Wookieepedia talk:Community Portal

Archive1 Archive2

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)

Wiki-specific namespace
The wiki-specific namespace for this wiki is "Star Wars". This causes some problems: 1) Any article which should be named "Star Wars: NameX" is instead named "Star Wars:NameX" 2) Any article who's talk page should be named "Talk:Star Wars: NameX" is instead named "Star Wars talk:NameX". Would it be possible, practical, and desirable to change the "Star Wars" namespace to "Star Wars Wiki" (or something else better than "Star Wars"). I think that it would be desirable, but I don't know about possible or practical. – Aidje talk 13:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I've though of a third problem caused by the "Star Wars" namespace: it affects searches, since that's done by namespace. – Aidje talk 21:48, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It's possible that Angela might be able to help with that. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * But would other people agree that this would be a good thing to change? I'm hardly an authority to make such a decision on my own. – Aidje talk 03:48, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * How about naming it "Wookieepedia"? It seems that is the most common term, anyway. "Star Wars" has to go. --Imperialles 20:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd be all for "Wookieepedia", but I wasn't sure if others would agree since it's not "official".
 * I, for one, have always preferred that name. Gives us a unique identity, instead of being simply "Star Wars Wiki 01", if you catch my drift. Sort of like Memory Alpha. Anyway, a vote should be held--Imperialles 20:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Very well. It shall be done. – Aidje talk 20:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vote to change the wiki-specific namespace
Let's vote on this. We can talk to Angela about it when we've come to a consensus. – Aidje talk 20:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Change to "Wookieepedia"

 * 1) For --Imperialles 20:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) For. See discussion above for my reasons. – Aidje talk 20:50, 14 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)

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)

Race
Could it be mentioned on the Manual of Style that contributors should use 'species instead of 'race'? --Imperialles 17:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well note that we have both species and races on here. That is why the category is named so ("Races and species"). Remember that races are within species. I learned this early on and corrected myself. -- Riffsyphon1024 19:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Correct, but race is generally a social construct where physical variations are mixed with culture, history and other non-biological differences. If some alien species was to visit Earth, for example, it is unlikely that humans would be viewed as multiple species. Generally speaking, any place where we might use the term "race" on this wiki would be more suitably served by "sub-species" or "variation". --SparqMan 19:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it is okay to have both Species and Race, but they would have to be used in the right context. For example, Race: Human is technically incorrect; it should be Species: Human.  But you could have Race: Naboo and Race: Corellian, and in this case to say Species: Naboo would be incorrect. There are also races within the Zabrak, Twi'lek and Aqualish species, to name a few off the top of my head. SeanR 08:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * And in the cases of Twi'leks and Niktos, all the colored variations would be considered races, or subspecies of those species. -- Riffsyphon1024 15:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree most strenuously. The use of race to discern between groups of humans on Earth was an anthrolopogical anomaly until its use was exploited by those wishing to divide and/or exterminate groups. Most anthropologists and biologists have abandoned its use for taxonomical reasons. It's an anachronism that many cling to as a way of keeping our increasingly unneat world orderly. Translating that to Star Wars, it seems unsupported scientifically to describe Nubians and Corellians are races of humanity. It even lacks the hallmarks of Earth races -- there are few physical consistencies between those groups. -- Further, I do not believe that it would be outlandish to consider Corellian and Alderaanian to be subspecies of humans. The humans on Corellia and the humans on Alderaan have been seperated for over twenty five thousand years. It's hard to believe that they have not adapted and changed. So they are human, but they are not the same. --SparqMan 18:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It's also important to note that all modern humans are part of the same subspecies. So "race", if we're using it at all, would properly be used for very small variations within species, while subspecies would be fairly large variations (like the different Nikto types.)  As for Corellian and similar varieties of human, given the flow of people between planets in an interstellar society of long standing, that might only go as far as being an "ethnic group". Silly Dan 22:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok so we can separate them into Species, Race or Subspecies, and Ethnic Group. How exactly would we classify near-humans like Lorrdians and Chiss though? -- Riffsyphon1024 22:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * As Lorrdians are described as genetically identical to humans, they'd be a race or ethnic group. Chiss, who look quite different from humans, but are identified as near-human mostly because scientifically-minded fans noticed you can clone them from the same equipment you use to clone humans, would probably be a subspecies.  Problem is, too many sources use "race" and "species" interchangably, so we can't just look this up. Silly Dan 23:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Then in the case of Lorrdians, Corellians, Nubians, and Naboo, all genetically identical to us humans, they are simply humans with the name of their home planet attached. Then the only difference is culture, as Sparq said. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly (though I guess we'd put their articles in [:Category: Races and species] for now, unless we decide a sub-category [:Category: Humans and Near-humans] is needed.) Silly Dan 23:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Silly Dan, we know nothing of the cloning technology used in the Star Wars galaxy. The same equipment may be used to clone all species. The use of the term race in EU sources is, in most instances, an error. Regardless, the same complexities that rendered "races" useless on Earth are the same in the Star Wars galaxy: can a Wookiee born and raised on Corellia ever be a Corellian? And as pointed out, there was far too much movement, especially amongst the Core and Inner Rim worlds, to keep them defined. For now, all should be species, and the others can be refered to as of human origin.--SparqMan 01:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you're disagreeing with me on the Chiss, SparqMan. Like I say, calling the Chiss near-human, or a human subspecies, is mostly due to assuming cloning works the same in Star Wars as it does here.  Silly Dan 02:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * But then the Chiss didn't originate in the Core Worlds, but in the Unknown Regions. That's makes them pretty alien to humans as we know them. I do like the idea of a subcategory for humans and near humans though. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * (Could've sworn there were some sources claiming humans might not be from the Core originally...) The main problem I see with a human & near-human category is the possible arguments over what to put in it.  For example, some aliens described as "humanoid" might be classed as near-humans based solely on fanonical inferences.  At least one species, the Zelosians, are described as near-humans even though biologically they can't be related (according to West End Games, they're really some sort of walking plants).  But it would be the best place to put the Bakuran article, or start a Corellian article. Silly Dan 03:04, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I still maintain that the use of Race is okay. Race isn't a biological concept, it is sociological.  In this sense, Naboo and Corellian are different races, brought up with different cultures and traditions.  This concept could at least be termed "Ethnicity" rather than "Sub-species". SeanR 08:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, in my mind, race and culture are not the same thing at all. Alderaan and Corellia had very different cultures, what with Alderaanian nonviolance and all, but they were the same race, and the same sub-species. As far as I know, Alderaanians and Corellians look exactly the same. 25,000+ years is more than enough to develop some significant differences, but I would think there would be enough migration to counteract that. While the concept of "race" is steeped in cultural and geographic differences, if someone has no noticeable physical differences and speaks the same language, than they're of the same race, regardless of the geography. It would be like arguing New Englanders and Southerners are a seperate race. They're not, they're just 2 places with different cultures, dialects, and traditions. So, in summary, the use of "race" is ok, but only if the people can actually tell each other apart somewhat, without the use of clothing, dialect or behavior. Subspecies can be used, but only if there are more significant physical differences than most Earth races. After all, we wouldn't want to argue that Lando Calrissian and Han Solo are different subspecies.-LtNOWIS 00:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Advertising
Perhaps someone with a user account at either Theforce.net or StarWars.com could post a recruitment thread there? Fresh blood is always needed. --Imperialles 02:30, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I have already posted a thread in Websites at TFN. I also have a link in my signature as wookieepedian1. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I have a link to SWW, and occasionally repost articles I started on the Star Wars Blogs. Don't know how much it helps, but if some kind of shameless plug for the Wiki is in order I'll see if I can't post something about it on my blog. Shadowtrooper 23:35, 12 Jun 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)

Star Wars Visionaries
Any one know if the tales in here are considered canon? --SparqMan 14:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Some of them are, while some aren't. And Dark Horse doesn't say which ones, how typical... I, for one, hope the Darth Maul one is canon... because I love the bastard. --Imperialles 15:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Many will wish that not to be so. Thus we have a canon problem. -- Riffsyphon1024 17:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * How can ANYONE not like a red, horned man with robotic ostrich legs? --Imperialles 18:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is the problem. They look cool and all, but many question his ability to survive a abdominal disection and a who-knows-how-deep a fall he had. -- Riffsyphon1024 18:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I have heard it's generally bad for your long term health. --Fade 18:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That's funny, I question the ability of little green aliens to zip around with laser swords...but suspension of disbelief seems to do the trick for fiction. For all we know, Zabraks are particularly adept at surviving adominal bisection. I just wasn't sure if they were Infinities-esque. Since they don't conflict with any other sources, I can't see a problem. --SparqMan 20:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Audio files
Can we use audio files here? I uploaded one called echuu.ogg, but I don't think it's working. -- Shadowtrooper 19:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It worked for me with winamp- "This is Echuu Shen-Jon" --Fade 19:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, okay then. One more problem remains, how to put it in the article. -- Shadowtrooper 19:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You can just use a media link. --SparqMan 20:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)