Wookieepedia talk:Community Portal

Series names in book titles
We are inconsistent in our use of series names in the listing of book titles in article names and links. Example: for the MedStar duology, we use the series name in the book title, but not in the Black Fleet Crisis or Corellian Trilogy. Avoiding the use makes for quicker link typing, but less context to a user/reader without an encyclopedic knowledge of book titles. I wouldn't mind seeing the series names integrated. Thoughts from the masses? --SparqMan 16:14, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree. We also need to consider books in an overarching series, like New Jedi Order or Clone Wars series. For example, i think The New Jedi Order: Force Heretic II: Refugee is a little too tedious. Then again, maybe not... --Azizlight 22:00, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that the series should be in the title of the article... even if it's long and tedious (which I agree it is). WhiteBoy 22:24, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we ought to follow the title conventions seen in existing SW books with bibliographies, in which it seems that series names are omitted but "subseries" names are included. Thus, the New Essential Guide to Characters cites Michael Stackpole's first NJO book as Dark Tide: Onslaught, not Onslaught or The New Jedi Order: Dark Tide: Onslaught. jSarek 09:31, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Vanity images
As of late there has been a rapid expansion of "vanity" images uploaded for use on user pages. I find this use of Wookieepedia's database inappropriate. We're not stressed for space, but this is not the place for them. Vanity images should be hosted offsite. Thoughts? I don't expect support for this from users of them. --SparqMan 02:21, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, no...Can we at least have one, though, if it's small? (And what do I mean by small?) Wikipedia's policy seems to allow a few images on userpages, and several Memory Alpha user pages have pictures as well. &mdash; Silly Dan  02:34, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I think 1 or 2 images per user is okay... as long as it doesn't seem to be exploitative of Wookieepedia's space. Perhaps user images over 100K in size should be removed or resized. --Azizlight 02:41, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * A good suggestion. Perhaps we can tag images that are uploaded for vanity purposes to make it easier to keep track of them. --SparqMan 03:09, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * C'mon man. We've been here forever, and its about time I spruced mine up. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:42, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting special priviledges for seniority? --SparqMan 03:09, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * If it makes you any happier, I deleted one I didn't need, and resized another. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:18, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I wanted to put one up also, and had for a time, but removed it when requested. I personally do not think it will hurt if we put up personal images, and if it makes people happier, so much the better. --Xwing328 03:28, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeh what's wrong with sprucing up Userpages? Its not causing any trouble!--Darth Mantus 20:16, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing is wrong with sprucing them up, but our database space should be used for uploading images that will improve articles. If you want to include an image that is already uploaded to decorate your user page, go for it, but uploading images for the express use on your user page is pure vanity. --SparqMan 07:56, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Vanity or not, user pictures are nice and should be uploaded freely. --Master Starkeiller 11:37, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Any examples we can look at for what you consider abuse? I agree that we need to use our space judiciously, especially considering that this site is hosted on someone else's servers for no charge.  WhiteBoy 00:11, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Here are a few: Image:Steve-vader1.JPG, Image:Wookieestress1.JPG, Image:Motti2.JPG, Image:StarkeillerEmp.jpg, Image:Palpy Rich And Famous.JPG, Image:Palpy Slurrp.jpg, Image:Palpy Face.jpg, Image:Vader V.jpg, Image:Autograph.jpg, Image:Lumpy-HS.jpg, Image:Lumpy2 1024x768.jpg, Image:Han 125x110 animated.gif. Those are from a few users who were at the top of the recent changes page. --SparqMan 00:57, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if every user uploaded let's say ten pictures for his own use, the number would be insignificant compared to the number of pictures uploaded for articles. You will see that we are using our space judiciously if you compare the number of "useful" images to the number of "vanity" images. They're just too few to "pose a threat". --Master Starkeiller 11:50, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Allow me to expand this. What else will we allow? Hundreds of temp pages for us as a personal blog? Pages for fan fiction? The point is that our space here should be used for the encyclopedic enhancement of Wookieepedia, not for the decoration of user pages. --SparqMan 19:33, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Allow me to expand. Now I don't mean to be rude, but a line must be drawn. Can you seriously continue to think that a few user images will spoil the point of this wiki? Wikipedia already had this discussion and the users won, simply because no matter what you do, people will always want to be creative. I agree that Animated GIFs have no place here, but static images have no threat. It's called personality, you do have some yourself don't you? I think I have a right considering I was the second user here, and this infringes upon my personal space. Special priviledges for seniority? You bet. Now I remember users with about 4 dozen images on them, they were banished for it, clearly for a violation of space-wasting even in their personal space, but just a few images for us? Of the personal images I have spread throughout the wiki, it is roughly a total of 10, 15 if you want to count other creations made for the wiki's purpose to help the users, but they are not causing a problem. I'm not being vain. Hell I don't even like myself that much, but someone thinks I'm important. Go ahead and delete my own article if you think I'm not worthy enough to have one, if its just wasting space, and everyone elses at that. You don't want an awards system because it will waste space? Or any userboxes that take up template space? Suppose we should eliminate all the galleries? What's the point then? Hey, if you don't like subpages, I'll delete those as best I can, yet I say we are not running out of space here. Aren't we going to reach 50,000 articles to compete with CUSWE? Don't we have the capabilities of holding that much, or did someone not prepare for this? I urge you, do not mess with the Wookieestress. You'll want to know what mood I'm in sometimes. -- Riffsyphon1024 20:21, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Riffs, a discussion about what special privileges you deserve as a venerable member should be held elsewhere, but bringing it up supports the need for discussion. A new user shows up and uploads a bunch of goofy images for his user page, so an admin deletes them. At what point is that user allowed to upload vanity images? How many? I'm not suggesting that we set a solid number, just looking to gauge the community feel on the matter. Please don't resort to insulting my personality or comparing us to Wikipedia&mdash;neither are valid arguments. So far the most reasonable thing seems to be limiting the file size and tagging them as vanity images. That way if we are crunched for space, or decide to clear them out later, we can do so easily. --SparqMan 21:46, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Can't we just make a rule limiting the size (as in height/length) "vanity images" are displayed on user pages? They take up considerably less space when resized a little... --Imp 20:32, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you mean resizing the actual image or just controlling its rendering with MediaWiki?
 * Well said, Riffsyphon, and I agree with Sparqman. Allowing user images with a size limit sounds good. It might be tough to enforce though. --Xwing328 21:54, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * *sigh* Alright, we'll have our discussion tonight. I can resize them no problem, but I just didn't want to make sacrifices by completely removing them. -- Riffsyphon1024 14:22, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I mean resizing the actual image. And Xwing, how ever could you mix me with Sparq? :P --Imp 14:33, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I know you may have already begun resizing Riff but I wouldn't listen to people who don't want to allow other people's creativeness on this website. I mean, look Sparq, Xwing just because you choose to have very formal, informative user pages doesn't mean that everyone has to follow that example.--Darth Mantus 10:13, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

For Wikipedia
If you encounter an article on Wikipedia that uses content from Wookieepedia, please do the following:
 * 1) Search through the edit history to find the first edit that used Wookieepedia content. Copy the edit id (found at the end of the edit url after "oldid=").
 * 2) On the talk page, place the Wookieepedia template at the top of the page. The first field should be the name of the article on Wookieepedia (note that many Star Wars related articles on Wikipedia use the common name, not the accurate canon name). Be sure to use an underscore where a space occurs ("Death_Star", not "Death Star"). The second field should be the edit id that you copied earlier.
 * 3) Voila.

So if the edit id was 340706 and the article title here was "Clone Wars", you would place this:.

I created this template after noticing a number of Star Wars articles using Wookieepedia text without giving credit as is required by the GFDL. See it in use at Wikipedia:Talk:Crix Madine. If you have any questions, just drop me a note. --SparqMan 09:37, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I see now. Good idea, though I wonder if Wikipedia will actually want to keep it. You might want to change that link to Wikipedia:Talk: Crix Madine though, since it took me a minute to find it. -- Riffsyphon1024 10:54, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Noticeboard?
Is there any kind of noticeboard page on the Wookieepedia? Basically where we can post notices and reminders to other users? In particular, to point out any mistakes frequently made across the Wiki (e.g. common misspellings, misconceptions, erroneous facts, known fanon info etc)? - Kwenn 19:01, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, not really, although there is Requests. I suppose a noticeboard is a pretty good idea. --Imp 21:38, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what this is? --SparqMan 23:40, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * How about an offshoot, like Wookieepedia talk:Community Portal/Noticeboard, solely for notices, rather than discussions - Kwenn 14:32, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Or we could tack it on to the existing Community Portal page, where I think it would be far more likely to be seen by casual users. jSarek 21:17, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Fan Art
Almost put this in Consensus Track, but I figured it'd be better suited to a general discussion for now.

Maybe there was already a big debate about this and I missed it, but I don't think the rules against fan art need to be so strict. Obviously we don't want the site to be filled with garbage, but if a decent fan-made picture fills a void that official pictures can't, I don't think it's that big of an problem. I imagine the issue is that if a fan did it, it's not a canonical representation, but some things are pretty straightforward. I've already seen one fan alteration (I changed Rokur Gepta's robes from red to grey to fix a mistake in his NEGtC image) that no one had a problem with, so it's not completely unprecedented. Another one I did was the original image for the Errant Venture. I took a photo of an ISD and made it red; and it served the purposes of the article just fine until an official image was found. If we know for a fact that something looks like the image in question, why does it matter who put pen to paper (or pixel to screen)?

Aside from the fan alteration issue, there are a lot of characters (and ships, events, and so on) that have official images, but they aren't clear, or colored, or whatever (I'm thinking particularly of many old RPG and EG images here). Given an official version to work from, would it really be so bad to replace a small, crappy image with a big, nice-looking one, done by a fan of sufficient skill? CooperTFN 02:39, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with this: a little fan art wouldn't hurt where there would otherwise be a really crappy image, or no image at all. But we should come up with some sort of symbol that we should put on all fan art images, to make it obvious that it is an unnofficial image. Which might mean that all fan art submitted would need to be resubmitted by someone else with the symbol applied. I would be willing to assist in this process. --Azizlight 02:54, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing. Maybe there could be some kind of thumbnail template or something, rather than having to alter each image. CooperTFN 03:43, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Fan Art wouldn't be too bad for articles that only have black and white or blurred images.  The only thing is, there has to be a rule put into the upload page that informs users this who think "Oh I want to recreate my favorite EU scene for the wiki" that we can't have a picture for every EU moment.  It should be strictly for replacing images that are black and white, blurry, or for characters that have no image. DarthMaul431 03:15, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should rule events, or anything, out entirely. It should all be handled on a case-by-case basis; a lot of major EU battles, for example, don't have pictures, and if something was really of top-notch quality, it should at least get a hearing. CooperTFN 03:43, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Fan art is visual fanon. So no. --Imp 03:44, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * My concern, and what I think Imp's as well, is that it would create a dangerous precedent. Would we have some way of controlling it, other than admin fiat? Remember, once the floodgates are opened, it's hard to close them again. QuentinGeorge 04:17, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * In my mind, it would only even be an option for work that was at least as good as the official stuff. While allowing fan art in theory could lead to the occasional use of something like this, it would be taken down immediately. Hardly a huge problem. CooperTFN 04:38, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with altered official images, like the ones I've been upping, but original fanart just strikes me as unnecessary, even if it is close to what the description is. It creates too much confusion.
 * EDIT: Thing is, Coop, even if it looks as good or better than the official stuff, it's still not official. I think official-only that's what the wiki's aiming for.-- 000 04:39, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm... it might cause more problems that it's worth though. I might just sit on the fence for this one. --Azizlight 05:10, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I sometimes think that even what I do, cutting out scan backgrounds and re-rendering game files, is pushing the limits of what's acceptable here. I can already foresee terrible consequences if we allow original art to be posted. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  06:35, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Online meetings
Dunno about y'all, but I think our first meeting went well. :) (You can see a transcript if you missed it.)  I still had several topics that we didn't get to, and I'm sure others had some too.  So I vote we do this again.  How about trying a different time?  I don't know for sure, but I figure some people may actually have a social life on Saturday nights. :p  So how about our next meeting be Monday, January 16, 2006 @ 8PM EST?  WhiteBoy 03:36, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Us have a social life? Are you kidding? ;) -- Riffsyphon1024 04:22, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I could do a Monday. Also, since you're using my logo now (yay!) I just wanna check and make sure you uploaded it to this server? I can't tell from right-click (grr) and while I figure you did, just need to make sure in case my server guy decides to kill me in the middle of the night. Dark Spork 04:29, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I think you uploaded/linked the wrong one - this exact variation was the first with the logofont, while the second is the one with all the votes. ;) And do you need a png? I can make a fresh one from the original PSD. Dark Spork 04:45, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I copied it to this server, not linking to your server. And yes, if you can give me a PNG from the original, that'd be great.  Thanks again!  WhiteBoy 04:48, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Awesome. I'll get the PNG to you tomorrow. And I love seeing it up there, so thank you! :D Dark Spork 04:52, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Apologies to all, I meant to be there, but family emergency came up. I'll be at the next one, by Kadann's beard and K'Krukh's hat! - QuentinGeorge 08:55, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * And by Katarn's Frickin' Sweet Shoulder Pad of Holding! ;-) jSarek 11:31, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry I couldn't make it; prior out-of-town plans took precedence (that social life thing you were just talking about ;-) ). But I should be able to do 16JAN06, 8pm EST / 5pm PST, so long as the meeting doesn't go over about two hours or so. jSarek 11:31, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I may or may not be able to make the meeting on Monday...it depends on if I am working that day, and if I am, if I will be off by 9 PM AST. So if I am working, don't be surprised if I show up a little late. StarNeptune 11:48, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I will have new classes that next morning, so I'll have to be quick about it. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:03, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * We missed those who couldn't make it...hope you can make this one! I plan to keep these to two hours or less, so hopefully that will work.  In case you're wondering, the info on how to join the chats is in the first post.  WhiteBoy 06:07, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Sources and Appearances tables
Just playing around with perhaps a new way to display appearances and sources in a more informative and neater way, check out a sample at User:Azizlight/Sandpit and share your opinion here. Note that it's all hard-coded for now, but when we create the appropriate templates it will be simple to use. --Azizlight 13:10, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey that looks good, but won't 'Sources' and 'Appearances' suffice in stead of 'Name of X'? KEJ 13:27, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, i'll change it now. Thanks. --Azizlight 13:30, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Aw man, it seems like we just settled on an easy way to list sources and appearances, and now you've got a better looking but more complicated system? We're never going to get Joe Anon to use tables... &mdash; Silly Dan 13:37, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I like it. It is certainly more organized! And the anons? Eh, they'll learn if they're realy interested in the wiki. Adamwankenobi 13:43, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * If they're really interested, they'll register. KEJ 13:45, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Joe Anon Shmanon :-) Wookieepedians like me exist to fix the little things like that :-D --Azizlight 13:49, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Because, of course, making it more difficult to write a properly-formatted article is exactly what will attract new users? Look, I'm all for simple ways to make the articles here look nicer or more informative, but your average new user, anonymous or not, doesn't know templates or tables, and might get turned off by having to learn immediately (and the sources/appearances sections are important enough that you have to learn how they work quickly.)  &mdash; Silly Dan  14:55, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there any way of inserting the first-mention tag whithout making it look messy? KEJ 14:25, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, by putting it in the "Notability" column i think. --Azizlight 14:34, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Very nice. Complicated, yes, but very practical and nice-looking. --Master Starkeiller 14:42, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * It's pretty but the neatness would be shattered by characters with more complex appearances that cannot be explained in a dozen words or less. Also, I'm not sure that this is any more functional than just deciding to add footnotes, parenthetical or source-attached citations, and certainly more complex to use. --SparqMan 18:56, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I for once have to reject this form of box. It's too large and complicated. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:21, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * My opinion hasn't changed since December 30 - "It might be nice, but I think it's a *lot* of extra work. It's hard enough to get users to cite their sources as it is, let alone template them out and explain their notability." jSarek 21:24, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, looks like consensus says no, sorry for wasting your time :-) Thanks for all the feedback. --Azizlight 22:45, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a waste of time. It seems like a good idea...just too complicated for the general masses at this time. --Xwing328 22:52, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I liked it KEJ 23:20, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Def. not a waste of time, Aziz. Perhaps it will still be of use to us. For example, Wikipedia still has no good way of handling internal references. Their footnote templates have vastly improved, but perhaps we can start storing internal references on page in a table like that posted on either the talk page or a subpage of the article. Just a thought. --SparqMan 03:33, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a better place to put them. I'd support it then if it was on talk or subpage. -- Riffsyphon1024 18:54, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Dramatis Personae
Should a list of all characters be featured in book, comic, videogame, etc. articles? This may be informative for some people. I know some articles already have this but should we try to do this with all of them? DarthMaul431 23:11, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about that before, and I think it would be a great idea. It would also be nice to have a list of things referenced to in the book, but that might be a bit too much. --Xwing328 00:34, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I like it. We should start with books that have them already, since it would be a lot simpler, and if it works out, we could move on to the older books. CooperTFN 00:39, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we should stick with the format used in the recent EU books:
 * Rank Name; job (gender Species) - Admiral Traest Kre'fey; military officer (male Bothan)

This way we can keep everything consistent. --Xwing328 04:17, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree when it comes to the modern books and any we do from scratch, but I think the old X-Wing series DPs should be done as they appear, to preserve their unique personality. CooperTFN 05:35, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * If they appear that way, definately. I just thought you were doing it on your own. Sry. --Xwing328 23:17, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * S'okay. And yes, the old ones are quite...expansive. =) CooperTFN 04:48, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Out of Universe Manual of Style
I noticed there's no standard for out of universe works in the Manual of Style; as it is, every work pretty much has whatever layout its editors chose. I took a crack at drawing up one here: User: Lord Hydronium/Manual of Style for Published Works. I'd like to get some feedback on this. - Lord Hydronium 20:29, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Trouble?
Has anyone had trouble logging on to the site in the last 24 hours? I'm talking about the traditional problems, like pressing the save button while editing but getting a preview. I wouldn't have brought it up but for the fact that my connection is fine, and i have no trouble linking to other sites, including Wikipedia. But mainly, I noticed a three and a half hour gap in Recent changes between 17:01 and 20:36 on the 9th. Anyone else have problems? -- SFH 02:57, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC) .Yup, and sometimes the pages take forever to load KEJ 09:22, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * It's been up and down all day for me, yes. &mdash; Silly Dan  04:07, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Same here --Xwing328 04:36, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Aye. jSarek 09:20, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Marital Name Issues
Why arent Names of married persons hyphenated? ---Razzy1319 17:51, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * They're rarely supposed to be. Have you ever seen "Jade Skywalker" or "Organa Solo" hyphenated in print? CooperTFN 21:02, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Hyphens are generally used only with children who take the names of both parents. - Lord Hydronium 00:12, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Stuff that disappeared
--Razzy1319 21:10, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Content of
 * Popular pages
 * Wanted Pages
 * Short pages
 * Long pages
 * Search capabilities of the image list


 * Also, the number of views in each article (usually found on the bottom of an article near the Terms of Use link) is missing as well. DarthMaul431 23:14, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * And I'm often getting previews when I try to save, and the maintenance functions have been turned off. It's apparently all part of an effort to reduce stress on the database server. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  23:24, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm having that preview problem as well. DarthMaul431 23:29, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Trademark
A concern has been raised that "wookiee"pedia is a trademark of Lucas, and using it in such a prominent way such as the logo at Image:Wiki.png, could result in problems for this community, who are liable for the content here. I would recommend you replace this with something that isn't trademarked, or remove the text from the logo. Is the image behind this text free to use or was that taken from somewhere else?

Please reply at Image talk:Wiki.png so the discussion can be kept in one place. Thanks. Angela (talk) 16:14, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

New multilingual template system
Explained here: Template messages/User namespace/. All credit goes to Uncyclopedia. - Sikon [ Talk ] 16:53, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Concerns about Language
I think that we need a standard for what type of language can be used. I have been noticing that several users have been using inappropriate words or phrases like bullshit, fuck, shit or I'll kill you on talk pages.

I don't think we should be using such words even when having disputes with each other or on the talk pages of vandals including those who believe the fraudalent SuperShadow or other fanon sources. Should we have a standard on the type of language that can be used? MyNz 1:40, 14 Jan 2005


 * Can you give examples of people violently threatening other users? I've seen a lot of rudeness, but no death threats (though a lot of the stuff on Talk:SuperShadow is close to the line...people should calm down, and either pity him or ignore him.)  As for crude language, the only examples I've seen which wouldn't be covered by existing "no personal attacks" and "no vandalism" policies are the use of the word "motherfucker" on some versions of the Samuel L. Jackson and Mace Windu articles, and the Nathan Butler quote on the Supershadow article.  I'd actually defend those as legitimate quotations, unless it caused NetNanny-type programs to block either those articles or the entire wiki.  &mdash; Silly Dan  02:25, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to cause trouble though here are some examples. I am just concerned about the amount of rudeness and anger displayed by users towards others in conflicts particularly edit wars. The names of the users are above what they said.

''I swear, the next time a SuperIdiot follower thinks that SuperIdiot is correct, I'm going to kill someone. '' Yoda's species in NOT a whill and they are NOT from Grentarik. This is SuperShadow bullshit. 
 * Admiral J. Nebulax
 * Azizlight

MyNz 2:44, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC) Good idea. We shouldn't be too harsh on new users who don't know what is canon or fanon. Though we should give them a chance for example: I hope I have not angered anyone. My apologies to Jack Nebulax and Azizlight. I did this since we can't risk loosing new users by angering them with such words or phrases. MyNz 04:18, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * In place of "bullshit" would you prefer perhaps "shenanigans" or "poppycock"? --MarcK [talk] 02:51, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * "This is bull****!" That's what I do. And I don't see what's wrong with it. --AdmThrawn 02:54, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I like "fanon", "stupidity", or "madeuppery" myself. But it should be noted that Aziz's comment was not a personal attack, exactly, more of an attack of someone else's ideas.  Jack's comment wasn't a threat against anyone specific, more a hyperbolic comment not to be taken seriously.  &mdash; Silly Dan  02:59, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Silly Dan. There are better words that can be used that are totally non-offensive, and we should use them.  WhiteBoy 03:57, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not trying to censor people here, but it should be noted that swearing at other users often falls under "personal attacks", and swearing at SuperShadow falls under "just not worth the stress." 8) &mdash; Silly Dan  04:16, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Dear User, please stop vandalising or we'll be forced to ban you
 * Dear User, the information you added is not considered canonical. Please follow the following guidelines so that you'll find editing this Wiki fun.
 * Well we won't censor those quotes. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:20, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Popular Pages
What happened to the "Popular Pages" page? --AdmThrawn 03:59, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Disabled for a while to save the wikicities database some stress, I think. &mdash; Silly Dan  04:17, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Some of the special pages are currently disabled because the wiki is in "miser mode" to help speed things up. As soon as the problems stop, these will be re-enabled. Angela (talk) 04:39, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Miser mode is off again, so all special pages are back. Angela (talk) 15:35, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Good to hear that Angela. I was getting rather bored without those. ;) -- Riffsyphon1024 04:16, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes
I don't know if this is the right place to put things like this, but I'd like it to be seen. A general message: when you make an infobox, particularly for a character, please, don't make the name black text on blue. It is practically impossible to read. If you're copying the template from another article, just change fgcolor from #000 to #fff.

There also seem to be a great number of good guys with black on red. While this is still readable, on a more aesthetic level it just doesn't work for heroes.

Sorry, but this bugs me every time I see it. - Lord Hydronium 09:37, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Character infobox affiliations
Only governments and religious (Jed/Sith mostly) organizations are listed there, right? Jack Nebulax keeps reverting Nial Declann's infobox to give his allegiance to the Republic Navy and Imperial Starfleet, when Galactic Republic and Galactic Empire are already there. Kuralyov 16:44, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that some of these affiliations are getting excessive. I vote we restrict it to Old Republic, New Republic, Galactic Empire, etc. There are categories for Imperial Starfleet, Republic Navy, etc, and I feel that listing them in the affiliation box is redundant.