Hi FVBonura. i thought I'd respond to your question, even though in the case of Braden it is now unnecessary. If there is only two articles with the same name, the best way to handle it is with the {{Youmay}} template. Just add this to both pages, pointing back at the other one. Alternatively, to create a disambig page, just move the article away from the common name (using the Move feature at the top of the page) and add links to the two on the common name and add the {{Disambig}} template to it. Any questions? --Eyrezer 04:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Very good and thank you. I will consult this if the need does genuinely arise in the future. Thanks again. -- Frank V Bonura 04:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Warning Edit

Please DO NOT sort the Appearances alphabetically, they should be arranged in chronological order. You're destroying years of work with those edits. MauserComlink 16:54, October 4, 2009 (UTC)

  • OK fine Mauser, duly noted, and thank you for the heads-up.
However this does not help me very much when I am trying to add a new character to the list, that was somehow missed by previous editors. Working with an un-alphabetized list is extremely difficult for not only the editor of an article but the end user (reader) as well. I have been on both sides of the issue because I use the Wookiepedia both for research, indexing, and learning, but also for taking notes as I read through various STAR WARS material.
Furthermore all the other lists for Creatures, Droid models, Events, Locations, Organizations and titles, Sentient species, Vehicles and vessels, Weapons and technology, Miscellanea are in alphabetic order. Why is there an inconsistency in list format? Is not the order of appearance sufficiently addressed in the Plot Summary?
Honestly, I had assumed editors were just lazily adding new characters found to the bottom of the character lists. I had no way of knowing it was in order of appearance. I really thought I was doing you guys a favor importing the character lists into Excel, sorting them, and exporting them back to the article. I must ask where does it actually specify "order of appearance" in the "appearances" section on the articles in question? I did not see that anywhere.-- Frank V Bonura 21:32, October 4, 2009 (UTC)
  • Wookieepedia:Layout Guide#Appearances, fourth bullet point: "Should be sorted in order of in-universe chronology." Grunny (Talk) 21:38, October 4, 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks Grunny, so why is the character appearances in chronological order and the other elements of a source in alphabetical order? Why are they done differently and why is the title of the Character Section of the Appearances section not listed as follows: "Characters (in order of appearance)"??? This is not only confusing to editors but much more confusing to end users who only read the articles. Any pearls of wisdom here Grunny or Mauser for that matter??? -- Frank V Bonura 21:47, October 4, 2009 (UTC)
  • I noticed you guys never answered any of my questions above. Have you even considered any of my points before this discussion at all? Ever? Do you guys just point out rules to people and never question the rules you enforce, even if they don't make sense? What would be the best way for me to express my concerns and to whom should I field these concerns with regarding the poorly labeled articles and "character-appearance-order vs. alphabetical-order" as I outlined above? -- Frank V Bonura 12:43, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

Um.... Edit

Okay then.... Wow, you really have some issues, don't ya? Zakor1138 01:49, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and why exactly are you on this wiki? Seriously, you need to take a chill pill. Zakor1138 01:54, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

  • Please find some other place to take your rants instead of disrupting this wiki. Seriously, you're not helping anyone by spreading your extremist views, and especially not yourself. CC7567 (talk) 02:03, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I'm sorry. Zakor1138 04:52, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

  • No apology is necessary Zakor1138. I seldom take offense and welcome your opinion. History is very important to me and I have seen much of STAR WARS history uprooted and destroyed in the name of progress. I see my role here to preserve the STAR WARS that was and that it does not get paved over and forever lost. If we lose the STAR WARS of old, we loose the very reason why we are here publishing articles. If I have helped you to understand this, in any way, I am delighted. Thank you for your comment. -- Frank V Bonura 13:50, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

Splinter of the Mind's EyeEdit


Have you got a reply from Alan Dean Foster yet about the book? T-888 16:41, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

  • Nothing yet but it said on his web page he was traveling so it may be some time. He has an email address on his web page but I don't want to pester him. When he gets to his facebook page, we may get an answer. As a fan of HP Lovecraft's works, I never took Vader to be real in, "Splinter of the Minds Eye". Yes Vader was on Mimban but Vader was not at the temple of Pomojema. Even the cover art and title speak of hallucinations. Note Vader is seen in the light of the "splinter" on the cover art and the term "Mind's Eye" suggests a manifestation of the imagination and not the "discerning eye" of reality. -- Frank V Bonura 05:13, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

I think so too, that title clearly means that it is not real 19:59, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

Re: Official Edit

I don't disagree with that point. I'm just saying that I don't think that magazine constitutes definitive proof that George Lucas always meant for stormtroopers to be clones, given how little we actually know about its origin. Regardless, as I said previously, you should still add it as part of the stormtrooper bullet point, because it's worth mentioning. —Milo Fett[Comlink] 15:10, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

  • I plan to try and add something back to the stormtrooper bullet point but I am not sure or ready yet to do so. I have been doing some research. Tim Zahn talked with George Lucas at length before he started to write the Thrawn Trilogy (see his interview in the STAR WARS Adventure Journal #1 for more info). Tim's depictions of the cloned stormtroopers were harmonious with the Official Poster Monthly article. I do not consider this coincidence. Prior to the 1990's George Lucas and producer Garry Kurtz were much more accessible for questions and interviews with authors. This is why I place so much weight on these older sources. Also George Lucas had clones for police officers in "THX-1138". These foil faced enforcers were proto-stormtroopers using masks to conceal the fact they all looked the same. They were always meant to be clones, but not many people have access to the older material to ascertain the original origins of the notion. I have been trying to reconstruct the past, Clone Wars, Dark Times, and Jedi Purge, using only sources from May 1977 through April 1999 and there is much to be found. This is also why many of the older STAR WARS fans feel betrayed, there are two stories that exist May77 - April99 is one story one history and May99 - present is another story. It is the duty of fans like me to make sure the original story survives. I will come up with something Milo, just give me some time please. -- Frank V Bonura 16:32, February 9, 2010 (UTC)


Just to let you know that I've deleted the article on the Barisonians. I agree with your analysis that they do not exist in CRO. The Atlas refers to Barisoni, but doesn't specify if they are a species. --Eyrezer 20:06, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

  • In fact, the article had already been deleted twice before. --Eyrezer 20:09, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
    • Good call and thank you. -- Frank V Bonura 11:49, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Re: Restarting old topics? Edit

Although not an official policy of Wookieepedia, adding posts to old threads on talk pages is disliked as per mostly this concept. I myself was reprimanded for restarting a topic that had been inactive for two months. The person who posted the original question is probably no longer watching the Talk page with interest. Also, if you feel the need to answer the question, you might instead improve the article itself with sourced information relevant to the discussed subject (For instance, adding a footnote to "Furlag's species" in the Infobox or writing a line under "Behind the scenes"). Lastly, per Talk Page Header, Talk Pages must be used to discuss changes to the article, not to discuss about the topic itself. Skippy Farlstendoiro 07:32, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Re:Centrality inconsistency Edit

I posted a reply on the talk page of Douglas III in response to your comment; take a look at it. Cheers!—TK-999 Era-imp(Rise of the Empire) 13:31, June 3, 2011 (UTC)

  • Of course, but the recent number of retcons make it hard to differentiate between an error and/or an official override.—TK-999 Era-imp(Rise of the Empire) 13:40, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed Brother, but its up to us to make sure all the retcons are noted and the original material is not lost to history. We are historians first and foremost and must never trample history in the drive for progress. -- Frank V Bonura 14:12, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
    • How's it going? Did you receive a reply from the authors yet?—TK-999 Era-imp(Rise of the Empire) 10:26, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
    • May be a while but I am working on it. I am actually dealing with author/artist Daren Horley right now and his Amphi-Hydrus alien race. I will keep digging, some of the best info comes from the original authors. I just wish authors who pick up where older authors left off did their homework. If they did we would not even be having this conversation. -- Frank V Bonura 16:49, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

Pre-1999 Clone Wars Quotes Edit

Hello, don't know if you're still active at all, but I was browsing the talk page for the Clone Wars and noticed that you mentioned that you had compiled a list of pre-1999 Clone Wars quotations from the EU. I'm working on a personal project writing my own scripts detailing an alternative take on the Clone Wars and was wondering if there was any way you'd be able to provide me with this list?

Tokiri (talk) 03:34, December 14, 2014 (UTC)

Talk pagesEdit

Thanks for contributing to Wookieepedia! Before posting talk page comments, please familiarize yourself with the disclaimer at the top of talk pages, {{Talkheader}}. Talk pages are for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for a discussion about the topic in question. Thank you. Trip391 (talk) 04:59, February 26, 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry but did I violate this policy in some way? -- Frank V Bonura 16:20, February 26, 2015 (UTC)

Re: Question deleted?Edit

The question was simply asking if anyone thought Pakunni was referencing Land of the Lost, and not discussing a change to the article itself. If you were trying to ask if it should be mentioned in the Bts section, only sourced information should be added to articles, and since you were asking if anyone else thought it was a reference, you appear to not have a source that states it was. Talk pages are only for discussing a change to the article itself, not the topic of the article, so asking if anyone else thinks it's a reference is not suitable, as it's not discussing a change to the article. If you don't have a source for the information, simply try to find one if you want to add it to the article. Trip391 (talk) 16:39, March 3, 2015 (UTC)

Palm blaster/PalmgunEdit

Certainly. The term "palmgun/palm blaster" are generic weapon identifiers, much in the same way as "blaster" or "lightsaber" are. Therefore, since neither references a specified model, having two damage ranges is not a justified cause for removal as each reference could refer to a different type of weapon within the palmgun/palm blaster family. There are many different types of blasters with different damage ranges (which, I remind you, is a game mechanic and therefore not really considered in article terms) but they are still all "blasters." If you are contending that the differing names call for removal, then sources appear to indicate that the "palmgun" is a blaster, and therefore "palm blaster" would be an appropriate alternative name rather than creating a separate article for something that appears to be the same thing as an already-created article. I hope that helps. - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 11:32, August 19, 2016 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Some of the links below are affiliate links meaning, at no additional cost to you, Fandom will earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase.

Stream the best stories.

Some of the links below are affiliate links meaning, at no additional cost to you, Fandom will earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase.

Get Disney+