Wookieepedia talk:Community Portal

Should admins be eligible for WotM?
In the past there's been an "unofficial" rule that admins shouldn't be considered as WotM. I guess adminship was kinda considered reward enough and we should leave the reward to someone else. With Wookieepedia's growth we've started adding admins, who are some of the best Wookieepedians, so I was maybe starting to have second thoughts. What do y'all think? WhiteBoy 06:09, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, admins should be eligible. I don't see a problem with it, as long as we still have the "6 month" rule in place. Otherwise Riff would win it every month :-) --Azizlight 06:21, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Or maybe have a "12 month" rule for admins? --Azizlight 06:23, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * No doubt, Riff would win. :)  I dunno...maybe 12 months would be good for admins.  Mainly I just want to avoid getting six/twelve admins and rotate them around as WotM.  :p  WhiteBoy 16:30, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Hopefully, we'll have a lot more of our regular, reliable users be admins in the near future, and those are exactly the sorts of people who have work consistent with nomination to WotM.  jSarek 11:25, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I see it as 'WotM before adminship', rather than the other way around. WotM is a stepping stone to adminship. I however am null and void as I became admin 6 days in. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:11, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Lately I pretty much have been thinking what Riff said. Cool...just wondering what other's thoughts were.  WhiteBoy 16:30, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism in progress

 * If there are no objections, I'd like to take a shot at building a "vandalism in progress" page like the one at Wikipedia. Right now, we don't have any obvious way to report instances of vandalism except to post it here in the Community Portal or to bug one or more admins on their user page. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  14:42, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Great idea! - Sikon [ Talk ] 15:03, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, please. (Speaking of which, 84.181.141.70 was vandalizing a couple of pages just now.)  &mdash; Silly Dan  15:05, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we can combine Wikipedia's VIP and "Administrator Intervention" pages into one simplified form, and I don't think we need all the stuff about severity levels just yet. A clear warning process might be nice, along with copying over the vandal listing template from Wikipedia. But I just put together a temp page to base it on. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  02:38, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the temp page -- we should get that going quickly, and have all admins add it to their watchlist. And we could maybe do with some more admins (not me though).  &mdash; Silly Dan  20:22, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, There seems to be some consensus here, and Angela is already using the temp page. Can someone move it into the Wookieepedia namespace? I just tried and it wouldn't let me. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  00:59, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I just moved it to Vandalism in progress. jSarek 03:11, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Excellent! I can't figure out why it wouldn't let me do that. Anyway, I just put a link to it in the "Quality assurance" box on the Community Portal page. So now we have a proper vandalism reporting function. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  03:49, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Episode III Spoilers

 * Now that the DVD is available, when will it be okay to remove the Episode III spoiler templates off the numerous ROTS articles? DarthMaul431 03:31, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I suggested one month after release (so, beginning of December?) &mdash; Silly Dan  03:33, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I suppose that makes sense. Now that I think back, I don't think it's available in all countries yet.  So yeah, December sounds good. DarthMaul431 03:37, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Is it in Korea yet? I could probably check somewhere else to find it but since it's not urgent and we're already on the subject, why not. Mithridates 18:07, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * December 1st works. -- Riffsyphon1024 18:13, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)

General spoiler warnings: Do we need them?
I've always thought that the spoiler warnings throughout this wiki are unnecassary. We have the "This wiki contains a plethora of spoilers relating to the Star Wars universe. Read at your own risk" warning on the Main Page, which i think is already enough reason not to have them throughout the wiki. Furthermore, their use is very inconsistent, and I think the warning itself detracts from the "in-universe" feel of the article. They're also kind of ugly. I agree that new material can have a spoiler warning, but they should be removed about a month after release. Thoughts? --Azizlight 22:25, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. Pretty much anything is a spoiler here, so individual tags are unnecessary (except for new material, maybe) QuentinGeorge 22:26, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I concur. However, even new material doesn't need a spoiler before it, IMHO. Adamwankenobi 08:40, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. As I've said in numerous related discussion, we provide a general warning and users come here seeking information beyond what they have read in the books. The most fair policy for spoilers of new material should be one month after the international release. --SparqMan 07:06, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of general spoiler warnings for new material. Certainly for plot endings to novels and the like. For minor stuff, they wouldn't be neccesary.-LtNOWIS 18:39, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've thought this for quite a while.  WhiteBoy 16:37, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've began deleting the general spoiler warnings from all articles. I'm also thinking that maybe we should make special spoiler templates specific to new releases? Eg. for The Swarm War spoilers. Or maybe we could modify the template to be able to accept a parameter specifying which title the spoiler relates to? After a month after release, they can be removed again. --Azizlight 00:06, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure there's a way to do this, but I'm not sure how right off. Seems like there's a   template that handles parameters.  WhiteBoy 16:37, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Imperial characters reorganization
If you have a moment, please take a look at my proposed general structure for updating the Imperial characters categorization scheme and left some comments there. See: Category talk:Imperial characters. Cheers! --SparqMan 18:34, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

List of fanon creations
Just wanted to point out the List of fanon creations article. It will help identify fanon, and prevent fanon from entering our main articles. Any notable fanon creations will redirect there. --Azizlight 03:14, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * If you discover clear cases of fanon, please apply the FRL (Fanon. Redirect. Lock.) tag,, rather than the  tag. This will help speed the process and keep the VFD alley clear. Simply establish the redirect, add the article to the page's list and then an admin will lock the fanon as a redirect. --SparqMan 19:49, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)

What constitutes blockable vandalism?
Now that we have a reporting function in place, the next question is what should be reported? Creeps like the Supershadow Troll are obvious, but what about unrepentant spewers of fanon? If someone, for example, edits Aayla Secura four times to remove her legitimate and concrete death information (by the way, fanboys, AAYLA'S DEAD! GET OVER IT!), can we report/block them?

Or should we have a separate page for reporting fanon and other wankery? &mdash;Darth Culator  (talk)  19:43, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Template:Conjecture
I have made this template in response to the creation of articles such as T.I.E. starfighter, and Alland. I also have a feeling that a number of planet and system articles are purely conjectural, but i'll only apply the tag if it is proved. --Azizlight 00:43, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * When should this be used instead of Template:Fanon or Template:TotallyDisputed? Also, you might add it to the Template messages/Disputes explaining when to use it versus the other two.  WhiteBoy 03:03, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I have a bad feeling about this. It could open the door to all kinds of crazy fanon masquerading as "conjecture." &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  05:08, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * You're probably right there Culator, and since jSarek has pointed out that my prime example, T.I.E. starfighter, is not conjecture, but in fact canon, this template is becoming worthless. My bad. We'll delete it... unless someone thinks it was a good idea? --Azizlight 05:13, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Given the way its worded, it might make it useful for articles like Ur-Sema Du, where the content is definitely canon but the character's name is not. Still, it might be problematic and prone to abuse as Culator suggests, so we might want to just drop it.  jSarek 01:34, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Template: More sources?
I suggest we make a template similar to for articles which are sourced, but have an incomplete list of sources and appearances. We could call it, perhaps, ? &mdash; Silly Dan 02:39, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, we really need this. --Azizlight 03:12, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh good god yes. MarcK 03:29, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * *nods eagerly* Thanos6 03:30, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, I have created the template Template: More sources, aka .  Objections to the name?  The category it creates? The text? The text currently in Template: Sources, which is almost exactly the same?  (I think the current  template was meant to be for incomplete sources as well, but it's lately been reserved for completely sourceless articles.)  &mdash; Silly Dan  03:48, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think we need that big a template. Maybe just: "The list of sources for this article is incomplete. You can help Wookieepedia by expanding it." and put at in the end of the Sources (or Appearances if Sources is absent) section? - Sikon [ Talk ] 12:59, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Good point. The  template should leave a big footprint, as it's often applied to articles which may be completely made up, while  should be as unobtrusive as a  template recognizing an article as reasonable, but incomplete.  &mdash; Silly Dan  13:07, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I've been somewhat hesitant to put a sources tag on articles that have some sources, but a stubby type sources box would be great for articles that are partly but insufficiently sourced. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  13:22, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Things to do

 * I just created a new page for those seeking something to do to improve Wookieepedia here. I hope people find it useful.  One thing it needs is someone who knows how to link to categories, rather than put an article in a category; three links I tried to include merely categorized the article.  If someone could clear that up, I'd be greatly appreciative. :-) jSarek 09:12, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * You put a : in front of the link, like so: Category:Sourceless. Do the same thing to link to an image instead of inserting it on the page. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  13:22, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Archive this page
Can somebody archive this talk page? I'd do it, but I'm afraid I'd mess it up. &mdash;Darth Culator  (talk)  13:22, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * It has been done. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:45, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Number of members

 * Apparently we have the exact same number of members as Memory Alpha: 9,638. Creepy. MarcK 00:13, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Not so creepy. You can go to the login page at Memory Alpha and use your Wookieepedia username. It's apparently a common Wikicities user database. You'll find the same number of users listed at dead-end wikis like the Power Rangers wiki. Though Memory Alpha does have more than twice as many admins, which is probably something we should work on. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  00:54, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * ...Oh. Well now I feel like an idiot. Right about the admins though. MarcK 11:29, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't feel like an idiot, I only figured it out by accident. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  17:18, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * They also have significantly less stubs and what seems like a organized plan for filling out content. We're a bit hodge podge at the moment. --SparqMan 17:51, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Here's the Memory Alpha stats page compared to the Wookieepedia stats page. At the end of October, we had 179 contributing Wookieepedians (first column) compared to their 348.  They also have many more hits and visits per day than we do.  Granted, they have been around alot longer, but it just reenforces to me that we need to get the word out.  :)  WhiteBoy 00:50, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I've updated the Requests for adminship page. Please go vote and nominate some people.  WhiteBoy 00:50, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Can anyone vote, or is it for admins?  &mdash; Silly Dan  01:23, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Check out the discussion on the talk page. But I say it's for anyone.  WhiteBoy 01:58, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Memory Alpha also has the support of some major fan sites. Perhaps we should develop a long range plan for SWW. I'd be willing to chair that. --SparqMan 02:22, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * I've actually had a few thoughts along that line, too, SparqMan. What are some things we could do to get ourselves more renown?  It's good that some authors have taken note of us.  How can we get more to know we're out here?  I have a few authors' email addresses (they may be outdated now), and have exchanged a couple of emails with a few when I was actively keeping up my book site on my personal web site.  And contacting authors may not be the best way to go about it, anyway.  What else?  WhiteBoy 17:55, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Really strange that Memory Alpha shares the user database with Wikicities, since Uncyclopedia doesn't. - Sikon [ Talk ] 18:06, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * After poking around the Central Wikicity a bit, it looks like they did that on purpose, per the announcement about their move to Wikicities. Uncyclopedia didn't. On an interesting side note (there's all kinds of facinating stuff on the Central Wikicity!), whatever happened to the Star Wars Fanon wiki? &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  20:19, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Prononciation guides?
Do we really need them on articles where the prononciation isn't all that difficult (Naboo, Wookiee, Leia Organa Solo, etc.)? Can't we save them for articles like Kashyyyk where the spelling or prononciation is particularly non-standard English? &mdash; Silly Dan 02:34, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I was mostly putting them there for the uneducated Star Wars viewer (the casual viewer you might say). "Naboo" could theoretically be pronounced /'neɪbuː/, /'næbuː/, etc; I'll remove it from Wookiee since come to think of it even those who've only seen the films once seem to know how it's pronounced; and "Organa" could also be pronounced /ɔː'gænʌ/, though I would accept its removal if enough people think it should be removed. --MarcK [talk] 03:01, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I couldn't read most of these anyway on either broswer of IE or Firefox. -- Riffsyphon1024 20:56, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I can sort of read them on Firefox and Lynx. That is, I can see the symbols, but I can't make much sense of them (how is ɔ a long O sound?).  Maybe we shouldn't use the IPA, which is designed for linguists, but some phonetic representation designed for non-specialists (like you'd find in a typical collegiate dictionary.) But then which one to use?  &mdash; Silly Dan  04:26, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization
Should there be capitalization for sub-headings in long articles? Currently, there isn't but I think it would look a lot better. For example:

The dark times
or

The Dark Times
What do you think? Hollis 23:53, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * FWIW, checking Wikipedia to see what they prefer isn't much help. Subheadings usually aren't capitalized, but it's not consistent, even within individual articles.  (For your example, though, "The Dark Times" might be a proper noun that you'd capitalize anyway.)  &mdash; Silly Dan  00:42, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia mostly uses non-capitalized headings, besides, since we agreed to use "Behind the scenes", I think we should be consistent. - Sikon [ Talk ] 05:07, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess that's okay, I still think it looks terrible. Hollis 17:30, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * It is supposed to be lower-case unless it's a proper noun. This is the official policy of Wikipedia, and we inherited it from them when we started up.  Actually implementing it is a little more difficult, though.  :)  WhiteBoy 08:15, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)

New time format
Instead of BBY and ABY, shouldn't it be before the empire and after the empire?I think this is much more accurate because the battle of yavin is only a minor event,compared to the purge and reorganization of the republic.Think about it.Lt.sarge
 * The Battle of Endor, the final death of the Emperor in Dark Empire, the various liberations of Coruscant, etc, would all work as well. But BBY and ABY are being used by in-universe sources like the New Essential Chronology, and are the most popular ones for fan timelines.  So I don't think we should change.  &mdash; Silly Dan  00:42, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Imagine how confusing that would be for the actual residents of the GFFA. So many possible dating schemes to choose from: After Great ReSynchronization (AGR), Imperial Date (ID), After Battle of Yavin (ABY), After Battle of Endor (ABE), New Republic Date (NRD), Galactic Federation of Free Alliances Date (GFFAD), After Yuuzhan Vong War (AYVW), and the list goes on. The way I see it, the New Jedi Order will eventually become as powerful in the GFFA as the Vatican was a thousand years ago, and they'll invent a new dating system (call it something like Absolute Galactic Date (AGD)) that everyone will use for thousands of years just out of convenience.  But right now everyone uses ABY so it's only logical to stick with it.  &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  03:03, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Lets not forget the Galactic Republic's first dating system of time from 25,000 BBY, and the second dating system of events after the Ruusan Reformation. -- SFH 05:11, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * On that note, I hereby announce the creation of the dating system marked by the first time the words "I have a bad feeling about this" were said. :P -- Riffsyphon1024 21:00, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * It just seems more accurate to me,We can change it to before and after the purge,BTP and ATP.That is even more accurate.We should focus on more accurate events, I vote yes on ATP format.The destruction of the death star 1 isn't that much of turning point in the galaxy.The purge is the Total and utter eradication of an intire religous civilization, Not including the escape of kenobi and yoda. (talk)
 * Maybe it'd make more sense, but we go by what's canon as opposed to what makes sense. And ABY/BBY seems to have become canonical now. &mdash; Silly Dan  04:29, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * It will be BBY/ABY for the forseeable future. The only real contender is BGR/GR, and that's not really well known. All these other suggestions are fanon-a-licious. QuentinGeorge 05:04, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * In addition to the canon support for the BBY/ABY method, the Battle of Yavin was hardly insignificant. It was a major turning point in the Galactic Civil War and provided the Rebel Alliance with the momentum and support it needed to eventually achieve victory at Endor. --SparqMan 06:07, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that on the year pages, a section be set up with the publications set in that year. I just looked at 12 and 13 ABY and both have the deaths of Durga and Crix. I think having a section for the sources each year could be a good way of preventing this. Eyrezer 21:35, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Belia Darzu page
Although the fanon picture of Belia Darzu appears to have been deleted, the image still shows up on her page. Is this some sort of glitch? Kuralyov 01:47, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems fixed, but I have noticed that deleted images sometimes take awhile to vanish. --SparqMan 06:08, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Battlefront II stuff
Can we get a solution on the Battlefront II inspired articles? Most of them could be solved with a few redirects, but I don't want to anger any particularly vigorous fans of the games who want to argue that they deserve their own articles. --SparqMan 06:10, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Classes vs. Vessels
While I've been cleaning out categories, I've encountered a number of inconsistencies regarding the placement of ship types. In some cases they are found exclusively in a category for ship classes, in others they're in the a category like Category:Rebel Alliance starships alongside vessels, and in some they're in both. I find the placement of ship types into categories meant for vessels produces unnecessary clutter. While not all non-capital scale vessels are defined in terms of a "class", we can certainly establish something like this: Category:Starship types ->Category:Starfighter types ->Category:Support craft classes ->Category:Capital ship classes If there is sufficient interest in categorizing ship types by who used them (which is sometimes confusing for popular starship types), we could go so far as to create something like Category:Rebel Alliance starship classes. I'm hoping to hear some other Wookieepedians' opinions to ensure I'm not a lone nut in this. --SparqMan 23:58, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that it gets messy. Your proposal is the best thing so far, however I'm not entirely sure what others may think, so we'll let them express their opinions first. -- Riffsyphon1024 01:21, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation text and quotations
I have noticed that the inclusion of both disambiguation notices and quotations on pages can produce confusing and unappealing results. Both are indented, italicized and standard size text. Would other users be in favor of establishing a template for disambiguation text that would avoid this problem? I threw together a quick idea based on our new stub style. It's located here: Template:youmay, and here is an example of it in use: Jundland Waste (Sandbox). Please make changes for the better, or express your opinions on its use. --SparqMan 21:15, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC) Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? --SparqMan 08:31, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe just use the following format: without the named parameters? Or at least shorten them, I'm too lazy to type them in all their greatness :). - Sikon [ Talk ] 15:23, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I've added an option with just "you may be..." on the template page. --SparqMan 17:38, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Featured Wikicity
Maybe we can try to vote for Wookieepedia to make it the next month's featured Wikicity? Featured Wikicity/vote Sikon [ Talk ] 18:15, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Almost there... Just a few more votes to beat WikiFur, pleease! - Sikon [ Talk ] 15:20, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * If you only knew the power of the furry side . . . why not join us, and we can rule together as WookieFur! --GreenReaper 09:40, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Main image in infobox: 250px VS 300px
I notice that many Wookieepedians make the main image of an article - usually in the infobox - 250px in width, even though 300px allows the image to fill all the space in the infobox. I prefer 300px images because i think it looks better, but either way, can we discuss it here to set a standard and then put it in the Manual of Style? --Azizlight 23:47, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Miss Star Wars 2005
Vote now! --Azizlight 08:34, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah finally a place for us sexually-deprived dorks to salivate. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:46, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep! Vote for Padme! Adamwankenobi 09:06, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * My girlfriend is going to rue going away for the weekend! QuentinGeorge 09:13, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)