Wookieepedia talk:Community Portal

Planet summaries
See Template talk:Planet.

Domain and forums
See Wookieepedia talk:Community Portal/Domain and forums.

Categories and Lists
An effort to setup a scheme of categories would be a good way to keep things organized and to promote the development of some areas. Further, we should decide when a list is more appropriate than a category page. For example, a list of Rogue Squadron members past and present might be more appropriate for an automatically populated cateogry page, where a list of Rogue Squadron members during different conflicts/eras would require a manually populated and updated list. --SparqMan 15:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anyone? This is going to develop into a bit of a problem. Do New Republic characters who survived NJO need to have a "GFFA characters" category tag? --SparqMan 11:52, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I think they need to, as Legacy of the Force is coming. - Sikon 16:45, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * Would it be possible to get a Young Readers category set up? All the JA, JQ, LOTJ, YJK and JJK is all listed under novels at the moment, which doesnt really seem to fit.Durnar 16:07, 12 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Multilingual Wiki
Are there/will there be any plans to make this wiki available in other languages? I know the Star Trek people's wiki has at least two languages in addition to English. I know my profile says I speak Japanese, but I can't read or write it very well. On the other hand, I can read and write Spanish and would love to get the chance to translate a lot of this stuff. -- Shadowtrooper 02:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I suppose, along the way. Best way to accomplish it is translating a lot of articles, making them subpages of the translated main page subpage of your user page (whew). That's what I'm doing for the Norwegian edition, anyway. --Imperialles 10:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * After getting a look at the stats for all Wikicities wikis, I see that Memory Alpha has about 4 different languages already. We outta catch up by now and be the yin to their yang. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:49, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. Now that I fianlly have enough time, I can probably translate tens of pages each day. --Imp 21:57, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Spoiler
When do we plan to eliminate the ROTS spoiler warnings? At the one-month mark? --SparqMan 20:43, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * One conservative position would be to leave them up until the DVD is released, and maybe a couple weeks afterwards. In many cases, we'd want to replace them with the regular spoiler templates anyway.   -- Silly Dan  20:59, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that once the ROTS spoilers were done away with we were going completely spoiler-warning free with a general warning on the front page under the assumption that users look up (or click on wikilinks) with the intention of learning above the topic. Perhaps an exception would be articles about sources. --SparqMan 23:53, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with that idea Sparq. To me, this whole site is a spoiler.  :)  People are coming here to learn more info about someone/something/whatever.  I can see waiting until the DVD is released, though, for those who didn't catch it in the theater.  WhiteBoy 07:17, 6 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Characters to Individuals
Imperialles recommends that we change all the categories with Characters in them to Individuals. I beg to differ because it will force us to rename all the categories, apply that text to every character article, and change all the character stubs. But as has been done many times before I will hold a quick vote as to whether or not we impliment this change. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:29, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)

For change

 * 1) Imp 21:39, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) For.  At the very least, we should change those that have reasonable suggestions for replacement (e.g. "Black Sun members"), in the hopes that a more suitable word than "individuals" can be found for those that don't qualify; I've made some suggestions below. We also shouldn't rule out "person" and "people" as labels.  jSarek 11:18, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) For --beeurd 01:36, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Against change

 * 1) ? Riffsyphon1024 21:29, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) MarcK 21:40, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Riff's outline below shows many conflicts which would arise. – Aidje talk 05:44, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Don't particularly see the need myself.  WhiteBoy 07:25, 6 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Discussion
I'm willing to do all the work, really. I have a whole week to spare. :) --Imp 21:39, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I have thought about it and maybe its okay. If you are willing to do the work then it can be done but I'd like to specify how the categories in Category:Characters are renamed.


 * Characters = Individuals
 * Black Sun characters = Black Sun members
 * Bounty hunters = no change
 * Character stubs = still unknown on this
 * Confederacy characters = Confederacy members
 * Corellians = no change
 * Criminals = no change
 * Dark Jedi characters = Dark Jedi
 * Families = no change
 * Imperial characters = Imperial individuals
 * This could be "Imperial personnel," or even just "Imperials" jSarek 11:18, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Jedi characters = Jedi (but this would conflict with the all-purpose Jedi category that exists already)
 * Mandalorians = no change
 * Musicians = no change
 * New Republic characters = New Republic individuals
 * Old Republic characters = Old Republic individuals
 * These last two could be "Old/New Republic personnel." jSarek 11:18, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * "Personnel" kinda implies that they are an employ, which is IMO a little too specific for this "catch all" category. WhiteBoy 07:29, 6 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Podracers = no change
 * Political characters = Politicians
 * Rebel Alliance characters = Rebel Alliance individuals
 * Again, "Rebel Alliance personnel" would work, as would just "Rebels." jSarek 11:18, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Sith characters = Sith lords or Sith Lords

This is what I'd like to see then if this is approved. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:01, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * Not all Sith were Lords, so the correct category would be Sith, giving it a similar problem as the Jedi category. --Imp 22:11, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * "New Republic individuals" sounds just as stupid as "New Republic characters". How does Wikipedia deal with individuals? --SparqMan 22:15, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't seem to find anyway around the 'individuals' part of it unless they are affiliated with someone or do something else. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:27, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I think for major organisations (eg: the Empire, Republic, etc.) "personnel" sounds the most appropriate to me. --Beeurd 16:17, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps now is the time to sketch out a better overarching categorization scheme for the whole wiki. --SparqMan 23:05, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd actually agree on that point. If we are going to spend what is undeniably a great effort in this reorganisation, we might as well ensure that the entire wiki has a well defined categorisation structure. Not saying what we have now is bad, I just believe it could be better. --Beeurd 16:17, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm in favour of folding all the Sith character categories back into one. It's pointlessly complex at the moment and some characters aren't able to be fit in the categories already there. QuentinGeorge 23:39, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll second that. – Aidje talk 18:05, 25 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * We seem to have come to a standstill at 3-2 against. How long do we have to wait, how long? – Aidje talk 04:35, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I've already voted, so I can't do much about the standstill. ;-) Still, I'd like to point out that the recent spate of categorizing characters by species/ethnicity has also greatly enhanced our ability to make this change.  jSarek 05:41, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)

New Spoilers
We made an exception to our no spoiler-warning policy for ROTS because it had not been released yet. Will we do the same for the Dark Nest series and other new books? --SparqMan 17:11, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * We have a no spoiler warning policy? MarcK 17:15, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * "This wiki contains a plethora of spoilers for all released material relating to the Star Wars universe. Read at your own risk." - I was under the impression that the only spoiler warnings we included beyond that front page was for ROTS ones. --SparqMan 17:31, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Sparq describes my view perfectly --Imp 17:33, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I wasn't necessarily advocating an extension of that policy for new books, just wondering what we were planning to do. I know I'd like to continue working on major articles without fear of ruining the Dark Nest books before I've read them. --SparqMan 00:44, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * This rule should extend to all new forms of literature and the television series when they come out. Ep III spoilers won't be used but we still have the regular ones you can use. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:35, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * So, you're saying that all new material being added from newer sources should have spoiler warnings? For how long after release? --SparqMan 16:25, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * As long as needed. There is no possible solid timeline that we can use for these. -- Riffsyphon1024 16:58, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I've created a page for info about how we handle spoilers. Right now it's pretty lacking since we haven't actually decided anything, but we can probably begin discussion on Star Wars talk:Spoilers. – Aidje talk 03:14, 4 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Community Portal name
The Cantina? --SparqMan 16:21, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure. I thought of some other names, but they are lame. StarNeptune 16:30, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * What had you thought of? --SparqMan 18:17, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Well that sounds like the name we could use for the equivalent of the Wikipedian village pump. -- Riffsyphon1024 16:57, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Though Wikipedia requires the "Village pump" and the "Community portal" because of its size. I doubt we need both. --SparqMan 18:17, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * The Cantina sounds great to me. Perhaps the cantina could have its own name as well, like "The Super Ugly Robotic Hutt" Also, perhaps we could use the main article page instead of the talk page for discussion. --Imp 20:55, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Strongly support. - Sikon 11:04, 6 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I think 'The Cantina' is overused. at my forums I named my general forum 'The Spaceport', lol. But otherwise count me in favour of The Cantina. --beeurd 13:30, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Succession Boxes
There has been a lot of commotion lately surrounding succession boxes. Besides acting as a breeding ground for fanon and misunderstanding (the Sith seem particularly prone to this), they are generally not very useful because we rarely have enough information to make them more than three persons deep. Can we take the stance of avoiding them entirely? --SparqMan 06:45, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, they can sometimes be nice. Perhaps can we have a policy of "avoiding them", in cases where there is not enough people for it to be useful (ie, a box going nowhere), and clamp down on speculation? QuentinGeorge 06:53, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I like them sometimes, too. (It's kinda pointless to have one totally empty though....ran across one or two of those lately.)  To me, "empty holes" (i.e. dead links) invite people to contribute that info, which is a good thing as long as it's legit info, not the fanon you mentioned.  WhiteBoy 07:00, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Succession boxes definitely should remain. And succession box fanon should be dealt with quickly, as well as any other fanon, to prevent it from spreading. - Sikon 09:37, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * What are we to do in cases of ambiguity? All of this "de facto title" stuff? --SparqMan 12:44, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I think dumping the succession boxes is a great idea. Their tendency to lead to dispute and to serve as a breeding ground for fanon outweigh any slight usefulness they might have.  jSarek 20:26, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I have spoken with SFH, the largest supporter of succession boxes, and he seems to agree that without complete information, their usefulness is greatly diminished. Without objection, I'm going to remove the succession boxes that are mostly with fan assumption, fanon or stretch connections. --SparqMan 18:04, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, I have a major objection. But thanks for assuming that I didn't and removing everything without waiting to see if anyone did. Kuralyov 23:37, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Kuralyov, I'd spoken with anyone who had weighed in so far. They're not a major change either way, so clearly if the community feels they should go back, we can reinsert them. Would you care to present your thoughts? --SparqMan 20:11, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm going to cast a tentative vote in favor of the succession boxes. I say tentative because, as we saw in the Galactic Emperor discussion, one fan's legitimate Emperor is another fan's pretender to the throne.  At the very least, we need to come to some sort of agreement about who counts and who doesn't. Thanos6 20:17, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Digg listing
You may have noticed a slight increase in activity, particularly some vandalism, last night. I may to be blame for this, after submitting a link to SWW to Digg. The link made it to the front page, drawing over 300 digs. So, sorry. But you know what they say about publicity... --SparqMan 19:33, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Care to explain what Digg specializes in so that we may understand what we're dealing with here? -- Riffsyphon1024 19:44, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * If going to the website's About page proves difficult for any of you, I'll just copy and paste: "Digg is a technology news website that combines social bookmarking, blogging, RSS, and non-hierarchical editorial control. With digg, users submit stories for review, but rather than allow an editor to decide which stories go on the homepage, the users do." It's similar to Slashdot, but with a decentralized control mechanism. --SparqMan 21:13, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Episode III spoilers
How much longer are those going to remain up, as opposed to just the spoiler warning in general? Until the Episode III DVD release? Kuralyov 19:49, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I asked that same question earlier to no response. I think a month after the EPIII DVD release is fair. --SparqMan 15:16, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * One month after the DVD sounds good to me. WhiteBoy 19:20, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * agree--Eion 19:01, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * That sounds fair, people should have seen it by then. -- Riffsyphon1024 19:41, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll add this to Star Wars:Spoilers. – Aidje talk 01:25, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Hyperspace content
As a non-member of Hyperspace, I am more than happy to see member exclusive content appearing on SWW. I am not certain, however, that images supplied to members will be as safe under a fair use defense or promotional claims as other images. --SparqMan 15:17, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * But they do realize now that Hyperspace content will have already filtered into the internet, with many non-members having access to pictures that were once guarded. Now that Episode III is over, wouldn't those Ep III pictures have already entered into the public domain? -- Riffsyphon1024 20:23, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * No, they are not in the public domain. Regardless of whether or not it has filtered out to the Internet, the exclusive content is not intended to be promotional material. The latest Harry Potter books is available in an illegal PDF all over the Internet, but that does not make sharing it legal. I'm not taking a stance one way or the other, just pointing out that by allowing Hyperspace images, we may be stretching the relative leniency that LFL has shown towards fan sites in regards to copyright images. --SparqMan 21:18, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Well when does something like this usually become PD? 5 years later? How exactly do they determine that? -- Riffsyphon1024 21:38, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Not anytime soon (see ). In the case of Star Wars, quite possibly not within our lifetimes, and certainly not within George Lucas's lifetime.   &mdash; Silly Dan  23:10, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh gee, I don't think that's what I meant to ask. More like when does it become safe for us to place it here and label it fair use? -- Riffsyphon1024 23:15, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry I misunderstood you. I have no idea what the answer to your actual question would be. 8)  &mdash; Silly Dan  23:25, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Riffs, I don't think it ever does. Almost all of the images we use here are protected by copyright (and a crapload of lawyers at LucasFilm, Dark Horse, Bantam, et al) and used without permission. Only a few fair use defenses regarding the types of uses we participate in have ever been successfully defended (promotional images and screenshots). LFL and friends has been very lenient in the use of images on the Web so far, but the use of Hyperspace content here may draw unwanted attention to our violation of their copyrights. --SparqMan 19:03, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * This was a big misunderstanding. I know now the difference between PD and Fair Use, I just got the two mixed up. And agreed about Hyperspace, if its only show to the members of the club, they'll jump on us if it gets out to the free wiki. -- Riffsyphon1024 19:14, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars Tales

 * I think we need to decide whether or not the plausible stories (ie, those that don't conflict with the canon) from Star Wars Tales issues 1-20 can be considered as canon, and more importantly whether we can make articles on them without a disputed tag or anything. Personally, I think if Nathan Butler (who basically has the best public Star Wars timeline there is) can accept them as canon, then the rest of us should as well. MarcK 06:36, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought the official word was that Tales was to be considered Infinities, and therefore explicitly noncanon. Should we go on that? --SparqMan 19:05, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought word was that fans could decide for themselves whether the stories are canon or not. Some authors have gone on to use characters that first appeared in Tales in their own canon stories (eg. in The History of the Mandalorians, Abel G. Peña confirmed the existance of Sintas Vel and Ailyn Vel who first appeared in Outbid But Never Outgunned, therefore that tale probably is canon. I think we should include MOST Star Wars Tales events, characters, and locations, unless of course a tale is particularly unbelievable (eg. Skippy the Jedi Droid). I don't think they need a disputed tag, but just a little mention in the Behind the scenes section that the source is a Tales story and it's canonity is unknown. --Azizlight 00:41, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Or we could make a new tag, saying This character/location/event only appears in Tales #1 - #20, therefore its canonity is unknown. --Azizlight 00:46, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I've had that idea buzzing around in my head for a while but haven't got around to implementing it, so I'll fully support it if it comes to a vote or anything. MarcK 22:59, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * I made a template, check it out at Template:Tales1-20. --Azizlight 01:57, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * I've used the tag in two articles, but won't use it any more until it gets the thumbs up from the Admins. --Azizlight 02:10, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Hope I wasn't jumping the gun too much with Darth Finn.... &mdash; Silly Dan  02:59, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Hyperspace free trial

 * Just so everybody knows, starwars.com is currently offering a free 7-day trial (no credit card required) of Hyperspace to anyone who wants one, so get going. MarcK 09:28, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Non-Official Images
As long as you have the consent of the person creating it, would it be okay to add images created by fans? I have a few images that depict scenes from EU. Would they be okay to add? - DarthMaul431


 * Yes, but all things in moderation; do not upload terabytes of images. Also, WookieePædia is not a photogallery, but an Encyclopædia; so now, please use the images for illustrating articles, not in bandwidtheating photogalleries.  ¿Could you also please sign your comments? — — Ŭalabio‽ 03:48, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * I always assumed fan-art was not wanted on this Wiki... Any official word on this? --Azizlight 05:02, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * It's best if they came from a canon source. I have made an exception for user created maps though. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:36, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see a major problem with providing some fan-created images, where they are based totally on official descriptions and such, and they must say that they are 'artists representations' or something. --beeurd 16:56, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Searching
I was pleasantly surprised to discover a Firefox search plugin for this place. I wasn't aware of it's existance before now, did anyone from here do it? If so: Thanks! In case anyone is interested it is near the bottom of this list: http://mycroft.mozdev.org/download.html?submitform=Find&category=31 --beeurd 02:20, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Sweet! – Aidje talk 04:02, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars Miniatures
Howdy, as a new Wookieepedian, and as an avid player of Star Wars Miniatures, do y'all think that the inclusion of set-lists of each Miniatures set would be valuable to the Wiki? I'd be more than happy to do it, but before embarking on the journey, I'd like some approval. Thanks!

DarthIntrepidus 04:39, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * I would be interested in seeing what you could whip up. Because this is a Star Wars Wiki, all canon information is wanted, including games. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:40, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * It might be good to start with a single article containing lists of the different sets. I've been thinking about doing this with the old MicroMachines too. --SparqMan 16:18, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * I still have some of the SW MMs. Maybe this could turn into a repository of toys, a la ShopWookiee. -- Riffsyphon1024 16:23, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

"Stub of the day?"
"Stub of the day" was recently added to the Main Page and here -- do we want to have this feature? Isn't it covered by the Improvement drive? &mdash; Silly Dan 01:29, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * True, but shouldn't the article for improvement be listed on the main page? -- SFH 22:50, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * We don't have one this week. (Though I was just about to nominate Mon Calamari.)  &mdash; Silly Dan  23:04, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Go ahead Dan. We haven't had a vote there in two weeks. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:43, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)

HoloNet News: Website vs Insider
At the moment we have articles for HoloNet News (in-universe) and HoloNet News (website). We need to make a new page for the HoloNet News that is published in Star Wars Insider.

I'm not really sure what to call this new page, perhaps HoloNet News (Insider), though I don't think I like this title. Perhaps HoloNet news items from both the Website and Insider should all be indexed on the one page? And what do we call this page? And we also need to keep CIS Shadowfeed in mind. --Azizlight 16:28, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * We have pages for the individual online issues. The ones in Insider also have numbers, so we should make pages for them too. Anyone with Insider want to start the ball rolling? QuentinGeorge 22:38, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Just let me get issue 84 before I get spoiled too much, and then I'll be up to it. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:42, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to use this, or not:
 * I started doing it but looks like i won't have time to continue today :-(


 * Republic HoloNet News, featured in Star Wars Insider magazine, is an series of in-universe news articles detailing galactic events leading up to the beginning of Attack of the Clones. The articles were authored by Pablo Hidalgo. Holonet News articles were published in Star Wars Insider issues #63 to #76, after the release of Episode II.


 * Holonet News articles returned to the Insider in issue #84, detailing the events immediately after the birth of the Empire.

Issues
HoloNet News Core Edition 14:2:12 (Star Wars Insider 65) --Azizlight 00:59, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Wanted Pages

 * I think maybe it's time to do another purge of the wanted pages. We have uncreated pages with as many as 65(!) referring pages, mostly for authors, comics, and young adult books that I know nothing about and thus can't help with.  jSarek 21:38, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * To purge, simply use this link. - Sikon [ Talk ] 03:21, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * I must not know what "purging" means in the context of the software. I just meant that, in the past, we've managed to get the referring page number for the most wanted pages down into the low teens; now, there are some 60 pages exceeding that. It would be commendable if we could bring that number back down again, and so we should "purge" it (by this, I meant "create a bunch of articles to get their respective redlinks kicked out of Wanted Pages").  Apologies for using the term colloquially when there's an official meaning to it (and, incidentally, what exactly does real "purging" do to the page?).  jSarek 05:27, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * As with all pages, "purging" means clearing the server cache, forcing the server to update the page. - Sikon [ Talk ] 06:03, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Looking at that list... Do we 'really' need a separate page for each Clone Wars cartoon? I'm sure one for each series would be sufficient, but if someone can fill them with usefull info that isn't repeated on every page then I have no problem with it. --beeurd 22:41, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Grah! What's with this on wanted pages:
 * Wookieepedia:Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords (161 links)
 * Wookieepedia:Clone Wars (136 links)
 * Wookieepedia:The Roleplaying Game (90 links)
 * Wookieepedia:The Clone Wars (58 links)
 * Wookieepedia:Battlefront (55 links)
 * And that's just the top 5, those Wookieepedia: ones are scattered throughout the list. --beeurd 23:35, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to figure that one out myself. They're also all over Broken Redirects, even though the redirect pages that are allegedly "broken" actually point to the right page. Opening and resaving the redirect page removes it from the list, but what caused it in the first place? Is there some way the database can refresh the all inter-wiki links? &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  23:51, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Legacy templates
There are some templates which were copied from Wikipedia, but, in my opinion, are useless for this wiki. These are:
 * notenglish - while there may be users who create individual non-English articles, these are exceptional cases and there shouldn't really be an entire category for them.
 * PotentialVanity - Wikipedia deals with a lot of vanity articles every day, but it's not the case here.
 * POV check - not needed as there are no dedicated "NPOV checks", and we have POV for all NPOV issues. (It is truly amusing that we have one NPOV dispute on the entire wiki, yet four NPOV templates, including also NPOV-section and NPOV-title.)
 * incomplete - weak one, but aren't incomplete articles stubs?
 * controversial3 - redundant with controversial
 * DisputeCheck - same reason as for POV check, redundant with disputed
 * idw-uo - what does "UO" stand for? Currently, the template is identical to idw
 * NowCommons - pointless, Wikicities doesn't support Commons
 * CopyrightedFreeUseProvided - provided what? (see template)

In general, I think we need a simpler template system for "issues and disputes", since many templates only slightly differ from each other. If not templates themselves, maybe some categories should be merged, because there are currently a plethora of maintenance categories that only include a few articles each. - Sikon [ Talk ] 03:16, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Not everything is useful here as I've come to realize. I'll delete what you feel needs to be deleted. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:25, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we should get rid of Delete and Nonsense in favor of Deletebecause. IMO, we only need one. &mdash;Darth Culator  06:28, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Copyright templates?
I've just started uploading new pictures for the ships featured in X-Wing Alliance. They're 3-D renders based on the original game files, so they're sort of fair-use and sort of a derivative work. I'm not sure what kind of copyright tag I should be using. Can anyone clear this up for me? &mdash;Darth Culator 02:28, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)

OOU cats
Can we settle whether or not we're going to us "Imperial character" or "Old Republic character", or "Imperial Starfleet officer" or "Galactic Republic politicians"? --SparqMan 17:28, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought we decided against it in the vote above... I'm for the change, however. --beeurd 17:00, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

"stubs go above Appearances on SWW"
Uh, I've been here since June, and this is the first I've heard about this. It's no big deal really, but shouldn't this be written somewhere (namely the Manual of Style) to avoid people repeating this mistake if it is in fact policy (unless I missed it, and if I did I apologize)? StarNeptune 02:28, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I was wondering about this myself. I've seen people move stubs in both directions, and no where does it seem to be officially stated.  So, is there a policy, and if so, what is it and *where* is it? jSarek 06:54, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I don't remember seeing it stated either. I generally put the stub at the bottom of the main text fo the article... I think. --beeurd 20:46, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

64.180.59.72

 * Why isn't he banned yet? He's posted numerous fanon articles, and is now blanking Silly Dan's user and talk pages. I say we dishonorably ban him, Garth Breise style. MarcK 23:11, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I was hoping after his fanon articles were taken care of he may stop, but blanking user pages and changing user votes in a Vfd discussion is too much. 1000 hours of banning should take care of it. --SparqMan 23:43, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous users
Has anyone considered requiring user registration before editing? It seems to be working pretty well for Battlestar Wiki and The Great Machine.

Also, can we ban 156.63.242.3 ASAP? It's a proxy server, and I think we should ban all proxy servers as soon as they are discovered just on general principle. &mdash;Darth Culator 04:02, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Lego

 * Would anyone be interested in articles concerning Star Wars LEGO sets? I think it'd be very interesting, and would certainly bring us a step closer to being the ultimate source for Star Wars information. MarcK 04:34, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a can of worms I think we should think very carefully about opening. Once we start detailing individual toys from one manufacturer, it only makes sense to do the same for all manufacturers, and I'm not sure we're ready to detail every Kenner and Hasbro figure ever made. If the community thinks we're up to it, then go for it; but we should show caution before deciding to take that step. jSarek 20:35, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Considering how major a part of Star Wars fandom toy collecting is, this wiki really should cover it at some level. On the other hand, we should be wary of cluttering every character and vehicle page with detailed toy information.  Perhaps for the action figures and associated vehicles, someone should do an article on each individual "wave", with links to the characters and vehicles.  Something similar could be done with the Lego sets, which I think are also in waves.  (I'm not the one to do this, as I don't know much about the subject.  I'm just throwing ideas around.)  &mdash; Silly Dan  22:20, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * There is a very valid point that collecting is a major part of Star Wars fandom, but there are dozens of really good websites already out there that serve the same purpose, and including collecting in the Star Wars Wiki would be a huge and redundant task. - Hollis
 * One could probably have a substantial wiki just on collecting, come to think of it.... &mdash; Silly Dan  11:45, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm up for helping with Star Wars figure pages --Darth Mantus 14:51, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)

CSG madness...
Who put this Consular/Guardian/Sentinel nonsense into Category:Jedi ranks again? It's called game mechanics, RPGs like Wizards and KOTORs use them to bring some character diversity. Will we also create articles for character levels and experience/health/Force points? - Sikon [ Talk ] 06:05, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree; we have decided previously that character classes are simply game mechanics and have little to nothing in common with Star Wars canon. I say that we should either delete these articles, or possibly leave the articles, placing them in category that explicity labels them as game elements (simply for reference). In this case, the articles would be written from an OOU perspective. They should not in any case be left in the category "Jedi ranks." – Aidje talk 22:42, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Addition to Character template for Jedi and Sith characters
I was wondering if maybe for Jedi and Sith characters, a few more elements should be added along with the description and affiliation elements, including who they were trained by, who they themselves trained, and the color lightsaber they had. This may be useful referance for someone looking for this information, as it would be right on top.
 * I think we're better off giving all characters the same character template. However, if enough people want it, we could add another template, called something like , which could have an additional infobox with that info.  &mdash; Silly Dan  22:14, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Lead-In Quotes

 * Can we come to some agreement how many of these we want per article? I reckon only one, MAX of two. But they seem to be rapidly reproducing and I think we should work out some rule of thumb. QuentinGeorge 06:55, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. One, maybe two.  &mdash; Silly Dan  11:40, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I think they're annoying, and IMO should not be there at all. Definately not more than one. --Azizlight 11:42, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I guess they're not THAT bad... they just look tacky sometimes when anons throw them in. I guess a template/namespace thingy would solve that. Oh BTW would anybody object to me changing Luke's quote to "But I was going to Tosche Station to pick up some power converters!!!" :-D --Azizlight 06:27, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * You are evil. Just try and stop me changing Darth Vader's too '"Yippee!". QuentinGeorge 06:30, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that a single, well-chosen quotation can provide some nice flavor to articles. The problem would be solved by a Wookieequote type segment of SWW. Riffs, how's that coming? --SparqMan 01:57, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * That was what I wanted to suggest, too. Let's organize a "Quote:" namespace (even if not technically a namespace) in a Wikiquote fashion. - Sikon [ Talk ] 04:46, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I like the template idea. QuentinGeorge 06:30, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Monsters Wiki
We're just getting started over at the Monsters Wikicity, any help would be nice. I'm sorry if this message is directing people away from Star Wars Wiki but the Monsters Wiki needs a lot of work --Darth Mantus 14:49, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Proposal: Make appearances / sources templates
I think we should consider changing the way we type out our lists of Sources and Appearances at the bottom of every article.

Currently, especially when listing sources, it is quite cumbersome to type the title, publisher and year every single time. Sure we can copy and paste, but it's still very tedious and time consuming.

I propose that we make a template for every single piece of Star Wars literature, e.g. Twin Stars of Kira =. Within these templates will contain the full line of text that would normally be used when citing references, ie. = Twin Stars of Kira, West End Games 1993. (or whatever format we agree on).

There are at least two major advantages of such a change.
 * 1) It will make sourcing articles much faster and easier (this might encourage the lazier among us to include references, where they normally would not have bothered)
 * 2) It will finally make Appearances and Sources sections look consistent across the entire Wiki
 * 3) It would save room on the wiki database

I guess one disadvantage would be the large amount of time taken to convert from the old system to the new system, however Iim sure it will be worthwhile in the long-run. And I would be happy to be a major contributer to this cause.

Please discuss / vote / whatever. Cheers. --Azizlight 07:22, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm still of the opinion that, since hotlinks allow anyone seeking full bibliographic information to obtain it in a single click, we shouldn't be trying to include all of that information. Just linking the title of a work in the appearances/sources should be sufficient, and not that much harder than typing a template.  Going through ALL of our articles to template the sources would be tedious and unnecessary, and then we'd have the added complication of trying to remember which template to type for which source.  jSarek 07:34, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it seemed to be a working Wookieepedia convention to list just the title, without the publisher, year etc. until someone screwed it up for reasons beyond my comprehension. So I think we should stick with the title and not introduce a thousand and one template. - Sikon [ Talk ] 10:04, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I agree that the author/publisher/year details aren't really needed, and in that case I suppose the templates aren't needed. Would everyone agree to removing the author/publisher/year though? --Azizlight 10:27, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was ever a convention to omit publisher, author, and year - we tried to hash something out on Wookieepedia talk: Manual of Style, but no consensus was reached. Of course, only jSarek, Whiteboy, Tam, SparqMan, and I discussed it, and it was back in July, so I don't know what everyone else thinks now.  Since then, my opinion has sort of moved over to jSarek's position, but I've been including authors and publishers in most articles I've started.  For existing articles I've expanded, I've mostly tried to follow the conventions already given in the article.  &mdash; Silly Dan  15:57, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * True that we never really reached a concensus on the Manual of Style, but it seems to be the more common practice to include just the title. And I agree with jSerek that that's all that's necessary with a hyperlink to the full info.  WhiteBoy 02:01, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe I have a little bit of a pretentious streak, but I like listing the full info. I think it looks more encyclopedic. &mdash;Darth Culator  02:09, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * While it may look more professional, for me it's quite confusing, as I can't find the title immediately. - Sikon [ Talk ] 03:10, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Two more possible reasons to include titles only:
 * It's a simple standard that can easily be kept uniform by all users, just as our "use past tense" standard is. If we were a small, centralized group, we could pick a more complicated format, just as we could say "Assume this is written by Jedi scholars in 200 ABY" or something like that.  But we're a wiki, so it's best to keep things simple.
 * It avoids possible questions over authorship (e.g. do we credit a movie to the screenwriter or the director? Do we credit a videogame to the lead programmer, the project manager, or the dialogue writer?  Do we credit the original novelization to the guy with his name on the cover or the ghostwriter?)
 * Should we hop over to the Manual of Style talk page to start a vote? &mdash; Silly Dan  03:13, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)

New project namespace
Following the discussion at Wookieepedia talk:Community Portal/Namespace dispute, WhiteBoy told me that he felt there was now consensus that the project namespace should be moved. Therefore, the namespace has changed from "Star Wars:" to "Wookipedia:". Redirects have been added from the old namespace for project-related pages. Non-project pages that were wrongly in that namespace should have been moved back. To avoid breaking links, I've put them at Star Wars:Title for now, but many of them may be better moved again to Star Wars: Title with a space (which wasn't possible when Star Wars: was a namespace). I've not added redirects for the old VfD discussions since these didn't seem to be linked from anywhere anyway. I've also not checked the talk pages since these are not often linked, but if you do find any, just add a redirect from the old page to Project talk:Title. There may be some double redirects to fix, but those would best be done after deciding which pages to remove to include a space rather than needing to fix them twice. This will hopefully not cause too much disruption, and brings the benefit of being able to title pages with the prefix Star Wars: without them ending up in the wrong namespace. Angela (talk) 04:43, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for doing this, Angela. :-) jSarek 04:46, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * What jSarek said x45,000,000,000. MarcK 05:12, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * We love you, Angela. :-) – Aidje talk 06:49, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Hot damn. You are a god Angela! -- Riffsyphon1024 02:10, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Glacial access speed
Am I the only one having major problems accessing Wikicities? I was trying to relocate the LucasArts games' pages and fix the redirects when the whole domain suddenly slowed to a crawl. And I know it's not my connection, because I have the same problem here at work hours later. It took me over 10 minutes just to get this question posted! Anyone have any ideas about what's up? &mdash;Darth Culator  (talk)  21:50, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Its slow for me, even on DSL. Took two minutes to save, seconds to load though. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:14, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I've also got a high-speed connection and I'm experiencing this as well. Sometimes it can be really fast, but 90% of the time it's terribly slow. Hollis 03:41, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, looks like it's Slashdot's fault. Uncyclopedia got slashdotted, and they're also hosted by Wikia. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  04:09, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Growing "Affiliation" sections
216.227.97.192 has added "Loyalisy Committee" and/or "Delegation of 2000" to a number of characters' "Affiliation" sections. Is this helpful or excessive? --SparqMan 03:21, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)