User talk:Lord Hydronium

Archives: 1 | 2

=Clean talk page, Mk. II=

Hello
Yes Im Just asking for the commander Gree page Please add his apperence in Star Wars: The Clone Wars: Jedi Alliance.Sith my ride&#39;s Return 01:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

IG-88A
Hey, I've completely written IG-88A's BTS. Let me know if it still needs tweaking.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 13:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Millennial's BtS
Hey, I reworked/expanded Millennial's BtS like you suggested. I left a note on his FAN but that's now been archived, so chances are you won't notice it. If you have any other concerns about or suggestions for the BtS, please let me know. :) -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 20:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Argyus
Hey, Hydro. Toprawa has told me that you told him there's a lot of information on Argyus that's currently not in the article. Where is it from, and would you happen to have access to it? Grand Moff Tranner (Comlink) 21:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's in the new The Clone Wars Campaign Guide. I don't have it, though. - Lord Hydronium 03:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Denal
Hey!Chack told me that you might have Star Wars: The Clone Wars: The Visual Guide. If so, could you check if Denal is there and what rank does he have. Thanks, QuiGonJinn Be mindful of the Living Force... 15:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Inqmoot 23
The twenty-third Inq meeting has been scheduled for Saturday, February 21st at 7pm Eastern time. Your presence or input on the meeting page would be appreciated. Graestan ( Talk ) 16:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Cassus Fett
Sorry if I did something wrong. I just though that since he is a FA we should list everything we know about him. Mauser 04:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Link title
 * everything?

WEG species lifespans
In case you want to add them to your WOTC-inspired list, here's what Alien Encounters says: Hope this is useful. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Carosites have a 120-year life expectancy.
 * Coynites can live to be 250, but the high rate of violent deaths in their culture lowers life expectancy to 53.
 * Drall life expectancy is 120 years, "similar to that of Humans"
 * Ergesh life expectancy is 200 -- and they reach maturity in 20 local days!
 * Falleen have an average lifespan of 250 years, with some reaching 400.
 * Frozians live to be 80 under standard gravitational conditions, or 100 in light gravity.
 * Gacerites live to be 150, which is good because their courtship rituals last at least 10 years.
 * The oldest living Galidyn is 4000.
 * Kadri'Ra have a natural lifespan of 1000-1500 years, although since they've been enslaved by the Empire, that's been cut to 70-500 years. Which is strange, because in the timeframe most WEG books are set the Empire's been around for less than 40.
 * Kalduu live to be 500 on average.
 * Kamarian average lifespan is 123, 127 for Kamarian Badlanders.
 * Bornecks: 120 years.
 * Xa Fel: 120 years, dropping to less than 50 due to the pollution on their homeworld.
 * Rakaan: 160 years.
 * Shards: thousands of years.
 * Tasari: 120 years.
 * Tikiarri have a natural lifespan of 30 years, though hunting accidents, combat, and death in childbirth reduces that to about 20 years.
 * Vaathkree: 300 to 250 years.
 * Xan: roughly 80 years.

CotOR
Hey Hydro. I was wondering if you would be able to answer a question for me. I have been asking around and it seems no one is quite sure how to treat the continuity errors that are found in Chronicles of the Old Republic, and it was suggested that I should ask you. Should the errors just be relegated to the Bts? For instance, Revan is named as a Jedi Master in CotOR, but the CG states that he was a Jedi Knight. Does the CG override any information found in CotOR? I would really appreciate any help that you could give me with this. Thanks. Cylka  -talk- 02:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Categorization
No problem. Thanks for pointing that out. --ToRsO bOy 22:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Vector Prime BtS info
Hi Lord Hydronium,

I noticed a while back that you were working on Vector Prime on a subpage. You hand a bunch of info on R.A. Salvatore's decision to kill of Chewbacca which I think would be really useful for the Yo'Gand's Core BtS section, which I'm currently working on. I can't find your subpage anymore though, so I was wondering if you still had it avaiable. If you want, just dump everything you did on my workbench, below the Viqi Shesh section, and I'll sort through it.

Thanks so much!

- Harrar 20:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

-- Belated thanks for the stuff some really interesting links you found, especially the three page one. I'll add stuff to the BtS when I next have time. -- Harrar 10:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Lundi
Ah, thanks for the notice. I actually do have the book, and am checking it now for said information.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 16:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Imperial Knights
Hey Hydro. No worries about the belatedness. :^Þ I'm not sure why I came up with a new username for Wookieepedia, when I stayed consistent with my (lack of a) username from TOS forums to the JC Forums back in 2006. But yeah, I finally got around to trimming down the IK article, but I think I need to get my hands on the Legacy Era Campaign Guide before I attempt to bring it to featured status again. I was wondering if I could get your advice... do you think that the history sections are still too long? They're a LOT shorter than the overkill I previously had, and I took your advice and looked at similar FA's like the Dark Side Elite --- that article goes into some detail about the missions and stuff that they went on, so I figured it was OK to do the same for the IK's, but I still have a sneaking suspicion that there's a bit too much in there...

There's still more work to do, like adding Mohrgan Fel to the notable members, putting in a bit about Fight Another Day, adding Sigel Dare to the action figure list, but hey, I look forward to it. :^) Menkooroo 02:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Jedi biased articles
Look i did give examples about the Jensaarai, but ok I well drop it.got out of hand any way--Bull36 02:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think my block was unjustified
I think that blocking me (72.79.208.93) was not justified.

For the record, I was not "trying to get the last word in", I honestly didn't believe that Bull36 would heed your warning, and I feared that he would try to push his anti-Jedi bias into articles, so I was trying to call attention to the fact that his opinions were clearly biased and not neutral, and that he was being biased even as he himself was accusing Wookieepedia of being biased. I'm sorry if you interpeted it as me trying to start trouble, but I was just trying (perhaps not very clearly) to express my legitimate concerns that this person might not drop the issue, and that he might try to add his biased opinions to articles. Maybe I should have worded it differently, or maybe I should have just shut up, but I was worried that he'd ignore your warning and start adding his "jedi are bad people" opinions to articles, so I was just trying to call it to attention.

I just wanted to explain myself, since you never even gave me a warning, never gave me a chance to explain myself, and simply blocked me for trying to express my concerns. I'm not asking to be unblocked, and if you want to block this IP too, fine, I won't be around for a while anyway. I'll accept my punishment. 72.79.217.192 06:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

no sense in blocken him man--Bull36 04:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Aitch
Please look at the article Aitch it is more up to date then the H449-B7.And someone thinks Aitch needs to be deleted it took me a while to find the info to put it together please check it out..--Bull36 05:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

New Policy
Hey Lord Hydronium, I was just wanting to check with the administration to see if the new canon policy is for real or just an april fool's joke, because if it's a joke (which I'm guessing it is), then I'm laughing along with you, and if not, then I'm pretty upset. :( &mdash; Jonjedigrandmaster   ( Jedi beacon ) 00:33, 1 April 2009 (UO

O is it a joke?--Bull36 01:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey Lord Hydronium, I would like to know asap about the whole new policy thing, because if it isn't just a prank, then i'm going to be leaving the site here, and i can guarantee that other users will too. But anyway, if you could just get back to me on this I would appreciate it. Thanks. &mdash; Jonjedigrandmaster  [[Image:Jedi symbol.svg|20px]] ( Jedi beacon ) 12:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Fanon
The TPM script calls Rushing Panaka's sergeant. Besides, his EU name is non-canon now I'd presume? Hanzo Hasashi 01:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm so this isn't the biggest April Fool's joke then? :PHanzo Hasashi 01:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Gree
Sorry about removing the inuse and update templates on Gree; I didn't realize that you weren't finished. My apologies for any work that may have been lost. &mdash; CC7567 [ http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/thumb/5/5f/Rex.png/20px-Rex.png] talk 18:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry!
I don't know how to apologize for my actions on the EU talk page. I was really frustrated that day (don't ask why, it's kinda personal) and I guess I brought that over to the site. Also, the way Bull was acting towards GL got me really mad. I know this doesn't justify my actions, and I promise to you that I will never act this way again towards another user. Kilson 02:13, 08 April 09 (UTC)

Eclipse-class and Starships of the Galaxy
Given that the Saga Editon of SOTG says the Eclipse-class and Executor-class were only called Super Star Destroyers, but were designated star dreadnaughts, why was the article name changed back? Super Star Destroyer is not a class designation, unlike star dreadnaught. 208.53.137.178 00:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the canonical name, per page 139 of that very same work, is Eclipse-class Super Star Destroyer. "Star dreadnaught" (note the lowercase), is the type of vessel it is, but not the class name. - Lord Hydronium 00:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, but on page 97, under the "Star Destroyer designation" paragraph, it is only used as a "generic descriptor", not an "official designation" for the above classes. This is also touched upon in the "Super Star Destroyer" explanation section on page 136, where the word is based on the term Star Destroyer. This is also a recurring theme in other WOTC works, where the popularity of "Star Destroyer" during the Clone Wars, makes it a catch phrase, even for larger vessels. The article Starship Battles Preview 1 also notes that "Although the official designation was changed by the time the Executor was operational, the phrase "Super Star Destroyer" stuck, and it was even applied to later vessels such as the Sovereign-class and Eclipse-class." It is further called slang in both Inside the Worlds of the Star Wars Trilogy and Star Wars: Complete Locations (in the latter on page 171). Finally, the official site, on the SSD article, makes the destinction "Its difficult-to-comprehend size and destructive power led many to borrow superlatives popularized during the Clone Wars, and simply call it a Super-class Star Destroyer, though this was by no means an official label." So it is not a designator term, just a generic one. 69.162.77.3 01:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me cover each of your references in turn:
 * SOTG, page 97 is about the "Star Destroyer" designation, not the "Super Star Destroyer" one. "Eclipse-class Star Destroyer" is the unofficial name, not "Eclipse-class Super Star Destroyer".
 * SOTG, page 163 just gives the origin of the word "Star Destroyer". It also says that "star dreadnaught" is simply a type of ship. In that same paragraph, it says that ships called "Star Destroyer" are star cruisers, but we don't put an article at Imperial-class Star Cruiser, because the class name itself is "Star Destroyer".
 * Starship Battles Preview 1 doesn't say anything about "Super Star Destroyer" not being official for them, it just says it was applied to the Eclipse and Sovereign classes. Which we see in the class names.
 * And the part of the SSD Databank entry you quoted is about the Executor. It says "Super-class Star Destroyer" isn't official, which has nothing to do with the Eclipse.
 * In all of these, the name Eclipse-class Super Star Destroyer is the only one we have. "Eclipse-class Star Dreadnaught" is a fanon name. That's why it was moved. - Lord Hydronium 01:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would think they go with the modern interpretation of both Star Destroyer and Super Star Destroyer being used for large ships as generic descriptors only and not actual designations. The designations as described in ITW:OT and SW:CL are Star Cruiser, Star Battlecruiser and Star Dreadnought, not Super Star Destroyer, which is only used as slang and referred to as such in the text on page 171 of SW:CL (I don't have the ITW book). There is nothing in the other sources to contradict this, and the texts make clear the separation between class names and SSD, the latter of which is a nickname for military personnel to use. That a military slang term pops up again isn't surprising, and there's also the Super-class Star Destroyer term it comes from, which is used to describe the Sovereign and the Eclipse in at least one source (the Gravity well projector article on the official site's database). If the name follows from class and designation, then Super Star Destroyer doesn't cut it as the latter, and it's even said as much in the official articles. The Executor wasn't designated it, yet the term just stuck around and was used in slang for other large types as well. 10.8.2.158 02:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Insta-kill pistol
its a cheat in the KOTOR game its not canon.--Bull36 01:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: The new Triage system
Looks good, Hydro. Thanks for the effort on it. &mdash; Fiolli  {Alpheridies University ComNet} 03:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)