Talk:Yoda's species/Legends

Any proposals for a better title? MoffRebus 01:46, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I like Yoda's species, which redirects here. &mdash; Silly Dan  03:20, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, "Yoda's species" sounds good.--Valin Kenobi 05:05, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I always called them Dagobans, cause Yoda always seemed to look like he fit in on Dagobah, but I doubt that's what will be selected. Yoda's species on the other hand... -- SFH 05:07, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I propose Not-Whill :) QuentinGeorge 05:10, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Not very encyclopedic, but I understand your reasons. -- SFH 05:17, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * How about Those little green guys? :P -- Riffsyphon1024 05:41, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * If it comes to that, I like to think of them as Yodels. ;D.--Valin Kenobi 06:41, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Any other proposals on that? MoffRebus 00:45, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I guess you went ahead and decided to move it, but if I can repost my objection from the other talk page:
 * I think the Unknown Species title is the most neutral one possible. "Yoda's species", while it's probably how most people out of universe would think of it, doesn't work for an in-universe article, as it makes the entire species sound like it revolves around Yoda. - Lord Hydronium 00:51, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I must say, this move was a great idea. Admiral J. Nebulax 02:38, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Really? I find it to be informal and fairly unencyclopedic, really.  "Yoda's species" suggests a frame of reference with Yoda at its center, namely that of the viewer.  It may be the name that most people think of it under, but so is Thrawn, and that's a redirect too.  It's not in-universe, either; I haven't seen any source call it that, and nobody would have called, say, Vandar "Yoda's species".  Unknown Species (Yoda, Yaddle, and Vandar Tokare) simply states exactly what it is, with no specific frame of reference.  "Unknown", as well, is the designation in things like the Databank. - Lord Hydronium 03:15, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hydronium. QuentinGeorge 03:18, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Placeholders can be out of universe, like 'Dominique Chionchio's Jedi'. I don't think either that 'Yoda's species' is the best schoice, but certainly 'Unknown Species (Yoda, Yaddle, and Vandar Tokare)' is totally unpractical and not good for a topic name. MoffRebus 12:41, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if some people don't like this, what do you suggest? Admiral J. Nebulax 12:45, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * The only better solution I can think is 'Yoda's Unknown Species'. So far only two people are against it while four (including me) are pro. If there is more opposition I am sure someone can find a better name than both MoffRebus 12:55, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "Unknown Small Species"? Admiral J. Nebulax 12:57, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * The difference there is that the fact that Dominique Chionchio (curse you for making me try to spell that ;-) ) plays that Jedi is the only reference point we have on her, and also as that character is from What's the Story, that's her sole defining characteristic. If Yoda was the only member of this species, that would work, but he isn't.  "Yoda's species" suggests that Yaddle, for example, is defined species-wise only by her relation to Yoda; it puts undue importance on one member for out-of-universe reasons.  I don't see what's so unworkable about the original.  It fits with the usual pattern of main topic ("Unknown species", which everything calls them already) plus disambiguation in parentheses.  "Yoda's species" can still be a redirect, as well as Unknown Species (Yoda), and all other terms that people might look them up under.  Thrawn is a good precedent on how even if nobody thinks of a topic under a certain name, we still keep it under that name to be consistent (that is, his main topic is Mitth'raw'nuruodo, even though everyone's going to look up "Thrawn"). - Lord Hydronium 13:11, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * So any suggestions? Admiral J. Nebulax 13:22, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, go back to the original. I'm curious as to why that apparently doesn't fly. - Lord Hydronium 13:42, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Any other suggestions? I'm interested in hearing what other people will (hopefully) suggest. Admiral J. Nebulax 15:36, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I think continuing to call them "Yoda's species" is fine. He was the most famous member IU and OOU, as far as I can tell.  &mdash; Silly Dan  15:50, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * While you have a point, it should be titled something that does not have a member of this species's name in the title. Admiral J. Nebulax 16:00, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * To analogize, let's say we were never given the name of the X-wing, but everything in ANH was exactly as it was. Would we call the X-wing "Luke Skywalker's fighter"?  That's how most people recognize it, and Luke may be the most famous Rebel of that battle in-universe, but that simply isn't accurate.  It's no more Luke's fighter than Wedge's, or Biggs', or Porkins'.  Similarly, this isn't Yoda's species any more than it's Yaddle's species or Vandar's species.  It particularly doesn't work for Vandar because 3000 years before Yoda's birth, nobody would have been calling him "Yoda's species".  And whether a title is cumbersome shouldn't be a criterion.  That's what redirects are for.  Delta-7 Aethersprite-class light interceptor is a good example of this.  If Unknown Species (Yoda, Yaddle, and Vandar Tokare) doesn't work (although I am curious as to why), I suggest anything of the form Unknown Species (some disambiguation), since that's how they're always referred to. - Lord Hydronium 22:21, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, for your example, it would probably be called "Unknown Rebel fighter". And I still think "Unknown small species" is good enough. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:14, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Precisely, because we only see Rebels use it. We could assume there's an in-universe impression that it's primarily a Rebel fighter.  But we don't only see Luke use it, thus it wouldn't be Luke's fighter.  "Unknown small species" is better than the current one, I suppose, but it's rather vague.  The list of unidentifiable species has several small guys.  That's what I liked about the original.  It said what they are (an unknown species), and then disambiguated that by listing its known members.  That's consistent with the usual approach to titling articles. - Lord Hydronium 23:35, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Don't get me wrong, I'd like to come to some sort of consensus/compromise, which is why I keep bringing up that I'm curious as to why the old title didn't work. It's hard to posit a argument when I'm not sure where everyone else is coming from. - Lord Hydronium 23:39, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Why didn't George Lucas stick with Whill? It would be a whole lot easier for us. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:39, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, we could always call them frogs. ;-) jSarek 00:18, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, I'm starting to think Dagoban sounds like a good idea. Just too bad no one else probably will -- SFH 00:20, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * "Well, we could always call them frogs". Well, considering Yoda was similar to Kermit the Frog... But the reason Dagoban wouldn't be good is because (as far as we know) the species wasn't from Dagobah. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:32, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

We can use the words 'unknown', 'little', 'green' and 'tridactyl' to find an adequate description. MoffRebus 13:07, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's see: "Unknown little green tridactyl species". Doesn't sound good. Admiral J. Nebulax 14:51, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to throw another wrench in the works, Vandar is actually brown. - Lord Hydronium 22:25, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Great. Okay, let's try this: "Unknown little tridactyl species". Still sounds stupid. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:17, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I hate to sound like a broken record, but what exactly was wrong with the original title? I wouldn't keep repeating this, except nobody's addressed it. - Lord Hydronium 08:13, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * They were originally called Unknown Species (Yoda, Yaddle, and Vandar Tokare). -- SFH 18:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * To me, that seemed too long. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Length shouldn't be a problem. After all, we have Delta-7 Aethersprite-class light interceptor, Eta-2 Actis-class light interceptor, A5 Juggernaut Heavy Assault Vehicle/wheeled, etc.  And as I mentioned, I'm trying to keep the titles consistent as Main Title (disambiguation).  But I do agree that that doesn't scale well; it would get unwieldy if more members were added, and it's a rather uncreative description.  So if that doesn't work: Unknown species (small tridactyls)?  Unknown species (tridactyl)? (If there aren't a significant number of other three-fingered unknown species, that is) Or perhaps just plain Unknown species (which is a redirect to the list right now), as that's what everybody calls them anyway, and adding a link to the list at the top? - Lord Hydronium 22:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Unknown tridacyl species? Or even Yoda, Yaddle, and Vandar Tokare's species? Admiral J. Nebulax 23:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Dagoban is a good title. I mean, Dagobah is the only planet on which this species appears in the movies that the species could have originated from. I mean, they probably didn't originate from Coruscant, as that is the only planet on which they appear in the movies, besides Dagobah. I mean "Yoda's species" sounds sort of uncyclopedic, not to insult anyone, naturally. KFan II 01:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * KFan II: The problem is, we have no evidence they come from Dagobah, and since the planet was uninhabited and Yoda seems to have chosen it relatively at random, there's plenty to suggest they don't.
 * Nebulax: I could go with Unknown tridactyl species. It's a fairly good description, and uses one of their two common traits (the other being their smallness, which while their most distinguishing feature, is unfortunately really vague).  The problem with the other, like the original (which, BTW, I've changed my opinion on; I agree now that it is a bit unwieldy), is that it doesn't scale well to additional members.  Especially if, as below, there are unidentified members at Ruusan.  "Yoda, Yaddle, Vandar Tokare, and some anonymous guy at Ruusan" doesn't really have a good ring. - Lord Hydronium 03:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Then if others agree, it can be moved. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That title sounds good to me. - Alpha Fire 20:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Any objections? Admiral J. Nebulax 20:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm comfortable with it. -- SFH 20:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice, that's somehow what I imagined MoffRebus 11:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll move it now. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * MoffRebus, please don't put comments in the middle of a discussion. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Poor writing
"This race was one of the wisest species out there. Also members of this species had extraordinary Force potential." Is it fair for us to extrapolate that (ignoring the crap writing) from the three examples we're shown? --SparqMan 06:18, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * One is indirect, two is a coincidence, three begins to sound like a pattern. -- SFH 06:23, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Although it may well be true, personally I don't think we're justified in making blanket declarations like those two that SparqMan points out. Maybe it should be something along the lines of, "All three known individuals of this species displayed considerable Force potential and were considered wise leaders among the Jedi"? And for that matter, do we necessarily know whether Yaddle's and Vandar's Force abilities were that "extraordinary" compared to other Jedi of "conventional" species?--Valin Kenobi 06:42, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Inferring anything about the species from the example we have would be premature. After all, Zabrak aren't all force-sensitive, even though Agen Kolar, Eeth Koth, Darth Maul, Bao-Dur, and Kadrian Sey were. QuentinGeorge 06:53, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:48, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

fixed it P.h 22:02, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)p.h
 * Thank you. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:03, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * nice update User:Cato Neimoidia 24.63.167.114 23:48, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)p.h

Other members
Wasn't there a carving of one of these guys on Ruusan? Kuralyov 01:04, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * There was? I'd be interested to see that, because, since we know Johun Othone carved the statue in honor of those who fell on Ruusan, that would imply a member of this species was in the Army of Light. QuentinGeorge 01:19, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * It was in one of the Valley pictures in Dark Forces: Jedi Knight. Kuralyov 17:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Can we get a scan? QuentinGeorge 03:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, please provide us with an image. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't find it, but then again I'm a bad boy and only have a scanned copy which might miss some pages... Charlii 21:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If this helps, it's on page 24 of the softcover of Dark Forces: Rebel Agent. jSarek 22:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you provide it for us, jSarek? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not with my broken scanner, unfortunately. :-( jSarek 23:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Too bad. And User:MaulYoda, don't just move a page without permission like that. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You could just ask someone else. &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's too late for that, isn't it? ;) Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Page history
Now that the page history is all messed up from the moving, I'm making a note here that it can be found here. The talk page history can be found here. We probably have a template for that, but I have no idea what it is. - Lord Hydronium 23:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think we do. And to User:MaulYoda: You see what can happen when you move a page without asking? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me see if I can fix it . . . jSarek 23:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)