Welcome, Onicle!

Hello, Onicle, and welcome to Wookieepedia! We hope you like the place and choose to join us in building the best Star Wars encyclopedia there is. Here are some things you should know:


New to wikis? Don't worry, we were all new once. Our help pages will get you started, and the Jundland Wastes sandbox can be used for test edits. Don't be afraid to make mistakes—be bold!

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wookieepedian! If you have any questions, you can consult our FAQ, ask a question in the Senate Hall forum, visit our official IRC channel, or leave me a message on my talk page.
May the Force be with you! —Lewisr (talk) 17:48, December 9, 2018 (UTC)

Edit reversions

Hello! You will noticed that I reverted several of your recent changes. The reason for this is that at least two of the articles in question have passed our peer review system and are now status articles. Any major changes to the articles should be addressed on the article talk page itself to discuss the validity of any amendments to the article. As these articles passed our status review, every aspect of the information was checked to ensure their correctness. Of course, this does not mean mistakes might not occur. If you feel something is in error, please address it on the individual talk pages before making any changes so that the original nominator of the article can address the concerns and make any necessary changes to the article to ensure that it remains as comprehensive as possible. - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 15:48, December 29, 2018 (UTC)

Hello Cavalier One,
thank you for informing me. Because on all of the talk pages other users already addressed the problematic topic and noone showed an opinion opposing the revert of the mistake weapon count, I thought it would be ok to make the change real. Onicle (talk) 16:06, December 29, 2018 (UTC)

Moving pages

Hello. If you're going to move pages then you need to go through and fix all the redirects and point them to the right place. Thanks --Lewisr (talk) 13:23, January 13, 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I tried to do so, but I missed one. Was the rest of the move ok? Onicle (talk) 13:45, January 13, 2019 (UTC)
It was, but there's still some more (in the link I linked above) that need fixing, if you have time you should go through and fix them or leave a request and someone will use a bot to get them --Lewisr (talk) 13:49, January 13, 2019 (UTC)
Am I to fix all the (double) redirects or all the links on the (single) redirect page? And when will the Legends page be moved to /Legends so that the Canon page will lose its /Canon? Am I allowed to do that by myself or is there another instance to do that? Wouldn't it be simpler to do the Legends switch first so that the Canon links only have to be changed once? Onicle (talk) 14:25, January 13, 2019 (UTC)
Just the ones that currently link to Y-wing starfighter. At some point an admin will move a whole bunch of pages with /Canon, so either you'll have to request it to be specifically moved or just wait it out until its moved --Lewisr (talk) 16:21, January 14, 2019 (UTC)


Two things. Firstly, an edit summary like this borders on violating civillity guidelines. Secondly, if certain information is presented on a status article, generally it is correct. Regardless of whether you brought it up on the talk page or not, I'd advise you to take the hint that that information is staying. Fan26 (Talk) 15:56, September 17, 2019 (UTC)

First of all, thanks of answering! Finally someone!
I'm sorry for the misspellings in the summary, but if you look on the history of this, you might understand why I choose these words: I corrected the stats on the Bulwark Mark III, Liberator-class and Dauntless-class some while ago. Cavalier One reverted this using your "status article" argument, but with the comment "this does not mean mistakes might not occur" there and the advice to adress the topic on the talk pages. This was done by many users before (and noone disagreed), but I did so again. Noone answered in a long time. I saw this as a reason that noone disagreed with the points made by us, and I corrected the infos again. It was reverted, without explaination. I asked on the article talks again, I asked on the user talks, but no explaination came. What should I have done but the edit you are criticizing?!
To the content: Did you read the points made by me and many other users on the article talk pages? Did anyone of you who revert our edits or is the "status article" argument enough to be blind to arguments? I'm sorry if this again goes too far to violating civillity, but I have heared not a single point made against ours regarding this topic. The users supporting my opinion are Brynn Alastayr, PisauraXTX, Caamasijedi49 and Mithril, only to mention some of them.
Do I have to explain our problem again here or is anyone willing to look an the article talk pages if you have actual reasons to disagree (and not a mention of a article status, that even according to Cavalier One does not necessarily rule out mistakes? Why do you want this information to stay this way?!
(Btw. I might appear as a new small un-knowing user to you here, but that's only for the Wookieepedia. I'm a co-admin of the German, if that is a rank you associate with knowing the topic talking about. Of course it has no relevance to you, but maybe it can prove that I'm not new to the topic.)
Kind regards, Onicle (talk) 16:16, September 17, 2019 (UTC)
    • I looked at the talk page, but I don't know enough about the topic to tell if "power stats" or whatever they were do/don't correlate to weapon emplacements. I'm just warning you to stop edit-warring on a status article. Fan26 (Talk) 16:32, September 17, 2019 (UTC)
      • What's the alternative? You even admit that you don't know the topic this deeply; is that the way of getting the right information (don't disagree, you don't know enough about the topic) into this wiki?! If everyone feels responsible for keeping the article in a status that noone feels responsible for, why don't you let the people that know the topic - e.g. the named users or me - correct the information? How can this topic be adressed if not by following Cavalier's words and write it on the talks, if again noone fells responsible for them. Brynn even found the exact words that describe how this topic is dealt with here in your Canon page: "Stats [...] are considered game mechanics. Stats include details such as weapon damage, speed, and character attributes (strength, intelligence, dexterity, health points etc)". Please tell me, how am I supposed to get this information there? What other choice do I have than to re-edit the article if I don't get any answer from someone who knows about it? Is there even anybody who does, or are all of you just following the "status article" argument without caring about its content? What's your goal: right information or a status article that noone must edit because it's a status article, no matter how correct it is considering the knowledge we have now?!
      • Kind regards, Onicle (talk) 19:07, September 17, 2019 (UTC)
        • Well, part of the problem was you left your justification under an older talk heading. Even if the older conversation was related, it's many years old. It makes much more sense to start a new topic, because that way people can see it instead of having to look for it among older conversations. Additionally, whether you mean to or not, you're coming off as aggressive-calm, reasoned arguments have a much better chance of persuading people here. Also, the article's featured status doesn't mean it can't change. The Inqs are very good about revoking FA status from out-of-date articles, as that's their job. It's only because the article is featured that you kept getting reverted, first because there was nothing on the talk page, and then because your message wasn't visible. Hope this helps. Fan26 (Talk) 19:39, September 17, 2019 (UTC)
          • Thanks for this tips! I'm sorry if you got my "aggressive-calm" words; I used all the reasoned arguments repeatedly on the talk pages (and well, I didn't get the impression of them having a chance to persuade people, because I repeatedly asked in my edit summaries to look at and answer the talks if one wants to contradict, and noone did), so I didn't want to write all of them down here. So if I write it all in a new section on the bottoms of the talks and noone disagrees with it, I might try to re-edit and hope it works then? Kind regards, Onicle (talk) 19:50, September 17, 2019 (UTC)


Dialog-error You have been blocked from editing for 1 year for persistent edit warring and removal of information from starship articles. You've been perpetuating this little crusade of yours for a year now, despite multiple warnings from other users, and it ends here. To contest this block, please contact the blocking administrator with the reason you believe the block is unjustified. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:48, October 3, 2019 (UTC)

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

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+