FANDOM



Whiteboy's Public Service AnnouncementEdit

PSA: Head over to Wookieepedia:Award Proposals and vote for an award and/or submit some new ones. We could use some awards to give to people for a job well done.  :) WhiteBoy 16:22, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC) (copied from Star Wars talk:Community Portal by jSarek 22:43, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC) )

  • doh! Thanks! WhiteBoy 01:39, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Public service reminder Edit

To avoid confusing the wiki, if you notice any links to "Star Wars:...." which should go to "Wookieepedia:...." on your user or talk pages, please change them. Thanks. — Silly Dan 23:20, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Y-wings in ROTS? Edit

Look at this page from Eastereggs.com - can anyone confirm or deny this? Kuralyov 01:17, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, they were supposedly older model starfighters... — Silly Dan 01:20, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Can an Easter Egg really be classed as canon? Something like that should be disregarded, IMO. --beeurd 21:30, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed; there's an X-wing and three TIE/LN starfighters in Episode II if you look hard enough, doesn't mean they were canonically there. MarcK 23:42, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Dates in planet articles Edit

Somebody has been continuously removing "in" preceding dates from planet articles. See Ryloth for an example. Is this a new guideline that I missed? - Sikon [Talk] 08:44, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Not as far as I know. QuentinGeorge 08:48, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • I've seen JustinGann's articles frequently not include "in" before year dates, so it might be him; plus planets seem to be his forte. MarcK 09:00, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • It may actually be the proper way to say it. 30,000 BBY is 30,000 years before the battle of Yavin. So which sounds better: In 30,000 years before the Battle of Yavin, or 30,000 years before the battle of Yavin? But I'm fairly indifferent either way. -- SFH 21:34, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • But in real life, we don't say "Julius Caesar died 44 BC," we say "Julius Caesar died in 44 BC." I know real-life comparisons usually don't work when dealing with Star Wars, but I think here it does. MarcK 23:41, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with MarcK. 44 BC means "the year that was 44 years before the birth of Christ" (well, actually the birth of Christ was in 4 BC or 6 BC, don't remember, but who cares). Similarly, 30,000 BBY means "the year that was 30,000 years before the Battle of Yavin", not just "30,000 years BBY". - Sikon [Talk] 05:54, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • As I said, I'm fairly indifferent. If I see any spelled like that, I'll be sure to correct them. -- SFH 20:02, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • A little late to the party here, but most academic sources using our AD/BC (or CE/BCE if that's your thing) omit the "in" based on style manuals, although I generally find myself using it. I would say just keep articles consistent, but that we have a lot of articles to create and expand for now...we can worry about minor stylistic questions down the road. We're still playing catch up. --SparqMan 08:11, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)

VandalismEdit

Is there no vandalism in progress page here? I've blocked SuperShadow, Super Shadow, and SS. If he continues to be a problem, it may be worth applying a range block since the edits all come from the same geographical location. If any admin here needs to know the IPs in order to do this, please contact me. Angela (talk) 19:13, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • Is..is this actually Suttle that actually dared to attack us, or one of his brainwashed followers? Because if Suttle had the audacity to violate this wiki himself...must..repress..urge to...call on the dark side! -- SFH 19:55, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Follower methinks, I don't think he has the tenacity for a concerted vandalsim spree. Gothymog 20:00, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • However if it was the case, then we just made history, although not as I had planned. -- Riffsyphon1024 20:17, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)

SuperShadow is in North Carolina according to the article, whereas this vandal was from Kentucky. Angela (talk) 20:55, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • According to an American database there is in fact a Mickey Suttle in Kentucky. Where did the information about North Carolina come from?--Darth Mantus 21:28, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)

It's from From the WHOIS info on supershadow.com, per whois.godaddy.com:

Registrant:
Mickey Suttle
Hickory, North Carolina
United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: SUPERSHADOW.COM
Created on: 13-Aug-99
Expires on: 13-Aug-15
Last Updated on: 27-Aug-05

Administrative Contact:
Suttle, Mickey
HICKORY, North Carolina
United States
Technical Contact:
Suttle, Mickey
HICKORY, North Carolina
United States

Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.DNSBOX3.COM
NS2.DNSBOX3.COM

Registry Status: REGISTRAR-LOCK

And the phone number listed for the technical contact reverses to:

Earle W Suttle
Hickory, NC

—Darth Culator (talk) 00:23, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm just going to erase those email addresses, home addresses and phone numbers if you don't mind. Mr. Suttle is annoying, yes, but I don't want this wiki to encourage people into annoying him back. As for our recent vandal, I doubt he or she was even a SuperShadow follower — more likely, we were the target of a troll whose only motivation was to annoy us. — Silly Dan 00:34, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, but the info is all out there for anyone with enough computer literacy to use Google. Blanking it here won't accomplish much. —Darth Culator (talk) 01:07, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • Meh, I just don't us to have anything to do with it when he gets angry phone calls and hate mail (as he no doubt has recieved already.) — Silly Dan 01:42, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Edit War Edit

Should we make a special news page which features edit wars and such, Such as todays attack by Supershadow. I think it would be interesting to look at in the future and see the attacks that have perpertrated against us--Darth Mantus 19:43, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)

68.1.163.241Edit

Someone ban him already. He's stealth vandalized numerous planet articles in the past month. Check his posting history for more. StarNeptune 21:02, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • I've been saying that since VfD:Zog was posted. He's very good at spreading disinformation. —Darth Culator (talk) 23:35, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Sign me up for the "ban him" petition; I'm sick of slapping fanon tags on his crap. jSarek 13:15, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Ban for at least a month and get a team going to check on every edit 68.1.163.241's made. — Silly Dan 13:27, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Greetings from Idoland Edit

Hi, this is mithridates from the Ido Wikipedia. I've just started writing our articles on Star Wars and a few days ago I learned about this Wiki, which seems to have a lot more detail and screenshots than Wikipedia so I thought I'd say hi because I'll be using a lot of content from here. Here's the largest article we have so far. I'm also sysop on the Korea wiki. Nice to see you all here.

  • Looks sharp. My Ido is a little rusty (okay, I never knew it in the first place, but a little knowledge of Spanish and French lets me get through a little of it), but all in all it looks pretty good. jSarek 11:20, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Actually, now that we're on the subject what do you make of this image and all the other ones uploaded by the same guy? They haven't been deleted yet and I have no idea where he got them from so I haven't used them on our articles except for that image of the Jedi council which appears to be a screenshot and is pretty low quality anyway. Mithridates 02:07, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • Hmm. They look to me like fan art, but I can't say for sure; they might come from one of the Art Of Star Wars books that I'm not too familiar with. jSarek 11:20, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I intend to make each of the articles at least ten kb long, because I much prefer writing about SW than towns in the US for example (the other project of mine right now), which is pretty dry but still necessary. I suppose I'll make use of the image of the Jedi vestments and just leave a note on the talk page there. Mithridates 11:51, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Should admins be eligible for WotM? Edit

In the past there's been an "unofficial" rule that admins shouldn't be considered as WotM. I guess adminship was kinda considered reward enough and we should leave the reward to someone else. With Wookieepedia's growth we've started adding admins, who are some of the best Wookieepedians, so I was maybe starting to have second thoughts. What do y'all think? WhiteBoy 06:09, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • Yeah, admins should be eligible. I don't see a problem with it, as long as we still have the "6 month" rule in place. Otherwise Riff would win it every month :-) --Azizlight 06:21, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Or maybe have a "12 month" rule for admins? --Azizlight 06:23, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • No doubt, Riff would win.  :) I dunno...maybe 12 months would be good for admins. Mainly I just want to avoid getting six/twelve admins and rotate them around as WotM.  :p WhiteBoy 16:30, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Hopefully, we'll have a lot more of our regular, reliable users be admins in the near future, and those are exactly the sorts of people who have work consistent with nomination to WotM. jSarek 11:25, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • I see it as 'WotM before adminship', rather than the other way around. WotM is a stepping stone to adminship. I however am null and void as I became admin 6 days in. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:11, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Lately I pretty much have been thinking what Riff said. Cool...just wondering what other's thoughts were. WhiteBoy 16:30, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism in progress Edit

  • If there are no objections, I'd like to take a shot at building a "vandalism in progress" page like the one at Wikipedia. Right now, we don't have any obvious way to report instances of vandalism except to post it here in the Community Portal or to bug one or more admins on their user page. —Darth Culator (talk) 14:42, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Great idea! - Sikon [Talk] 15:03, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, please. (Speaking of which, 84.181.141.70 was vandalizing a couple of pages just now.) — Silly Dan 15:05, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • I think we can combine Wikipedia's VIP and "Administrator Intervention" pages into one simplified form, and I don't think we need all the stuff about severity levels just yet. A clear warning process might be nice, along with copying over the vandal listing template from Wikipedia. But I just put together a temp page to base it on. —Darth Culator (talk) 02:38, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the temp page -- we should get that going quickly, and have all admins add it to their watchlist. And we could maybe do with some more admins (not me though). — Silly Dan 20:22, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, There seems to be some consensus here, and Angela is already using the temp page. Can someone move it into the Wookieepedia namespace? I just tried and it wouldn't let me. —Darth Culator (talk) 00:59, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • I just moved it to Wookieepedia:Vandalism in progress. jSarek 03:11, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Excellent! I can't figure out why it wouldn't let me do that. Anyway, I just put a link to it in the "Quality assurance" box on the Community Portal page. So now we have a proper vandalism reporting function. —Darth Culator (talk) 03:49, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Episode III Spoilers Edit

  • Now that the DVD is available, when will it be okay to remove the Episode III spoiler templates off the numerous ROTS articles? DarthMaul431 03:31, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • I suggested one month after release (so, beginning of December?) — Silly Dan 03:33, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • I suppose that makes sense. Now that I think back, I don't think it's available in all countries yet. So yeah, December sounds good. DarthMaul431 03:37, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
        • Is it in Korea yet? I could probably check somewhere else to find it but since it's not urgent and we're already on the subject, why not. Mithridates 18:07, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • December 1st works. -- Riffsyphon1024 18:13, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Have redirected it to Template:Spoiler. "What links here" will show which articles need to have it removed, if we are still so resolved. — Silly Dan 01:22, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

General spoiler warnings: Do we need them?Edit

I've always thought that the spoiler warnings throughout this wiki are unnecassary. We have the "This wiki contains a plethora of spoilers relating to the Star Wars universe. Read at your own risk" warning on the Main Page, which i think is already enough reason not to have them throughout the wiki. Furthermore, their use is very inconsistent, and I think the warning itself detracts from the "in-universe" feel of the article. They're also kind of ugly. I agree that new material can have a spoiler warning, but they should be removed about a month after release. Thoughts? --Azizlight 22:25, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree. Pretty much anything is a spoiler here, so individual tags are unnecessary (except for new material, maybe) QuentinGeorge 22:26, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • I concur. However, even new material doesn't need a spoiler before it, IMHO. Adamwankenobi 08:40, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree. As I've said in numerous related discussion, we provide a general warning and users come here seeking information beyond what they have read in the books. The most fair policy for spoilers of new material should be one month after the international release. --SparqMan 07:06, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm in favor of general spoiler warnings for new material. Certainly for plot endings to novels and the like. For minor stuff, they wouldn't be neccesary.-LtNOWIS 18:39, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree. I've thought this for quite a while. WhiteBoy 16:37, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've began deleting the general spoiler warnings from all articles. I'm also thinking that maybe we should make special spoiler templates specific to new releases? Eg. {{TSWspoiler}} for The Swarm War spoilers. Or maybe we could modify the {{spoiler}} template to be able to accept a parameter specifying which title the spoiler relates to? After a month after release, they can be removed again. --Azizlight 00:06, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm pretty sure there's a way to do this, but I'm not sure how right off. Seems like there's a {{databank}} template that handles parameters. WhiteBoy 16:37, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Imperial characters reorganization Edit

If you have a moment, please take a look at my proposed general structure for updating the Imperial characters categorization scheme and left some comments there. See: Category talk:Imperial characters. Cheers! --SparqMan 18:34, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

List of fanon creationsEdit

Just wanted to point out the List of fanon creations article. It will help identify fanon, and prevent fanon from entering our main articles. Any notable fanon creations will redirect there. --Azizlight 03:14, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • If you discover clear cases of fanon, please apply the FRL (Fanon. Redirect. Lock.) tag, {{frl}}, rather than the {{vfd}} tag. This will help speed the process and keep the VFD alley clear. Simply establish the redirect, add the article to the page's list and then an admin will lock the fanon as a redirect. --SparqMan 19:49, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)

What constitutes blockable vandalism? Edit

Now that we have a reporting function in place, the next question is what should be reported? Creeps like the Supershadow Troll are obvious, but what about unrepentant spewers of fanon? If someone, for example, edits Aayla Secura four times to remove her legitimate and concrete death information (by the way, fanboys, AAYLA'S DEAD! GET OVER IT!), can we report/block them?

Or should we have a separate page for reporting fanon and other wankery? —Darth Culator (talk) 19:43, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Template:ConjectureEdit

I have made this template in response to the creation of articles such as T.I.E. starfighter, and Alland. I also have a feeling that a number of planet and system articles are purely conjectural, but i'll only apply the {{conjecture}} tag if it is proved. --Azizlight 00:43, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • When should this be used instead of Template:Fanon or Template:TotallyDisputed? Also, you might add it to the Wookieepedia:Template messages/Disputes explaining when to use it versus the other two. WhiteBoy 03:03, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • I have a bad feeling about this. It could open the door to all kinds of crazy fanon masquerading as "conjecture." —Darth Culator (talk) 05:08, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • You're probably right there Culator, and since jSarek has pointed out that my prime example, T.I.E. starfighter, is not conjecture, but in fact canon, this template is becoming worthless. My bad. We'll delete it... unless someone thinks it was a good idea? --Azizlight 05:13, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • Given the way its worded, it might make it useful for articles like Ur-Sema Du, where the content is definitely canon but the character's name is not. Still, it might be problematic and prone to abuse as Culator suggests, so we might want to just drop it. jSarek 01:34, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Template: More sources? Edit

I suggest we make a template similar to {{sources}} for articles which are sourced, but have an incomplete list of sources and appearances. We could call it, perhaps, {{moresources}}? — Silly Dan 02:39, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree, we really need this. --Azizlight 03:12, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh good god yes. MarcK 03:29, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • *nods eagerly*Thanos6 03:30, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, I have created the template Template: More sources, aka {{more sources}}. Objections to the name? The category it creates? The text? The text currently in Template: Sources, which is almost exactly the same? (I think the current {{sources}} template was meant to be for incomplete sources as well, but it's lately been reserved for completely sourceless articles.) — Silly Dan 03:48, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, I don't think we need that big a template. Maybe just: "The list of sources for this article is incomplete. You can help Wookieepedia by expanding it." and put at in the end of the Sources (or Appearances if Sources is absent) section? - Sikon [Talk] 12:59, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
        • Good point. The {{sources}} template should leave a big footprint, as it's often applied to articles which may be completely made up, while {{more sources}} should be as unobtrusive as a {{stub}} template recognizing an article as reasonable, but incomplete. — Silly Dan 13:07, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
          • I've been somewhat hesitant to put a {{sources}} tag on articles that have some sources, but a stubby type sources box would be great for articles that are partly but insufficiently sourced. —Darth Culator (talk) 13:22, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Things to doEdit

  • I just created a new page for those seeking something to do to improve Wookieepedia here. I hope people find it useful. One thing it needs is someone who knows how to link to categories, rather than put an article in a category; three links I tried to include merely categorized the article. If someone could clear that up, I'd be greatly appreciative. :-) jSarek 09:12, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • You put a : in front of the link, like so: Category:Sourceless. Do the same thing to link to an image instead of inserting it on the page. —Darth Culator (talk) 13:22, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Archive this pageEdit

Can somebody archive this talk page? I'd do it, but I'm afraid I'd mess it up. —Darth Culator (talk) 13:22, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Number of members Edit

  • Apparently we have the exact same number of members as Memory Alpha: 9,638. Creepy. MarcK 00:13, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Not so creepy. You can go to the login page at Memory Alpha and use your Wookieepedia username. It's apparently a common Wikicities user database. You'll find the same number of users listed at dead-end wikis like the Power Rangers wiki. Though Memory Alpha does have more than twice as many admins, which is probably something we should work on. —Darth Culator (talk) 00:54, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • ...Oh. Well now I feel like an idiot. Right about the admins though. MarcK 11:29, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • You shouldn't feel like an idiot, I only figured it out by accident. —Darth Culator (talk) 17:18, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • They also have significantly less stubs and what seems like a organized plan for filling out content. We're a bit hodge podge at the moment. --SparqMan 17:51, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Here's the Memory Alpha stats page compared to the Wookieepedia stats page. At the end of October, we had 179 contributing Wookieepedians (first column) compared to their 348. They also have many more hits and visits per day than we do. Granted, they have been around alot longer, but it just reenforces to me that we need to get the word out.  :) WhiteBoy 00:50, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, and I've updated the Wookieepedia:Requests for adminship page. Please go vote and nominate some people. WhiteBoy 00:50, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • Can anyone vote, or is it for admins? — Silly Dan 01:23, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
        • Check out the discussion on the talk page. But I say it's for anyone. WhiteBoy 01:58, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Memory Alpha also has the support of some major fan sites. Perhaps we should develop a long range plan for SWW. I'd be willing to chair that. --SparqMan 02:22, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • I've actually had a few thoughts along that line, too, SparqMan. What are some things we could do to get ourselves more renown? It's good that some authors have taken note of us. How can we get more to know we're out here? I have a few authors' email addresses (they may be outdated now), and have exchanged a couple of emails with a few when I was actively keeping up my book site on my personal web site. And contacting authors may not be the best way to go about it, anyway. What else? WhiteBoy 17:55, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Really strange that Memory Alpha shares the user database with Wikicities, since Uncyclopedia doesn't. - Sikon [Talk] 18:06, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • After poking around the Central Wikicity a bit, it looks like they did that on purpose, per the announcement about their move to Wikicities. Uncyclopedia didn't. On an interesting side note (there's all kinds of facinating stuff on the Central Wikicity!), whatever happened to the Star Wars Fanon wiki? —Darth Culator (talk) 20:19, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Prononciation guides? Edit

Do we really need them on articles where the prononciation isn't all that difficult (Naboo, Wookiee, Leia Organa Solo, etc.)? Can't we save them for articles like Kashyyyk where the spelling or prononciation is particularly non-standard English? — Silly Dan 02:34, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • I was mostly putting them there for the uneducated Star Wars viewer (the casual viewer you might say). "Naboo" could theoretically be pronounced /'neɪbuː/, /'næbuː/, etc; I'll remove it from Wookiee since come to think of it even those who've only seen the films once seem to know how it's pronounced; and "Organa" could also be pronounced /ɔː'gænʌ/, though I would accept its removal if enough people think it should be removed. --MarcK [talk] 03:01, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • I couldn't read most of these anyway on either broswer of IE or Firefox. -- Riffsyphon1024 20:56, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • I can sort of read them on Firefox and Lynx. That is, I can see the symbols, but I can't make much sense of them (how is ɔ a long O sound?). Maybe we shouldn't use the IPA, which is designed for linguists, but some phonetic representation designed for non-specialists (like you'd find in a typical collegiate dictionary.) But then which one to use? — Silly Dan 04:26, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization Edit

Should there be capitalization for sub-headings in long articles? Currently, there isn't but I think it would look a lot better. For example:

The dark timesEdit

or

The Dark TimesEdit

What do you think? Hollis 23:53, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • FWIW, checking Wikipedia to see what they prefer isn't much help. Subheadings usually aren't capitalized, but it's not consistent, even within individual articles. (For your example, though, "The Dark Times" might be a proper noun that you'd capitalize anyway.) — Silly Dan 00:42, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia mostly uses non-capitalized headings, besides, since we agreed to use "Behind the scenes", I think we should be consistent. - Sikon [Talk] 05:07, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • I guess that's okay, I still think it looks terrible. Hollis 17:30, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • It is supposed to be lower-case unless it's a proper noun. This is the official policy of Wikipedia, which we follow and have since we started up. Actually implementing it is a little more difficult, though.  :) WhiteBoy 08:15, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)

New time formatEdit

Instead of BBY and ABY, shouldn't it be before the empire and after the empire?I think this is much more accurate because the battle of yavin is only a minor event,compared to the purge and reorganization of the republic.Think about it.Lt.sarge

  • The Battle of Endor, the final death of the Emperor in Dark Empire, the various liberations of Coruscant, etc, would all work as well. But BBY and ABY are being used by in-universe sources like the New Essential Chronology, and are the most popular ones for fan timelines. So I don't think we should change. — Silly Dan 00:42, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Imagine how confusing that would be for the actual residents of the GFFA. So many possible dating schemes to choose from: After Great ReSynchronization (AGR), Imperial Date (ID), After Battle of Yavin (ABY), After Battle of Endor (ABE), New Republic Date (NRD), Galactic Federation of Free Alliances Date (GFFAD), After Yuuzhan Vong War (AYVW), and the list goes on. The way I see it, the New Jedi Order will eventually become as powerful in the GFFA as the Vatican was a thousand years ago, and they'll invent a new dating system (call it something like Absolute Galactic Date (AGD)) that everyone will use for thousands of years just out of convenience. But right now everyone uses ABY so it's only logical to stick with it. —Darth Culator (talk) 03:03, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Lets not forget the Galactic Republic's first dating system of time from 25,000 BBY, and the second dating system of events after the Ruusan Reformation. -- SFH 05:11, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • On that note, I hereby announce the creation of the dating system marked by the first time the words "I have a bad feeling about this" were said. :P -- Riffsyphon1024 21:00, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • It just seems more accurate to me,We can change it to before and after the purge,BTP and ATP.That is even more accurate.We should focus on more accurate events, I vote yes on ATP format.The destruction of the death star 1 isn't that much of turning point in the galaxy.The purge is the Total and utter eradication of an intire religous civilization, Not including the escape of kenobi and yoda.(talk)
    • Maybe it'd make more sense, but we go by what's canon as opposed to what makes sense. And ABY/BBY seems to have become canonical now. — Silly Dan 04:29, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • It will be BBY/ABY for the forseeable future. The only real contender is BGR/GR, and that's not really well known. All these other suggestions are fanon-a-licious. QuentinGeorge 05:04, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • In addition to the canon support for the BBY/ABY method, the Battle of Yavin was hardly insignificant. It was a major turning point in the Galactic Civil War and provided the Rebel Alliance with the momentum and support it needed to eventually achieve victory at Endor. --SparqMan 06:07, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)


I'd like to suggest that on the year pages, a section be set up with the publications set in that year. I just looked at 12 and 13 ABY and both have the deaths of Durga and Crix. I think having a section for the sources each year could be a good way of preventing this. Eyrezer 21:35, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Belia Darzu page Edit

Although the fanon picture of Belia Darzu appears to have been deleted, the image still shows up on her page. Is this some sort of glitch? Kuralyov 01:47, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • Seems fixed, but I have noticed that deleted images sometimes take awhile to vanish. --SparqMan 06:08, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Battlefront II stuff Edit

Can we get a solution on the Battlefront II inspired articles? Most of them could be solved with a few redirects, but I don't want to anger any particularly vigorous fans of the games who want to argue that they deserve their own articles. --SparqMan 06:10, 21 Nov 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.