Wookieepedia talk:Community Portal

Archive1 Archive2 Archive3

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)

Race
Could it be mentioned on the Manual of Style that contributors should use 'species instead of 'race'? --Imperialles 17:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well note that we have both species and races on here. That is why the category is named so ("Races and species"). Remember that races are within species. I learned this early on and corrected myself. -- Riffsyphon1024 19:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Correct, but race is generally a social construct where physical variations are mixed with culture, history and other non-biological differences. If some alien species was to visit Earth, for example, it is unlikely that humans would be viewed as multiple species. Generally speaking, any place where we might use the term "race" on this wiki would be more suitably served by "sub-species" or "variation". --SparqMan 19:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it is okay to have both Species and Race, but they would have to be used in the right context. For example, Race: Human is technically incorrect; it should be Species: Human.  But you could have Race: Naboo and Race: Corellian, and in this case to say Species: Naboo would be incorrect. There are also races within the Zabrak, Twi'lek and Aqualish species, to name a few off the top of my head. SeanR 08:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * And in the cases of Twi'leks and Niktos, all the colored variations would be considered races, or subspecies of those species. -- Riffsyphon1024 15:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree most strenuously. The use of race to discern between groups of humans on Earth was an anthrolopogical anomaly until its use was exploited by those wishing to divide and/or exterminate groups. Most anthropologists and biologists have abandoned its use for taxonomical reasons. It's an anachronism that many cling to as a way of keeping our increasingly unneat world orderly. Translating that to Star Wars, it seems unsupported scientifically to describe Nubians and Corellians are races of humanity. It even lacks the hallmarks of Earth races -- there are few physical consistencies between those groups. -- Further, I do not believe that it would be outlandish to consider Corellian and Alderaanian to be subspecies of humans. The humans on Corellia and the humans on Alderaan have been seperated for over twenty five thousand years. It's hard to believe that they have not adapted and changed. So they are human, but they are not the same. --SparqMan 18:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It's also important to note that all modern humans are part of the same subspecies. So "race", if we're using it at all, would properly be used for very small variations within species, while subspecies would be fairly large variations (like the different Nikto types.)  As for Corellian and similar varieties of human, given the flow of people between planets in an interstellar society of long standing, that might only go as far as being an "ethnic group". Silly Dan 22:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok so we can separate them into Species, Race or Subspecies, and Ethnic Group. How exactly would we classify near-humans like Lorrdians and Chiss though? -- Riffsyphon1024 22:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * As Lorrdians are described as genetically identical to humans, they'd be a race or ethnic group. Chiss, who look quite different from humans, but are identified as near-human mostly because scientifically-minded fans noticed you can clone them from the same equipment you use to clone humans, would probably be a subspecies.  Problem is, too many sources use "race" and "species" interchangably, so we can't just look this up. Silly Dan 23:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Then in the case of Lorrdians, Corellians, Nubians, and Naboo, all genetically identical to us humans, they are simply humans with the name of their home planet attached. Then the only difference is culture, as Sparq said. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly (though I guess we'd put their articles in [:Category: Races and species] for now, unless we decide a sub-category [:Category: Humans and Near-humans] is needed.) Silly Dan 23:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Silly Dan, we know nothing of the cloning technology used in the Star Wars galaxy. The same equipment may be used to clone all species. The use of the term race in EU sources is, in most instances, an error. Regardless, the same complexities that rendered "races" useless on Earth are the same in the Star Wars galaxy: can a Wookiee born and raised on Corellia ever be a Corellian? And as pointed out, there was far too much movement, especially amongst the Core and Inner Rim worlds, to keep them defined. For now, all should be species, and the others can be refered to as of human origin.--SparqMan 01:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you're disagreeing with me on the Chiss, SparqMan. Like I say, calling the Chiss near-human, or a human subspecies, is mostly due to assuming cloning works the same in Star Wars as it does here.  Silly Dan 02:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * But then the Chiss didn't originate in the Core Worlds, but in the Unknown Regions. That's makes them pretty alien to humans as we know them. I do like the idea of a subcategory for humans and near humans though. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * (Could've sworn there were some sources claiming humans might not be from the Core originally...) The main problem I see with a human & near-human category is the possible arguments over what to put in it.  For example, some aliens described as "humanoid" might be classed as near-humans based solely on fanonical inferences.  At least one species, the Zelosians, are described as near-humans even though biologically they can't be related (according to West End Games, they're really some sort of walking plants).  But it would be the best place to put the Bakuran article, or start a Corellian article. Silly Dan 03:04, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I still maintain that the use of Race is okay. Race isn't a biological concept, it is sociological.  In this sense, Naboo and Corellian are different races, brought up with different cultures and traditions.  This concept could at least be termed "Ethnicity" rather than "Sub-species". SeanR 08:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, in my mind, race and culture are not the same thing at all. Alderaan and Corellia had very different cultures, what with Alderaanian nonviolance and all, but they were the same race, and the same sub-species. As far as I know, Alderaanians and Corellians look exactly the same. 25,000+ years is more than enough to develop some significant differences, but I would think there would be enough migration to counteract that. While the concept of "race" is steeped in cultural and geographic differences, if someone has no noticeable physical differences and speaks the same language, than they're of the same race, regardless of the geography. It would be like arguing New Englanders and Southerners are a seperate race. They're not, they're just 2 places with different cultures, dialects, and traditions. So, in summary, the use of "race" is ok, but only if the people can actually tell each other apart somewhat, without the use of clothing, dialect or behavior. Subspecies can be used, but only if there are more significant physical differences than most Earth races. After all, we wouldn't want to argue that Lando Calrissian and Han Solo are different subspecies.-LtNOWIS 00:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Advertising
Perhaps someone with a user account at either Theforce.net or StarWars.com could post a recruitment thread there? Fresh blood is always needed. --Imperialles 02:30, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I have already posted a thread in Websites at TFN. I also have a link in my signature as wookieepedian1. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I have a link to SWW, and occasionally repost articles I started on the Star Wars Blogs. Don't know how much it helps, but if some kind of shameless plug for the Wiki is in order I'll see if I can't post something about it on my blog. Shadowtrooper 23:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars swear words
I think it would be fun to compile a list of Star Wars swear words, although such a task is rather daunting - considering my limited collection of EU material. I know some though; sith spit, bantha poodoo, spast (is that a Star Wars cuss word?), eh, I probably know more which aren't coming to mind. -- Falmarin 01:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, you can find two here. -- Shadowtrooper 02:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * After checking out Theforce.net on the subject, I came across this link; Star Wars swear words, there are quite a few listed here, although no sources. -- Falmarin 02:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * There's also various dirty words within the CUSWE at TFN. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I also came across a slang section in the categories on Wookieepedia. Will this some how be conjoined with the Glossary of Common Star Wars Terms? The whole area on Wookieepedia seems quite messy, and I think it would be prudent to wait for things to calm down before I start blindly adding a new section. -- Falmarin 00:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I suppose so. They are "common" words, that's what the Glossary is for. -- Shadowtrooper 00:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This link might be useful. --SparqMan 17:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't some Star Wars swear words vary in species? By the way,  Hi, this is a great wiki! -- DurgeFan

Star Wars Visionaries
Any one know if the tales in here are considered canon? --SparqMan 14:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Some of them are, while some aren't. And Dark Horse doesn't say which ones, how typical... I, for one, hope the Darth Maul one is canon... because I love the bastard. --Imperialles 15:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Many will wish that not to be so. Thus we have a canon problem. -- Riffsyphon1024 17:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * How can ANYONE not like a red, horned man with robotic ostrich legs? --Imperialles 18:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is the problem. They look cool and all, but many question his ability to survive a abdominal disection and a who-knows-how-deep a fall he had. -- Riffsyphon1024 18:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I have heard it's generally bad for your long term health. --Fade 18:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That's funny, I question the ability of little green aliens to zip around with laser swords...but suspension of disbelief seems to do the trick for fiction. For all we know, Zabraks are particularly adept at surviving adominal bisection. I just wasn't sure if they were Infinities-esque. Since they don't conflict with any other sources, I can't see a problem. --SparqMan 20:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Gee, Sparq, did you have to be so stingy about the correct term? -- Riffsyphon1024 21:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I suggest we ask Tasty Taste on the SW.com boards, and hope for an answer. Some of the tales may be Inities-esque. --Imperialles 21:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * He's already answered. The ones which are canon are the backstories to Grievous and Durge. QuentinGeorge 21:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks. --SparqMan 17:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is Tasty's exact quote:
 * The Darth Maul story is non-continuity, the Wat Tambor story is possible continuity as outlandish as it is, the Sidious story is kinda continuity ("from a certain point of view"), the "The Fourth Precept" is anybody's guess, and the "Celestia Galactica Photografica" exists as works of art within continuity. The rest should fit and for the most part you'll know when these are set by reading them.

--Imperialles 21:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Audio files
Can we use audio files here? I uploaded one called echuu.ogg, but I don't think it's working. -- Shadowtrooper 19:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It worked for me with winamp- "This is Echuu Shen-Jon" --Fade 19:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, okay then. One more problem remains, how to put it in the article. -- Shadowtrooper 19:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You can just use a media link. --SparqMan 20:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I finally figured it out, thanks. One last thing though, what version of Winamp are you using? *gets embarrased* I can't listen to the files with my Winamp once I've converted them ! -- Shadowtrooper 01:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * *checks* Version 5.091 apparently --Fade 10:39, 15 Jun 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)

Wiki-specific namespace
The wiki-specific namespace for this wiki is "Star Wars". This causes some problems: 1) Any article which should be named "Star Wars: NameX" is instead named "Star Wars:NameX" 2) Any article who's talk page should be named "Talk:Star Wars: NameX" is instead named "Star Wars talk:NameX". Would it be possible, practical, and desirable to change the "Star Wars" namespace to "Star Wars Wiki" (or something else better than "Star Wars"). I think that it would be desirable, but I don't know about possible or practical. – Aidje talk 13:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I've though of a third problem caused by the "Star Wars" namespace: it affects searches, since that's done by namespace. – Aidje talk 21:48, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It's possible that Angela might be able to help with that. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * But would other people agree that this would be a good thing to change? I'm hardly an authority to make such a decision on my own. – Aidje talk 03:48, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * How about naming it "Wookieepedia"? It seems that is the most common term, anyway. "Star Wars" has to go. --Imperialles 20:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd be all for "Wookieepedia", but I wasn't sure if others would agree since it's not "official".
 * I, for one, have always preferred that name. Gives us a unique identity, instead of being simply "Star Wars Wiki 01", if you catch my drift. Sort of like Memory Alpha. Anyway, a vote should be held--Imperialles 20:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Very well. It shall be done. – Aidje talk 20:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, one day, we will be completely renamed to Wookieepedia. And hosted by Wikia on wookieepedia.org. A man can dream... --Imperialles 21:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Won't a name space of "Wookieepedia: The Star Wars Wiki" be a huge formating issue?
 * I suppose that would be the page title, but the web address would be wookieepedia.wikicities.com and the namespace would be " -- Silly Dan 20:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It's been over a week now. Close the vote? --Imperialles 23:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * We can close the vote, but even with more votes for Wookieepedia it hardly seems a significant enough majority for such an important decision. I think a more informed discussion should occur before any changes are made. These has deeper ramifications than simple cosmetics. --SparqMan 00:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The advantages and disadvantages of each name must be carefully analyzed. -- Riffsyphon1024 15:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vote to change the wiki-specific namespace
Let's vote on this. We can talk to Angela about it when we've come to a consensus. – Aidje talk 20:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Change to "Wookieepedia"

 * 1) 	For --Imperialles 20:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) 	For. See discussion above for my reasons. – Aidje talk 20:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) 	For Silly Dan 21:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) 	For It's a dream, hopefully it won't FUBAR the tech side of things.--Eion 21:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) 	For Hopefully it won't muck up Google hits --Fade 21:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) 	For. I use "Wookieepedia" more than SWW, since its not quite a mouthful, and is a play on Wikipedia. Credit to WhiteBoy for coming up with the term Wookieepedia. The full title (not being used on these particular userspace pages, but in recognition) should be Wookieepedia: The Star Wars Wiki. Btw, has anyone noticed that we are usually the highest Google hit when we're the only ones with certain information? -- Riffsyphon1024 23:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) 		For		—	— Ŭalabio 01:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) 	For. I too think it should be Wookieepedia: The Star Wars Wiki.  That way we get hits either way.  Wookieepedia is just more creative and fun as a name.  Star Wars Wiki is just boring in comparison. SeanR 09:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Change to "Star Wars Wiki"

 * 1) For. This title will bring in significantly more traffic than "Wookieepedia", and what we need is more inflow. A group of 10-12 active contributors does not a good Wiki make. It's also more professional sounding. --SparqMan 17:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that "Wookieepedia" is more likely to be spelled wrong. --SparqMan 02:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) For. Makes sense, certainly anyone looking up star wars information will not immediately recognize "Wookieepedia." -- Falmarin 18:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm actually For this as well, for the reasons those two gave^. I'm happy with either. --Fade 18:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) For. If only for the search engine traffic.  Though I also kinda like Aidje's idea (see below). -- Shadowtrooper 22:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) For. "Wookieepedia" might be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. --[[User:Prime|Prime|undefined]] 03:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) For It's better for attracting new fans to the site (see Shadowtrooper's comment about searching), though Wookieepedia is a cool name --Darth Mantus 11:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) For Having our own name is cool, but I think Star Wars Wiki would be easier to find, and it is more obviously a Star Wars Wiki. --Beeurd 00:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Other

 * Comment: I think that the best form for a name would be "UniqueName: The Descriptive Part", such as "Wookieepedia: The Free Star Wars Encyclopedia". That would be the form used by Wikipedia, by the way ("Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia". Wikipedia actually does it like this, now that I look back: "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". This form would give us "Wookieepedia, the free Star Wars encyclopedia"). Anyway, we're not actually voting on the name of the wiki.– Aidje talk 21:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * For --Imperialles 16:22, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: Aidje was just pointing out what the full name of the site should be, not the namespace name that we are voting for. -- Riffsyphon1024 16:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Rrrrright. Sorry ;) --Imperialles 16:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * To everyone voting "Star Wars Wiki" with the reason that it would be easier to find and/or recognize what it was: See what I said above. A sub-name would explain what we were, as well help Google find us. I believe Riff also mentioned that good info brings hits as well, not just a descriptive name. Besides that, notice that the name of our beloved compendium of human knowledge is "Wikipedia" rather than just "Free Encyclopedia". How lame would that be? There is something to be said for a unique name, and Wookieepedia is certainly more unique than "Star Wars Wiki"... besides the fact that it's a ripoff of "Wikipedia", that is. "Wookieepedia" gives us a nice "brand name recognition" factor of sorts. Imagine if "Linux" was "Free Operating System", or if "Microsoft" was "Big Software Corporation", or if "Google" was "Very Complete Search Engine". People like having names rather than just descriptors. – Aidje talk 03:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Letter box images
When uploading screen captures, please trim any black letter box surrounding the image, if there is any. --SparqMan 05:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Uh... I think I've done that on occassion (what you're asking that we not do). I agree with your request, and I'll try to remember to fix such images in the future. In fact, I think I'll go back and check some of my previous uploads. – Aidje talk 00:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm getting annoyed with myself: I seem to have thrown out the original PNGs, so now all I have to work with is the JPEGs. Argh. – Aidje talk 00:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)