Wookieepedia talk:Community Portal/Archive6

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)

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 Spoilers. – Aidje talk 01:25, 24 Aug 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)

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)

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)

Addition to Character template for Jedi and Sith characters
Moved to Template talk:Character.

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)


 * I've always found simply naming the source easier than including info on the book, comic, movie, etc. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:03, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * For sources, I was including the title, publisher and year, but after this little discussion, I'm only going to include the title from now on. And by the way, the Manual of Style really *REALLY* needs to be updated. --Azizlight 01:04, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Until we come to consensus on whether to use just the title or the full listing, we should not be wasting our editing efforts changing the listings in articles. As long as an article is consistent, there is no reason to make a change that may have to be changed back. For example, I support the use of full citations in the "Sources" section, but if I encounter an article that lists the titles, I will follow suit. Does this seem reasonable to avoid constany back and forth edits? --SparqMan 04:35, 4 Nov 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)
 * Excessive, I think. I'd like to keep it to the "major" org (ie Empire, Rebels, Republic, CIS, Jedi, Sith) QuentinGeorge 06:31, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Galactic locations

 * Should we consider categorizing planets, systems and possibly sectors by region? At the moment the planets and systems categories are incomprehensibly cluttered, so I think for those we know the location of it would do a lot of good to put them in Category:Outer Rim planets, Category:Deep Core systems, etc. MarcK 09:39, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * A fine idea. Then just sort the various planets and systems into the larger categories. --SparqMan 10:00, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Would be good, I think. If we go ahead with this I am willing to help with a lot of this possibly tedious editing. BTW: I presume we would keep a generic Category:Planets, for places that we do not have a sector/etc. for? --beeurd 01:33, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Admittedly it'll still be very full considering the number of ambiguously placed planets there are, but it'll be an improvement. MarcK 10:30, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, shouldn't we have more time discussing this before carrying it out? -- Riffsyphon1024 02:51, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)

CP restructure
I reorganized the main Community Portal into a more compact table-like version, hopefully more digestible for newcomers. Any comments/improvements will be appreciated.

Also, I added the Consensus track to relieve the CP talk page of debates and votes, because before that, it was way overloaded. Old discussions, which are CP subpages, are also listed. - Sikon [ Talk ] 10:13, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * looking good. :) --beeurd 13:25, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Articles on stories never written
So, since HK-51's article has set the precedent that we can write articles on stuff cut from games, could we also add articles on stories that were never completed or part of canon? There's a particular novel I was interested in writing about, but I might also like to see real articles about the Star Wars sequel trilogy everyone used to expect. (Right now, Star Wars Episode VII just redirects to our article on Mr. Suttle, but a rundown of real Lucas statements and non-SuperShadow fan rumours might be interesting as well.) Thoughts? &mdash; Silly Dan
 * I think it's a good idea. Having the Episode VII page redirect to supershadow doesn't really make that much sense. I'd go with your suggestion of including Lucas statements, fan speculation, and even mention supershadow. And if you're talking about Escape From Dagu or whatever it was called, this book definately needs an article explaining the synopsis/plot, and the circumstances under which it was cancelled. --Azizlight 02:39, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * What about things that were planned, then cancelled, that we don't really know anything else about? There's Crimson Empire III, the Sith Era novel, the Shaak Ti Clone Wars novel, and the Dark Horse proto-NJO storyline that pretty much nothing else is known about. Kuralyov 02:49, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * If you're looking for info on these sorts of things, Star Wars Lostworlds is an invaluable resource. jSarek 03:31, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you. Kuralyov 04:22, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * IIRC, Escape from Dagu was complete, and even had its own First Look on TOS, but was pulled at the last minute for reasons I don't know and replaced with Yoda: Dark Rendezvous. The events were referenced elsewhere (but I can't remember where atm). As for the cut NJO books (Dark Tide: Siege, Knightfall trilogy), those would be interesting to read about too. Siege was squeezed into Ruin, and Knightfall was apparently too dark and replaced with the Edge of Victory duology. I say we devote a section to these stories that never were. I find it interesting to find out what might have been, and possibly others might, too. StarNeptune 04:10, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * How exactly would these pages be organized? Into their own category ("Cut Stories" or something, I assume) - I assume lumping all cut novels, movies, games, stories, comics, etc into one category would work best. Kuralyov 04:22, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * ding - Sikon [ Talk ] 04:41, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * ding &mdash; Silly Dan  01:42, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)

We really need a Wookieepedia Article Layout Guide
Still nobody knows whether stubs should go above/below appearances / sources, or where the See also section goes, etc. We have thousounds of articles, many of which have inconsistent structures. I think we really need to set some sort of standard as to how articles should be structured. I started a discussion on the Wookieepedia talk:Manual of Style page, though I am mentioning it here because i don't think people have noticed it. Please continue the discussion over there. Thanks. --Azizlight 02:08, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Update: It has been agreed that supplemental notes are required for such a layout guide, check them out here: Manual of Style/temp/Layout Guide. Please discuss and contribute! --Azizlight 08:38, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Wookieepedia trivia game
I was thinking about a side project that would be fun for our site...creating our own trivia questions. I think it was inspired by the "Did You Know" section on the main page. Dunno if y'all have played the Star Wars Trivial Pursuit game, but the questions are pretty easy. I thought it'd be cool to have a little section of questions and answers that we could just read through and have fun. Whatcha think? I'll start the page and we'll see what happens. :) WhiteBoy 15:15, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds like fun. I haven't actually played the SW Trivial Pursuit game anywhere... Anyone know if it was actually released in the UK? lol, I got a demo CD from C3, but can't find it. --beeurd 15:20, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

History of edit wars
How about a page that would list major edit wars Wookieepedia has undergone since its creation, with a brief description and links to article/Talk page revisions? I think it can help us avoid edit wars in the future, as well as provide some recreational reading material :). - Sikon [ Talk ] 13:34, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Great idea. When I first discovered Wookieepedia, I caused an edit war. Other new users could avoid them if there was such a page. --Master Starkeiller 14:01, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I applaud the sentiment, but I worry that it might encourage people to restart edit wars, or lead to hurt feelings on the part of people who think they've been represented unfairly in the edit war summary. (Though a lot of edit wars over content should lead to notes in "Behind the scenes" sections.) &mdash; Silly Dan  18:08, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree there. We'd have to be careful to avoid portraying edit wars in a semi-acceptable light. Some people do tend to get the wrong idea from things rather too easily. --beeurd 19:19, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)

New template
Because Battles can't describe all Jedi or clone commando or other activity during the Clone wars, or any war for that matter, I think a new template would be very useful for different, smaller, but still significant events. A "mission" template would be great, and there we could put stuff that don't really go with battles, but link to other articles better. Riffsyphon1024 agrees with this idea, so I think we should go ahead and do it. What do y'all think? Xilentshadow900 19:18, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Appearances specifications

 * Can we all agree, for the Appearances section, to use specific books instead of the general series name (Vector Prime instead of The New Jedi Order, Dark Apprentice instead of Jedi Academy Trilogy, etc.)? It's especially inconvenient for people wanting to know where a certain character appears, particularly in the case of New Jedi Order, which consists of over 20 novels, ebooks and short stories. Plus it just looks lazy and arbitrary. In the cases of characters etc. that appear frequently, Leia Organa Solo for example, we could just create a separate appearances list if it gets too long, considering we need more of those anyway. MarcK 20:26, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree (although for characters appearing in every book in a series, I think it's acceptable to leave it as is.) &mdash; Silly Dan  01:27, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Silly Dan. For example, Nil Spaar appears in each book of the The Black Fleet Crisis trilogy, but it's also the only place he appears, so I think it's acceptable to place the series. --SparqMan 18:34, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * That sounds good I suppose, but in that case it should be noted as such (New Jedi Order (entire series), perhaps). MarcK 04:56, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I concur. Adamwankenobi 07:04, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Whiteboy's Public Service Announcement
PSA: Head over to Award Proposals and vote for an award and/or submit some new ones. We could use some awards to give to people for a job well done. :) WhiteBoy 16:22, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC) (copied from Star Wars talk:Community Portal by jSarek 22:43, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC) )
 * doh! Thanks!  WhiteBoy 01:39, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Public service reminder
To avoid confusing the wiki, if you notice any links to "Star Wars:...." which should go to "Wookieepedia:...." on your user or talk pages, please change them. Thanks. &mdash; Silly Dan 23:20, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Y-wings in ROTS?
Look at this page from Eastereggs.com - can anyone confirm or deny this? Kuralyov 01:17, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, they were supposedly older model starfighters... &mdash; Silly Dan 01:20, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Can an Easter Egg really be classed as canon? Something like that should be disregarded, IMO. --beeurd 21:30, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed; there's an X-wing and three TIE fighters in Episode II if you look hard enough, doesn't mean they were canonically there. MarcK 23:42, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Dates in planet articles
Somebody has been continuously removing "in" preceding dates from planet articles. See Ryloth for an example. Is this a new guideline that I missed? - Sikon [ Talk ] 08:44, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Not as far as I know. QuentinGeorge 08:48, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I've seen JustinGann's articles frequently not include "in" before year dates, so it might be him; plus planets seem to be his forte. MarcK 09:00, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * It may actually be the proper way to say it. 30,000 BBY is 30,000 years before the battle of Yavin. So which sounds better: In 30,000 years before the Battle of Yavin, or 30,000 years before the battle of Yavin? But I'm fairly indifferent either way. -- SFH 21:34, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * But in real life, we don't say "Julius Caesar died 44 BC," we say "Julius Caesar died in 44 BC." I know real-life comparisons usually don't work when dealing with Star Wars, but I think here it does. MarcK 23:41, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with MarcK. 44 BC means "the year that was 44 years before the birth of Christ" (well, actually the birth of Christ was in 4 BC or 6 BC, don't remember, but who cares). Similarly, 30,000 BBY means "the year that was 30,000 years before the Battle of Yavin", not just "30,000 years BBY". - Sikon [ Talk ] 05:54, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'm fairly indifferent. If I see any spelled like that, I'll be sure to correct them. -- SFH 20:02, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * A little late to the party here, but most academic sources using our AD/BC (or CE/BCE if that's your thing) omit the "in" based on style manuals, although I generally find myself using it. I would say just keep articles consistent, but that we have a lot of articles to create and expand for now...we can worry about minor stylistic questions down the road. We're still playing catch up. --SparqMan 08:11, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism
Is there no vandalism in progress page here? I've blocked SuperShadow, Super Shadow, and SS. If he continues to be a problem, it may be worth applying a range block since the edits all come from the same geographical location. If any admin here needs to know the IPs in order to do this, please contact me. Angela (talk) 19:13, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Is..is this actually Suttle that actually dared to attack us, or one of his brainwashed followers? Because if Suttle had the audacity to violate this wiki himself...must..repress..urge to...call on the dark side! -- SFH 19:55, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Follower methinks, I don't think he has the tenacity for a concerted vandalsim spree. Gothymog 20:00, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * However if it was the case, then we just made history, although not as I had planned. -- Riffsyphon1024 20:17, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)

SuperShadow is in North Carolina according to the article, whereas this vandal was from Kentucky. Angela (talk) 20:55, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * According to an American database there is in fact a Mickey Suttle in Kentucky. Where did the information about North Carolina come from?--Darth Mantus 21:28, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)

It's from From the WHOIS info on supershadow.com, per whois.godaddy.com: Registrant: Mickey Suttle Hickory, North Carolina United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com (http://www.godaddy.com) Domain Name: SUPERSHADOW.COM Created on: 13-Aug-99 Expires on: 13-Aug-15 Last Updated on: 27-Aug-05

Administrative Contact: Suttle, Mickey HICKORY, North Carolina United States Technical Contact: Suttle, Mickey HICKORY, North Carolina United States

Domain servers in listed order: NS1.DNSBOX3.COM NS2.DNSBOX3.COM

Registry Status: REGISTRAR-LOCK

And the phone number listed for the technical contact reverses to: Earle W Suttle Hickory, NC &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  00:23, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to erase those email addresses, home addresses and phone numbers if you don't mind. Mr. Suttle is annoying, yes, but I don't want this wiki to encourage people into annoying him back.  As for our recent vandal, I doubt he or she was even a SuperShadow follower &mdash; more likely, we were the target of a troll whose only motivation was to annoy us.  &mdash; Silly Dan  00:34, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but the info is all out there for anyone with enough computer literacy to use Google. Blanking it here won't accomplish much. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  01:07, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Meh, I just don't us to have anything to do with it when he gets angry phone calls and hate mail (as he no doubt has recieved already.) &mdash; Silly Dan  01:42, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Edit War
Should we make a special news page which features edit wars and such, Such as todays attack by Supershadow. I think it would be interesting to look at in the future and see the attacks that have perpertrated against us--Darth Mantus 19:43, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed. This might be what we need to kickoff Wookieenews. -- Riffsyphon1024 19:52, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)

68.1.163.241
Someone ban him already. He's stealth vandalized numerous planet articles in the past month. Check his posting history for more. StarNeptune 21:02, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I've been saying that since VfD:Zog was posted. He's very good at spreading disinformation. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  23:35, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Sign me up for the "ban him" petition; I'm sick of slapping fanon tags on his crap. jSarek 13:15, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Ban for at least a month and get a team going to check on every edit 68.1.163.241's made. &mdash; Silly Dan  13:27, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Greetings from Idoland
Hi, this is mithridates from the Ido Wikipedia. I've just started writing our articles on Star Wars and a few days ago I learned about this Wiki, which seems to have a lot more detail and screenshots than Wikipedia so I thought I'd say hi because I'll be using a lot of content from here. Here's the largest article we have so far. I'm also sysop on the Korea wiki. Nice to see you all here. Actually, now that we're on the subject what do you make of this image and all the other ones uploaded by the same guy? They haven't been deleted yet and I have no idea where he got them from so I haven't used them on our articles except for that image of the Jedi council which appears to be a screenshot and is pretty low quality anyway. Mithridates 02:07, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks sharp. My Ido is a little rusty (okay, I never knew it in the first place, but a little knowledge of Spanish and French lets me get through a little of it), but all in all it looks pretty good. jSarek 11:20, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm. They look to me like fan art, but I can't say for sure; they might come from one of the Art Of Star Wars books that I'm not too familiar with. jSarek 11:20, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I intend to make each of the articles at least ten kb long, because I much prefer writing about SW than towns in the US for example (the other project of mine right now), which is pretty dry but still necessary. I suppose I'll make use of the image of the Jedi vestments and just leave a note on the talk page there. Mithridates 11:51, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)