Welcome, Muscle6386! Edit

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.

Do not remove talk page and forum comments, including your own, 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: ~~~~.

For an optimal viewing experience, Wookieepedia recommends using the Monobook skin. For help changing your skin preference, see Help:Skin.

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 me on my talk page. May the Force be with you! —SFH 14:17, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits Edit

Please do not continue to add the {{1st}} and/or the {{1stm}} template to pages that have only one appearance. It's redundant and not needed. Thanks. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 16:30, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

Behind the scenesEdit

Please do not remove valid information from the BTS sections of articles as you did here. That is one reason why the BTS sections are there, for information like that. Thank you for your cooperation.—Cal JediInfinite Empire (Personal Comm Channel) 03:36, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

  • The Appearances and Sources sections are used to show what material the subject appears in so it can be verified to be accurate. The BTS sections are usually used to list what sources they appeared in, along with telling what date they first appeared and any other data of the sort. I suggest you take a look at some of our Featured articles like this one for an example of how it is usually done. Happy editing.—Cal JediInfinite Empire (Personal Comm Channel) 15:38, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaryEdit

Hello. Please remember to provide an edit summary more often. Thanks and happy edits.

Recent edits Edit

Per the Manual of Style, "Appearances" actually goes above "Behind the scenes". Please stop moving it below the BTS. Thank you. Master Jonathan War Room Thursday, January 26, 2012, 20:07 UTC

  • You know, I was looking for that, but the Wookieepedia:Layout Guide lists BTS before Appearances, so I figured that was the way to do it. If the Layout Guide could reverse those two, it'd be less confusing. Thanks for the correction. --Muscle6386 20:10, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
    • As stated at the top of the page, the LG is for in-universe articles only. It does not apply to out-of-universe articles. Master Jon War Room Thursday, January 26, 2012, 20:16 UTC

Talk pages Edit

Please do not remove content from your talk page without properly archiving it. This is stated in the above welcome message. Thanks. 1358 (Talk) 15:05, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

Mo template Edit

Hey, Muscle! Nice to see your edits around the wiki lately. Just a heads up, though: the "Mo" (mentioned only) template should never be used after something listed under "Sources." Sources are all mentioned only, since nothing actually "appears" in them; they are non-narrative works. Mo applies only to stuff under "Appearances." Similarly, "Po" (pictured only) should never be used for "Appearances," since everything is assumed to be pictured in such sources. Instead, Po applies to "Sources" stuff. Hope this makes sense! ~SavageBOB sig 15:18, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

  • Makes sense. In the case of the "Shape-shifters" article, I believe the "Mo" template should still have been used in most cases, but I should have made it (Mentioned only) (Vignette), because there is a narrative interspersed through the article. That's the implication I get from the Sources section of the Layout Guide. --Muscle6386 15:35, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
    • Ah, I see what you're talking about. Yeah, in these cases the usage is murky. If the vignette has a name, we can often separate it out and list it under "Appearances." But you're right, it's probably a good idea here to do Mo and C|Vignette. Good call. ~SavageBOB sig 15:41, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

Italicizing links Edit

Hi, Muscle. First of all, I want to say thanks for your good work on this wikia. I noticed that you have included references that have not been added before on articles that have been around a long time. Just a heads up, though. When putting quote marks for italicization, it is unnecessary to pipe the name of a link just to italicize it if the whole name is to be italicized. Simply encapsulating the link with quotes is enough, such as ''[[Star Wars Adventures: Luke Skywalker and the Treasure of the Dragonsnakes]]'', which would appear as Star Wars Adventures: Luke Skywalker and the Treasure of the Dragonsnakes. For names that require partial italicization, this is where piping is needed, such as [[Imperial-class Star Destroyer/Legends|''Imperial''-class Star Destroyer]] which then appears as Imperial-class Star Destroyer. —GethralkinHyperwave 19:17, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

  • The reason for the piping is that I was redirecting the link. The actual name of the page being linked to is [[Star Wars Adventures: Luke Skywalker and the Treasure of the Dragonsnakes]], but the name I was piping and italicizing was [[Star Wars Adventures Volume 3: Luke Skywalker and the Treasure of the Dragonsnakes]]. Some of the pages had the Volume 3 in there, and some did not. The Volume 3 page is just a redirect, so I just figured to move the redirect to the original link. Maybe that wasn't the best way to do it, but it's consistent now. I appreciate the thanks. Muscle6386 20:00, March 21, 2012 (UTC)
    • Okay, I thought that I had left the volume number in there. No need to leave the old link, though. Just correct it to the new name and it should be fine. Good work! —GethralkinHyperwave 22:10, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

Millenium Falcon Edit

A note on reorganizing Sources and Appearances sections: These are not listed in alphabetical order. These are listed in order of chronological appearance. Therefore, make sure that the source that you list begins reporting events before the source that you are placing it in front of. Easily noted is that the Shadows of the Empire material needs to be listed before the Empire Strikes Back material. However, less obvious is if the ESB novel begins by recording events that take place before the opening scenes of ESB, then it must appear before the ESB film listing and not after. —GethralkinHyperwave 22:34, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

  • I am well aware that Appearances are listed in In-Universe chronological order. However, both of your examples are incorrect. Shadows of the Empire is set in 3.5 ABY, approximately six months after ESB. And the ESB novel opens with Luke observing the 'meteorite' (probe droid) hitting Hoth, which is seen being launched in the opening scene of ESB, therefore, the novel is set after the film. I do not have a copy of the junior novelization, so I am not certain whether that would be set prior, but I was taking my cue from the Timeline of Media, where the order is listed: film, novel, junior novel. Muscle6386 14:58, March 23, 2012 (UTC)
    • I did a little research and managed to find a preview of the first page, and the junior novelization begins concurrently with the film, showing the Avenger deploying the probe droids. I will make the update to the Timeline of media and reflect that in future updates.
      • Oops (responding to your first reply above). Yes, that's my mistake. I was seeing and writing ESB but was thinking RotJ. You are correct that the events of ESB occurred before SotE. Carry on. On the junior novel, good work on narrowing that down. —GethralkinHyperwave 04:41, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Your edits Edit

If you have suggestions for how you'd like to see something formatted in an article, particularly Wookieepedia's status articles, which are approved by community review, your best bet is to discuss the changes you want to make first, rather than making sweeping changes unilaterally, which really only serves to ruffle feathers. I would also recommend against perpetuating any edit wars, which you seem to be slowly cultivating on several fronts as I type this, which falls under disruption according to our three-revert rule. Discussing changes with the original author, if possible, or on an article's talk page, is preferred to what you're currently engaged in. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:38, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

  • I would appreciate a little clarification on the sweeping changes you're referring to, as well as what you mean in regards to the status articles, because I don't really know what you mean. I am pretty new to editing here, and even though I've tried to read up on the rules/formats/best practices, I definitely miss some. As soon as I've been alerted to a mistake or oversight, I've stopped doing it that way, and even tried to help revert. As far as edit wars go, I haven't even come close to starting anything like that. I've tried to 'be bold' in editing, while checking to make sure I'm following the established guidelines. When there's been an issue with one of my edits, the discussion has been resolved quite civilly, whether it was my mistake or theirs. Nearly all of my edits have revolved around minor formatting on pages and fixing Appearances, which are pretty inconsistent (especially chronologically) from article to article. Neither of those seem to me to be things that would bother the original author, nor belong on a particular article's talk page. If I should be doing something different, please give me an example and I will modify my actions accordingly. Muscle6386 18:12, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Arkanian appearances Edit

Hey, Muscle -- quick question. Are Arkanians as a species mentioned in the various issues of Tales of the Jedi you recently added to the page? I've been taking notes on the Arkanians and am planning to expand their article soon, but I don't remember seeing any mention of the species in those issues. I think Arca Jeth may be mentioned, but that's not the same as mentioning the species itself. But I may have overlooked something, in which case I need to reread those issues to get the relevant info. Thanks! ~SavageBOB sig 20:49, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

  • No, the species isn't mentioned explicitly, just Arca Jeth. There's not a whole lot to glean on Arkanians as a species from the TOTJ comics, other than pictures. On the species mentions, should I not be including a species when a member of the species is mentioned? I feel like it could go either way, but I'd lean toward including it because there could be some value in it. Muscle6386 23:56, April 5, 2012 (UTC)
    • OK, thanks! Yeah, on species, it's a bit confusing. If a member of the species is pictured (like in a comic) or actually appears in the story, then we include that appearance on that species's page. But if a member of the species is mentioned with no mention of the species itself, we don't include it. So, for instance, if in some random novel Han Solo says, "I miss Chewbacca," we would not include that appearance on the Wookiee page, but if he said, "I miss Chewbacca. What a Wookiee," we would include it. Does that make sense? ~SavageBOB sig 13:29, April 6, 2012 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I get it. I'll adjust in future edits. Thanks for the clarification. Muscle6386 02:18, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

Timeline of Media talk Edit

I've made a proposal to clean up the Clone Wars area on the Timeline of media talk page. One user agrees, but another user disputes it. I was wondering if you'd be willing to offer your input. Most of the dispute took place on our talk pages. I'm willing to fill you in on the details of it if you'd like. Thanks.
Eшσҡ $їтӈ Lōяƌ 02:31, June 2, 2012 (UTC)

Scroll boxes Edit

Hey, Muscle. You've been quite busy lately! :) Just a head's up: it's probably not worth adding the scroll box templates to lists of notes, references, appearances, or sources that are less than, say 30 items long. I'd even err on the side of caution and say 40 or 50. The issue is that with many browsers, when a particular reference is in a scroll box, it becomes unsearchable by the browser when it is not in the "active" section of that scroll box. For that reason, I avoid the scroll box templates altogether! At any rate, take into consideration that if you add something to the scroll box, you may make the page shorter, but you're also removing some functionality for our users. Best, ~SavageBOB sig 14:01, November 3, 2012 (UTC)

  • I've been basing scroll boxes on 15 appearances/sources/references due to the Wookieepedia:Sourcing "Long reference lists" section, which I now see was really only referring to references. I was unaware of the browser search functionality issue. My personal aesthetic preference would be for the ~15 entry scroll box since they really clean up an ungainly looking article, but I can try and be a bit more selective with appearances and sources lists. Given that the Sourcing article explicitly says 15, should I change that as well, or should a note perhaps be made in that article? I have found that the {{Reflist|2}} fix resolves long reference lists most of the time. Muscle6386 (talk) 21:02, November 5, 2012 (UTC)
    • Hmm. I see you are right. I was unaware that was even in the MOS. I think it's probably worth reconsidering in a Senate Hall and/or Consensus Track thread, since a lot of us seem to think 15 is too short to warrant the scroll box. But you are perfectly within your rights to keep adding the scroll boxes if you wish... ~SavageBOB sig 23:27, November 5, 2012 (UTC)
      • Let me know if it is revisited, especially since the Appearances and Sources are my focus. Muscle6386 (talk) 13:50, November 6, 2012 (UTC)
        • Hey, not sure if anyone's let you know, but we decided on forty to fifty as a minimum at the most recent Mofference. It's a good number to use for {{Reflist|2}}, as well. Menkooroo (talk) 14:44, December 4, 2012 (UTC)
          • Thanks for the note. I actually read the minutes for the Mofference when I noticed the change in the scroll box template last month. Muscle6386 (talk) 14:59, December 4, 2012 (UTC)

Timeline of Media Edit

Splitting up the stories from the Tales Of Anthologies is for the Timeline of Short Stories (where some of them need to be put in the correct places) NOT the Timeline of Media.--ExarKunLives (talk) 21:01, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

Zuckuss edit Edit

Hey, I'm just curious as to why you removed this appearance from Zuckuss's list? It's one of his major EU appearances, and your edit summary merely said "sorting." So, you can understand why I'm wondering why you felt it needed to be removed. Cheers. Trak Nar Ramble on 04:53, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

  • Just a mistake. I'm currently cross-referencing appearances for the Bounty Hunter Wars trilogy, and I was moving The Mandalorian Armor to the correct place in the timeline and must have missed the paste. Muscle6386 (talk) 21:06, January 22, 2013 (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+