Wookieepedia talk:Community Portal

Wiki-specific namespace
See Star Wars talk:Community Portal/Namespace dispute.

Categories and Lists
An effort to setup a scheme of categories would be a good way to keep things organized and to promote the development of some areas. Further, we should decide when a list is more appropriate than a category page. For example, a list of Rogue Squadron members past and present might be more appropriate for an automatically populated cateogry page, where a list of Rogue Squadron members during different conflicts/eras would require a manually populated and updated list. --SparqMan 15:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anyone? This is going to develop into a bit of a problem. Do New Republic characters who survived NJO need to have a "GFFA characters" category tag? --SparqMan 11:52, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I think they need to, as Legacy of the Force is coming. - Sikon 16:45, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars swear words
I think it would be fun to compile a list of Star Wars swear words, although such a task is rather daunting - considering my limited collection of EU material. I know some though; sith spit, bantha poodoo, spast (is that a Star Wars cuss word?), eh, I probably know more which aren't coming to mind. -- Falmarin 01:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, you can find two here. -- Shadowtrooper 02:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * After checking out Theforce.net on the subject, I came across this link; Star Wars swear words, there are quite a few listed here, although no sources. -- Falmarin 02:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * There's also various dirty words within the CUSWE at TFN. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I also came across a slang section in the categories on Wookieepedia. Will this some how be conjoined with the Glossary of Common Star Wars Terms? The whole area on Wookieepedia seems quite messy, and I think it would be prudent to wait for things to calm down before I start blindly adding a new section. -- Falmarin 00:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I suppose so. They are "common" words, that's what the Glossary is for. -- Shadowtrooper 00:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This link might be useful. --SparqMan 17:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't some Star Wars swear words vary in species? By the way,  Hi, this is a great wiki! -- DurgeFan
 * Yes, for example: Fas is a Yuuzhan Vong expletive, but it is also used by Jedi to indicate an area was clear of danger
 * Abel Pena is one step ahead of us: A Mouth Like An Intergalactic Princess: Cussing In A Galaxy Far, Far Away! jSarek 19:43, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * jSarek, it's almost as if I had posted that link 13 days ago... ;-) --SparqMan 21:48, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I read that. I honestly did.  Somehow, I thought that your link was the link that Falmarin posted.  Whoopsie. jSarek 22:28, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I have moved all the expletives and slang from the Glossary to a new List of phrases and slang article. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:40, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for both of the links. I used them in adding to the article. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:26, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Multilingual Wiki
Are there/will there be any plans to make this wiki available in other languages? I know the Star Trek people's wiki has at least two languages in addition to English. I know my profile says I speak Japanese, but I can't read or write it very well. On the other hand, I can read and write Spanish and would love to get the chance to translate a lot of this stuff. -- Shadowtrooper 02:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I suppose, along the way. Best way to accomplish it is translating a lot of articles, making them subpages of the translated main page subpage of your user page (whew). That's what I'm doing for the Norwegian edition, anyway. --Imperialles 10:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * After getting a look at the stats for all Wikicities wikis, I see that Memory Alpha has about 4 different languages already. We outta catch up by now and be the yin to their yang. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:49, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. Now that I fianlly have enough time, I can probably translate tens of pages each day. --Imp 21:57, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Letter box images
When uploading screen captures, please trim any black letter box surrounding the image, if there is any. --SparqMan 05:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Uh... I think I've done that on occassion (what you're asking that we not do). I agree with your request, and I'll try to remember to fix such images in the future. In fact, I think I'll go back and check some of my previous uploads. – Aidje talk 00:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm getting annoyed with myself: I seem to have thrown out the original PNGs, so now all I have to work with is the JPEGs. Argh. – Aidje talk 00:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Plo Koon page
There's one joker (IP 69.118.146.112) that keeps adding to the article that Plo Koon survived Order 66, without anything to back up his claim. As far as I can tell, he's done it at least three or four times already. Is there any way to IP block him (or whatever punishment you feel is necessary)?
 * We'll get the page locked. PS. You need to sign your posts, StarNeptune. QuentinGeorge 04:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Oops... :) Anyway, good to hear the problem is taken care of. StarNeptune 04:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Improvement drive
I propose we hold a weekly improvement drive, similar to the one on Wikipedia. Each week we nominate and vote for articles that need much improvement. The article with the most votes is selected as "this week's improvement drive". An article nomination would need 2 votes per week to stay on the list of nominees. Any thoughts? This would shorten the list of Doomed articles. --Imp 12:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea, although recently 65.79.196.89 has been deleting the "doom" tags without contributing to the articles. I think that your idea will indeed help to renovate articles which would be EASY with a team effort (such as the Lando Calrissian page). -- Falmarin 03:41, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Make sure there's someone who is willing to update that weekly. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:34, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I can update it. At least when I get back from vacation. I've done some work for Wikipedia's improvement drives and know the system --Imp 05:51, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Articles should be nominated and put through a quick decision process (one that would grow more lengthy as the project grows). --SparqMan 04:34, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Any forward movement on this? --SparqMan 23:40, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'll create it when I get to a computer with an actual mouse (on Monday). --Imp 19:29, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Placement of templates
I've noticed that a number of articles from SWW that turn up in Google have their first few lines of content overshadowed by a template box. For example, here is what appears when Lorth Needa comes up:
 * Lorth Needa - Star Wars
 * Lorth Needa. Homeworld, Coruscant-he is a clone. Species, Human. Gender, Male. Height, . Hair Color, Brown. Eye Color, Bluish-green ...

Can we prevent this? --SparqMan 21:45, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * First off, how is Needa a clone? -- Riffsyphon1024 19:23, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * He's not. That was corrected but not updated in Google yet. --SparqMan 20:33, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It now appears the first lines of text from Google are
 * Lorth Needa (? - 3 ABY) was a fleet officer in the Galactic Republic and Imperial

... Needa was a veteran command officer, having served in the Galactic ...
 * Was this fixed, or did Google fix itself?--Eion 09:25, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)

List articles
Shouldn't all list article be titled in the form "List of X", where X is the subject listed? So we should have "List of planets" as opposed to "Planets", and "List of moons" as opposed to "Moons", and so on. Right now we have a mix of these two title formats. – Aidje talk 19:00, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well I guess you can blame me for that format, which I developed back at Wikipedia when making them (however I wasn't the author of the planets list). -- Riffsyphon1024 19:24, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * So this is a remnant of the old "Planets of Star Wars" format, it's just minus the "of Star Wars" for wookification? I tried moving the planets list but the wiki wouldn't let me because "List of planets" has been edited because of double redirects. – Aidje talk 19:36, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Animate
For those who use Firefox and Greasemonkey, you should checkout Dan Phiffer's Wikipedia Animate script. It works on all MediaWiki sites (including this one) and it loads of fun. Read this for some background information on Waxy.org's bounty for a Wikipedia revision history animator. --SparqMan 14:32, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)

We should use true Roman Numerals in movie-titles
I have an idea: Why do not we use true Roman Numerals in the names of movies like?:


 * 1) Star Wars Episode Ⅰ:  The Phantom Menace
 * 2) Star Wars Episode Ⅱ:  Attack of the Clones
 * 3) Star Wars Episode Ⅲ:  Revenge of the Sith
 * 4) Star Wars Episode Ⅳ:  A New Hope
 * 5) Star Wars Episode Ⅴ:  The Empire Strikes Back
 * 6) Star Wars Episode Ⅵ:  Return of the Jedi

True Roman Numerals would be nice. — — Ŭalabio‽  01:10, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * besides making for ugly URLs, I don't see any reason not to.--Eion 01:30, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * ¿Would the URLs be ugly? Safari represents the octets of UTF-8 as the Roman Numerals.  As for people manually typing the URLs and accidently using the letters i and v, we can just leave redirects where the articles are. — — Ŭalabio‽ 02:31, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a pain to type. That's the main reason I can see.  -- Silly Dan  01:37, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * In my OS  (Mac OS Ⅹ)  one finds the option in the menu  “Edit”  called  “Special Characters”  which causes a  “Character-Palette”  to appear. One can browse the various Unicode-Blocks  (the Roman Numerals are in  “Number-Forms”).  I am certain that all good OSes have this feature and one can get this as freeware for Microsoft-Windows.    (¿Did Ŭalabio just exclude Microsoft-Windows as a good OS?  ;-)    This is much more easy than memorizing the hexadecimal values for all of the characters in ISO-10646.  —  — Ŭalabio‽ 02:31, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * All that just to get a Roman numeral, when we can just type out the letters? Not worth it at all, in my opinion, especially since it will perpetually lead to redirects when people try to link to the films in their articles, because no one would actually use a special character for this.  jSarek 21:25, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * The URL for EPI appears as
 * http://starwars.wikicities.com/wiki/Star_Wars_Episode_Ⅰ:_The_Phantom_Menace


 * in IE. I don't doubt the effectiveness of redirects, was just pointing out what I saw as the one snag. Whether or not Windows is a good OS by your limited definition, it is a popular one, and something that is difficult to do is difficult to implement as a standard.--Eion 09:16, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Well I can't see these things, so I'm not for it. I am using IE and will not switch just to be able to view roman numerals, when people can use I's and V's. Not really hard to do. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:19, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * ¿Do you see any outside characters outside of ISO-646 such as “Curly Quotes” or the description of this system?:

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

I guess WookieePædia is not yet ready for Roman Numerals. — — Ŭalabio‽ 05:41, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC) I use Roman Numerals for numbers except for 0 because 0 does not exist in Roman Numerals:
 * I can only read the sun's symbol, Venus's and Mars's. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:51, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm using Mozilla Firefox 1.0.4 and still only see those three, myself. jSarek 21:25, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm using Firefox w/Windows XP, can see all of them, but think I, II, III, etc., look better in the default font. -- Silly Dan  21:34, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I am using Firefox 1.0.4 on WinXP and see it just fine. But as has been illustrated already, it's not readable by many people.  In web design, you need always keep in mind how many people you will be cutting out of your audience when you want to try something cool.  Plus those URL's would be a killer!  :p  WhiteBoy 03:08, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone mentioned this yet, but people searching for things are not going to bother typing a special character. --Beeurd 23:37, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly my reasoning. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:38, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything but squares. - Sikon 14:13, 5 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I made the example bigger and bolder. ¿Does that help? — — Ŭalabio‽ 00:07, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * No, still squares. Everything I can see is 0. - Sikon 01:27, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * This is what you do not see:

	0	 	Sol	 	1	 	Mercury	 	2	 	Venus	 	3	 	Earth	 	4	 	Mars	 	5	 	Jupiter	 	6	 	Saturn	 	7	 	Uranus	 	8	 	Neptune	 	9	 	Pluto	

Every planet in the solar system Sol has a symbol in Unicode. Sol is 0 because it is the  base  of the solar system Sol. — — Ŭalabio‽ 03:10, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * All this unicode text jibba-jabba just strikes me as pointless showing off.--Spanky The Dolphin 08:19, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Walabio, stop this space wasting effort. I cannot see a damn thing, and neither can anyone else using an English keyboard. Your idea is flawed and cannot be put to use. And please, fix all these spaces. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:38, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. A pointless idea. What would we gain? Nothing. We'd lose readable URLs and the ability for people to find pages via Google. QuentinGeorge 09:46, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, for the record, I can see everything fine, but I still think it's worthless bullshit and just amounts to Ualabio showing off his m4d un!c0d3 skillz.--Spanky The Dolphin 18:22, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Story arcs
Can someone explain to me the need for story arc articles? It seems to me that, if we already have separate articles explaining the plot for each issue of each comic series, there's no real point in making another one that combines the plot of several issues into one article. MarcK 08:08, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, it groups them all up neatly together. I can personally see how that would come in handy. By the way, how on Earth are you doing all these comic entry updates and additions so fast?--Spanky The Dolphin 08:21, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Not many people know this, but I'm a ninja. Also I keep several pages (such as Dark Horse's official previews) open at the same time, plus templates make things even swifter. I'm guessing that's what most others do as well. --Imp 15:30, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I try to peel away story arc descriptions as much as possible. It's frustrating to see descriptions of ROTS in articles about a shuttle craft. Some snippets are required for context, but the rest can mostly be pushed into an "Appearance" listing as long as proper wikilinks and "For more information see..." mentions are in place. --SparqMan 08:15, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Spoiler
When do we plan to eliminate the ROTS spoiler warnings? At the one-month mark? --SparqMan 20:43, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * One conservative position would be to leave them up until the DVD is released, and maybe a couple weeks afterwards. In many cases, we'd want to replace them with the regular spoiler templates anyway.   -- Silly Dan  20:59, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that once the ROTS spoilers were done away with we were going completely spoiler-warning free with a general warning on the front page under the assumption that users look up (or click on wikilinks) with the intention of learning above the topic. Perhaps an exception would be articles about sources. --SparqMan 23:53, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Force categorization
I've thrown together a diagram of a categorization structure I would like to see implemented. I'd like to hear what others think of this categorization scheme. The diagram can be viewed at Image:Force categorization.png. I can update the diagram with suggestions if necessary. – Aidje talk 15:06, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Dia is a wonderful app. I should use it for the military categorization structure. The structure looks good to me so far. How would you connect Force powers connected to a specific sect? Also keep in mind that many unaligned items (holocron, lightsaber) are limited to the Jedi and Sith. Other Force-related organizations and sects are not connected to them. --SparqMan 16:11, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I suppose there could be sub-categories of Category:Force powers that were sect-specific, though I had avoided this because of apparent contradictions between various elements of canon, such as inconsistencies between video games. – Aidje talk 16:38, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I am aware that there are some items that are specific to the Jedi AND Sith, but I couldn't come up with a simple solution to that problem. Any ideas? – Aidje talk 16:38, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Given that the Jedi/Sith school of Force learning is the most commonplace, it would not be unreasonable to keep them in the general Force category. --SparqMan 19:45, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Aidje, the diagram looks very good and gives me an idea of where we are going. -- Riffsyphon1024 17:33, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks like a pretty solid plan; I have no critiques of it I can immediately see. jSarek 08:09, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * How long should I wait before implementing this structure? I know consensus is good, but what exactly is a consensus in this case? (I think that we could wait to sort out the minor issues brought up by SparqMan&mdash;beginning the implementation shouldn't complicate the resolution of either of those issues.) – Aidje talk 21:03, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks sweet. The only thing I see that should be changed about it is de-OOUing the character categories (ie Sith characters should be Sith individuals). --Imp 16:28, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you realize how much of a job it would be to change all characters to individuals? -- Riffsyphon1024 01:01, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, Riff, it's only a day's work. I figure I'll change all the characters to individuals before recreating the categories, to catch all of them. I'll be finished tomorrow evening if I start when I get home (in 6 hours). --Imp 08:45, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * So, will you give me the green light? --Imp 21:01, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a major change to the wiki and I'd like to have a vote on it. See the next section. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:29, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Characters to Individuals
Imperialles recommends that we change all the categories with Characters in them to Individuals. I beg to differ because it will force us to rename all the categories, apply that text to every character article, and change all the character stubs. But as has been done many times before I will hold a quick vote as to whether or not we impliment this change. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:29, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)

For change

 * 1) Imp 21:39, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) For.  At the very least, we should change those that have reasonable suggestions for replacement (e.g. "Black Sun members"), in the hopes that a more suitable word than "individuals" can be found for those that don't qualify; I've made some suggestions below. We also shouldn't rule out "person" and "people" as labels.  jSarek 11:18, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Against change

 * 1) ? Riffsyphon1024 21:29, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) MarcK 21:40, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Riff's outline below shows many conflicts which would arise. – Aidje talk 05:44, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Discussion
I'm willing to do all the work, really. I have a whole week to spare. :) --Imp 21:39, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I have thought about it and maybe its okay. If you are willing to do the work then it can be done but I'd like to specify how the categories in Category:Characters are renamed.


 * Characters = Individuals
 * Black Sun characters = Black Sun members
 * Bounty hunters = no change
 * Character stubs = still unknown on this
 * Confederacy characters = Confederacy members
 * Corellians = no change
 * Criminals = no change
 * Dark Jedi characters = Dark Jedi
 * Families = no change
 * Imperial characters = Imperial individuals
 * This could be "Imperial personnel," or even just "Imperials" jSarek 11:18, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Jedi characters = Jedi (but this would conflict with the all-purpose Jedi category that exists already)
 * Mandalorians = no change
 * Musicians = no change
 * New Republic characters = New Republic individuals
 * Old Republic characters = Old Republic individuals
 * These last two could be "Old/New Republic personnel." jSarek 11:18, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Podracers = no change
 * Political characters = Politicians
 * Rebel Alliance characters = Rebel Alliance individuals
 * Again, "Rebel Alliance personnel" would work, as would just "Rebels." jSarek 11:18, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Sith characters = Sith lords or Sith Lords

This is what I'd like to see then if this is approved. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:01, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * Not all Sith were Lords, so the correct category would be Sith, giving it a similar problem as the Jedi category. --Imp 22:11, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * "New Republic individuals" sounds just as stupid as "New Republic characters". How does Wikipedia deal with individuals? --SparqMan 22:15, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't seem to find anyway around the 'individuals' part of it unless they are affiliated with someone or do something else. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:27, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I think for major organisations (eg: the Empire, Republic, etc.) "personnel" sounds the most appropriate to me. --Beeurd 16:17, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps now is the time to sketch out a better overarching categorization scheme for the whole wiki. --SparqMan 23:05, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd actually agree on that point. If we are going to spend what is undeniably a great effort in this reorganisation, we might as well ensure that the entire wiki has a well defined categorisation structure. Not saying what we have now is bad, I just believe it could be better. --Beeurd 16:17, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm in favour of folding all the Sith character categories back into one. It's pointlessly complex at the moment and some characters aren't able to be fit in the categories already there. QuentinGeorge 23:39, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll second that. – Aidje talk 18:05, 25 Jul 2005 (UTC)

"AACK! Sharedproblemreport and problemreport"
The phrase "AACK! Sharedproblemreport and problemreport" has been appearing on a lot of pages recently. What is causing this? --Imp 14:27, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Idk. I dummy-edited a page with it and it disappeared. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:29, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Other wikicities seem to have the same problem. I'll mention it to Angela. --Imp 23:49, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Proper usage of the 'dash'
I have noticed that many articles on the Star Wars Wiki use the improper '-' (a hyphen) for more than it should be used; personally I feel that the hyphen is undergoing an identity crisis. I wish to discuss whether or not you think that (1) using proper dash grammar should be part of the Wookiepedia guidelines (they're already part of them for Wikipedia) and (2) we fix what we have already.

Here's my explanation of hyphen versus en dash versus em dash:
 * Most articles with dates of birth/death are formatted incorrectly: they use a hyphen to show a range of numbers/dates instead of the more proper en dash.
 * Example: incorrect: "(19 BBY - 19 ABY)" correct: "(19 BBY–19 ABY)"
 * Example: incorrect: "(20 BBY - c. 20 ABY)" correct: "(20 BBY – c. 20 ABY)"


 * When one end of the range of dates/numbers is missing, an em dash needs to be used.
 * Example: incorrect: "(19 BBY - ?)" correct: "(19 BBY&mdash;)"
 * Example: incorrect: "(? - c. 20 ABY)" correct: "(&mdash; c. 20 ABY)"


 * Proof: Wikipedia manual of style (dates and numbers). Create em dashes by typing "&amp;mdash;" and create en dashes by typing "&amp;ndash;"; I really feel that we should be using correct puncuation at all times, despite the fact that it takes an extra six keystrokes to produce the proper character (big deal&hellip;!).
 * Another improper usage of the hyphen stems in trying to make a dash while typing within a paragraph: some people use ' - ' to make a dash, which is entirely wrong; some use ' -- ' (though not as often), which is more technically correct, but doesn't exactly look good. The proper way to make a dash in a sentence is to use "&amp;mdash;" surrounded by no spaces.
 * Example: incorrect: "Star Wars is - as everyone knows - amazing." correct: "Star Wars is&mdash;as everyone knows&mdash;amazing."
 * Example: mildly incorrect: "Star Wars is -- as everyone knows -- amazing." correct: "Star Wars is&mdash;as everyone knows&mdash;amazing."


 * The only times that you use a hyphen, really, are:
 * making words not look dumb (re-evaluate looks better than reevaluate)
 * joining &ge;two words that serve as a single adjective of a noun in subject (but non when in predicate)
 * when hyphenating compound words, such as "open-source" and "browser," use an en dash (e.g. "open-source–based web browser" and "Post–Galactic Empire Era")
 * prefixes/suffixes (ex. re-review a film)
 * compound numbers

Why we should use proper grammar:
 * It's ugly when you just use the hyphen for _everything_.
 * It's doing what's right.
 * It looks better.
 * You feel better about yourself and about your article. ;)
 * (And I won't hold a grudge against you.)

To create an en or em dash without using HTML entity code, you can:
 * Linux/Mac/Whatever: Use a character chart found in some menu somewhere (unless you're too geeky to use a GUI)
 * Windows: (keypad numbers) en dash &rarr; ALT+0150; em dash &rarr; ALT+0151

&mdash;qrc :)

Discussion
I support this decision. Maybe make it a separate "proposed guideline" page? - Sikon 06:16, 24 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I also support grammatical accuracy. – Aidje talk 03:15, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)

"Featured Articles" and "Collaboration of the Week"
What about introducing these Wikipedia culture elements here in the SWW? Some articles I think are worthy of being commended as brilliant prose, and some tend to remain unattended for months, even with doom/attention/cleanup tags. - Sikon 16:38, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * We are already working on a Featured Article for placement on the main page. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:05, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * That's good. What about BJAODN? I noticed some worthy candidates. - Sikon 09:11, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * That's taking it too far. We don't need to copy everything from Wikipedia, and besides, do you see any material to even put into a BJAODN page? -- Riffsyphon1024 09:27, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, he did just say that he noticed some worthy candidates. :-) I think BJAODN would be a waste of effort. We should concentrate on things that will improve our encyclopedic side. – Aidje talk 16:18, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * We (or rather, Riff and WhiteBoy) have deleted much nonsense, but nothing qualifying as a joke yet. 8)  -- Silly Dan  16:25, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Sources and Appearances
As someone who is interested in Star Wars but by no means an expert on the characters and stories, I have very much welcomed the addition of the Sources and Appearances sub-headings to the entries on this wiki. However, I have a few thoughts and suggestions that I'd like to throw in to the mix for consideration.

The sources is very useful, but only to a degree. My problem is that for individuals with multiple appearances throughout the Expanded Universe, and therefore quite extensive biographies, it is not clear which bits of information come from which source. For example, although all General Grievous's appearances and sources are quoted, I am unable to tell where exactly I would find a description or reference to his assault on the planet Duro. This could become important in the future for any wikipedians who wish to check the original source for a particular fact in order to correct or corroborate it. Perhaps the sources should actually be quoted at the end of each paragraph, in brackets and/or italics? Alternatively, each source could be referenced at the end of each paragraph with a superscript number which relates to the source referenced below the Sources sub-heading. Both these suggestions are quite common ways of clearly attributing a source to a particular fact.

For the Appearances I'd like to suggest two things. Firstly, (and I think this has already been proposed elsewhere), for the characters with very long lists of appearances (eg Luke Skywalker), I think perhaps a link from the main character page to a separate page listing the appearances would be good idea. My other suggestion would be to break up the long lists in to sub-sections using sub-headings such as 'books', 'comics', 'movies' etc. This would make the list more useful, particularly if someone wanted to know which novels a character had appeared in but wasn't interested in which comics etc. I've introduced something along these lines at the Doctor Who Wiki. Take a look at the Ian Chesterton - List of Appearances. --Mantrid 12:18, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * A good idea, although a question would arise: should separate numbering be used for appearances and sources and if not, how to keep numbers from screwing up? - Sikon 13:12, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that what I'm suggesting should only be applied to sources. Appearances should be left as they are as a general indication of where, for example, you can experience the adventures of a particular character. --Mantrid 13:17, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * So are you proposing adding appearances that contain notable information to both sources and appearances? - Sikon 14:01, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not totally sure what you mean here. What I'm suggesting is that appearances just get listed either as they are under a sub-heading or on a separate page of their own (see above). The reference to specific sources are attached to paragraphs in the in-Universe text of the main entry. Does that make more sense? Sorry if I'm confusing things... --Mantrid 16:16, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Planet summaries
The new Wikipedia ones look more accurate than current ones (here's an example). Should we consider adopting that system?

Wait, I realize, we shouldn't copy everything from Wikipedia. Scratch that idea. - Sikon 16:08, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)

New Spoilers
We made an exception to our no spoiler-warning policy for ROTS because it had not been released yet. Will we do the same for the Dark Nest series and other new books? --SparqMan 17:11, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * We have a no spoiler warning policy? MarcK 17:15, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * "This wiki contains a plethora of spoilers for all released material relating to the Star Wars universe. Read at your own risk." - I was under the impression that the only spoiler warnings we included beyond that front page was for ROTS ones. --SparqMan 17:31, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)