like #3 best. The problem this variety is that a user inexperienced in the ways of Wikipedia or Wookieepedia would not understand what that little box means. A "stub" means nothing to someone who has not experience the Wikipedia culture. So, less text is nice, but only if we're okay with reducing its communicative effectiveness. --SparqMan 01:09, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I don't think there's really anything wrong with the way Wikipedia does it. It makes the situation clear even to novice users. The point of the stub notification is for the article to be expanded. The new suggestions are plenty ugly, and they're less informative. – Aidje talk 02:25, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. These new versions are uglier than the originals. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:32, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think the existing versions are less obtrusive and more informative than the proposed replacements. jSarek 02:38, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • My main problem with the way stubs look at the moment is that they are too similar to the rest of the text within the article. I mean it's just italicized with a little picture next to it. I think it looks messy. Why is it that every other little notification on Wiki has a neat little box, but the Stubs are left very raw and messy looking? I think they look horrible. I don't see how the new suggestions are any uglier than the current stubs. Maybe we could keep the stub text as it is, but just put it in a neat box and make the text smaller? --Azizlight 02:40, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Just added one more suggestion... see the bottom one... Template:Newsample-stub --Azizlight 02:48, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • Bingo. This one has my Support. jSarek 02:52, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • Support on option #4. Nicely done. --SparqMan 02:51, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • Hmm, maybe if it was resized slightly smaller so that it wouldn't appear so fat. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:53, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
        • Ok, I have slightly decreased the size of the image so the stub doesn't look so "fat" :-) --Azizlight 03:53, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • It's getting there. – Aidje talk 03:21, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • Support for the last one. StarNeptune 03:40, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • Support for the last two ones with white background, although I'd prefer the one with the image. Maybe we should move this discussion to Consensus track? - Sikon [Talk] 04:37, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
        • Many of the common main tags that are featured in article headers feature relatively large images. Can we perhaps abandon the use of images in stub tags? It would certainly make them slimmer and emphasize the emptiness of stubs. I've added an example with no image here: Template:Newsample-stub--SparqMan 05:25, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
          • I guess that was the problem. And yet I like the images. Frack! -- Riffsyphon1024 05:34, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
            • I too like the images there. I think the second white one (with the smaller image) looks ther better of the proposals. --beeurd 20:10, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
              • I agree with beeurd. — Silly Dan 02:27, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
              • I think it looks best with an image (the smaller one). I don't think image size is an issue, since that little symbol of Anakin is only 1K in size. --Azizlight 03:36, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • I have now cleaned up the new template page so that now only the most popular template remains. Is it safe to say that we have reached a consensus on this issue? --Azizlight 22:35, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Much better. It now has my vote. -- Riffsyphon1024 15:58, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, I've changed only the Template:Planet-stub to the new look, as a trial of sorts. Check out some Planet stubs and leave feedback here. If people are still happy with the new look, i'll go ahead and change the rest of the stubs. Cheers. --Azizlight 01:54, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • We also need to decide whether these stub notifications go above or below the appearances/sources sections. Please see the discussion about a Layout Guide on the Wookieepedia talk:Manual of Style page. --Azizlight 02:08, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Since there seems to be no further discussion, I am now going ahead and changing the stubs throughout Wookieepedia. --Azizlight 00:02, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Some of the resized images on the new stubs have shrunk to the point of being unrecognizable. I recommend we find new images that work at the very tiny scale (icons in nature) or abandon them entirely. --SparqMan 00:31, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree, we need icons that all have the same dimensions. --Azizlight 00:37, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Name of the wiki Edit

Since the Star Trek people call their wiki "Memory Alpha," based on an in-universe database, why not call this wiki "The Holocron" or something? Adamwankenobi 09:12, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • There's already an (official, but private) SW database by that name, see Holocron continuity database. - Sikon [Talk] 12:05, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • I know that, but my idea is that it would be the name of this database as well. It certainly would hbe appropriate, since this encyclopedia is supposed to act as a record of history. Adamwankenobi 12:10, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • I thought we already decided we're "Wookieepedia"? — Silly Dan 01:42, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • It's just that "The Holocron" would seem more appropriate and professional sounding for what we are trying to do. Adamwankenobi 02:10, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • Dude you can't call it The Holocron, as Sikon said, that is the name of the Official database. Wookieepedia is fine - it sounds like Wiki, it sounds like an encyclopedia, and it sounds Star-Warsy. --Azizlight 02:20, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
        • Of course you can call it the Holocron. If the real holocron is private, we can be called holocron. --Master Starkeiller 19:36, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
          • You missed the point though... We already settled on Wookieepedia. --beeurd 19:48, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • It's Wookieepedia because we are Wookieepedia. -- Riffsyphon1024 19:22, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry you missed the discussion, Adam. WhiteBoy 16:18, 27 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.