Talk:Yoda's species/Legends

Article title
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)
 * Personally, I've always thought they were called Muppets --LightWarden 02:44, 17 September 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)
 * Any other suggestions? I'm interested in hearing what other people will (hopefully) suggest. Admiral J. Nebulax 15:36, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I think continuing to call them "Yoda's species" is fine. He was the most famous member IU and OOU, as far as I can tell.  &mdash; Silly Dan  15:50, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * While you have a point, it should be titled something that does not have a member of this species's name in the title. Admiral J. Nebulax 16:00, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * To analogize, let's say we were never given the name of the X-wing, but everything in ANH was exactly as it was. Would we call the X-wing "Luke Skywalker's fighter"?  That's how most people recognize it, and Luke may be the most famous Rebel of that battle in-universe, but that simply isn't accurate.  It's no more Luke's fighter than Wedge's, or Biggs', or Porkins'.  Similarly, this isn't Yoda's species any more than it's Yaddle's species or Vandar's species.  It particularly doesn't work for Vandar because 3000 years before Yoda's birth, nobody would have been calling him "Yoda's species".  And whether a title is cumbersome shouldn't be a criterion.  That's what redirects are for.  Delta-7 Aethersprite-class light interceptor is a good example of this.  If Unknown Species (Yoda, Yaddle, and Vandar Tokare) doesn't work (although I am curious as to why), I suggest anything of the form Unknown Species (some disambiguation), since that's how they're always referred to. - Lord Hydronium 22:21, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, for your example, it would probably be called "Unknown Rebel fighter". And I still think "Unknown small species" is good enough. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:14, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Precisely, because we only see Rebels use it. We could assume there's an in-universe impression that it's primarily a Rebel fighter.  But we don't only see Luke use it, thus it wouldn't be Luke's fighter.  "Unknown small species" is better than the current one, I suppose, but it's rather vague.  The list of unidentifiable species has several small guys.  That's what I liked about the original.  It said what they are (an unknown species), and then disambiguated that by listing its known members.  That's consistent with the usual approach to titling articles. - Lord Hydronium 23:35, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Don't get me wrong, I'd like to come to some sort of consensus/compromise, which is why I keep bringing up that I'm curious as to why the old title didn't work. It's hard to posit a argument when I'm not sure where everyone else is coming from. - Lord Hydronium 23:39, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Why didn't George Lucas stick with Whill? It would be a whole lot easier for us. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:39, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, we could always call them frogs. ;-) jSarek 00:18, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, I'm starting to think Dagoban sounds like a good idea. Just too bad no one else probably will -- SFH 00:20, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * "Well, we could always call them frogs". Well, considering Yoda was similar to Kermit the Frog... But the reason Dagoban wouldn't be good is because (as far as we know) the species wasn't from Dagobah. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:32, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

We can use the words 'unknown', 'little', 'green' and 'tridactyl' to find an adequate description. MoffRebus 13:07, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's see: "Unknown little green tridactyl species". Doesn't sound good. Admiral J. Nebulax 14:51, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to throw another wrench in the works, Vandar is actually brown. - Lord Hydronium 22:25, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Great. Okay, let's try this: "Unknown little tridactyl species". Still sounds stupid. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:17, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I hate to sound like a broken record, but what exactly was wrong with the original title? I wouldn't keep repeating this, except nobody's addressed it. - Lord Hydronium 08:13, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * They were originally called Unknown Species (Yoda, Yaddle, and Vandar Tokare). -- SFH 18:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * To me, that seemed too long. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Length shouldn't be a problem. After all, we have Delta-7 Aethersprite-class light interceptor, Eta-2 Actis-class light interceptor, A5 Juggernaut Heavy Assault Vehicle/wheeled, etc.  And as I mentioned, I'm trying to keep the titles consistent as Main Title (disambiguation).  But I do agree that that doesn't scale well; it would get unwieldy if more members were added, and it's a rather uncreative description.  So if that doesn't work: Unknown species (small tridactyls)?  Unknown species (tridactyl)? (If there aren't a significant number of other three-fingered unknown species, that is) Or perhaps just plain Unknown species (which is a redirect to the list right now), as that's what everybody calls them anyway, and adding a link to the list at the top? - Lord Hydronium 22:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Unknown tridacyl species? Or even Yoda, Yaddle, and Vandar Tokare's species? Admiral J. Nebulax 23:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Dagoban is a good title. I mean, Dagobah is the only planet on which this species appears in the movies that the species could have originated from. I mean, they probably didn't originate from Coruscant, as that is the only planet on which they appear in the movies, besides Dagobah. I mean "Yoda's species" sounds sort of uncyclopedic, not to insult anyone, naturally. KFan II 01:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * KFan II: The problem is, we have no evidence they come from Dagobah, and since the planet was uninhabited and Yoda seems to have chosen it relatively at random, there's plenty to suggest they don't.
 * Nebulax: I could go with Unknown tridactyl species. It's a fairly good description, and uses one of their two common traits (the other being their smallness, which while their most distinguishing feature, is unfortunately really vague).  The problem with the other, like the original (which, BTW, I've changed my opinion on; I agree now that it is a bit unwieldy), is that it doesn't scale well to additional members.  Especially if, as below, there are unidentified members at Ruusan.  "Yoda, Yaddle, Vandar Tokare, and some anonymous guy at Ruusan" doesn't really have a good ring. - Lord Hydronium 03:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Then if others agree, it can be moved. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That title sounds good to me. - Alpha Fire 20:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Any objections? Admiral J. Nebulax 20:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm comfortable with it. -- SFH 20:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice, that's somehow what I imagined MoffRebus 11:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll move it now. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * MoffRebus, please don't put comments in the middle of a discussion. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I still say the current title looks positively stupid. Yoda's species is a perfectly respectable name for the article--it makes reference to the most commonly known (IU and OOU) member of the species. IMO this is another case of the "in-universe attestation" standard being carried to an illogical extreme. In order to be a worthwhile real-world reference, articles have to have sensible titles, and these pretensions of in-universe authorship *coughDaccough* are just getting silly.--Valin Kenobi 08:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, fine the title is. Until confirmed, change it, we should not! (Though I, personally, would like "furry little midgets."  Darth Anxor ( Rule the Galaxy ) [[Image:Sithempire2.png|20px]] 11:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The article title is probably inaccurate, given the question on how many toes they have (3, 4, or 5). "Yoda's species" is the only thing close to an official name ever given (in The New Essential Guide to Alien Species, released after all but the last two comments on this page's location), and we should stick to the names given in sources, and not made up ones.--Tim Thomason 23:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Is NEGAS written as though it's an IU document? If it is, "Yoda's species" is probably the best title for it, then.  (I suspect more novice users would look for this article at "Yoda's species" anyway.) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's written IU- I'm borrowing my cousin's copy and could type the article verbatim if need be. Dewback rancher 01:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The only OOU part of the guide being a "notable appearance" note for each species.Dewback rancher 02:20, 12 July 2007 (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)
 * There are cases of entire species being Force-sensitive though (such as the Miraluka, as well as the Anzati and the Neti according to the Ultimate Alien Anthology) so I wouldn't rule it out entirely --LightWarden 02:43, 17 September 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

What about Gorc and Pic? At first I want to say, that I read in their Articles, that they are a mutated Gamorrean and a mutated Kowakian Lizard-ape. But I can't accept this. For me, those two have always been members of the same species as Yoda, and always will. And if this is the case, it adds more variety to the whole species. Now only 3 of the 5 members are wise (I would say Gorc and Pic are not). Only 3 are extremly old (Gorc and Pic seem to be much younger than Yoda, but maybe they are also some hundred years old). And only 4 are small. Gorc is much bigger than a human! But still all members are force-users, although Gorc and Pic are not so good (Kyle Katarn killed both in a 1vs2, but wasn't yet very trained in the Force).

I think it should at least be mentioned in this article that Gorc and Pic have long been thought to be members of this species by many fans, until there came some ... canon-prophet, and made them to mutants. And that some fans still can't accept the "reality".--TeakHoken84.40.25.242 01:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

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)
 * It was in one of the Valley pictures in Dark Forces: Jedi Knight. Kuralyov 17:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Can we get a scan? QuentinGeorge 03:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, please provide us with an image. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't find it, but then again I'm a bad boy and only have a scanned copy which might miss some pages... Charlii 21:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If this helps, it's on page 24 of the softcover of Dark Forces: Rebel Agent. jSarek 22:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you provide it for us, jSarek? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 23:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not with my broken scanner, unfortunately. :-( jSarek 23:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Too bad. And User:MaulYoda, don't just move a page without permission like that. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 23:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You could just ask someone else. &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's too late for that, isn't it? ;) Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 23:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Forgive me if I am mistaken, but was the person Boba Fett interogates in the beggining of Outbid But Never Outgunned a member of Yoda's speicies? (He's also the person who gets eaten by the Globblin). Xeran 23:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * He has 5 fingers. Maybe a Lannik. Bodo-Baas 03:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Page history
Now that the page history is all messed up from the moving, I'm making a note here that it can be found here. The talk page history can be found here. We probably have a template for that, but I have no idea what it is. - Lord Hydronium 23:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think we do. And to User:MaulYoda: You see what can happen when you move a page without asking? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 23:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me see if I can fix it . . . jSarek 23:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. - Lord Hydronium 23:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And thanks to you, for fixing the fix. ;-) jSarek 00:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, I helped out too... ;) Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 00:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you did. Thank you, good sir. :-) jSarek 02:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. ;) Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 11:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Revelation of the species' name and origin
Okay, this might not be the best thing for a talk page, but am I the only one here who thinks Lucas will reveal Yoda's species name and homeworld in his will? It seems very likely to me.--Commander Jake 13:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think he cares that much about it. It's more probable he'll get bored one day and come up with one. --Sauron18 10:22 23 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Judging by the size and color of all three of these little guys maybe they were intended to be goblins/orcs. Ugluk

Prehaps Lucas wasn't jokeing in Intervies. prehaps we should call the artical "Frog". Yes? No? Valin &quot;Tnu&quot; &quot;Shido&quot; Suul 00:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that the information will come out at some point. Though the fact that Lucas has persisted this long in the silliness of keeping secret something that logically can't be that completely unknown in-universe might mean I'm wrong. (There's no logical reason that Yoda would for his entire life have felt the need to keep it a secret, and besides. A galactically famous figure like Yoda would surely have a difficult time of so completely hiding his origin even if he tried.) Red XIV 02:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It could actually be unknown to the creatures themselves in-universe, they're very rare after all, and could be completely displaced from their homeworld and their history lost. Or maybe their species is against having a traditional name for whatever reason, maybe they don't have a language or normally speak at all ( hence their weird grammar when they try to speak basic ). It's all conjecture, but there would be ways to explain them not having a standard name in-universe. Personally I like the idea of this remaining a mystery, since every detail about every character and species on-screen for even a fraction of a second has been given an elaborate history, it's kind of refreshing to have some mysteries out there. Eric-Wan 22:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Correct?
Likely as a result of the above confusion, various Hasbro action figures of Yoda produced since Return of the Jedi have featured either three, four or five toes in a variety of arrangements'' - yet the photo only shows three and five-toed arrangements. 06:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC) **What about Santa Clause?
 * From The New Essential Guide to Alien Species: "&hellip;as well as five-toed feet, with three toes in front and two toes in back." 'Bout time it got fixed. Cutch 06:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Two Things.
The New Essential Guide to Alian Species has this species registerd under "Yoda's Species" and if not changed to that a mistake should be corrected. the guide allso says the species has seven tows Valin &quot;Tnu&quot; &quot;Shido&quot; Suul 02:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Um... no, it says five. Read above. Oh, yeah&hellip;and it's spelled "toes". Cutch 02:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistency?
The article states that "All three known members..." then states that Minch was "a fifth, lesser known member of this species...". Is there a fourth one that is not included, or is this just a typo? --208.102.19.86 02:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There is at least four - Yoda, Yaddle, Vandar, an anonymous member of the Army of Light and Minch. QuentinGeorge 02:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct foot number?
Well, I think the official number is four, since ESB was his first appearence, and that is how he is portrayed, aswell in the 6th and 3rd... What do you think?-Pizza the Hutt
 * I'd think you're wrong. Read the BTS section about toes - it has been very clearly established now. Retcons happen all the time. Cutch 17:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think four should be canonical, but I suppose different subspecies have different numbers.  Darth Anxor ( Rule the Galaxy ) [[Image:Sithempire2.png|20px]] 11:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Death of the species
Okay, picture this. The year's 217 ABY, during the sith-impeial war, do you think there are still some of this species left? If they've been wiped out, is there any chance of them being recently cloned?
 * This is no discussion board, if you want us to give ideas to your fanfic, go to the Star Wars Fanon wiki - TopAce 21:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Unsatisfactory resolution to number of toes issue
Hi there, sorry to dredge this up again, but I've been away for a while (I originally contributed the whole number of toes section of this article, BTW). Although I accept the fact that the New Essential Guide to Alien Species has come out since that time and officially stated that the number of toes is five, I still want to question if this nevertheless qualifies as a canonical determination. Now, I freely admit I'm no expert to the finer points of canonicity laws on Wookieepedia, but it is certainly my understanding that the actual 6 films are of the highest level of canon (G-Canon, right?), and that info in the films always overrides info from any other source, regardless of also being official. Now, even though my article section pointed out that the portrayals in the film ARE inconsistent, it is inarguable that the most common arrangement is the clearly-seen anisodactyl digits, as show in ESB, ROTJ and ROTS. The only other arrangement clearly seen is the tridactyl-with-blunted heel glimpsed in TPM. As my section states, the five-toes star-shaped feet are not actually visible in AOTC itself, and is only known about due to the turnaround images of the ATOC digital model (and one is only assuming it even IS the final model) featured in the Chronicles: Prequels book.

So, even though the new Alien Species book (which, I think it's pretty obvious, just looked at Chronicles without considering the several prominent shots in ROTS of the more common/up-to-date anisodactyl feet) is official, surely it is a lower source of canon than the films themselves, despite their own minor inconsistency? I would think that since four out of Yoda's five film appearances show him with no more than four (i.e. anisodactylly-arranged) toes, and that the only film which notionally does feature five toes does not clearly show them onscreen, then G-Canon would dictate that Yoda has either three or four toes, not five. And if a single canonical answer is required for this article, I would nominate four anisodactylly-arranged toes, as that is the most commonly (and most clearly) appearing number in the films themselves.

Anyway, let me know what you guys think. PacifistPrime
 * Think of it as a giant retcon. Cutch 03:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't blame you for having a lack of enthusiasm for the topic; I admit it's minutiae in the extreme, but I nevertheless think my question is valid. So, my proposition remains; shouldn't the majority of actual film appearances be considered more canonical than some poorly-researched reference book? Anyone else have an opinion on this? PacifistPrime
 * Consider if he had retractable toes, kind of like other animals claws. Or, what if 2 of his supposed 5 toes were cut off, leaving him with the 3 we see in the movies. Because of unknown possibilities like this, there are many things that we can not simply assume. 05:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * With the films contradicting each other, it seems to me that a third outside source would be warranted, even if it did introduce a third answer. Also, shouldn't this article be renamed?  I mean, there's a major argument over the number of toes the species possesses, so we name the article after how many toes the species has?  That seems silly even without considering the controversy.  If we didn't have a canon name for twi'leks would we call them "unknown five toed species?"  Lonnyd 21:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hnnn&hellip; you do have a point there. No objections from me. Cutch 22:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Tridactyl can refer to either fingers or toes. Vryce 22:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, me again, the guy who started all this. In the absense of any consensus or convincing argument, I'm taking the advice given to me (see: Forum:Question about canonicty rules here at Wookieepedia.) and alter this article to still have the New Essential Guide to Alien Species statement, but will amend it to point out that is is obviously contradictory and that the canonicity question is still open. I'll also attempt to ask Leland to give us a definitive answer on this. If anyone has a violent objection to this please discuss it here rather than reverting my edit straight away. I REALLY don't want to get into an edit war over this. Thanks, PacifistPrime Let me suggest "not namely known, long-living, sentient life form"--TeakHoken91.7.44.3 13:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to avoid an edit war, then I would suggest to change the article name. If "tridactyl" is true in one case, but not so true in the other, then I think it's not the perfect title. Many other titles already have been suggested. What about "unknown long-living species"? And just that it is mentioned:
 * 1) "unknown" is wrong. We know Yoda, do we? What is unknown is the species' name.
 * 2) "species" maybe wrong, too. We never saw families or children, eggs, or any other indication for a species. What if they are mutations or results of experiments, like Gorc and Pic? Maybe it's unlikely, but as long as we don't know it...

toes
officialy how many toes does yoda have Clonetroop125 22:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)