Welcome, Roguestar![edit source]

Hello and welcome to Wookieepedia. I hope you like the place and choose to join our work. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

General help

Site policies

Contribution help


Wookieepedia aspires to be a reliable source for all Star Wars fans to read and draw information from, and as such, fan-created continuity and fan fiction are not allowed within our articles. All in-universe material must be attributable to a reliable, published source.

Please do not remove talk page and forum comments, as they are part of the public record. Remember that you should always sign your comments on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wookieepedian! If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the Senate Hall, visit our official IRC channel, or ask one of our administrators. May the Force be with you!

A warning[edit source]

You must stop your "categorization" of starships classes immediately. You are putting all starfighters in the Category:Starfighter classes, however most of them are already located in one of its subcategories: Category:Droid starfighters, Category:CIS starfighter classes, Category:Sith starfighter classes etc. Therefore, adding them in the "parent" category when they are already present in its subcategory is extremely redundant. I am going to revert most of your edits. MauserComlink 11:14, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

Unverified info[edit source]

Thank you for contributing to Wookieepedia! Please note that at least one of your recent additions added unverified information to a mainspace article. Additions to Wookieepedia's articles must be verifiable by a reliable source per our sourcing policy, and unverified information may be reverted or deleted. Continuing to add unverified information may lead to you being blocked from editing by an administrator. Thank you. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research.svg (Comlink) 03:14, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

Warning[edit source]


User warning: Three-Revert Rule.

You have come close to violating, or have already violated, the Three-Revert Rule.

If you continue to edit-war, an administrator will block you from editing.

Please reconsider your approach, and pay attention to the advice others provide.

Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 21:54, November 7, 2013 (UTC)

If you read this you will see that not only me, but the whole community has decided lists should not be in articles. Also, you're adding in a lot of information and not properly sourcing it. That is why your edits are being reverted. Continuing to do this may result in Administrative reprisal. Thank you. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 21:54, November 7, 2013 (UTC)

Actually there were a number of members of the community in that discussion who disagreed with removing lists. Just because the majority doesn't like them doesn't mean the minority which does should be suppressed. Its not like the presence of lists harms anyone or those who dislike lists are being forced to contribute to them.

--Roguestar (talk) 22:02, November 7, 2013 (UTC)

  • Regardless, that's how it works here. The CT I linked to fully explains that while we won't be deleting list like you see in bomber and cruiser, we definitely do not want to create new lists in article. Just because you don't like it or agree with it doesn't mean you can go against the policies of this Wiki. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 22:06, November 7, 2013 (UTC)
  • And how does one fourm discussion establish a policy? And even if it does that does not change the fact that the current Snubfighter page became outdated when the Essential Guide to Warfare established that Snubfighter was a term used for a specific type of starfighter rather then a blanket term used for all starfighters. Plus it specifically states that TIE Fighters are superiority fighters rather then Snubfighters, and explains the difference in the Starfighters and Carriers section on pages 51 through 53, thus proving the current page incorrect. Even if the list needed to go there was no legitimate cause to undo the rest of the edit once I had fixed the image error.

--Roguestar (talk) 22:26, November 7, 2013 (UTC)

Re: Neutron Star-class bulk cruiser[edit source]

Well, the main reason I reverted your changes on Neutron Star-class bulk cruiser was that even if the carrier variant deserves its own article, that variant still counts as a mention of the bulk cruiser. It would also be necessary to check all of the sources to see if they explicitly mention that it was a carrier variant depicted. I am not dead set against having a page for the carrier variant, but things need to be handled properly.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings) 00:23, March 20, 2014 (UTC)

  • If The Hutt Gambit doesn't say which one it is, the main article should be the only one to mention it, since it contains all mentions of all types of Neutron Star-class bulk cruiser. This is the way I would handle the main article: For the infobox and main part of the article, I would use the statistics from Dangerous Covenants.
    • Then I would add a section to the end of the Characteristics section using:
      ===''Neutron Star''-class bulk cruiser carrier conversion===
    • Then after that line add:
      {{Main|Neutron Star-class bulk cruiser carrier conversion}}
    • In this section you should give a brief description of how the carrier conversion differs from the regular version. Then in the history section you can mention that the Rebels made use of a modified version that carried starfighters. A Behind the scenes note mentioning the issue wouldn't hurt either. I think that will just about cover it.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings) 23:36, March 20, 2014 (UTC)

Re: Corona edit[edit source]

I'm not seeing anything like that on my end using the Wikia skin or the Monobook skin. It might be your browser or some sort of weird Wikia error.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings) 02:20, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Remos, an admin from the 40k Fanon wiki. I know it has been a while since you've written anything there, but your ship classes are still intact. I took the right to edit them with new infoboxes and proofread them a little. However, could we add "free use" template to your ship classes because I think it'd be cool to have more ship designs for everyone to refer to. What do you say? No one else would be allowed to further edit those articles in any case. --Remos talk 09:13, February 10, 2017 (UTC)

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