Wookieepedia talk:Community Portal/Archive3

=Archive 3 (May 19 2005 - Jun 7 2005)=

Dark Lord of the Sith
Ok, there is some MAJOR problems with the succession box that someone put in for the "Dark Lords of the Sith".


 * Zannah is NOT Darth Andeddu. Andeddu is male, for one. (And that's about all we know about him)
 * The tradition of one person holding the title "Dark Lord of the Sith" continues only up until Kaan. Please, actually read articles before you add to them.
 * Kaan named all leaders of the Brotherhood of Darkness with the title, and Darth Bane's reformed order has BOTH master and apprentice bearing the title.
 * Therefore, Sidious is Dark Lord of the Sith simultaneously with Darth Plagueis, Darth Maul, Darth Tyranus and Darth Vader.
 * I'll fix it up, but I just thought I'd explain it so we don't get into any edit wars. QuentinGeorge 05:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest two succession boxes, both a "Dark Lord of the Sith (Master)" and "Dark Lord of the Sith (Apprentice)" box. This would eliminate stylistical problems as well as making it compatible with the pre-Kaan era. --Gen.d 12:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I simply put them in the order described under the "Dark Lord of the Sith" section of the Sith article, with a few adjustments. For example, Darth Vader was Dark Lord of the Sith in the small time between the Emperor's death and his own death. Imperialles 06:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but you neglected the note at the top of that list: Only one Dark Lord exists at a time until the reign of Kaan. Anyway, the way the Sith are listed on that table is a bit crappy, and should be changed. QuentinGeorge 08:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * But technically when he made the decision to destroy the Emperor and save his son, I would say that he betrayed the Sith and effectively resigned his post as Dark Lord. --Beeurd 20:35, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, but there is no evidence of that. Perhaps he killed Palpatine in order to rule the galaxy alongside his son? Perhaps he realised he would die fighting Luke, and so turned on the Emperor, allowing them both to live? As you see, pure speculation. He was, however, the Dark Lord of the Sith in that short period of time before his death, as is Sith tradition. --Imperialles 20:49, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

StarWars.com Blogs
Anyone here a Hyperspace member? I was thinking that perhaps we could devise some way of maybe using a StarWars.com blog to kinda promote the wiki, somehow. Don't know what we would use it for, or if we could get away with using it to promote a site. --Beeurd 10:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Discussion: KFan II
Despite repeated requests, KFan II has continued to redirect or merge the Palpatine and Darth Sidious articles. As a community, how can we deal with this in a productive way? --SparqMan 20:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * His intentions are good, but he continues to ignore what others have to say about the subject. I say a short ban should get the message through to him. --Imperialles 20:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * One block coming up. :) -- Riffsyphon1024 21:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It has been done. He should learn eventually that we take this serious. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, if he's being truthful on his user page (i.e. not changing his mind later on) then it looks like he'll be leaving soon, as he thinks everyone hates him. – Aidje talk 04:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * And maybe thats a good thing. We can sacrifice one bad apple and get 10 more in his place that will not force an issue. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Making character pages more uniform
I propose we try to make character pages more uniform. As it is now, the pages are just messy biographies. My proposal:


 * 1) Start with a short summary of the character's greatest achievements, ranks, and time of birth and death.
 * 2) A detailed biography section
 * 3) Personality section (if applicable)
 * 4) Behind the Scenes section, with crazy fun trivia and such
 * 5) Appearances section

What do you think? --Imperialles 20:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Should be tried out on a few pages, see if it works with a variety of subjects, and should be a template, not an inviolable structure.--Eion 12:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Implemented on Darth Sidious. --Imperialles 13:44, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it makes sense to describe the characteristics of the character (including personality...which drives their actions) before biography. --SparqMan 21:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I second that. – Aidje talk 21:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

LOTR
Anyone here a Lord of the Rings fan?, then head over to LOTR wikicity right now and help us in our work --Darth Mantus 15:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC) --Darth Mantus 12:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow. Two articles. That thing must be young. I wrote an article (a bit stubby though) on the Fellowship of the Ring. By the way, it would probably be helpful to provide a link. :-) – Aidje talk 17:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I have written some more since you last looked and thanks for providing a link
 * Why must we be syphoning people away from this site now? -- Riffsyphon1024 02:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I plan to remain here. I've written two articles on the LOTR Wiki, but I do plan to still do most, if not all of my work here. – Aidje talk 04:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Years
Can we make the year pages both category and content pages? That way I could do something like and have it appear on the page, but we can still add content that would be crazy to categorize (like Luke losing his hand to Vader). Thoughts? --SparqMan 02:40, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * And after all that work I did? Idk, I still like what we have right now. I'll think about it. Btw, you need to put a colon before the category to make the link work or else it puts this page in the category. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, I've been looking for that trick for a while now. Thanks, Riffy. JSarek 03:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, Riff is going to think about it. What does everyone else think? It would be easier in the long run than manually entering all of those items --SparqMan 13:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * If it's done as a category page, then we can't break it down chronologically&mdash;it would all get sorted alphabetically. I like the idea of being able to sort events chronologically within the year. – Aidje talk 14:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * We could put sorted events in the top section following by the alpha TOC. For characters, we could use the system of Wikipedia with
 * So does that mean we're getting a Joe Shmoe article too? -- Riffsyphon1024 04:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I kinda like how it is now. However, I think it could be better, but I don't think using categories is the way to do it.  WhiteBoy 05:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I have created consecutive pages for all years from 7 BBY to 35 ABY, with gaps in between years farther back. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Why do some years in the thousands use commas, and some not? Examples 4,004 BBY vs 5005 BBY? - SparqMan
 * I and Riff came to a silent agreement that years in the thousands use commas, with non-comma years as redirects. --Imperialles 18:28, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Only speaking for myself, but I think the commas make it look tidier and more professional. --Fade 20:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fair Use
Many of the images that we use here (including many I have uploaded) would be hard to defend under a "fair use" claim. Out of curiosity, how do we justify that screenshots, images from comics and other content which is covered by closed copyright is legally covered by fair use? --SparqMan 03:10, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It is known that film screenshots are under fair use if cited. Comics might be a little different. I would stick to posting screenshots myself. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Comics can be under fair use if their intent is not to deprive the copyright holder of revenue, and in additon must be used in an informative and/or critiquing manner. So long as no one posts a number of consecutive comic pages, I see no problem under FU. All effort should be made to crop the image to include only the relevant panel, and if possible remove text bubbles, or preferable use a panel without text. Comic covers are under the same protections as book covers.--Eion 00:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, under strict interpretations, because wikicites.com derives revenue from ads, our claim of fair use on many pieces of copyright protected content would be null. While LFL has been pretty lose over the years with enforcing their copyrights on the Internet, we should make better use of Wikipedia's guidelines on image descriptions (especially explaining why an image qualifies for fair use, rather than just a tag). --SparqMan 04:35, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * True all, but while wikicities itself derives revenue from ads, we as a community are not trying to accrue any revenue from the images posted, nor are we attempting to deny LFL or any other company revenue, i.e. the posting of certain comic panels (at least in the manner they are most often used) will not deter someone from buying said comic book.--Eion 18:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Battle Casualties
Sparqman suggested I bring this up here and it is certainly the place for it (excuse my noobness).

I believe that the Casualties section on Battle pages should only list significant individuals that perished during the conflict. For example when creating the Second Battle of Coruscant (Clone Wars) page, I only listed Count Dooku as a casualty. This is because it seemed silly to write "some Clone Troopers" and "some Battle Droids". After all, it is a battle, nameless grunts are bound to get killed.
 * I would agree, except in cases where the numbers are available (which are few and far between). --SparqMan 03:39, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I tend to disagree. Even a rough qualifier like "Most battle droids" or "a few clonetroopers" is valuable information. I guess "some battle droids" is kind of silly; maybe "Unknown number of battle droids" is better. But I still think more info is better than less. We should also certainly include naval losses. If half of a Star Destroyer task force gets wiped out, it's a major part of the battle.-LtNOWIS 15:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Lowlight.com
After going through this site, I've noticed that there are many errors with the maps and may be the reason some things don't agree in this site, like the Gordian Reach Sector, and for the very fact that the creator made his galaxy sectors in a grid format. He is definitely outdated and maybe shouldnt have the thing still up anymore, but I had to alert this wiki about this. They do have all the right systems in the Elrood Sector, but the placement of it in his galaxy is just flat out weird. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * That site appears to be mainly of use for RPGs, on the other hand, is an excellent cartography site, though it has exceeded its monthly bandwidth limit yet again. The author does a thorough job researching the positions of each system, and has created a beautiful map of the Galaxy, with several blown up sector maps as well.--Eion 10:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course I know about Carty's Nav-comp site. Its the best there is, and only happens to be down right now. I was just wondering about this site, which might have been the source of some stuff we've gone over before. -- Riffsyphon1024 10:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I know you know, just pointing it out to everyone else as well. Yeah, it's a good possibility...--Eion 10:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Appearances
I think we should endeavour to have an Appearances section on each in-Universe page. This would make it easier to determine what are legitimate entries and what are fancruft or, for example, Supershadow creations. Not necessarily an exhaustive index (adding all of Luke Skywalker's appearances would be virtually impossible) but at least major appearances. Thoughts?
 * This plus more thorough citations should solve most of our problems with non-canon material. This should be added to the style guide if it isn't already in there: All entries must have a source citation.--Eion 10:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I can't help but feel we should put Appearances at the top of the page for spoiler reasons. For example, particularly in short articles (such as the Masters of Revan's time), it's easy to read the entire article, get to the appearances and think "Bugger, I just read a spoiler for such-and-such". I know it doesn't help IU perspective, but its a matter of practicality. Thoughts? --Fade 12:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Putting them at the top would disrupt the flow of the article. We give the general warning on the front page about spoilers (with the exception of EPIII for the next couple weeks). It should be at the end before Sources. I've found complete Appearance sections to be frustrating in addition to Sources. It seems appropriate to truncate in Appearances (ie "X-Wing comic series") but not Sources. At the same time, nothing should stop a user from contributing an exhaustive listing of appearances. Coupled with a short explanation of the role in the source (antagonist, passing mention, etc.) can be very helpful for a reader. --SparqMan 21:03, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Should "Appearances" be used as the section title every time? I've seen lots of articles with similar sections that are titled "Sources" or "References."  I'm in the process of adding a list of sources to many of my articles, so I would really like to know. JimRaynor55 23:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it needs to be "Appearances". "Sources" or "References" really refers to where the information came from, for example getting details from one of the Visual Dictionaries (which is the Source/Reference) about an object that was in one of the films (which is the Appearance). Oh, and sorry I forgot to add my signature to the start of this topic... SeanR 03:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it should always be "sources." The movie, in this example, is just as much a source as the VD would be. "Appearances" *might* be kept as "Major Appearances," to delineate what someone who wants to get the most bang for their viewing/reading/playing buck should see, but minor appearances really aren't that much different from sources of other sorts.  jSarek 04:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Good point. I like the "Major Appearances" and "Sources" idea. SeanR 08:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Time magazine
This week's Time magazine (May 29, 2005) includes an article about Wikopedia and wikis called It's a Wiki, Wiki World. The last paragraph includes a reference to Star Wars Wiki:
 * "Whatever happens to Wikipedia, the wiki genie is out of the bottle. There are wikibooks for collaborative nonfiction, wikipes for recipes and wikimedia for citizen journalists. Wales has a for-profit website, Wikicities, where anyone can form a community. (The two largest are geeking out on the chronologies of Star Wars and Star Trek.) "It's a form of brainstorming that's bigger than one person standing at a flip chart," says Cunningham. "And there's a timelessness to it. You can do a wiki over one year or 10." And have almost as much fun as Jimmy Wales does for the whole decade."

-- Austicke 18:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Haha, that's awesome. --Imperialles 13:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Huzzah. --SparqMan 13:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Geeking out eh? Lol. -- Riffsyphon1024 19:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Sweet. I can take 'geeking out' as a compliment. – Aidje talk
 * JSarek pointed something out. He says that it "means we may well be soon inundated with more traffic than we know what to do with . . ." -- Riffsyphon1024 05:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Redirect Mania
There is alot of attention needed to double and even triple redirects created from this madness over the correct name of something. Refer to Maintenance Page --> Double Redirects to see what I mean. I have already fixed a few, but I ask if all this is necessary. -- Riffsyphon1024 20:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * All fixed now. Double redirects are generally not intentional. A little cleanup every few days can do the trick. --SparqMan 20:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Took me all of two minutes. Just the housekeeping that goes with a wiki I guess.--Eion 21:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category names
Should categories involving IU articles be IU themselves? or are examples of what I mean. Should they be replaced with or Cateogry:Separatists, and others like them the same? --SparqMan 00:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Could you rephrase that again? -- Riffsyphon1024 02:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Should we change the names of categories that are OOU in name, like, into IU names? --SparqMan 03:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I think he means categories like "Characters" aren't IU, because real people typically aren't referred to as characters. Therefore, should we change the category names?  If I got the question right, I have no opinion on this.  jSarek 04:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * To clarify (I think) changing 'Separatists characters' to simply 'Separatists'. If i have it right, I agree. --Fade 11:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * There is a reason for having "characters" on the end of those category names. Consider "New Republic characters" as opposed to "New Republic." One is for people, the other is for things relating to that government. – Aidje talk 01:17, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Certain organizations and government are large enough to have their own categories. Why make it harder for users to tell them apart? -- Riffsyphon1024 01:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That doesn't change the fundamental question of whether or not the categories should be made in-universe or not; we could have "New Republic personalities" instead of "New Republic characters," for instance. jSarek 01:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * So what do we with all the people in Category:Characters? What could they possibly go under if they are just random people. I believe we can draw a line when it comes to OOU vs IU. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * "Category:People" or "Category:Individuals," perhaps? There are options; it's really a matter of taste, I would think.  jSarek 04:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. I think we can live with the categories names as they are.  If we do change it, I'd want something like "Old Republic individuals."  "People" could be a race or a group of people.  WhiteBoy 20:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Grafting data from WikiPedia.Org into existing articles
I notice that the guidelines for taking data from WikiPedia.Org assumes that we have no article. This is true part of the time, but often someone starts an areticle when a fully developed one exists already on WikiPedia.Org. The result is that we have an article which is months away from maturity. Some people just paste the WikiPedian article ontop of ours, but this is rude to the previous contributers who spent hours writing articles which are gone. The logical thing to do is to merge the articles:

About a week ago, I edited the article '  Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones.   The article   Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones  ' was terribly underdeveloped. The WikiPedian article was very developed because of the three years it had to mature. Several times, people have tried pasting the WikiPedian article on top of our article. The people who lost their changes reverted. I compared the two article and pasted in sections not present in our article, thus preserving the work done to our article. I did this a week ago, and none complain. I shall rewrite the guidelines to include merging. — — Ŭalabio 02:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * That's what I did. I merged info from a section into the article, rather than obliterate the whole thing. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I just put your idea into the guidelines. — — Ŭalabio 03:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

HIMS
I think I may have finally figured out what "HIMS" stands for, and it definitely doesn't seem to fit as a ship title. It stands for hyperwave inertial momentum sustainer, among other things, it can counteract interdiction fields. Shadowtrooper 02:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That H.I.M.S. is different from the conjectural His Majesty's Imperial (Star)Ship. --SparqMan 15:53, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Which is even more different from the accurate His Imperial Majesty's (Star)Ship. ;-)--Eion 16:38, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Typo shmypo. Both are equally fanonful. =) --SparqMan 20:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh well, and here I thought I stumbled on to something really cool. Shadowtrooper 19:50, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)