Talk:Tusken Raider/Legends

The original content moved from Wikipedia contains copyvio from the Databank entry. I'm going to try and clear that out now. --SparqMan 13:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Sandpeople vs. Tusken Raiders
Tusken Raiders seems to be what outsiders call them, but Sandpeople may be as well. Clearly they have been around longer than the Tusken name from their raid on Fort Tusken. --SparqMan 13:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here


 * Well, what they were called originally is unknown. So we use the most common term instead. --Imperialles 13:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Which I believe is Sand People, it is heard in two G-level sources, ANH and AOTC.--Eion 15:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Sand people also sounds more 'politically correct', too (Incidentally, it's also heard in ROTS). I mean, calling them Tusken Raiders is like calling Afghanis 'America Bombers' --Fade 15:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I wasn't defending it. Shall we move it then? --Imperialles 15:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to imply you were defending it, rather just making a general arguement. I say move it. --Fade 15:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Should we hold a vote, or just go ahead? Also, it should be noted that the correct spelling is 'Sandpeople' (source: The Encyclopedia on Theforce.net) --Imperialles 15:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Handy, i was just wondering about spelling. I say go ahead, as it's pretty much official and just as correct, if not moreso, for the reasons I gave. Tusken Raider sounds a little biased for an encyclopedia. --Fade 16:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Be sure to go through and shift the content to reflect the name change as well. --SparqMan 16:12, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. --Imperialles 16:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I checked that Encyclopedia on TheForce.net, but the fact remains that that is the only place I have EVER seen the name spelled as one word rather than two. (Additionally, it did not make special mention of the fact that it should be one word in the encyclopedia article, and there were a couple spelling errors within the article.) I stand by my decision to edit this article to reflect my understanding of the spelling, and recommend that the name of the article be changed as well, but if you are so inclined to undo my edit, I will not retaliate by changing it back to my way, even though I sincerely believe it is the proper way.
 * I'm thinking this should be two words as well; the Databank at least writes it as two and as one word it looks quite peculiar to me, indicating that I haven't seen it written that way in other sources. Since they probably appear in some official encyclopedia thingies, could someone look up how they're listed there? --Fade 08:25, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Grave Tuskens
Shouldn't there be a reference to the Grave Tuskens in the artcile itself (I know there's a reference to them in Behind the Scenes)? Given their appearance in Dark Forces II: Jedi Knight and Dietz' novellas, they must be canonical - wouldn't a reference to them and to the Grave Tusken article in the in-universe-part of this article be in its place? KEJ 11:51, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Random
Hey, does anyone know what a Tusken or Jawa looks like with their masks off? Lol Θ 20:57, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Ugly. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:18, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I think on TheForce.net they were saying that you can see them in Anakin's thoughts in Star Wars Republic 50: The Battle of Kamino. Either that or Star Wars Republic 59: Enemy Lines. -LtNOWIS 12:32, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, neither. Both memories are of masked Tuskens - and only A'Sharad Hett removes his mask in Enemy Lines, and he is, of course, a Human, not a true Tusken - Kwenn 11:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Ghorfa
What's the source for this? if it turns out to be canonical, we should move this article to Ghorfa. --Imp 22:23, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems like it is canonical. So shall we move it? --Imp 10:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The Ghorfas information comes from an obscure magazine article written by David West Reynolds and illustrated by Chris Trevas. Learn more here, which includes confirmation of the Tusken/Ghorfa link, and Trevas's images - Kwenn 11:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like I need to contact Leland Chee on this issue... --Imp 11:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Curiously, the Ghorfa tale of an alien spaceship destroying their civilization does match with the oral history you hear in KOTOR. QuentinGeorge 11:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do you need to contact Chee? The information is canon - Kwenn 11:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you sure it isn't unlicensed like Polyhedron? --Imp 15:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why should we move it, even if it turns out to be canon? Just because that's their native name doesn't mean it's the name we should use, any more than Wikipedia should use "Moskva" for "Moscow."  We should use the most complete Galactic Basic Standard name. jSarek 13:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Calling Sandpeople Sandpeople when they refer to themselves as Ghorfa would be ignoring their culture. --Imp 15:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No more than calling the Greeks "Greeks" instead of "Hellenes," or calling the Germans "Germans" instead of "die Deutsch." jSarek 01:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's also established as canon in the Databank. -- SFH 05:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Based on that mention, Ghorfa could be a separate article (much like Zhell and Human, or Eellayin and Polis Massan.) &mdash; Silly Dan 06:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * My opinion is if "Ghorfa" is the canonical real name for their species, then the article title should be Ghorfa, and Tusken Raider, Sandpeople, Sand People etc. should be redirected to it. Hmm... still calling them Tuskens when it is known they are Ghorfas would be like calling bursas "Otoh Sancture Raiders". Aiddat 20:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)