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)

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)