Wookieepedia talk:Community Portal

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)

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)
 * I strongly agree with that idea Sparq. To me, this whole site is a spoiler.  :)  People are coming here to learn more info about someone/something/whatever.  I can see waiting until the DVD is released, though, for those who didn't catch it in the theater.  WhiteBoy 07:17, 6 Aug 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)
 * Sparq describes my view perfectly --Imp 17:33, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I wasn't necessarily advocating an extension of that policy for new books, just wondering what we were planning to do. I know I'd like to continue working on major articles without fear of ruining the Dark Nest books before I've read them. --SparqMan 00:44, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * This rule should extend to all new forms of literature and the television series when they come out. Ep III spoilers won't be used but we still have the regular ones you can use. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:35, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * So, you're saying that all new material being added from newer sources should have spoiler warnings? For how long after release? --SparqMan 16:25, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * As long as needed. There is no possible solid timeline that we can use for these. -- Riffsyphon1024 16:58, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I've created a page for info about how we handle spoilers. Right now it's pretty lacking since we haven't actually decided anything, but we can probably begin discussion on Star Wars talk:Spoilers. – Aidje talk 03:14, 4 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Episode III spoilers
How much longer are those going to remain up, as opposed to just the spoiler warning in general? Until the Episode III DVD release? Kuralyov 19:49, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I asked that same question earlier to no response. I think a month after the EPIII DVD release is fair. --SparqMan 15:16, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * One month after the DVD sounds good to me. WhiteBoy 19:20, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * agree--Eion 19:01, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * That sounds fair, people should have seen it by then. -- Riffsyphon1024 19:41, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll add this to Star Wars:Spoilers. – Aidje talk 01:25, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Hyperspace free trial

 * Just so everybody knows, starwars.com is currently offering a free 7-day trial (no credit card required) of Hyperspace to anyone who wants one, so get going. MarcK 09:28, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Non-Official Images
As long as you have the consent of the person creating it, would it be okay to add images created by fans? I have a few images that depict scenes from EU. Would they be okay to add? - DarthMaul431


 * Yes, but all things in moderation; do not upload terabytes of images. Also, WookieePædia is not a photogallery, but an Encyclopædia; so now, please use the images for illustrating articles, not in bandwidtheating photogalleries.  ¿Could you also please sign your comments? — — Ŭalabio‽ 03:48, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * I always assumed fan-art was not wanted on this Wiki... Any official word on this? --Azizlight 05:02, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * It's best if they came from a canon source. I have made an exception for user created maps though. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:36, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see a major problem with providing some fan-created images, where they are based totally on official descriptions and such, and they must say that they are 'artists representations' or something. --beeurd 16:56, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars Miniatures
Howdy, as a new Wookieepedian, and as an avid player of Star Wars Miniatures, do y'all think that the inclusion of set-lists of each Miniatures set would be valuable to the Wiki? I'd be more than happy to do it, but before embarking on the journey, I'd like some approval. Thanks!

DarthIntrepidus 04:39, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * I would be interested in seeing what you could whip up. Because this is a Star Wars Wiki, all canon information is wanted, including games. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:40, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * It might be good to start with a single article containing lists of the different sets. I've been thinking about doing this with the old MicroMachines too. --SparqMan 16:18, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * I still have some of the SW MMs. Maybe this could turn into a repository of toys, a la ShopWookiee. -- Riffsyphon1024 16:23, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

"Stub of the day?"
"Stub of the day" was recently added to the Main Page and here -- do we want to have this feature? Isn't it covered by the Improvement drive? &mdash; Silly Dan 01:29, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * True, but shouldn't the article for improvement be listed on the main page? -- SFH 22:50, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * We don't have one this week. (Though I was just about to nominate Mon Calamari.)  &mdash; Silly Dan  23:04, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Go ahead Dan. We haven't had a vote there in two weeks. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:43, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)

HoloNet News: Website vs Insider
At the moment we have articles for HoloNet News (in-universe) and HoloNet News (website). We need to make a new page for the HoloNet News that is published in Star Wars Insider.

I'm not really sure what to call this new page, perhaps HoloNet News (Insider), though I don't think I like this title. Perhaps HoloNet news items from both the Website and Insider should all be indexed on the one page? And what do we call this page? And we also need to keep CIS Shadowfeed in mind. --Azizlight 16:28, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * We have pages for the individual online issues. The ones in Insider also have numbers, so we should make pages for them too. Anyone with Insider want to start the ball rolling? QuentinGeorge 22:38, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Just let me get issue 84 before I get spoiled too much, and then I'll be up to it. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:42, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to use this, or not:
 * I started doing it but looks like i won't have time to continue today :-(


 * Republic HoloNet News, featured in Star Wars Insider magazine, is an series of in-universe news articles detailing galactic events leading up to the beginning of Attack of the Clones. The articles were authored by Pablo Hidalgo. Holonet News articles were published in Star Wars Insider issues #63 to #76, after the release of Episode II.


 * Holonet News articles returned to the Insider in issue #84, detailing the events immediately after the birth of the Empire.

Issues
HoloNet News Core Edition 14:2:12 (Star Wars Insider 65) --Azizlight 00:59, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Wanted Pages

 * I think maybe it's time to do another purge of the wanted pages. We have uncreated pages with as many as 65(!) referring pages, mostly for authors, comics, and young adult books that I know nothing about and thus can't help with.  jSarek 21:38, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * To purge, simply use this link. - Sikon [ Talk ] 03:21, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * I must not know what "purging" means in the context of the software. I just meant that, in the past, we've managed to get the referring page number for the most wanted pages down into the low teens; now, there are some 60 pages exceeding that. It would be commendable if we could bring that number back down again, and so we should "purge" it (by this, I meant "create a bunch of articles to get their respective redlinks kicked out of Wanted Pages").  Apologies for using the term colloquially when there's an official meaning to it (and, incidentally, what exactly does real "purging" do to the page?).  jSarek 05:27, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * As with all pages, "purging" means clearing the server cache, forcing the server to update the page. - Sikon [ Talk ] 06:03, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Looking at that list... Do we 'really' need a separate page for each Clone Wars cartoon? I'm sure one for each series would be sufficient, but if someone can fill them with usefull info that isn't repeated on every page then I have no problem with it. --beeurd 22:41, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Grah! What's with this on wanted pages:
 * Wookieepedia:Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords (161 links)
 * Wookieepedia:Clone Wars (136 links)
 * Wookieepedia:The Roleplaying Game (90 links)
 * Wookieepedia:The Clone Wars (58 links)
 * Wookieepedia:Battlefront (55 links)
 * And that's just the top 5, those Wookieepedia: ones are scattered throughout the list. --beeurd 23:35, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to figure that one out myself. They're also all over Broken Redirects, even though the redirect pages that are allegedly "broken" actually point to the right page. Opening and resaving the redirect page removes it from the list, but what caused it in the first place? Is there some way the database can refresh the all inter-wiki links? &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  23:51, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Legacy templates
There are some templates which were copied from Wikipedia, but, in my opinion, are useless for this wiki. These are:
 * notenglish - while there may be users who create individual non-English articles, these are exceptional cases and there shouldn't really be an entire category for them.
 * PotentialVanity - Wikipedia deals with a lot of vanity articles every day, but it's not the case here.
 * POV check - not needed as there are no dedicated "NPOV checks", and we have POV for all NPOV issues. (It is truly amusing that we have one NPOV dispute on the entire wiki, yet four NPOV templates, including also NPOV-section and NPOV-title.)
 * incomplete - weak one, but aren't incomplete articles stubs?
 * controversial3 - redundant with controversial
 * DisputeCheck - same reason as for POV check, redundant with disputed
 * idw-uo - what does "UO" stand for? Currently, the template is identical to idw
 * NowCommons - pointless, Wikicities doesn't support Commons
 * CopyrightedFreeUseProvided - provided what? (see template)

In general, I think we need a simpler template system for "issues and disputes", since many templates only slightly differ from each other. If not templates themselves, maybe some categories should be merged, because there are currently a plethora of maintenance categories that only include a few articles each. - Sikon [ Talk ] 03:16, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Not everything is useful here as I've come to realize. I'll delete what you feel needs to be deleted. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:25, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we should get rid of Delete and Nonsense in favor of Deletebecause. IMO, we only need one. &mdash;Darth Culator  06:28, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Copyright templates?
I've just started uploading new pictures for the ships featured in X-Wing Alliance. They're 3-D renders based on the original game files, so they're sort of fair-use and sort of a derivative work. I'm not sure what kind of copyright tag I should be using. Can anyone clear this up for me? &mdash;Darth Culator 02:28, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)

OOU cats
Can we settle whether or not we're going to us "Imperial character" or "Old Republic character", or "Imperial Starfleet officer" or "Galactic Republic politicians"? --SparqMan 17:28, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought we decided against it in the vote above... I'm for the change, however. --beeurd 17:00, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

"stubs go above Appearances on SWW"
Uh, I've been here since June, and this is the first I've heard about this. It's no big deal really, but shouldn't this be written somewhere (namely the Manual of Style) to avoid people repeating this mistake if it is in fact policy (unless I missed it, and if I did I apologize)? StarNeptune 02:28, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I was wondering about this myself. I've seen people move stubs in both directions, and no where does it seem to be officially stated.  So, is there a policy, and if so, what is it and *where* is it? jSarek 06:54, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I don't remember seeing it stated either. I generally put the stub at the bottom of the main text fo the article... I think. --beeurd 20:46, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous users
Has anyone considered requiring user registration before editing? It seems to be working pretty well for Battlestar Wiki and The Great Machine.

Also, can we ban 156.63.242.3 ASAP? It's a proxy server, and I think we should ban all proxy servers as soon as they are discovered just on general principle. &mdash;Darth Culator 04:02, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Lego

 * Would anyone be interested in articles concerning Star Wars LEGO sets? I think it'd be very interesting, and would certainly bring us a step closer to being the ultimate source for Star Wars information. MarcK 04:34, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a can of worms I think we should think very carefully about opening. Once we start detailing individual toys from one manufacturer, it only makes sense to do the same for all manufacturers, and I'm not sure we're ready to detail every Kenner and Hasbro figure ever made. If the community thinks we're up to it, then go for it; but we should show caution before deciding to take that step. jSarek 20:35, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Considering how major a part of Star Wars fandom toy collecting is, this wiki really should cover it at some level. On the other hand, we should be wary of cluttering every character and vehicle page with detailed toy information.  Perhaps for the action figures and associated vehicles, someone should do an article on each individual "wave", with links to the characters and vehicles.  Something similar could be done with the Lego sets, which I think are also in waves.  (I'm not the one to do this, as I don't know much about the subject.  I'm just throwing ideas around.)  &mdash; Silly Dan  22:20, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * There is a very valid point that collecting is a major part of Star Wars fandom, but there are dozens of really good websites already out there that serve the same purpose, and including collecting in the Star Wars Wiki would be a huge and redundant task. - Hollis
 * One could probably have a substantial wiki just on collecting, come to think of it.... &mdash; Silly Dan  11:45, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm up for helping with Star Wars figure pages --Darth Mantus 14:51, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)

CSG madness...
Who put this Consular/Guardian/Sentinel nonsense into Category:Jedi ranks again? It's called game mechanics, RPGs like Wizards and KOTORs use them to bring some character diversity. Will we also create articles for character levels and experience/health/Force points? - Sikon [ Talk ] 06:05, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree; we have decided previously that character classes are simply game mechanics and have little to nothing in common with Star Wars canon. I say that we should either delete these articles, or possibly leave the articles, placing them in category that explicity labels them as game elements (simply for reference). In this case, the articles would be written from an OOU perspective. They should not in any case be left in the category "Jedi ranks." – Aidje talk 22:42, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Addition to Character template for Jedi and Sith characters
I was wondering if maybe for Jedi and Sith characters, a few more elements should be added along with the description and affiliation elements, including who they were trained by, who they themselves trained, and the color lightsaber they had. This may be useful referance for someone looking for this information, as it would be right on top.
 * I think we're better off giving all characters the same character template. However, if enough people want it, we could add another template, called something like , which could have an additional infobox with that info.  &mdash; Silly Dan  22:14, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting suggestion. I would agree with it. Lightsaber colour is on my list of things that I might need to know quickly and might not be bothered enough to read the whole article. --beeurd 02:05, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Lightsaber colour isn't constant, however. It's not like eye colour or sex, which doesn't change. QuentinGeorge 02:13, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Should we hold a vote for whether or not it is made?

Lead-In Quotes

 * Can we come to some agreement how many of these we want per article? I reckon only one, MAX of two. But they seem to be rapidly reproducing and I think we should work out some rule of thumb. QuentinGeorge 06:55, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. One, maybe two.  &mdash; Silly Dan  11:40, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I think they're annoying, and IMO should not be there at all. Definately not more than one. --Azizlight 11:42, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I guess they're not THAT bad... they just look tacky sometimes when anons throw them in. I guess a template/namespace thingy would solve that. Oh BTW would anybody object to me changing Luke's quote to "But I was going to Tosche Station to pick up some power converters!!!" :-D --Azizlight 06:27, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * You are evil. Just try and stop me changing Darth Vader's too '"Yippee!". QuentinGeorge 06:30, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that a single, well-chosen quotation can provide some nice flavor to articles. The problem would be solved by a Wookieequote type segment of SWW. Riffs, how's that coming? --SparqMan 01:57, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * That was what I wanted to suggest, too. Let's organize a "Quote:" namespace (even if not technically a namespace) in a Wikiquote fashion. - Sikon [ Talk ] 04:46, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I like the template idea. QuentinGeorge 06:30, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Wookieequote can create its own little space on the wiki just for quotes. It's acceptable to place one or two per article, but all the rest should be at Wookieequote. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:04, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * If we're going to place them in, they ought to be descriptive of what they are in, maybe even by the person themselves. -- SFH 04:54, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Monsters Wiki
We're just getting started over at the Monsters Wikicity, any help would be nice. I'm sorry if this message is directing people away from Star Wars Wiki but the Monsters Wiki needs a lot of work --Darth Mantus 14:49, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Proposal: Make appearances / sources templates
I think we should consider changing the way we type out our lists of Sources and Appearances at the bottom of every article.

Currently, especially when listing sources, it is quite cumbersome to type the title, publisher and year every single time. Sure we can copy and paste, but it's still very tedious and time consuming.

I propose that we make a template for every single piece of Star Wars literature, e.g. Twin Stars of Kira =. Within these templates will contain the full line of text that would normally be used when citing references, ie. = Twin Stars of Kira, West End Games 1993. (or whatever format we agree on).

There are at least two major advantages of such a change.
 * 1) It will make sourcing articles much faster and easier (this might encourage the lazier among us to include references, where they normally would not have bothered)
 * 2) It will finally make Appearances and Sources sections look consistent across the entire Wiki
 * 3) It would save room on the wiki database

I guess one disadvantage would be the large amount of time taken to convert from the old system to the new system, however Iim sure it will be worthwhile in the long-run. And I would be happy to be a major contributer to this cause.

Please discuss / vote / whatever. Cheers. --Azizlight 07:22, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm still of the opinion that, since hotlinks allow anyone seeking full bibliographic information to obtain it in a single click, we shouldn't be trying to include all of that information. Just linking the title of a work in the appearances/sources should be sufficient, and not that much harder than typing a template.  Going through ALL of our articles to template the sources would be tedious and unnecessary, and then we'd have the added complication of trying to remember which template to type for which source.  jSarek 07:34, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it seemed to be a working Wookieepedia convention to list just the title, without the publisher, year etc. until someone screwed it up for reasons beyond my comprehension. So I think we should stick with the title and not introduce a thousand and one template. - Sikon [ Talk ] 10:04, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I agree that the author/publisher/year details aren't really needed, and in that case I suppose the templates aren't needed. Would everyone agree to removing the author/publisher/year though? --Azizlight 10:27, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was ever a convention to omit publisher, author, and year - we tried to hash something out on Wookieepedia talk: Manual of Style, but no consensus was reached. Of course, only jSarek, Whiteboy, Tam, SparqMan, and I discussed it, and it was back in July, so I don't know what everyone else thinks now.  Since then, my opinion has sort of moved over to jSarek's position, but I've been including authors and publishers in most articles I've started.  For existing articles I've expanded, I've mostly tried to follow the conventions already given in the article.  &mdash; Silly Dan  15:57, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * True that we never really reached a concensus on the Manual of Style, but it seems to be the more common practice to include just the title. And I agree with jSerek that that's all that's necessary with a hyperlink to the full info.  WhiteBoy 02:01, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe I have a little bit of a pretentious streak, but I like listing the full info. I think it looks more encyclopedic. &mdash;Darth Culator  02:09, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * While it may look more professional, for me it's quite confusing, as I can't find the title immediately. - Sikon [ Talk ] 03:10, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Two more possible reasons to include titles only:
 * It's a simple standard that can easily be kept uniform by all users, just as our "use past tense" standard is. If we were a small, centralized group, we could pick a more complicated format, just as we could say "Assume this is written by Jedi scholars in 200 ABY" or something like that.  But we're a wiki, so it's best to keep things simple.
 * It avoids possible questions over authorship (e.g. do we credit a movie to the screenwriter or the director? Do we credit a videogame to the lead programmer, the project manager, or the dialogue writer?  Do we credit the original novelization to the guy with his name on the cover or the ghostwriter?)
 * Should we hop over to the Manual of Style talk page to start a vote? &mdash; Silly Dan  03:13, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * I've always found simply naming the source easier than including info on the book, comic, movie, etc. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:03, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * For sources, I was including the title, publisher and year, but after this little discussion, I'm only going to include the title from now on. And by the way, the Manual of Style really *REALLY* needs to be updated. --Azizlight 01:04, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

New project namespace
Following the discussion at Wookieepedia talk:Community Portal/Namespace dispute, WhiteBoy told me that he felt there was now consensus that the project namespace should be moved. Therefore, the namespace has changed from "Star Wars:" to "Wookipedia:". Redirects have been added from the old namespace for project-related pages. Non-project pages that were wrongly in that namespace should have been moved back. To avoid breaking links, I've put them at Star Wars:Title for now, but many of them may be better moved again to Star Wars: Title with a space (which wasn't possible when Star Wars: was a namespace). I've not added redirects for the old VfD discussions since these didn't seem to be linked from anywhere anyway. I've also not checked the talk pages since these are not often linked, but if you do find any, just add a redirect from the old page to Project talk:Title. There may be some double redirects to fix, but those would best be done after deciding which pages to remove to include a space rather than needing to fix them twice. This will hopefully not cause too much disruption, and brings the benefit of being able to title pages with the prefix Star Wars: without them ending up in the wrong namespace. Angela (talk) 04:43, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for doing this, Angela. :-) jSarek 04:46, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * What jSarek said x45,000,000,000. MarcK 05:12, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * We love you, Angela. :-) – Aidje talk 06:49, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Hot damn. You are a god Angela! -- Riffsyphon1024 02:10, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I have a question: I've been working on fixing all of the double and broken redirects, but I seem to have run into a problem on the broken redirect maintenance page; not all of the pages showing up on that list are really broken redirects. For instance, KOTOR II => Wookieepedia:Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords. KOTOR II already redirects to Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords. Any idea why these are showing up on the broken redirects page? – Aidje talk 01:47, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I wondered that, but it seems that going to edit, and then saving withough making any changes fixes it. --beeurd 01:54, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see you've cleaned it all up. Thanks. Maybe I somehow confused the database when I started deleting the unnecessary redirects. Whatever happened, it's fixed now. – Aidje talk 02:15, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Glacial access speed
Am I the only one having major problems accessing Wikicities? I was trying to relocate the LucasArts games' pages and fix the redirects when the whole domain suddenly slowed to a crawl. And I know it's not my connection, because I have the same problem here at work hours later. It took me over 10 minutes just to get this question posted! Anyone have any ideas about what's up? &mdash;Darth Culator  (talk)  21:50, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Its slow for me, even on DSL. Took two minutes to save, seconds to load though. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:14, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I've also got a high-speed connection and I'm experiencing this as well. Sometimes it can be really fast, but 90% of the time it's terribly slow. Hollis 03:41, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, looks like it's Slashdot's fault. Uncyclopedia got slashdotted, and they're also hosted by Wikia. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  04:09, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Growing "Affiliation" sections
216.227.97.192 has added "Loyalisy Committee" and/or "Delegation of 2000" to a number of characters' "Affiliation" sections. Is this helpful or excessive? --SparqMan 03:21, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Excessive, I think. I'd like to keep it to the "major" org (ie Empire, Rebels, Republic, CIS, Jedi, Sith) QuentinGeorge 06:31, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Galactic locations

 * Should we consider categorizing planets, systems and possibly sectors by region? At the moment the planets and systems categories are incomprehensibly cluttered, so I think for those we know the location of it would do a lot of good to put them in Category:Outer Rim planets, Category:Deep Core systems, etc. MarcK 09:39, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * A fine idea. Then just sort the various planets and systems into the larger categories. --SparqMan 10:00, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Would be good, I think. If we go ahead with this I am willing to help with a lot of this possibly tedious editing. BTW: I presume we would keep a generic Category:Planets, for places that we do not have a sector/etc. for? --beeurd 01:33, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Admittedly it'll still be very full considering the number of ambiguously placed planets there are, but it'll be an improvement. MarcK 10:30, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, shouldn't we have more time discussing this before carrying it out? -- Riffsyphon1024 02:51, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Wookieepedia has outgrown Memory Alpha
At least in the number of articles. As I'm writing this, we have 14555 articles and MA has 14540. - Sikon [ Talk ] 04:17, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * If I may say so...pwned. And also consider that they started two years ago, whereas we started seven months ago. MarcK 04:22, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Much work have we still to do. Many stubs have we. Many articles lacking encyclopedic style as well. --SparqMan 09:05, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * But this number is excluding stubs. MarcK 09:08, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * It does? --beeurd 10:24, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. Counting stubs, talk pages, redirects etc., they have about 4,000 more pages than we do.

Should we change the look of the Stub?
I have always held the opinion that "Stub" notifications make articles on this wiki look ugly. I have come up with a new look for the stub notifications, you can check it out on this page to see what you think. Please discuss here. --Azizlight 04:59, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, although it may be better for the "Expand this article" link to go on the same line. - Sikon [ Talk ] 10:16, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Support --Master Starkeiller 11:38, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, although I think it might look better with the image still beside it, but keeping the text as it is (in the test) on separate lines. I could be wrong though. --beeurd 13:23, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, but put all the text on one line, maybe? Centering it would look good, too, but not necessary. StarNeptune 23:45, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay I've added some alternative variations in response to the feedback, check them out. --Azizlight 00:00, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Of the new options, I like #3 best. The problem this variety is that a user inexperienced in the ways of Wikipedia or Wookieepedia would not understand what that little box means. A "stub" means nothing to someone who has not experience the Wikipedia culture. So, less text is nice, but only if we're okay with reducing its communicative effectiveness. --SparqMan 01:09, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't think there's really anything wrong with the way Wikipedia does it. It makes the situation clear even to novice users. The point of the stub notification is for the article to be expanded. The new suggestions are plenty ugly, and they're less informative. – Aidje talk 02:25, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. These new versions are uglier than the originals. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:32, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think the existing versions are less obtrusive and more informative than the proposed replacements. jSarek 02:38, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * My main problem with the way stubs look at the moment is that they are too similar to the rest of the text within the article. I mean it's just italicized with a little picture next to it. I think it looks messy. Why is it that every other little notification on Wiki has a neat little box, but the Stubs are left very raw and messy looking? I think they look horrible. I don't see how the new suggestions are any uglier than the current stubs. Maybe we could keep the stub text as it is, but just put it in a neat box and make the text smaller? --Azizlight 02:40, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Just added one more suggestion... see the bottom one... Template:Newsample-stub --Azizlight 02:48, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Bingo. This one has my Support.

CP restructure
I reorganized the main Community Portal into a more compact table-like version, hopefully more digestible for newcomers. Any comments/improvements will be appreciated.

Also, I added the Consensus track to relieve the CP talk page of debates and votes, because before that, it was way overloaded. Old discussions, which are CP subpages, are also listed. - Sikon [ Talk ] 10:13, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * looking good. :) --beeurd 13:25, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)