Advertising for other wikisEdit

What is the problem with advertising for editors on other wikicities? Why was Padme 829's add of the advert reverted? --Darth Mantus 12:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't think a quick notice here is bad, but a separate page is unneccesary. — Silly Dan 12:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's polite to try to draw people's attention away from a wiki that has an admin shortage itself. —Darth Culator (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I deleted it, because an attempt to draw our editors away from this wiki does not warrant its own page. --Imp 14:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Why is it drawing editors away, I try and edit now and again on both Wookiepedia and the Lord of the Rings Wiki, so I don't see the problem--Darth Mantus 19:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • If people want to edit your wiki they will. You don't need to advertise.--DannyBoy7783 06:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Disabling Google ads Edit

Open Preferences and select the Uncyclopedia skin. It's identical to Monobook, except it doesn't show the Google ads and the "From Wookieepedia, the Star Wars Wiki." text. - Sikon [Talk] 08:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks!--DannyBoy7783 18:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • This was actually a bug. The Uncyclopedia skin should have been available only on that wiki. Sorry, but this is reverting to monobook now. Angela (talk)

Should we lock featured articles? Edit

This was brought up briefly in the most recent Jabber meeting, and I thought it was worth expanding on; should we lock featured articles while they're on the main page, what with them being some of the most frequently vandalized articles? I don't think it would hinder edits a great deal (partly because they're featured in the first place, so they shouldn't need a whole lot), and if something does need to be added they can bring it up on the talk page and let an admin handle it. I've made a tentative template to go along with the idea if it goes through. With a lot of crap, --MarcK [talk] 08:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  • No. There's always potential for further improvement. Pages should be protected only to prevent edit wars. - Sikon [Talk] 08:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Locking the featured article would be overkill. But we should insta-perma-ban everyone who vandalizes it, with no warning and no appeal. —Darth Culator (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Spam Protection Filter? Edit

I just tried editing the Kinman Doriana page, and the wiki wouldn't let me save my changes because the link to a HoloNet News website triggered a 'spam protection filter." Is there any way for the admins to turn this off? Kuralyov 19:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be turned off. If there is spam in a page, it needs to be removed. The Wikicities:Spam cleanup script will revert any pages with spam left in them. However, HoloNet News isn't in the blacklist so shouldn't have triggered this anyway. I can't repeat the problem but please let me know if it happens again. Angela (talk) 07:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Formatting problem in MozillaEdit

  • Does Wookieepedia look screwed up to anyone using Mozilla besides me? The formatting is all weird and the tabs and stuff normally displayed at the top of the screen and along the left side are way down at the bottom. jSarek 01:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • . . . and now it's cleared up. Probably some kind of caching error on my end; disregard, unless I gripe about it again. ;-) jSarek 03:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Star DestroyerEdit

The official names are not present on the wikipedia site. Unsigned comment by Shockwave (talk • contribs).

  • Yes they are. The databank names aren't always what we keep our articles at - please see Super Battle Droid, Thrawn, Turbo Tank and many others. Wookieepedia is a place for consensus, not new users running amok. QuentinGeorge 08:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Vanity images Edit

As of late there has been a rapid expansion of "vanity" images uploaded for use on user pages. I find this use of Wookieepedia's database inappropriate. We're not stressed for space, but this is not the place for them. Vanity images should be hosted offsite. Thoughts? I don't expect support for this from users of them. --SparqMan 02:21, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, no...Can we at least have one, though, if it's small? (And what do I mean by small?) Wikipedia's policy seems to allow a few images on userpages, and several Memory Alpha user pages have pictures as well. — Silly Dan 02:34, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • I think 1 or 2 images per user is okay... as long as it doesn't seem to be exploitative of Wookieepedia's space. Perhaps user images over 100K in size should be removed or resized. --Azizlight 02:41, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • A good suggestion. Perhaps we can tag images that are uploaded for vanity purposes to make it easier to keep track of them. --SparqMan 03:09, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • C'mon man. We've been here forever, and its about time I spruced mine up. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:42, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you suggesting special priviledges for seniority? --SparqMan 03:09, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • If it makes you any happier, I deleted one I didn't need, and resized another. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:18, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • I wanted to put one up also, and had for a time, but removed it when requested. I personally do not think it will hurt if we put up personal images, and if it makes people happier, so much the better. --Xwing328 03:28, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeh what's wrong with sprucing up Userpages? Its not causing any trouble!--Darth Mantus 20:16, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Nothing is wrong with sprucing them up, but our database space should be used for uploading images that will improve articles. If you want to include an image that is already uploaded to decorate your user page, go for it, but uploading images for the express use on your user page is pure vanity. --SparqMan 07:56, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Vanity or not, user pictures are nice and should be uploaded freely. --Master Starkeiller 11:37, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Any examples we can look at for what you consider abuse? I agree that we need to use our space judiciously, especially considering that this site is hosted on someone else's servers for no charge. WhiteBoy 00:11, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Here are a few: File:Steve-vader1.JPG, File:Wookieestress1.JPG, File:Motti2.JPG, File:StarkeillerEmp.jpg, File:Palpy Rich And Famous.JPG, File:Palpy Slurrp.jpg, File:Palpy Face.jpg, File:Vader V.jpg, File:Autograph.jpg, File:Lumpy-HS.jpg, File:Lumpy2 1024x768.jpg, File:Han 125x110 animated.gif. Those are from a few users who were at the top of the recent changes page. --SparqMan 00:57, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • Even if every user uploaded let's say ten pictures for his own use, the number would be insignificant compared to the number of pictures uploaded for articles. You will see that we are using our space judiciously if you compare the number of "useful" images to the number of "vanity" images. They're just too few to "pose a threat". --Master Starkeiller 11:50, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Allow me to expand this. What else will we allow? Hundreds of temp pages for us as a personal blog? Pages for fan fiction? The point is that our space here should be used for the encyclopedic enhancement of Wookieepedia, not for the decoration of user pages. --SparqMan 19:33, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • Allow me to expand. Now I don't mean to be rude, but a line must be drawn. Can you seriously continue to think that a few user images will spoil the point of this wiki? Wikipedia already had this discussion and the users won, simply because no matter what you do, people will always want to be creative. I agree that Animated GIFs have no place here, but static images have no threat. It's called personality, you do have some yourself don't you? I think I have a right considering I was the second user here, and this infringes upon my personal space. Special priviledges for seniority? You bet. Now I remember users with about 4 dozen images on them, they were banished for it, clearly for a violation of space-wasting even in their personal space, but just a few images for us? Of the personal images I have spread throughout the wiki, it is roughly a total of 10, 15 if you want to count other creations made for the wiki's purpose to help the users, but they are not causing a problem. I'm not being vain. Hell I don't even like myself that much, but someone thinks I'm important. Go ahead and delete my own article if you think I'm not worthy enough to have one, if its just wasting space, and everyone elses at that. You don't want an awards system because it will waste space? Or any userboxes that take up template space? Suppose we should eliminate all the galleries? What's the point then? Hey, if you don't like subpages, I'll delete those as best I can, yet I say we are not running out of space here. Aren't we going to reach 50,000 articles to compete with CUSWE? Don't we have the capabilities of holding that much, or did someone not prepare for this? I urge you, do not mess with the Wookieestress. You'll want to know what mood I'm in sometimes. -- Riffsyphon1024 20:21, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Riffs, a discussion about what special privileges you deserve as a venerable member should be held elsewhere, but bringing it up supports the need for discussion. A new user shows up and uploads a bunch of goofy images for his user page, so an admin deletes them. At what point is that user allowed to upload vanity images? How many? I'm not suggesting that we set a solid number, just looking to gauge the community feel on the matter. Please don't resort to insulting my personality or comparing us to Wikipedia—neither are valid arguments. So far the most reasonable thing seems to be limiting the file size and tagging them as vanity images. That way if we are crunched for space, or decide to clear them out later, we can do so easily. --SparqMan 21:46, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Can't we just make a rule limiting the size (as in height/length) "vanity images" are displayed on user pages? They take up considerably less space when resized a little... --Imp 20:32, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Do you mean resizing the actual image or just controlling its rendering with MediaWiki?
    • Well said, Riffsyphon, and I agree with Sparqman. Allowing user images with a size limit sounds good. It might be tough to enforce though. --Xwing328 21:54, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • *sigh* Alright, we'll have our discussion tonight. I can resize them no problem, but I just didn't want to make sacrifices by completely removing them. -- Riffsyphon1024 14:22, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • I mean resizing the actual image. And Xwing, how ever could you mix me with Sparq? :P --Imp 14:33, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • I know you may have already begun resizing Riff but I wouldn't listen to people who don't want to allow other people's creativeness on this website. I mean, look Sparq, Xwing just because you choose to have very formal, informative user pages doesn't mean that everyone has to follow that example.--Darth Mantus 10:13, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • User pages like this one should definitely not be allowed - a new member signs on, and immediately adds a dozen completely unrelated pics to his profile. Kuralyov 23:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, he shouldn't be penalized just because he's new, but the number of pictures, and the fact that they are neither related to Star Wars nor a sort of "user avatar" (which I would suggest the single images on User:Silly Dan or User:Darth Mantus are) is cause for concern. Was a policy on this set at the last admins meeting? — Silly Dan 02:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Anyway, I created Template:User-image and Category:User images. I'd encourage other users to tag their vanity images accordingly. — Silly Dan 03:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I think if anyone is going to be prevented from posting vanity images it would be new users. In fact, if I were going to set a policy I'd say you can't upload any vanity images until 30 days after your first non-minor edit in the main namespace. —Darth Culator (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think this was brought up in our last meeting, and I agree that new users should not do such things, and regulars can be allowed SW-related images after some time here. Hence "seniority status". I also like the idea of categorizing by template those images. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Why don't we just wipe all the user images when the wikicities hard drive gets full? Problem solved. Though I tend to agree that nonsense images like those linked above (I think most belong to Starkeiller) don't belong here. It is a waste of space but it doesn't harm anything yet so it isn't a problem.--DannyBoy7783 06:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The images on Starkeiller's page are just as wasteful and nonsensical as those on Riffsyphon1024's page, or anyone else's. Why should a user gain the right to waste space after being here for thirty days? This sort of wishy washy method doesn't help anyone. Either we decide that they are acceptable or that they are not. --SparqMan 06:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't see it as wishy-washy at all. It seems pretty simple and consistent to me. You contribute, you get to upload vanity images. You come here just to make a personal page, you don't get to upload vanity images. You upload vanity images without contributing, you get banned. —Darth Culator (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
          • While I still think vanity images are dumb I agree with Culator. It doesn't hurt to have a reward for those who bust their hump around here--DannyBoy7783 18:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
            • I disagree. User awards, a good reputation in this corner of the fandom, and promotion to admin status (if desired) is all the reward longtime contributors should get. The user images policy should be the same for everyone. — Silly Dan 22:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
              • Allowing just anyone to post vanity images would be inviting abuse. No, that's not strong enough. That would be like begging for idiots to use us as their personal webserver. I don't think vanity images sbould be banned, but I think people need to do something to deserve them. My idea isn't the only one that would work, but I think it would effectively weed out the spammers. —Darth Culator (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
                • Perhaps a reward for users isn't the best way to look at it but rather a way to prevent what Culator just described. I don't think people who edit here regularly would really want to use their pages for nonsense as much as the random visitor would.
                  • What if everyone, regardless of the time spent here, was allowed 2 images for their user page, with neither being above xx kB in size? — Silly Dan 00:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
                    • Don't worry about the storage space. A few images by members of the community is not a problem. Having non-Wookieepedians coming in and trying to turn the wiki into an image dump would be a problem, but that doesn't seem to be what's happening. Unlike most wiki hosts, there is no limit on size or storage space at Wikicities. Angela (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for clearing that up Angela. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

For Wikipedia Edit

If you encounter an article on Wikipedia that uses content from Wookieepedia, please do the following:

  1. Search through the edit history to find the first edit that used Wookieepedia content. Copy the edit id (found at the end of the edit url after "oldid=").
  2. On the talk page, place the {{Wookieepedia}} template at the top of the page. The first field should be the name of the article on Wookieepedia (note that many Star Wars related articles on Wikipedia use the common name, not the accurate canon name). Be sure to use an underscore where a space occurs ("Death_Star", not "Death Star"). The second field should be the edit id that you copied earlier.
  3. Voila.

So if the edit id was 340706 and the article title here was "Clone Wars", you would place this: {{wookieepedia|Clone Wars|340706}}.

I created this template after noticing a number of Star Wars articles using Wookieepedia text without giving credit as is required by the GFDL. See it in use at Wikipedia:Talk:Crix Madine. If you have any questions, just drop me a note. --SparqMan 09:37, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • I see now. Good idea, though I wonder if Wikipedia will actually want to keep it. You might want to change that link to Wikipedia:Talk: Crix Madine though, since it took me a minute to find it. -- Riffsyphon1024 10:54, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Fan ArtEdit

Almost put this in Consensus Track, but I figured it'd be better suited to a general discussion for now.

Maybe there was already a big debate about this and I missed it, but I don't think the rules against fan art need to be so strict. Obviously we don't want the site to be filled with garbage, but if a decent fan-made picture fills a void that official pictures can't, I don't think it's that big of an problem. I imagine the issue is that if a fan did it, it's not a canonical representation, but some things are pretty straightforward. I've already seen one fan alteration (I changed Rokur Gepta's robes from red to grey to fix a mistake in his NEGtC image) that no one had a problem with, so it's not completely unprecedented. Another one I did was the original image for the Errant Venture. I took a photo of an ISD and made it red; and it served the purposes of the article just fine until an official image was found. If we know for a fact that something looks like the image in question, why does it matter who put pen to paper (or pixel to screen)?

Aside from the fan alteration issue, there are a lot of characters (and ships, events, and so on) that have official images, but they aren't clear, or colored, or whatever (I'm thinking particularly of many old RPG and EG images here). Given an official version to work from, would it really be so bad to replace a small, crappy image with a big, nice-looking one, done by a fan of sufficient skill? CooperTFN 02:39, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree with this: a little fan art wouldn't hurt where there would otherwise be a really crappy image, or no image at all. But we should come up with some sort of symbol that we should put on all fan art images, to make it obvious that it is an unnofficial image. Which might mean that all fan art submitted would need to be resubmitted by someone else with the symbol applied. I would be willing to assist in this process. --Azizlight 02:54, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • I was thinking the same thing. Maybe there could be some kind of thumbnail template or something, rather than having to alter each image. CooperTFN 03:43, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. Fan Art wouldn't be too bad for articles that only have black and white or blurred images. The only thing is, there has to be a rule put into the upload page that informs users this who think "Oh I want to recreate my favorite EU scene for the wiki" that we can't have a picture for every EU moment. It should be strictly for replacing images that are black and white, blurry, or for characters that have no image. DarthMaul431 03:15, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think we should rule events, or anything, out entirely. It should all be handled on a case-by-case basis; a lot of major EU battles, for example, don't have pictures, and if something was really of top-notch quality, it should at least get a hearing. CooperTFN 03:43, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Fan art is visual fanon. So no. --Imp 03:44, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • My concern, and what I think Imp's as well, is that it would create a dangerous precedent. Would we have some way of controlling it, other than admin fiat? Remember, once the floodgates are opened, it's hard to close them again. QuentinGeorge 04:17, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • In my mind, it would only even be an option for work that was at least as good as the official stuff. While allowing fan art in theory could lead to the occasional use of something like this, it would be taken down immediately. Hardly a huge problem. CooperTFN 04:38, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't have a problem with altered official images, like the ones I've been upping, but original fanart just strikes me as unnecessary, even if it is close to what the description is. It creates too much confusion.
EDIT: Thing is, Coop, even if it looks as good or better than the official stuff, it's still not official. I think official-only that's what the wiki's aiming for.-- 000 04:39, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm... it might cause more problems that it's worth though. I might just sit on the fence for this one. --Azizlight 05:10, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • I sometimes think that even what I do, cutting out scan backgrounds and re-rendering game files, is pushing the limits of what's acceptable here. I can already foresee terrible consequences if we allow original art to be posted. —Darth Culator (talk) 06:35, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • I was just reading the Wikipedia:Battle of Thermopylae over at Wikipedia and was wondering if the picture of Leonidas and the battle that was rendered on the picture is canon or fanon? --Razzy1319 06:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Um, since there's no licensing authority governing the history of the Earth, but there IS a licensing authority governing the history of A Galaxy Far Far Away, the situations are a little different. —Darth Culator (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I know the conversation is a little dead now but I wanted to comment. There is a big difference between "from scratch" artwork and cleaning up images. Sometimes scans look bad or what have you. I think that is totally fine. I think that letting fan art in here, while noble, will end up as a flood of poorly drawn/painted/etc images. The only way to do it would be to have a special Fan Art Council (as well as any users who want to comment) who's job is to approve or deny fan art . Make a special page set up for it and do it on case-by-case basis and have strict quality regulations and rules regarding when it is acceptable. It's not the most fair thing in the world but it's the only way to prevent some crappy drawing on a napkin with a crayon.--DannyBoy7783 00:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Online meetings Edit

Dunno about y'all, but I think our first meeting went well.  :) (You can see a transcript if you missed it.) I still had several topics that we didn't get to, and I'm sure others had some too. So I vote we do this again. How about trying a different time? I don't know for sure, but I figure some people may actually have a social life on Saturday nights. :p So how about our next meeting be Monday, January 16, 2006 @ 8PM EST? WhiteBoy 03:36, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Us have a social life? Are you kidding? ;) -- Riffsyphon1024 04:22, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • I could do a Monday. Also, since you're using my logo now (yay!) I just wanna check and make sure you uploaded it to this server? I can't tell from right-click (grr) and while I figure you did, just need to make sure in case my server guy decides to kill me in the middle of the night. Dark Spork 04:29, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, I think you uploaded/linked the wrong one - this exact variation was the first with the logofont, while the second is the one with all the votes. ;) And do you need a png? I can make a fresh one from the original PSD. Dark Spork 04:45, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, I copied it to this server, not linking to your server. And yes, if you can give me a PNG from the original, that'd be great. Thanks again! WhiteBoy 04:48, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
        • Awesome. I'll get the PNG to you tomorrow. And I love seeing it up there, so thank you! :D Dark Spork 04:52, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Apologies to all, I meant to be there, but family emergency came up. I'll be at the next one, by Kadann's beard and K'Krukh's hat! - QuentinGeorge 08:55, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • And by Katarn's Frickin' Sweet Shoulder Pad of Holding! ;-) jSarek 11:31, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry I couldn't make it; prior out-of-town plans took precedence (that social life thing you were just talking about ;-) ). But I should be able to do 16JAN06, 8pm EST / 5pm PST, so long as the meeting doesn't go over about two hours or so. jSarek 11:31, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • I may or may not be able to make the meeting on depends on if I am working that day, and if I am, if I will be off by 9 PM AST. So if I am working, don't be surprised if I show up a little late. StarNeptune 11:48, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • I will have new classes that next morning, so I'll have to be quick about it. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:03, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • We missed those who couldn't make it...hope you can make this one! I plan to keep these to two hours or less, so hopefully that will work. In case you're wondering, the info on how to join the chats is in the first post. WhiteBoy 06:07, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Reminder: meeting starts in 40 minutes. --MarcK [talk] 00:22, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Bugger. Missed it again - happened while I was at work. Ah well... QuentinGeorge 05:08, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • File:Wookieepedia-meeting-20060116.pdf's the transcript; it likely won't be held on a Monday again, so don't worry. Also, I'd watch out for beards and hats for a while if I were you. --MarcK [talk] 05:14, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • See Wookieepedia:Meetings from now on. --Azizlight 05:43, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Sources and Appearances tablesEdit

Just playing around with perhaps a new way to display appearances and sources in a more informative and neater way, check out a sample at User:Azizlight/Sandpit and share your opinion here. Note that it's all hard-coded for now, but when we create the appropriate templates it will be simple to use. --Azizlight 13:10, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Hey that looks good, but won't 'Sources' and 'Appearances' suffice in stead of 'Name of X'? KEJ 13:27, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, i'll change it now. Thanks. --Azizlight 13:30, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Aw man, it seems like we just settled on an easy way to list sources and appearances, and now you've got a better looking but more complicated system? We're never going to get Joe Anon to use tables... — Silly Dan 13:37, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • I like it. It is certainly more organized! And the anons? Eh, they'll learn if they're realy interested in the wiki. Adamwankenobi 13:43, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • If they're really interested, they'll register. KEJ 13:45, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Joe Anon Shmanon :-) Wookieepedians like me exist to fix the little things like that :-D --Azizlight 13:49, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • Because, of course, making it more difficult to write a properly-formatted article is exactly what will attract new users? Look, I'm all for simple ways to make the articles here look nicer or more informative, but your average new user, anonymous or not, doesn't know templates or tables, and might get turned off by having to learn immediately (and the sources/appearances sections are important enough that you have to learn how they work quickly.) — Silly Dan 14:55, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there any way of inserting the first-mention tag whithout making it look messy? KEJ 14:25, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, by putting it in the "Notability" column i think. --Azizlight 14:34, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • Very nice. Complicated, yes, but very practical and nice-looking. --Master Starkeiller 14:42, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • It's pretty but the neatness would be shattered by characters with more complex appearances that cannot be explained in a dozen words or less. Also, I'm not sure that this is any more functional than just deciding to add footnotes, parenthetical or source-attached citations, and certainly more complex to use. --SparqMan 18:56, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • I for once have to reject this form of box. It's too large and complicated. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:21, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • My opinion hasn't changed since December 30 - "It might be nice, but I think it's a *lot* of extra work. It's hard enough to get users to cite their sources as it is, let alone template them out and explain their notability." jSarek 21:24, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok, looks like consensus says no, sorry for wasting your time :-) Thanks for all the feedback. --Azizlight 22:45, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • It wasn't a waste of time. It seems like a good idea...just too complicated for the general masses at this time. --Xwing328 22:52, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • I liked it KEJ 23:20, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Def. not a waste of time, Aziz. Perhaps it will still be of use to us. For example, Wikipedia still has no good way of handling internal references. Their footnote templates have vastly improved, but perhaps we can start storing internal references on page in a table like that posted on either the talk page or a subpage of the article. Just a thought. --SparqMan 03:33, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • That's a better place to put them. I'd support it then if it was on talk or subpage. -- Riffsyphon1024 18:54, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Dramatis Personae Edit

Should a list of all characters be featured in book, comic, videogame, etc. articles? This may be informative for some people. I know some articles already have this but should we try to do this with all of them? DarthMaul431 23:11, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • I was thinking about that before, and I think it would be a great idea. It would also be nice to have a list of things referenced to in the book, but that might be a bit too much. --Xwing328 00:34, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • I like it. We should start with books that have them already, since it would be a lot simpler, and if it works out, we could move on to the older books. CooperTFN 00:39, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • I think we should stick with the format used in the recent EU books:
Rank Name; job (gender Species) - Admiral Traest Kre'fey; military officer (male Bothan)

This way we can keep everything consistent. --Xwing328 04:17, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree when it comes to the modern books and any we do from scratch, but I think the old X-Wing series DPs should be done as they appear, to preserve their unique personality. CooperTFN 05:35, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • If they appear that way, definately. I just thought you were doing it on your own. Sry. --Xwing328 23:17, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • S'okay. And yes, the old ones are quite...expansive. =) CooperTFN 04:48, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
        • Should we extend this program to Young Readers novels like Jedi Apprentice, Junior Jedi Knights, Young Jedi Knights, Galaxy of Fear, Jedi Prince and Last of the Jedi? Despite being for younger readers and "apparently" less important than adult novels, they deserve to have list of characters on their articles. MyNz 6:18, 21 Jan 2006 (UTC)
          • Second that, MyNz. If the Dramatis Personae is given at the beginning of the book but there are some persons missing, do we stick to the "original" or do we add all the people that appear in the book? For example, Jacen Solo makes a brief appearance at the end of The Final Prophecy, but he isn't listed in the book's DP. Same thing with Tahiri Veila in The Unifying Force. I'm sure there are a lot more similar cases. --Tinwe 17:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
          • I third it, if there's such a thing as thirding. --Xwing328 21:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Out of Universe Manual of Style Edit

I noticed there's no standard for out of universe works in the Manual of Style; as it is, every work pretty much has whatever layout its editors chose. I took a crack at drawing up one here: User: Lord Hydronium/Manual of Style for Published Works. I'd like to get some feedback on this. - Lord Hydronium 20:29, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)


Has anyone had trouble logging on to the site in the last 24 hours? I'm talking about the traditional problems, like pressing the save button while editing but getting a preview. I wouldn't have brought it up but for the fact that my connection is fine, and i have no trouble linking to other sites, including Wikipedia. But mainly, I noticed a three and a half hour gap in Recent changes between 17:01 and 20:36 on the 9th. Anyone else have problems? -- SFH 02:57, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • It's been up and down all day for me, yes. — Silly Dan 04:07, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Same here --Xwing328 04:36, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Aye. jSarek 09:20, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

.Yup, and sometimes the pages take forever to load KEJ 09:22, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

New multilingual template system Edit

Explained here: Wookieepedia:Template messages/User namespace/. All credit goes to Uncyclopedia. - Sikon [Talk] 16:53, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Concerns about Language Edit

I think that we need a standard for what type of language can be used. I have been noticing that several users have been using inappropriate words or phrases like bullshit, fuck, shit or I'll kill you on talk pages.

I don't think we should be using such words even when having disputes with each other or on the talk pages of vandals including those who believe the fraudalent SuperShadow or other fanon sources. Should we have a standard on the type of language that can be used? MyNz 1:40, 14 Jan 2005

  • Can you give examples of people violently threatening other users? I've seen a lot of rudeness, but no death threats (though a lot of the stuff on Talk:SuperShadow is close to the line...people should calm down, and either pity him or ignore him.) As for crude language, the only examples I've seen which wouldn't be covered by existing "no personal attacks" and "no vandalism" policies are the use of the word "motherfucker" on some versions of the Samuel L. Jackson and Mace Windu articles, and the Nathan Butler quote on the Supershadow article. I'd actually defend those as legitimate quotations, unless it caused NetNanny-type programs to block either those articles or the entire wiki. — Silly Dan 02:25, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to cause trouble though here are some examples. I am just concerned about the amount of rudeness and anger displayed by users towards others in conflicts particularly edit wars. The names of the users are above what they said.

I swear, the next time a SuperIdiot follower thinks that SuperIdiot is correct, I'm going to kill someone. [1]

Yoda's species in NOT a whill and they are NOT from Grentarik. This is SuperShadow bullshit. [2]

MyNz 2:44, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • In place of "bullshit" would you prefer perhaps "shenanigans" or "poppycock"? --MarcK [talk] 02:51, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • "This is bull****!" That's what I do. And I don't see what's wrong with it. --AdmThrawn 02:54, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • I like "fanon", "stupidity", or "madeuppery" myself. But it should be noted that Aziz's comment was not a personal attack, exactly, more of an attack of someone else's ideas. Jack's comment wasn't a threat against anyone specific, more a hyperbolic comment not to be taken seriously. — Silly Dan 02:59, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree with Silly Dan. There are better words that can be used that are totally non-offensive, and we should use them. WhiteBoy 03:57, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, I'm not trying to censor people here, but it should be noted that swearing at other users often falls under "personal attacks", and swearing at SuperShadow falls under "just not worth the stress." 8) — Silly Dan 04:16, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. We shouldn't be too harsh on new users who don't know what is canon or fanon. Though we should give them a chance for example:

  • Dear User, please stop vandalising or we'll be forced to ban you
  • Dear User, the information you added is not considered canonical. Please follow the following guidelines so that you'll find editing this Wiki fun.

I hope I have not angered anyone. My apologies to Jack Nebulax and Azizlight. I did this since we can't risk loosing new users by angering them with such words or phrases. MyNz 04:18, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Well we won't censor those quotes. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:20, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Kinda late to point this out, but this falls under the Code of Conduct we're trying to establish. WhiteBoy 03:35, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there a word filter on here at all? It's been a while since I saw the adminly side of things. On my forums we censor "shit" to "sith" and the best ever: "fuck" to "ewok". It's always amusing to see a cute little furry ewok mentioned in the middle of someone's rant. ;) --beeurd 04:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I think it is best not to censor someone if they are using the language in their usual talk, and are not using it against someone. As long as it isn't used in a hateful way, I don't see any problem. Adamwankenobi 04:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree with Adamwankenobi, but if you were to censor it, why not use a SWG swear word like stang or something, using Sith or Ewok could get confusing. Especially when refering to a darksider ewok. -- Doo Doo 08:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As long as those words don't make it into the articles, I don't care if people use them or not on ther personal pages or in the discussion sections. Personally, I think it's much funnier to use expressions from the Star Wars universe like 'huttdrool' instead of 'bullshit' - I'd adds an extra dimension of nerdiness too, ForcedammitKEJ 09:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes Edit

I don't know if this is the right place to put things like this, but I'd like it to be seen. A general message: when you make an infobox, particularly for a character, please, don't make the name black text on blue. It is practically impossible to read. If you're copying the template from another article, just change fgcolor from #000 to #fff.

There also seem to be a great number of good guys with black on red. While this is still readable, on a more aesthetic level it just doesn't work for heroes.

Sorry, but this bugs me every time I see it. - Lord Hydronium 09:37, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Character infobox affiliations Edit

Only governments and religious (Jed/Sith mostly) organizations are listed there, right? Jack Nebulax keeps reverting Nial Declann's infobox to give his allegiance to the Republic Navy and Imperial Starfleet, when Galactic Republic and Galactic Empire are already there. Kuralyov 16:44, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree that some of these affiliations are getting excessive. I vote we restrict it to Old Republic, New Republic, Galactic Empire, etc. There are categories for Imperial Starfleet, Republic Navy, etc, and I feel that listing them in the affiliation box is redundant.
  • We should probably standardize that. I'd be inclined to make it more general, as in "Galactic Republic" rather than "Judicial Forces" or "Galactic Empire" rather than "Imperial Customs Office" or other specialized listings. —Darth Culator (talk) 20:41, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • We haven't done anything with this, but maybe you can ask this at tonight's Jabber conference. I would say we go with the most basic grouping and let the article expand on their direct affiliation. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:26, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • When is the Jabber conference and how do I attend? Kuralyov 00:53, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Frappr! Edit

It has come to my attention that there's a Wookieepedia page on Frappr!, which is basically an interactive map. So go ahead and add your name, so we can fill it up! --MarcK [talk] 04:00, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)


Wookieepedia has been upgraded to MediaWiki 1.5, which means that we can now use redirect templates. To do this, put the template on the same line, for example:

#redirect [[Palpatine]] {{R from alternate name}}

Sikon [Talk] 17:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Is that why I can't view my watchlist past today?--DannyBoy7783 22:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Probably. It's also probably why, though all article pages you're watching are still on the list, the associated talk pages have dropped off. At least, that's what I'm finding. I'm readding them by hand. Solo. 8) — Silly Dan 22:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I noticed that too. Weird.--DannyBoy7783 23:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

What's with the deletion of images without consensus?Edit

title ---Razzy1319 18:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Uhh... care to elaborate? --Imp 18:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think youve been overzealous with the deletion of the pictures. they werent even duplicates --Razzy1319 18:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "You" as in me, or as in the administrators? If you're referring to the images you uploaded that I replaced with better versions, there was no need for discussion. --Imp 22:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • some of the earlier ones though didnt have duplicates, or worse ones to delete and right now quentin george just deleted the best and most accurate jerec picture wookiee has. --Razzy1319 22:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Because you deleted a far better looking picture? If you *want* to add an image to an article, upload a new one. Don't overwrite someone else's. QuentinGeorge 05:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I didnt overwrite anything ... I even re uploaded the jerec and yun picture so that the live action picture of jerec could stay which was just reverted. --Razzy1319 06:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Exactly my point. You reverted the original image. There already *was* a liveaction image of Jerec in the article. QuentinGeorge 06:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
        • It was uploaded and overwritten by someone else. when you reverted it to the comic image, i simply reverted it back and made a separate copy of yours so that both the images could still be used. it was a better image than the other "liveaction" picture. (doesnt look that live to me). Now we dont have either and the article suffers from it. Anyway, whats with the deletion of nonduplicated images without consensus ---Razzy1319 06:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
        • The point is the article already had a live-action pic. It didn't need another one. If you think the other is superior, then upload it under a separate name and replace it. DON'T revert other images. QuentinGeorge 06:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
        • As for your second point, images should only be uploaded to improve articles. Mass-uploading of images that remained unused is a waste of space, and they will be deleted by admins. Consensus is not required. QuentinGeorge 06:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
          • It did need a better one, its our responsibility to do so and the picture you just deleted was the better of the two. why didnt you just delete the reverted jerecandyun picture when there was already a separate one? is it because your name would disappear from there? I hope not. This is what happens when you go in kill without asking questions first. Was I really just a vandal who didnt want your crappy picture? nope. Overkill dude. ---Razzy1319 06:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
            • Thanks for ignoring what I just wrote. No point discussing this any further. QuentinGeorge 06:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
              • No, I didnt. delete the other liveaction pic then or delete your comic image. you should have atleast discussed what I was planning before you deleted the better picture because you wanted your image in there and not anybody elses. --Razzy1319 06:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
                • Personal attacks have no place here, Razzy. Notice that QuentinGeorge said "no point in discussing this any further." He already said what he has to say, and you repeating your accusations does nothing. I believe this discussion is over. – Aidje talk 17:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
                  • I'm gonna call this topic up again now against Imp, he just delete a better picture that his smudgy-blurred picture replaced. Mods are really flexing their muscle a little to negatively around here. I know I'm not a big contributor here and that my presence is not needed by I think its becoming less of a community of wookiepedians and more of the mods encyclopedia. Goodbye. pls ban this account --Razzy1319 22:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
                    • Better is just a point of view. I am fairly certain an image that shows a better closeup of Samuel's face and doesn't have speech bubbles all over is better. Anyway, I realise this probably was the 'tip of the iceberg'—you've faced a lot of opposition the last few weeks. Sad to see you leave over such a triviality. --Imp 22:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
                      • Told you to ban this account. Anyways, if its a point of view what makes your POV better than mine. These are drawings, the close up view you so willingly call better is indistinguishable from another bald guy with a moustache, that part of the reason I include something with context. Ask someone before you delete something thats not a dupe or fanon, I thought that was the rules over here, or atleast basic courtesy. The admin over here is becoming ruder and ruder. Just because your upset doesnt give you the right to be rude. --Razzy1319 05:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

New Pages Edit

We cant create new pages anymore? --Razzy1319 22:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • We can if we follow an existing redlink. It's a bug which needs fixing, but I guess for now you can edit another pages (such as the sandbox or an article on a related subject which should link to the new article you plan to make), make a new redlink, and then start the page from there. — Silly Dan 00:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • According to the Wikicities MediaWiki 1.5 page, this can be fixed by someone who can edit this page and others in the MediaWiki namespace. —Darth Culator (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Concerns Edit

I am concerned that less attention is being diverted towards the Junior Jedi Knights and the Young Jedi Knights. Though I don't admire those series, I'm apalled that I'm the only one adding information on those novels and the actions of the characters in them.

Well, I know that many of us don't really fancy them though we should put more effort into improving topics related to them such as planets, species, organizations and characters. Currently, the Second Imperium, Shadow Academy and Diversity Alliance articles need to be expanded. They are governments and organizations like the Confederacy of Independent Systems, the Galactic Republic and the Jedi Praxeum, and thus more information can be added to them. For example, the Tamith Kai and the Czethros are just stubs. Can someone please work on them. I can't do it alone.

I suggest that anyone who has either one of those JJK and YJK books or in possession of The Essential Chronology and the New Essential Chronology help in this. MyNz 4:33 20 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Hmm... Despite the fact that I have been involved in two ongoing fan-fiction stories about the YJKs, I actually haven't read either of those two series', so I can't really help. --beeurd 04:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Naming RulesEdit

Can we establish some kind of naming rule for characters with more than one name? Recently, there's a bit of a debate on the J'ywz'gnk Kchhlbrxcstk Et'nrmdndlcvtbrx page on whether to keep that name or use the more well-known Joh Yowza. Some articles use the character's birth name (Palpatine instead of Darth Sidious; Dooku instead of Darth Tyranus etc) while others use their most recent name (Mara Jade Skywalker rather than Mara Jade; Max Rebo rather than Siiruulian Phantele etc). Personally, I think we should use their original name, as long as we have a redirect for their other, likely more common names - Kwenn 15:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Since this summer the rule has been to use the most accurate name. For those who took stage names or wed, we use the name they called themselves in the chronologically latest IU source (Mara Jade Skywalker). We use Lumpawaroo over Lumpawarrump because he chose to change his name. We use Palpatine over Darth Sidious because that was a title he took, not his name. So yes, the ad hoc policy (if not full) has been to use the long name with common name redirecting. Some of these are stickier (as Thrawn to Mitth'raw'nuruodo was). --SparqMan 22:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Merging similar editionsEdit

  • Should we merge articles about two different editions of the same book? Currently, for instance, we have two articles for each of the Dark Forces novellas, one for the paperback and one for the hardcover (e.g. Dark Forces: Soldier for the Empire (HC) and Dark Forces: Soldier for the Empire (TPB)); another example would be the two editions of the Star Wars Sourcebook (First Edition and Second Edition). This seems a little undesirable to me; to my knowledge, these books are the same except for cosmetic differences (cover in the first case, cover and tweaks to roleplaying stats in the second), and either version would be a legitimate source for almost anything cited from them. Additionally, an uninformed user might not know which edition of a work he or she has, and thus putting both on a single page would help him make the determination. A better way of handling multiple similar editions might be the way A Guide to the Star Wars Universe was handled, though those books are different enough that splitting that article into seperate pages *might* be warranted. jSarek 03:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)