Wookieepedia talk:Community Portal

Wiki-specific namespace
See Star Wars talk:Community Portal/Namespace dispute.

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)

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)

Improvement drive
I propose we hold a weekly improvement drive, similar to the one on Wikipedia. Each week we nominate and vote for articles that need much improvement. The article with the most votes is selected as "this week's improvement drive". An article nomination would need 2 votes per week to stay on the list of nominees. Any thoughts? This would shorten the list of Doomed articles. --Imp 12:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea, although recently 65.79.196.89 has been deleting the "doom" tags without contributing to the articles. I think that your idea will indeed help to renovate articles which would be EASY with a team effort (such as the Lando Calrissian page). -- Falmarin 03:41, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Make sure there's someone who is willing to update that weekly. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:34, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I can update it. At least when I get back from vacation. I've done some work for Wikipedia's improvement drives and know the system --Imp 05:51, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Articles should be nominated and put through a quick decision process (one that would grow more lengthy as the project grows). --SparqMan 04:34, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Any forward movement on this? --SparqMan 23:40, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'll create it when I get to a computer with an actual mouse (on Monday). --Imp 19:29, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Placement of templates
I've noticed that a number of articles from SWW that turn up in Google have their first few lines of content overshadowed by a template box. For example, here is what appears when Lorth Needa comes up:
 * Lorth Needa - Star Wars
 * Lorth Needa. Homeworld, Coruscant-he is a clone. Species, Human. Gender, Male. Height, . Hair Color, Brown. Eye Color, Bluish-green ...

Can we prevent this? --SparqMan 21:45, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * First off, how is Needa a clone? -- Riffsyphon1024 19:23, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * He's not. That was corrected but not updated in Google yet. --SparqMan 20:33, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It now appears the first lines of text from Google are
 * Lorth Needa (? - 3 ABY) was a fleet officer in the Galactic Republic and Imperial

... Needa was a veteran command officer, having served in the Galactic ...
 * Was this fixed, or did Google fix itself?--Eion 09:25, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Animate
For those who use Firefox and Greasemonkey, you should checkout Dan Phiffer's Wikipedia Animate script. It works on all MediaWiki sites (including this one) and it loads of fun. Read this for some background information on Waxy.org's bounty for a Wikipedia revision history animator. --SparqMan 14:32, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)

We should use true Roman Numerals in movie-titles
I have an idea: Why do not we use true Roman Numerals in the names of movies like?:


 * 1) Star Wars Episode Ⅰ:  The Phantom Menace
 * 2) Star Wars Episode Ⅱ:  Attack of the Clones
 * 3) Star Wars Episode Ⅲ:  Revenge of the Sith
 * 4) Star Wars Episode Ⅳ:  A New Hope
 * 5) Star Wars Episode Ⅴ:  The Empire Strikes Back
 * 6) Star Wars Episode Ⅵ:  Return of the Jedi

True Roman Numerals would be nice. — — Ŭalabio‽  01:10, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * besides making for ugly URLs, I don't see any reason not to.--Eion 01:30, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * ¿Would the URLs be ugly? Safari represents the octets of UTF-8 as the Roman Numerals.  As for people manually typing the URLs and accidently using the letters i and v, we can just leave redirects where the articles are. — — Ŭalabio‽ 02:31, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a pain to type. That's the main reason I can see.  -- Silly Dan  01:37, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * In my OS  (Mac OS Ⅹ)  one finds the option in the menu  “Edit”  called  “Special Characters”  which causes a  “Character-Palette”  to appear. One can browse the various Unicode-Blocks  (the Roman Numerals are in  “Number-Forms”).  I am certain that all good OSes have this feature and one can get this as freeware for Microsoft-Windows.    (¿Did Ŭalabio just exclude Microsoft-Windows as a good OS?  ;-)    This is much more easy than memorizing the hexadecimal values for all of the characters in ISO-10646.  —  — Ŭalabio‽ 02:31, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * All that just to get a Roman numeral, when we can just type out the letters? Not worth it at all, in my opinion, especially since it will perpetually lead to redirects when people try to link to the films in their articles, because no one would actually use a special character for this.  jSarek 21:25, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * The URL for EPI appears as
 * http://starwars.wikicities.com/wiki/Star_Wars_Episode_Ⅰ:_The_Phantom_Menace


 * in IE. I don't doubt the effectiveness of redirects, was just pointing out what I saw as the one snag. Whether or not Windows is a good OS by your limited definition, it is a popular one, and something that is difficult to do is difficult to implement as a standard.--Eion 09:16, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Well I can't see these things, so I'm not for it. I am using IE and will not switch just to be able to view roman numerals, when people can use I's and V's. Not really hard to do. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:19, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * ¿Do you see any outside characters outside of ISO-646 such as “Curly Quotes” or the description of this system?:

0 ☼ Ⅰ ☿ Ⅱ ♀ Ⅲ ♁ Ⅳ ♂ Ⅴ ♃ Ⅵ ♄ Ⅶ ♅ Ⅷ ♆ Ⅸ ♇

I guess WookieePædia is not yet ready for Roman Numerals. — — Ŭalabio‽ 05:41, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC) I use Roman Numerals for numbers except for 0 because 0 does not exist in Roman Numerals:
 * I can only read the sun's symbol, Venus's and Mars's. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:51, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm using Mozilla Firefox 1.0.4 and still only see those three, myself. jSarek 21:25, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm using Firefox w/Windows XP, can see all of them, but think I, II, III, etc., look better in the default font. -- Silly Dan  21:34, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I am using Firefox 1.0.4 on WinXP and see it just fine. But as has been illustrated already, it's not readable by many people.  In web design, you need always keep in mind how many people you will be cutting out of your audience when you want to try something cool.  Plus those URL's would be a killer!  :p  WhiteBoy 03:08, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone mentioned this yet, but people searching for things are not going to bother typing a special character. --Beeurd 23:37, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly my reasoning. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:38, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything but squares. - Sikon 14:13, 5 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I made the example bigger and bolder. ¿Does that help? — — Ŭalabio‽ 00:07, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * No, still squares. Everything I can see is 0. - Sikon 01:27, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * This is what you do not see:

	0	 	Sol	 	1	 	Mercury	 	2	 	Venus	 	3	 	Earth	 	4	 	Mars	 	5	 	Jupiter	 	6	 	Saturn	 	7	 	Uranus	 	8	 	Neptune	 	9	 	Pluto	

Every planet in the solar system Sol has a symbol in Unicode. Sol is 0 because it is the  base  of the solar system Sol. — — Ŭalabio‽ 03:10, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * All this unicode text jibba-jabba just strikes me as pointless showing off.--Spanky The Dolphin 08:19, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Walabio, stop this space wasting effort. I cannot see a damn thing, and neither can anyone else using an English keyboard. Your idea is flawed and cannot be put to use. And please, fix all these spaces. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:38, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. A pointless idea. What would we gain? Nothing. We'd lose readable URLs and the ability for people to find pages via Google. QuentinGeorge 09:46, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, for the record, I can see everything fine, but I still think it's worthless bullshit and just amounts to Ualabio showing off his m4d un!c0d3 skillz.--Spanky The Dolphin 18:22, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Story arcs
Can someone explain to me the need for story arc articles? It seems to me that, if we already have separate articles explaining the plot for each issue of each comic series, there's no real point in making another one that combines the plot of several issues into one article. MarcK 08:08, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, it groups them all up neatly together. I can personally see how that would come in handy. By the way, how on Earth are you doing all these comic entry updates and additions so fast?--Spanky The Dolphin 08:21, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Not many people know this, but I'm a ninja. Also I keep several pages (such as Dark Horse's official previews) open at the same time, plus templates make things even swifter. I'm guessing that's what most others do as well. --Imp 15:30, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I try to peel away story arc descriptions as much as possible. It's frustrating to see descriptions of ROTS in articles about a shuttle craft. Some snippets are required for context, but the rest can mostly be pushed into an "Appearance" listing as long as proper wikilinks and "For more information see..." mentions are in place. --SparqMan 08:15, 10 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)

Force categorization
I've thrown together a diagram of a categorization structure I would like to see implemented. I'd like to hear what others think of this categorization scheme. The diagram can be viewed at Image:Force categorization.png. I can update the diagram with suggestions if necessary. – Aidje talk 15:06, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Dia is a wonderful app. I should use it for the military categorization structure. The structure looks good to me so far. How would you connect Force powers connected to a specific sect? Also keep in mind that many unaligned items (holocron, lightsaber) are limited to the Jedi and Sith. Other Force-related organizations and sects are not connected to them. --SparqMan 16:11, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I suppose there could be sub-categories of Category:Force powers that were sect-specific, though I had avoided this because of apparent contradictions between various elements of canon, such as inconsistencies between video games. – Aidje talk 16:38, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I am aware that there are some items that are specific to the Jedi AND Sith, but I couldn't come up with a simple solution to that problem. Any ideas? – Aidje talk 16:38, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Given that the Jedi/Sith school of Force learning is the most commonplace, it would not be unreasonable to keep them in the general Force category. --SparqMan 19:45, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Aidje, the diagram looks very good and gives me an idea of where we are going. -- Riffsyphon1024 17:33, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks like a pretty solid plan; I have no critiques of it I can immediately see. jSarek 08:09, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * How long should I wait before implementing this structure? I know consensus is good, but what exactly is a consensus in this case? (I think that we could wait to sort out the minor issues brought up by SparqMan&mdash;beginning the implementation shouldn't complicate the resolution of either of those issues.) – Aidje talk 21:03, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks sweet. The only thing I see that should be changed about it is de-OOUing the character categories (ie Sith characters should be Sith individuals). --Imp 16:28, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you realize how much of a job it would be to change all characters to individuals? -- Riffsyphon1024 01:01, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, Riff, it's only a day's work. I figure I'll change all the characters to individuals before recreating the categories, to catch all of them. I'll be finished tomorrow evening if I start when I get home (in 6 hours). --Imp 08:45, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * So, will you give me the green light? --Imp 21:01, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a major change to the wiki and I'd like to have a vote on it. See the next section. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:29, 17 Jul 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)

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)

Proper usage of the 'dash'
I have noticed that many articles on the Star Wars Wiki use the improper '-' (a hyphen) for more than it should be used; personally I feel that the hyphen is undergoing an identity crisis. I wish to discuss whether or not you think that (1) using proper dash grammar should be part of the Wookiepedia guidelines (they're already part of them for Wikipedia) and (2) we fix what we have already.

Here's my explanation of hyphen versus en dash versus em dash:
 * Most articles with dates of birth/death are formatted incorrectly: they use a hyphen to show a range of numbers/dates instead of the more proper en dash.
 * Example: incorrect: "(19 BBY - 19 ABY)" correct: "(19 BBY–19 ABY)"
 * Example: incorrect: "(20 BBY - c. 20 ABY)" correct: "(20 BBY – c. 20 ABY)"


 * When one end of the range of dates/numbers is missing, an em dash needs to be used.
 * Example: incorrect: "(19 BBY - ?)" correct: "(19 BBY&mdash;)"
 * Example: incorrect: "(? - c. 20 ABY)" correct: "(&mdash; c. 20 ABY)"


 * Proof: Wikipedia manual of style (dates and numbers). Create em dashes by typing "&amp;mdash;" and create en dashes by typing "&amp;ndash;"; I really feel that we should be using correct puncuation at all times, despite the fact that it takes an extra six keystrokes to produce the proper character (big deal&hellip;!).
 * Another improper usage of the hyphen stems in trying to make a dash while typing within a paragraph: some people use ' - ' to make a dash, which is entirely wrong; some use ' -- ' (though not as often), which is more technically correct, but doesn't exactly look good. The proper way to make a dash in a sentence is to use "&amp;mdash;" surrounded by no spaces.
 * Example: incorrect: "Star Wars is - as everyone knows - amazing." correct: "Star Wars is&mdash;as everyone knows&mdash;amazing."
 * Example: mildly incorrect: "Star Wars is -- as everyone knows -- amazing." correct: "Star Wars is&mdash;as everyone knows&mdash;amazing."


 * The only times that you use a hyphen, really, are:
 * making words not look dumb (re-evaluate looks better than reevaluate)
 * joining &ge;two words that serve as a single adjective of a noun in subject (but non when in predicate)
 * when hyphenating compound words, such as "open-source" and "browser," use an en dash (e.g. "open-source–based web browser" and "Post–Galactic Empire Era")
 * prefixes/suffixes (ex. re-review a film)
 * compound numbers

Why we should use proper grammar:
 * It's ugly when you just use the hyphen for _everything_.
 * It's doing what's right.
 * It looks better.
 * You feel better about yourself and about your article. ;)
 * (And I won't hold a grudge against you.)

To create an en or em dash without using HTML entity code, you can:
 * Linux/Mac/Whatever: Use a character chart found in some menu somewhere (unless you're too geeky to use a GUI)
 * Windows: (keypad numbers) en dash &rarr; ALT+0150; em dash &rarr; ALT+0151

&mdash;qrc :)

Discussion
I support this decision. Maybe make it a separate "proposed guideline" page? - Sikon 06:16, 24 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I also support grammatical accuracy. – Aidje talk 03:15, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Sources and Appearances
As someone who is interested in Star Wars but by no means an expert on the characters and stories, I have very much welcomed the addition of the Sources and Appearances sub-headings to the entries on this wiki. However, I have a few thoughts and suggestions that I'd like to throw in to the mix for consideration.

The sources is very useful, but only to a degree. My problem is that for individuals with multiple appearances throughout the Expanded Universe, and therefore quite extensive biographies, it is not clear which bits of information come from which source. For example, although all General Grievous's appearances and sources are quoted, I am unable to tell where exactly I would find a description or reference to his assault on the planet Duro. This could become important in the future for any wikipedians who wish to check the original source for a particular fact in order to correct or corroborate it. Perhaps the sources should actually be quoted at the end of each paragraph, in brackets and/or italics? Alternatively, each source could be referenced at the end of each paragraph with a superscript number which relates to the source referenced below the Sources sub-heading. Both these suggestions are quite common ways of clearly attributing a source to a particular fact.

For the Appearances I'd like to suggest two things. Firstly, (and I think this has already been proposed elsewhere), for the characters with very long lists of appearances (eg Luke Skywalker), I think perhaps a link from the main character page to a separate page listing the appearances would be good idea. My other suggestion would be to break up the long lists in to sub-sections using sub-headings such as 'books', 'comics', 'movies' etc. This would make the list more useful, particularly if someone wanted to know which novels a character had appeared in but wasn't interested in which comics etc. I've introduced something along these lines at the Doctor Who Wiki. Take a look at the Ian Chesterton - List of Appearances. --Mantrid 12:18, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * A good idea, although a question would arise: should separate numbering be used for appearances and sources and if not, how to keep numbers from screwing up? - Sikon 13:12, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that what I'm suggesting should only be applied to sources. Appearances should be left as they are as a general indication of where, for example, you can experience the adventures of a particular character. --Mantrid 13:17, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * So are you proposing adding appearances that contain notable information to both sources and appearances? - Sikon 14:01, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not totally sure what you mean here. What I'm suggesting is that appearances just get listed either as they are under a sub-heading or on a separate page of their own (see above). The reference to specific sources are attached to paragraphs in the in-Universe text of the main entry. Does that make more sense? Sorry if I'm confusing things... --Mantrid 16:16, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Planet summaries
The new Wikipedia ones look more accurate than current ones (here's an example). Should we consider adopting that system?

Wait, I realize, we shouldn't copy everything from Wikipedia. Scratch that idea. - Sikon 16:08, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * However one is free to merge the information from that article into ours. Just don't replace it. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:36, 30 Jul 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)

Sides of the Force
We need to decide once and for all how we're going to capitalize these&mdash;is it Dark Side/Light Side, Dark side/Light side, or dark side/light side (or perhaps even dark Side/light Side :-P). I don't know if we should have a vote, or if we should discuss the matter and then have someone make an executive decision. Either way, we can certainly begin by talking. For some reason, I don't want to start this by stating my opinion, although I have consistently followed a certain method of capitalization. – Aidje talk 05:00, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, my opinion is "Dark side of the Force". A vote should be held, with the winner being added to the Manual of Style. --Imp 20:48, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * dark side of the Force. To me, the Force seems to be the equivalent of God in the SW universe.  God it typically capitalized, so the Force should be capitalized.  But I don't really think of the dark side as a proper noun, so I don't think it should be capitalized.  Or, to take the religious connotations out, I think it's the same as saying the right side of the Ford Mustang.  The dark side and the light side are just a "certain point[s] of view" for the same thing.  The thing (the Force) is what's the proper noun, not the view.  WhiteBoy 01:50, 6 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, in KOTORs, the developers seem to be not entirely consistent themselves: they use both "light/dark side" and "Light/Dark Side", but the first form seems more common. - Sikon 05:03, 6 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)

Sources, appearances and BTS
I have two questions about these sections:
 * In what order should they go?
 * Should it be "Behind the Scenes" or "Behind the scenes"? - Sikon 11:03, 6 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, the order that seems to be used the most (almost exclusively) is BTS-Appearances-Sources. As for BTS, no consensual decision has been made regarding that. I use "Behind the scenes", though. --Imp 11:09, 6 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Even though I dislike it stylistically, the Wikipedia standard is to use "External links" and "Behind the scenes" with only the first letter capitalized. The order I use is BTS, Appearances, Sources. --SparqMan 15:20, 6 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, naming conventions state that only the first word should be capitalized in anything other than a proper noun. I agree on that order, too. – Aidje talk 04:59, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I also go in order of BTS, Appearances, and Sources. Btw, can someone tell Kuralyov to stop capitalizing every word in new categories, as I assume thats part of the convention too. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:04, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * "Behind the scenes" (same reason as Aidje) and BTS, Appearances, Sources. The order is (in my mind) simply because the last two are like a "works cited" section at the end of the article like you would have in a book or magazine article.  BTS is part of the article itself.  WhiteBoy 02:46, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Planet summaries
Created three templates, plh, pl and plf, to simplify management of planet summaries; they use the new design of battle instead of the old pink-grid design. Malachor V is an example (the only one yet). Since most fields are common, I also propose having an enhanced header template (called plh-std or something like that) with all these fields already included. - Sikon 04:56, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * We're going to discuss this on Template talk:Planet before we implement anything. Go there if you want to have a say, everyone. – Aidje talk 06:05, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Domain
I've been thinking about having a domain for our site, and wanted to see what y'all thought. What do you think would be a good one? Here are names available that I checked:
 * wookieepedia.com (I can't believe .org is taken! Somebody's probably trying to make a buck.)
 * Here's my vote. WhiteBoy 02:28, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Ditto. .org would be even better if we could manage to get ahold of it, though it would almost certainly cost more. .nets are 'cool' in a way, but there seem to be a lot of people who have a hard time remembering them. The same people would probably have a hard time remembering a .org, too, though. .com is probably actually the safest bet. And 'wookieepedia' rocks. – Aidje talk 03:52, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * My vote. Though if we can afford it, we should probably look at registering wookieepedia.net and wookieepedia.info too, to redirect to wookieepedia.com. --Azizlight 04:35, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * My vote. Only concern is people not being able to find it. Too bad starwarswiki.com is taken, that would've bene my prime choice. Kuralyov 04:52, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) My vote goes here. I really hope this will be a successful venture --Imp 08:53, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * wookieepedia.net
 * wookieepedia.info
 * starwarswiki.net
 * MarcK 03:06, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * starwarswiki.info
 * swwiki.org
 * swwiki.net
 * swwiki.info

Add any others you want, and vote for the one you want most. WhiteBoy 02:53, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * Who would pay for this? I believe that the Wikicities does not allow the use of an outside URL (http://www.wikicities.com/wiki/Domain_name). We could set it up as a redirect, or if we could scrounge up the financing, we could liberate our content and ourselves from those awfully placed Google Ads. --SparqMan 05:31, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * Domains are cheap so I don't have a problem springing for that out of my pocket. If we decide to host it ourselves, I don't expect it to be expensive, but I would setup a PayPal account or something and ask people to contribute.  But I would rather not host it ourselves...WikiCities has been more than generous with their support since the beginning, all free of charge to us.  And I want to stay loyal to that if possible.  And the Google ads are there, but I don't even see them anymore.  :)  That's the (very small) cost of getting all this for free.  WhiteBoy 06:15, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't mind ads, but I do mind that it smashes the content box an extra two inches. What about Wikicities' rule on domain names? --SparqMan 06:26, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I dunno. It doesn't sound like it's definitely forbidden, but I just need to ask.  WhiteBoy 06:46, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Forums
Started to put this on the end of my previous post, but decided it was technically a separate topic. One thing I thought about doing with the new domain was actually setting up a real forums section (discussion pages used as community forums is about the only thing I don't like about MediaWiki)...the "cantina," if you will. This would definitely take a separate hosting for this, but only enough to handle the forums. For example, www.wookieepedia.com could just redirect to starwars.wikicities.com (so nothing really changes there except the look of the URL). Then if someone clicks on "Community Portal" it takes them to a different URL (e.g. forums.wookiepedia.com), which is hosted elsewhere (not by WikiCities, buy by whatever we buy). What would you think about that? Is it worth it (we could probably do this for about $10/month or less)? Is everyone just fine with how it works now? Thoughts? WhiteBoy 06:21, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Forums would be an okay addition. Bulleted discussions are not easy to follow. Concerns: moderation, users would have to frequent the forums AND the wiki to keep up to date. I would recommend G&L Hosting running Vanilla. --SparqMan 06:30, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what I had in mind was just more-or-less replacing the Community Portal with the forums. It wouldn't be of much use to non-Wookieepedians.  Have you used G&L Hosting?  I have some friends using Host Gator and their $10/month package is pretty feature-rich.  But I haven't used them personally yet.  I've used Interland and phpwebhosting.com...both have been pretty decent.  WhiteBoy 06:55, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I was hoping that we would really have the wiki at another domain, rather than simply redirecting to starwars.wikicities.com. If it's just a redirect, I'm pretty sure that I'd never make use of it. As for a forum, Vanilla does look like it could be cool, though I've never seen it before. I'm sure you know about the wonderful phpBB already. As for web hosting, I'd recommend Elixant. For slightly less than G&L, you get way more; look at the bronze reseller package: 2x the diskspace, 10x the bandwidth, 80x the databases, and subdomains, FTP accounts, POP3 accounts and mailing lists are unlimited. And it costs $0.50 less per month. :-) It comes with all the expected bells and whistles, too. – Aidje talk 07:10, 8 Aug 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)