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)

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)

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)

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)