Talk:Main Page/Archive1

 This page is an archive of the Main Page's talk page between the 10th of March 2005 and the 31st of July 2005.

I hope you don't mind me poking my head in here and helping get this place started. I was just thinking of starting a Star Wars themed Wiki when I found this. Thanks for starting this up!--Sith Priestess 06:20, 10 Mar 2005 (GMT)
 * Great stuff, we finally got Wookieepedia up and running! -- Riffsyphon1024 09:15, 10 Mar 2005 (GMT)
 * No problem at all. Glad you are here willing to help.  And LOL Riff!  I was wondering if we could work that name in there somewhere.  :p  WhiteBoy 16:11, 10 Mar 2005 (GMT)

Splitting Up List-Pages
I propose that the list pages (such as Planets of Star Wars) be broken up into individual pages. Now that we have our own Wiki, there's not as much need to consolidate. --GenkiNeko 02:03, 19 Mar 2005 (EST)
 * I've been kind of thinking the same thing. But those are pages I'm not very involved in, so I've been letting others (I think Riffsyphon1024 does alot of work on those) decide what's best there.  WhiteBoy 00:41, 20 Mar 2005 (EST)
 * Yes, I agree. Now that we have the space and the freedom to do so, we can give each thing its own article, that is as long as it has text to it. Many complained that the Planets List was too large with its 234-planet-long table of contents. Btw, just how much memory do we have? -- Riffsyphon1024 02:21, 20 Mar 2005 (EST)
 * Now that I've thought about it some, I've come to realize that redirecting all the links to POSW to their own articles will take some time. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:32, 20 Mar 2005 (EST)
 * Yes, that will take some time. Maybe it just needs to be lower priority right now?  This site is hosted by WikiCities/Wikia and I don't see anything in their policies about limitations on how much space we have (and I haven't heard any).   WhiteBoy 03:39, 20 Mar 2005 (EST)
 * BTW, found a page that says there's no limit to the size of the SWW . I downloaded a backup and right now we're only sitting at ~400KB.  WhiteBoy 03:52, 20 Mar 2005 (EST)
 * Well, if everyone does a few a day... --GenkiNeko 12:00, 20 Mar 2005 (EST)

Protection
Why is this page protected? Please see Protection. Pages should only be protected in cases of extreme vandalism. That has never happened here, and I think the page needs to be developed by more people than this wiki's 2 admins. I'd like to list this wiki as a Featured Wikicity, but don't want to do so when it's setting such a bad example in terms of locking down pages unnecessarily. Angela 11:05, 11 Apr 2005 (EDT)


 * I have unprotected it. Sorry if this had impeded anything you were going to do, but you know security nowadays. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:19, 11 Apr 2005 (EDT)


 * The whole idea about a wiki is that anyone can add to it. If you lock down this wiki, none can add to it.  Unfortunately, that means that jerks will occasionally vandalize it, but that is the price of being open.  Protecting everything defeats the whole purpose of a wiki.  If you feel that the trouble vandals cause is too high or you are a control freak who does not want people changing your words and creating new articles in your site, you could always go to a place like Tripod or Geocities and create a traditional website about Star Wars.  Just remember that most of your seedcontent comes from WikiPedia.Org.  I started Endorian Holocaust on WikiPedia.Org which is here now, but others contributed.  ¿Am I mad at them?  ¡No!  They made the article better than I could have alone.  -	— Ŭalabio 23:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. Dunno why it got locked down.  It wasn't locked down for long.  I agree...we just have to keep an eye out for vandalizers.  WhiteBoy 01:48, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It's the main page guys. Hardly needs any change and would be the first thing vandals go for. I do not protect articles, and have only reverted a few vandals and blocked one. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It might be nice to have a Wikipedia-like frontpage, with rotating articles. It would certainly entice our writers to push their efforts. --SparqMan 07:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree, we might think about working on this, and debuting it on May 19.--Eion 07:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm likin' the whole rotating articles idea. And if we could get it out on the 19th, that'd be pretty cool too. Shadowtrooper 14:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars Wiki Blog
Starting in May, Star Wars.com will allow Hyperspace members to create their own blogs, and even apply for a "group blog". If there is enough interest, I was kinda hoping to start one up. Thoughts? Shadowtrooper 20:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * What would be talked about on there? Would I have access since I'm not a member of Hyperspace? -- Riffsyphon1024 00:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Well I was thinking it could update others on the latest SWW news, articles, and more. I don't know if you'd have access or not, they haven't released all the details. Shadowtrooper 02:35, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the wiki can speak for itself, but if anything, it should be a simple group blog (via blogger probably), and not one on Hyperspace that few people have access to. --SparqMan 16:21, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed, on both points. – Aidje talk 00:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Tense
I think there needs to be a decision from on high about tense. Some seem to write as though the 'present' were the Galactic Civil War, while others treat the newest EU materials as the 'present'. A decision needs to be made, because it's very awkward when articles switch back and forth. --GenkiNeko 19:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not higher up, but I think the articles should be written in past tense, as though the three post-NJO novels have already happened. Shadowtrooper 22:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that everything but geography (planets, systems, sectors) should be past tense (It was a long time ago after all). If it couldn't consievably still exist 50 generations after the latest EU material, it should be past tense. --Death Regis 00:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * How about entries on species, cultures, or societies? Chances are, they wouldn't stay the same either far into the future, but it somehow seems awkward to preface every entry with "During the Clone Wars, the Arglebargles worshipped many gods" or "At the time of the Battle of Yavin, the Frobles were known for their poetic talents".  And, of course, their physical characteristics would always be the same.  I've been writing general descriptions of alien races in present tense, with more specific historical information in past tense, but if everyone thinks they should be entirely in past tense, I can change them.Silly Dan 03:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Why do you have to mention the locale in a general cultural tidbit, why not just say, "the Frobles were known for their poetic talents," then in a seperate sentence, describe their appereance in the story. "At the time of the Battle of Yavin, the Frobles..."--Eion 06:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I was thinking everything should be present, like in literature. But Death's idea sounds ok. I'm not sure yet.-LtNOWIS 02:07, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Game and book summaries would of course stay present tense, like the films.-LtNOWIS 02:32, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * past tense is always the safest bet. I think, like Death Regis, that we should take out cue from the movies. This encylopedia is being created after the fact (perhaps by the Whills), sifting through what scant historical records exist from the time of the events. Anyway, that's my little backstory.--Eion 02:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I like that view of it. The only historical records we have are the Movies/Novels/Comics/Etc. That's a good viewpoint. --Death Regis 08:49, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with past tense. The clue is in the movies: "a long time ago". That's my reasoning anyway. Beeurd 23:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * My vote is for all past tense, too. As has been mentioned before, it all happened "a long time ago."  WhiteBoy 01:13, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Let's make it an official vote: '''All "in universe" articles should be presented from a historical perspective, and thus written with a past tense. All "out of universe" articles should be written in the appropriate tense. Most such articles would be past tense, but not all (for example Episode III has not been released yet and should be referred to in the future tense).'''

For

 * 1) For.  It all happened "a long time ago."  WhiteBoy 01:13, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) For – Aidje talk 01:17, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) For --Death Regis 01:59, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) For --Vermilion 02:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) For --Beeurd 02:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) For --Eion 02:49, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) For --SparqMan 04:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) For. I'd like to add my vote belatedly, along with my summary view: in Wikipedia, we write from the current date as our perspective; in SW Wiki, we've (artificially) set our 'perspective point' as well beyond the New Jedi Order days. --GenkiNeko 12:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Against

 * 1) Against. Articles on books or movies should be written in the present tense, along with articles exclusively focusing on OOU content (computer games, actors, crew members). All other articles should be in past tense, so I have to vote against for the vote as described above. --SparqMan 02:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) *If I am properly understanding what you're saying, then you're not properly understanding what Whiteboy has said. An article about a book or movie would be both IU and OOU, thus making it vary in tense according to the context. – Aidje talk 04:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) **Never mind what I'm saying, I didn't realize that you had voted before Whiteboy changed the wording. I guess you'll be changing your vote once you see this&mdash;if I'm right about what you meant. – Aidje talk 04:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The vote description was changed after my vote. So I can change it now. --SparqMan 04:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Other views
I agree with Sparqman's plan. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:00, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Appearances
I'd like to propose that we try to add a Bibliography or Appearances section to most articles. A list of where each character/ship/place/etc has appeared. Seems to me it would help reduce baseless speculation and other such noncanon inclusions. Also, it'd give links to sources consistently and at a specific place (rather than random "in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope" clauses). Thirdly, It's just handy info to have available. --Death Regis 09:07, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I kinda like that idea, plus, it helps to further interconnect the articles. Shadowtrooper 13:58, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll support this measure. -- Riffsyphon1024 14:01, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, without such a section, IU perspective is virtually impossible, or at least highly uninformative. -- Aidje 14:14, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support--Eion 23:13, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * For - Kinda late to jump in here, but I definitely agree with this. I've been wondering about this myself.  I think it should be like an endnotes section where you cite the works you used in your research to create the article.  In the article use superscript numbers 1 and then name the source in the "Works Cited" section at the end of the article.  WhiteBoy 08:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm jumping in quite late as well, but I've noticed quite a few articles still using 'citations' instead of 'appearances' as well as some appearance sections being overly informative - for the sake of uniformity between articles what is the prescribed course of action? -- Falmarin 00:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

EpIII Countdown
I was thinking, when we reach the three days till Ep III mark (Monday), why not put up a little countdown clock? Thoughts? Shadowtrooper 23:06, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * How would that be possible. You should also take into account that it will not match up exactly with release dates in both Europe and North America, and what time zone would we use? UTC? -- Riffsyphon1024 00:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, many of my ideas are flawed. Unless someone else has a way to make it work, it looks like it's a no-go. Shadowtrooper 16:14, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It's all doable, the question is, "Is is worth the effor with such a short countdown?" EP III countdown sites have been up for ages.--Eion 16:44, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning
I'm thinking it would be a good idea to include a general spoiler warning on the main page- something like "This database contains a plethora of spoilers for all released material relating to the Star Wars universe. Read at your own risk". What do you all think? --Fade 23:16, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I would have thought it would be common sense, but I agree that a general warning about spoilers might not be such a bad idea. --Beeurd 23:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed, give them some general warning. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Good idea. -Vermilion 05:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, a link to a brief page spelling out our spoilers policy-LtNOWIS 00:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Added spoiler warning. What do you think? Imperialles 15:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

What details are to be included in articles about games, comics, books, etc.?
See above. If we are to include all details (such as page count, artist etc. for comics), we should at least have a 'box' (see Juhani) to the top right of each article, to seperate the OOU information from the IU plot. Imperialles 13:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, but one of the articles you tagged was not a single issue, but in fact a collection, and as such could never really be an IU article, which is why I called you on it in that one article. Instead of tagging the articles, why not create the box?--Eion 13:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Bah, the one thing I don't know how to make. I guess I shall have to educate myself.
 * Just so you don't think me a hypocryte, I'll take a stab at the box when I return from class.--Eion 14:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

One more thing, I don't think pages on authors, actors and other OOU persons (such as George Lucas) should contain anything more than a list of the titles they've worked with. Imperialles 13:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, aren't you just the minimalist. I happen to disagree with you; articles about anybody should include all useful, and sometimes useless, information. Heck, if we want to be anal retentive about it, I want to see the flannel guy's height, weight, eye color, and top three favorite plaid shirts, but I settle for a detailed biography, work history, and other assorted trivia.--Eion 14:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * How about creating a category for OOU persons, then? Sub-categories could be OOU actors, artists etc. Imperialles 14:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * On further inspection, this already exists under the name 'People in reality'. I feel a better name would be 'OOU persons'. Imperialles 14:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * An IU perspective can only extend so far before it starts to make my head hurt...--Eion 14:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think articles on published media should be subject to usual IU/OOU rules, as they are OOU by definition. Their full plot etc can be detailed in a seperate IU article if necessary (something like the difference between Knights of the Old Republic and Jedi Civil War --Fade 14:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fade. Novels, movies, games, and have OOU plot summaries, written in the present tense. The actual historical content covered by them can be in a separate article. The 2 articles link to each other, of course. This is because Star Wars games and movies simply don't exist in the Star Wars universe. Luke Skywalker, for example, doesn't know how many movies he's in, or what their names are, and he's not even familiar with the phrase "Star Wars."-LtNOWIS 15:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Totally agree, couldn't phrase it any better myself--Eion 20:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Category Section?
I like how there is two boxed sections for the movies and the EU on the main page. How about a third box with general categories, such as:

Characters Creatures Locations Organizations Vehicles -- Austicke
 * Yes, that will work. That way contributors can reach our most updated areas faster. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Star Wars
Based on the hard work of the contributors to the Star Wars Wiki, I have put together the Encyclopedia of Star Wars. It uses TomeRaider 3 and Pocket PC, and has all your articles and images. The file itself is 26MB. You can get more specifics here and download Encyclopedia of Star Wars.zip, a 24MB file. --En.Alterego 22:42, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * A bit premature, isn't it? --SparqMan 22:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I can make a new one at any time =) --En.Alterego 07:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Why? -- Riffsyphon1024 00:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Novelty? Why do you edit here? --En.Alterego 07:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Why do you question my fandom? -- Riffsyphon1024 17:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Precisely! --En.Alterego
 * I'm not sure he did. I wouldn't take it so personally.  WhiteBoy 01:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Why not? If someone wants to access info while they're offline, great!  I used to use Avantgo alot, and the whole point is to be able to read the content when you have the chance, whether you're connected or not.  WhiteBoy 01:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a fair enough idea to me. --Fade 13:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Riff, it looks to me like the idea is to make SWW content available to PocketPC users with no internet connection. Doesn't seem like a bad idea. Sure, it's a little more static than the real wiki, but it can still be updated. – Aidje talk 14:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

New Hope theme
Hey to all! I was wondering if anyone can help me--I have the theme on on 45 and was wondering if anyone knows if it has any value. If not how can I find out if it does. Thanks in advance to anyone that can help. Oh the record is in excellent condition. Faeriegood
 * probably better discussed at Star Wars:Community Portal, but you can post it on Ebay and see if anyone wants it.--Eion 03:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Featured Articles
Any chance of integrating a 'Feature Article/Article of the Week" thingy like Wikipedia or the Star Trek wiki? - http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Main_Page

Might be fun, now that we've started to get some good articles going. QuentinGeorge 09:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I support this measure. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we're far away from being ready for this. --SparqMan 11:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sparq. We need more elaborate articles before starting this. --Imperialles 14:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template the Main Page
Considering the amount of vandalism this page gets, I recommend that we make the main page a series of templates, editable from elsewhere and untamperable. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. I actually opened Talk:Main Page to make this very suggestion, after seeing that yet more vandalism apparently happened last night. jSarek 18:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea to me. --Beeurd 20:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about this. Reverts are easily done, and I think SWW needs to be as editable as possible...even the main page.  I suppose we will get to the point where we'll have to do this, but I don't think we're there yet.  I'd rather keep it open for now.  WhiteBoy 22:15, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Second WhiteBoy's thoughts. --SparqMan 01:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Reverts take time and energy from things that need them more, and the main page doesn't need to be readily editable, as there isn't a great deal of new information to be added - it's a matter of aesthetics rather than information, and IMO that's better handled by consensus on a talk page or elsewhere *before* changes are implemented, rather than after. jSarek 22:45, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't quite see the guff with protecting the main page, but as it is there isn't a great deal to protect. In future, when the page develops, we should revisit protecting it from editing.--Eion 04:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Would you like to consider this now that anons are adding random crap to the page. -- Riffsyphon1024 15:24, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mascot (or whatever you please)
Recently I've been drawing out a rough Wookieepedian on a lark - 1/2 for fun, the other 1/2 to contribute something interesting to wookieepedia. It's very rough, he still needs his fur, scaling is a bit off, but I thought I should throw it out here to see if there's any interest in him. -- Falmarin 04:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe he can go on the Wookieepedian page... QuentinGeorge 07:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Is that supposed to be one of us, or a Wookiee? -- Riffsyphon1024 07:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * He's one of you buggers of course! -- Falmarin 19:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * My hair is no where near as well kept as that. --Fade 19:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Ooh a Gary Larson calendar...I don't get it...I don't get it...I don't get it...I...don't get it. --SparqMan 19:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Request of the Week
Where did this come from, exactly? And where are we discussing what should be on it? As far as I can tell, this and the "stub of the week" were added by a single anon. While I'm not opposed to the idea of some sort of "requested articles" feature, I'd suggest that rather than putting one request per week on the main page, we think about linking to a separate page that multiple users can add requests to (as Wikipedia does.) -- Silly Dan  11:21, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * An anon should not have the right to do so. If they want to be so helpful, why can't they sign up first, and then we might not treat them as lowdown. Secondly, I agree that it should just be a link, and I will change it to that. -- Riffsyphon1024 15:25, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Could we possibly have a new Request of the Week on the main page? The current request (The Essential Guide to Characters) has been there for 2 weeks, and the new page was created the same day the request was posted. Or should this section of the main page just be deleted? Or made into just a link to the Star Wars: Requests page? --Azizlight 10:29, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, we haven't done anything since we were going to change the layout of the main page, but it seems that is never going to get done. -- Riffsyphon1024 11:31, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)