Toprawa and Ralltiir

Councilor Bureaucrat

Do not leave messages concerning FAN or GAN objections. I will not respond to them. Use the nominations pages.

For the sake of chaos, there is no telling where I may respond to messages on my talk page. Depending on multiple factors, you may receive an answer on your talk page, under your original message on my talk page, or I may not respond at all. There is no method to my madness. You are required to decipher the inconsistency, not me.

Archived talk: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Re: Vacation

I have not forgotten about this one, Tope. Rest assured, my vacation does not mean that I'll simply let the nomination sit idle on the GAN page. I'll be monitoring it and my FA nominations, as well; I just won't be able to contribute much beyond that. Still, thanks for the heads-up :) QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 19:33, November 19, 2010 (UTC)


The Xim map on page 117 has a notation in the bottom right stating "25,102 to 25,096 BBY - War with the Hutts". The old 21,105 date seems to have been an approximation with the Battle of Ko Vari, which in all articles is an unsourced date, and most references are even labeled "circa". The First Battle of Vontor is confirmed on the next page as being in 25,100, which leaves nothing concrete for 25,105, and does give a reference for 25,102 for the start of the war. The 25,096 date is a little nutty considering Xim's been a prisoner for four years at that point. But I'm not messing with that, yet. DD97Which bear is best? 07:39, November 21, 2010 (UTC)


Maybe a stupid question, but could you also edit info from an author who have done other work then Star Wars? i just want to know ;) --Station7 20:16, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:33, November 21, 2010 (UTC)
    • An author writes more stories then Star Wars stories. Should I edit info, from an author, if he/she writes other stories then Star Wras stories.--Station7 20:36, November 21, 2010 (UTC)
      • You could list the info, though be aware that Wookieepedia's Sourcing policy states that "it is typically Wookieepedia's policy to not include a full biography on this site. That is usually best left to sites like Wikipedia." Meaning don't go overboard with it. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:38, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

Ozzik Stum

Hi. I was wondering why you deleted Ozzik Stum, a redirect I created. I don't see how it's unnecessary. Could you please tell me why it doesn't need to exist? San Saber 22:20, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

Contesting my ban

While my ban has ended I would like to contest the grounds on which I was banned. Please explain the situation and then I will retort. Rac Ward Unsigned comment by Rac Ward (talk • contribs).


Are you planning on working on his article? Because I was, and if you are, I'll step aside.—Jedi Kasra (comlink) 01:13, November 24, 2010 (UTC)


The UAA says as follows: "Despite having lived on the fringes of galactic civilization for nearly twelve thousand years..." I added the information to 12,000 BBY in the hopes of getting it supplemented by whatever source qualifies the date to be on the Morseerian Featured Article, my library is pretty sparse on a lot of the sources listed there. If it needs further immediate support, I'll get with SavageBob to find out what his source is for the date. DD97Which bear is best? 19:26, November 24, 2010 (UTC)

  • No, it's the same dating issue I mentioned before, WotC books are anywhere between 32 BBY and 25 ABY. You want I should put a source tag on the date in the Morseerian article and see if I can get the source from someone that way? DD97Which bear is best? 19:37, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
    • None at all. DD97Which bear is best? 19:55, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
      • Hey, guys. The Morseerian article currently says "some 12,000 years before the Battle of Yavin." This is like saying "c. 12,000 BBY", and despite the ambiguity of the WOTC books' time references, I'd say that 50 years is negligible when we're talking thousands of years. Thus, I don't think the Morseerian article needs to be changed. ~ SavageBob 23:09, November 24, 2010 (UTC)


Sorry, I didn't noticed this rule. When I last checked, it was applyed only to FAN. Darth Morrt 22:43, November 24, 2010 (UTC)

Wookieepedia Manual of Style problem

Hello, while reading the Manual of Style today, I noticed a grammatical error. However, when I tried to fix it, I found out that I do not have permission to edit that page. Could you correct the error? Here is the error: "===Human and other sentient species=== In all sections of in-universe articles, the words "Human" and "Near-Human" should be capitalized, just as the name of any other sentient species (Twi'lek, Rodian, Wookiee) in the Star Wars universe would be. The word "humanoid," however, should not be capitalized.

See Forum:CT Archive/Capitalization of Human, and Forum:CT Archive/Capitalizing "human" -- some more details

Please note that semi-sentient or nonsentient creature names must not be in capitals unless dictated otherwise by canon. Hence, writing "Rancor" instead of "rancor" is agrammatical. As much as we don't capitalize "Dog" or "Cat" in real-life, we shouldn't capitalize fictional creature names."

In the second sentence, instead of reading "humanoid,", it should say "humanoid",. Also, this may seem nitpicky, but...when I read the last sentence, it counfused me. I thought that there was a grammatical problem regarding possesives. Upon reading it again, I guess that it techincally works, but to avoid further confusion, could you rewrite the sentence as "As much as we don't capitalize "Dog" or "Cat" in real-life, we shouldn't capitalize the names of fictional creatures."?

Thanks,WIERDGREENMAN 18:47, November 25, 2010 (UTC)

  • No, I cannot change these things for you. This is the reason this page is fully-protected, to prevent people from just changing the wording any time as they see fit. The Manual of Style is an official policy page. If an error or mistake exists, it needs to be amended through formal Consensus track procedure. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:19, November 26, 2010 (UTC)

Re: Galaxy 11

Yeah, you're right, it's actually a poster from Galaxy 9. Sorry about that. Here's what it says about the Executor: "Intimidation is a powerful weapon, and few vessels are more intimidating than a Super Star Destroyer. At 8,000 meters—five times the length of a standard Star Destroyer—possessing thousands of weapons and carrying legions of starfighters and stormtroopers, they are the most fearsome components in the Imperial armada, short of the Death Stars. Built and presented to Darth Vader following the Battle of Yavin, expressly for hunting Rebels, the Executor is featured prominently in Shadows. Ironically, it figures in Luke's escape, and leads to Xizor's defeat. Later, the vessel is destroyed during the Battle of Endor." Xicer9Atgar(Combadge) 04:03, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted. DISCLOSURE: Some of the links above 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.

Get Disney+