Wookieepedia

READ MORE

Wookieepedia
Wookieepedia
In a galaxy far, far away....
208,758
pages

Talk: Community Portal/Archive7

Back to page |
< Wookieepedia talk:Community Portal
Add topic
This page is an archive of the Community Portal's talk page between the 22nd of November 2005 and the 15th of January 2006.


Classes vs. Vessels[]

While I've been cleaning out categories, I've encountered a number of inconsistencies regarding the placement of ship types. In some cases they are found exclusively in a category for ship classes, in others they're in the a category like Category:Alliance to Restore the Republic starships alongside vessels, and in some they're in both. I find the placement of ship types into categories meant for vessels produces unnecessary clutter. While not all non-capital scale vessels are defined in terms of a "class", we can certainly establish something like this: 

Category:Starship types
->Category:Starfighter types
->Category:Support craft classes
->Category:Capital ship classes

If there is sufficient interest in categorizing ship types by who used them (which is sometimes confusing for popular starship types), we could go so far as to create something like Category:Alliance to Restore the Republic starship classes. I'm hoping to hear some other Wookieepedians' opinions to ensure I'm not a lone nut in this. --SparqMan 23:58, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree that it gets messy. Your proposal is the best thing so far, however I'm not entirely sure what others may think, so we'll let them express their opinions first. -- Riffsyphon1024 01:21, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation text and quotations[]

I have noticed that the inclusion of both disambiguation notices and quotations on pages can produce confusing and unappealing results. Both are indented, italicized and standard size text. Would other users be in favor of establishing a template for disambiguation text that would avoid this problem? I threw together a quick idea based on our new stub style. It's located here: Template:youmay, and here is an example of it in use: Wookieepedia:Jundland Waste (Sandbox). Please make changes for the better, or express your opinions on its use. --SparqMan 21:15, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • Maybe just use the following format: {{youmay|Grand Admiral Thrawn's campaign against the New Republic|descriptions of the Thrawn Trilogy}} without the named parameters? Or at least shorten them, I'm too lazy to type them in all their greatness :). - Sikon [Talk] 15:23, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • I've added an option with just "you may be..." on the template page. --SparqMan 17:38, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? --SparqMan 08:31, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)

    • Sorry about that mishap Sparq. I would remove the second template within the template to make it work better as I did try it on an article. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:41, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Featured Wikicity[]

Maybe we can try to vote for Wookieepedia to make it the next month's featured Wikicity? w:Featured Wikicity/vote Sikon [Talk] 18:15, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • Almost there... Just a few more votes to beat WikiFur, pleease! - Sikon [Talk] 15:20, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • If you only knew the power of the furry side . . . why not join us, and we can rule together as WookieFur! --GreenReaper 09:40, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • Nnnnoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!! --Azizlight 09:41, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • We...we actually lost? To furries?! God help us. *echos Azizlight* --MarcK [talk] 05:48, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • heh...well, there's always next month! WhiteBoy 05:49, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Main image in infobox: 250px VS 300px[]

I notice that many Wookieepedians make the main image of an article - usually in the infobox - 250px in width, even though 300px allows the image to fill all the space in the infobox. I prefer 300px images because i think it looks better, but either way, can we discuss it here to set a standard and then put it in the Manual of Style? --Azizlight 23:47, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • 300px images are way too big, especially if their height is greater than width. The current infobox looks fine in Opera with 250px images (but shows whitespace in IE, as I've just noticed). - Sikon [Talk] 11:56, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Would that mean a smaller infobox or just leaving a small whitespace using 250px? (I use IE) --Thinortolan 13:57, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • I prefer the 300px width, as it does fill the width of the infobox. If we reduce the width of the images to 250px, then I suggest we reduce the width of the infoboxes also. I use Firefox, by the way. --beeurd 04:46, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Miss Star Wars 2005[]

Vote now! --Azizlight 08:34, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • Ah finally a place for us sexually-deprived dorks to salivate. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:46, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • My girlfriend is going to rue going away for the weekend! QuentinGeorge 09:13, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Noting first appearances[]

I have made some new tags to use in the Appearances and Sources sections of articles. You can see them in action on the Ailyn Vel and Grebleips pages. They are for identifying the source in which first introduces a subject into the saga, and in some cases, where a subject's name is first established. I think this is a very useful feature, and was just going to go ahead and implement it, but ran into a dispute with Jack Nebulax. What do the rest of you guys think? --Azizlight 01:49, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • Ah, good to see someone ran with that recommendation. There is certainly a difference between a character's first appearance and a character's first mention. This would be helpful for secondary or EU characters (there have been a number of posts on character articles asking for a character's first appearance). It would also help eliminated a need for the proposed line of category based on Category:Dark Forces characters.--SparqMan 03:56, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a good idea to me. I think it'd be useful. WhiteBoy 05:17, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • I made the {{1stm}} template: (First mentioned), for cases when a subject was first mentioned before it actually made its first appearance (like Dantooine). - Sikon [Talk] 06:06, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Good idea Sikon :-) --Azizlight 06:59, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • While now I agree it is useful for EU characters, I think that it is pointless for characters that were in the movies (except, maybe, for Aayla Secura and others that were taken out of the EU). Admiral J. Nebulax 12:07, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
        • I quite like the idea and, though I do agree it's rather useless for movie characters, I think we should include it purely for completeness. -Jaymach Ral'Tir 14:19, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
          • Still, it would be completely useless. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:44, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
            • Azizlight: "Your arguement is synonymous to "we KNOW that Palpatine appears in ESB, therefore we should not include it in the list of appearances"." That is not what I mean. We should include their appearances, but it is completely pointless to include these tags on movie characters. It's different for EU characters and such, though. Admiral J. Nebulax 18:15, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
              • As Jaymach said above... it's for the sake of completeness. --Azizlight 18:22, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                • Completeness, yes, but the appearances are already there. Also, as I have said before, these tags are not needed for movie characters since we know when they first appeared. As for EU characters, that's where these tags are needed most. Admiral J. Nebulax 14:25, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Character classes[]

Dark Lord Revan has inserted portions of information into BTS sections of KOTOR II characters that read: "The Exile has a chance to train (name), making them a Jedi Consular/Sentinel/Guardian."

Is this really necessary? After all, the information that the Exile trains them is already in the main article, so perhaps it can be reformulated as: "After training, (name)'s character class is (class)." But I think if we keep that, we should include character class information for all KOTOR I and II party members. - Sikon [Talk] 05:46, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • He also inserted a few fanon articles. I think that undermines the ol' credibility. --SparqMan 05:53, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Creatures only appearing in Star Wars Galaxies[]

  • I noticed the list of creatures includes some creatures only appearing in Star Wars Galaxies. I'm not sure if we should include these. Reasons: as you probably know the game is very conflictive with canon, plus it features hundreds of mostly different creatures, I say "mostly" because many of them are just a same mesh with different skin, name, and stats. Including some would lead to include all (more than 400 I believe). I would vote for including only those appearing in other games or publishes or those notably remarkable --Thinortolan 14:10, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd say we should add all the creatures, even if they only appear in Galaxies. It's what actually happens in the game that's not considered canon...but it's still set in the Star Wars universe, and so all of those creatures are indeed in the Star Wars universe, and thus should be included here. -Jaymach Ral'Tir 14:19, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, Leland Chee has said that he goes through Star Wars Galaxies just as he does with any other game or book, and puts the info into the Holocron continuity database, as long as it doesn't actually conflict with canon. There's no reason why creatures would conflict, so I say include them all on Wookieepedia. --Azizlight 14:21, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Edit Summary Redirect[]

I know I might sound a bit like a n00b asking a question like this, but I've only been around for a few days, so cut me some slack ;-). Can somebody explain to me how to do the section redirect with the arrow link in the "edit summary" of an article?--Knightfall 01:16, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • This automatically happens when you click on the "Edit" buttons within the article, next to each section title, rather than the "edit" button at the very top of the page. --Azizlight 01:33, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • I can't believe I didn't notice that before! Thanks, Azizlight.--Knightfall 01:39, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)

New Databank template on trial[]

I have made a new template {{DB}}. {{Databank}} is very tedious the way it is at the moment, almost as complicated as just typing in the entire URL. Both templates can exist while new template is being implemented. Thoughts? --Azizlight 05:51, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • See Jira for an example. --Azizlight
  • Looks fine by me, as long as you're volunteering to replace each instance. --SparqMan 06:36, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, i'll do some of that. There's no hurry though, since both the old and new templates can still exist together without causing any problems. --Azizlight 11:27, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)

What Wookieepedia is not[]

Please come to User:Silly Dan/What Wookieepedia is not, a proposal for a page sort of like Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and let me know what you think. — Silly Dan 03:10, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • Its a good thing to have. Sparq and I were just discussing a needed page to have disclaimers about LFL and that we were not affiliated with the main site, etc. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:09, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Wookieepedia Logo Change?[]

Just out of curiosity, since the official name of this wiki is now "Wookieepedia" rather than "Star Wars Wiki," are there any plans to change the Death Star II logo in the sidebar accordingly?--Knightfall 03:29, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • I've contacted the current logo's creators to see if he could generate some new ideas. Feel free to take some stabs at it yourself. --SparqMan 03:37, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • I would keep the Death Star, but change the text to Wookieepedia (on the top in large or medium font) The Star Wars Wiki (on the bottom in the small font). -- Riffsyphon1024 06:13, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, one of the problems is that "Wookieepedia" is long and cannot be broken up like "Star Wars" can; "The Star Wars Wiki" is long too. Certainly a problem for design to solve. --SparqMan 06:16, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Maybe we could just wrap the text around the Death Star image's edges. :P Adamwankenobi 06:21, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • We could then have "Wookieepedia" in the small font and leave SWW out of it entirely (however I still want to have SWW in there somewhere. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:25, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • I whipped this up in a few minutes, but I'm willing to work with you guys if you need a designer. I'm only allergic to using the logofont for anything but the actual STAR WARS logo, but I'm willing to go with other fonts, pics, and shapes. The font used on this one is Episode I. Dark Spork 19:30, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • I actually really like it; it's got far more flavor than our existing logo. I only have two recommendations: 1) it might look better a bit larger, and 2) it feels like it needs a border around the outer edge - nothing too fancy, just something to seperate it from the surrounding page. Those are my two centicreds on the matter, anyway. jSarek 20:26, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • Well, MediaWiki limits the logo size to 135x135 IIRC, but it doesn't hurt to have it as a vector graphic so that we can scale it. And if we ever decide to change the CSS skin here to move away from black/white, we can just adjust the colors in the text. I like it, but let's get some other ideas out there. --SparqMan 20:30, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)
            • I personally think the Death Star is a good poke at Wikipedia's "Puzzle Globe" logo. Can't we just fix that up a bit, making it a bit more sleek? --Imp 20:34, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)
            • Second version, too large at 200px. The current logo is definitely reworkable. I think the best bet may be to cut it and leave a bit of the black background in - Or have someone do the edges from a very clear high-res image of the Death Star. I'm not sure if I have one in my files, but I could do it, and a vector version as well. I'm a bit shaky with Illustrator, but if the bulk of the work (clearing out the background) could be done in Photoshop it wouldn't be a problem. Assuming, of course, you don't hear from the original designer. -Dark Spork 20:45, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)
            • I agree with Imp. I'd be interested to see what what could be done with the current concept. WhiteBoy 21:07, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • The second Death Star is also a good symbol for Wookieepedia: under construction, but fully functional. --SparqMan 21:28, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • Sho nuff. WhiteBoy 22:06, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay, I reworked the 135x135 DSII logo. Same font treatment as my last one, but I chopped out my own Death Star. I have an 800px version of the image and I could make a vector from that eventually. There's a slight shadow around the edges of the DS to soften it - the edges are a bit jaggy otherwise. Thoughts? --Dark Spork 05:12, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • Ooh, nice one. --Imp 08:36, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • I LIKE. QuentinGeorge 08:38, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • Muy muy! Me-sa like! Good work, Spork! WhiteBoy 08:55, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • Support.....oh we're not voting yet? Well mark me down for support if it comes down to that. :) --MarcK [talk] 09:05, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • Thanks guys! --Dark Spork 09:10, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • Support, except maybe the words "the Star Wars Wiki" should be a bit more readable. - Sikon [Talk] 09:17, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • Awesome! Let's vote! --Master Starkeiller 10:56, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • Spork, is it intentional that the DS is tilted slightly to the right? I'm not even sure if it's a bad thing, just something I noticed. CooperTFN 07:13, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • That's the way it was in my original picture. I left it, because the Wikipedia logo looks a bit tilted and it keeps the DS from looking too much like a diagram. Dark Spork 17:32, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • Support. Very good indeed! Adamwankenobi 13:54, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • I would prefer if the the black stroke around the text was thinner. It's a bit heavy. --SparqMan 02:17, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • Taking the border down to 2px (it's 3px now) makes the smaller text harder to read. I could make it a lighter color, or semi-transparent. Dark Spork 03:20, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd fully support it only if it had the SW font, as I feel that would make it more official looking, though we are not part of LFL. There must be a way to make that look good and legible. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:01, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • The logofont is difficult to work with, and I'm not really a big fan of any of the fan recreations of it, or using it for anything besides 'STAR WARS.' 'Wookieepedia' is too long for it, and even if I did the subtitle in it I'd have to make it fairly small. Not to mention both fonts have a bit too much personality on their own to do too much mixing without looking horrendously fanartish. Dark Spork 03:25, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • May I see if someone else I know can attempt it? -- Riffsyphon1024 03:51, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • I tried it, but I don't think it looks as professional as the one that just uses Episode I. I guess someone else could try it, but my hopes aren't very high. Dark Spork 04:31, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • It's getting there. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:02, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • Hardly! I vastly prefer the original Episode I typeface. The SW font is tacky and cliche. --SparqMan 05:09, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

It would probably be handy to continue further discussion on the Consensus Track page. jSarek 05:40, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...[]

I wonder what would happen if I did this... CooperTFN 05:42, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • Naughty, naughty! Best be on the look out for a whole lot of new edits...some good, some bad...and some fanonalicious! :) QuentinGeorge 05:46, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • "Hmmm," indeed. Thanks for the blurb! WhiteBoy 05:48, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • It'll be worse than when we put up a new featured article! ;) Adamwankenobi 05:49, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • At the very least, we should be getting that Tonnika sisters article. =) CooperTFN 05:57, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • Good thing I redid this template. ;) QuentinGeorge 06:05, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • And with his hands he opened the flood gates of rabid fandom, and was washed down stream by chaos. I do hope something good comes of this. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:11, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Let's keep an eye on the stats to see what this brings. Maybe it will be a mini Slashdot effect. The TFN effect. --SparqMan 06:14, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • LOL. For those interested, here's a link to the stats page. WhiteBoy 06:25, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't know if anyone noticed, but we have also been selected SciFi.com's Site of the Week. Check it out: [1]
    • Uh, oh, them too? Batten down the hatches, cuz we got a storm a'comin'! jSarek 18:52, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • This is great! This is the exactly the kind of recognition that we need to grow Wookieepedia. Let's try to think of other places we can get our name out there. Recommendations? WhiteBoy 04:21, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • The only sad part of this is that soon this wiki won't feel so personal anymore. :( Adamwankenobi 05:39, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • My recommendation is we wait, actually; having both of those at once will be growing pains enough. Rushing our growth is going to do nothing but put undue stress on the admins and other regulars. Slow and steady wins the race. jSarek 08:53, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • I disagree here. There is still tons of work to be done, we need all the help we can get, and fast. And we can appoint new admins to handle increased traffic/vandalism/fanon. I'm sure Wikipedia didn't become the success it is by slowing down its marketing campaign. --Azizlight 09:07, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • Glad you guys feel that way, because I'm toying with the notion of making improvement drive posts once a week. TFN isn't exactly overflowing with news these days. CooperTFN 03:08, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • I think that's a great idea. I also think we need to promote Azizlight and StarNeptune to admins as well. :) QuentinGeorge 05:35, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • We've also made it to Fark. No one tell Slashdot until next week, OK? — Silly Dan 18:22, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • The entire Wikicities network got hosed when Uncyclopedia was Slashdotted, so we might want to wait a little longer before trying that. Like until shortly before the heat death of the universe. —Darth Culator (talk) 19:05, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • I concur. Adamwankenobi 19:09, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • We'll leave it as a last resort doomsday weapon if we get a really bad vandalism spree from somewhere else, then. 8) — Silly Dan 19:46, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Re. Fark.com - if someone goes on a really bad vandalism spree, talk to the Fark moderators, who have said in the above thread that they will permaban anyone who 'defaces Wookieepedia maliciously.'
      • It hasn't been bad thus far, but thanks for the heads-up. — Silly Dan 19:46, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • Everytime this thing gets a popular link, it seems like everyone goes "oh crap, we're doomed!" and then not much really happens. I think some people just want the wiki concept to fail. =p CooperTFN 20:14, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • Yeah, I think I may have been a bit alarmist. Sorry about that. And we have had some new users register today, some of whom may have come in from Fark, who will probably go on to be productive editors. The minor wave of vandalism was easy to fix, after all. 8) — Silly Dan 01:24, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • WTF? I go AWOL for a couple weeks and all hell breaks lose! ;) --beeurd 04:56, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • I can't wait for the heat death of the universe. -- Riffsyphon1024 16:36, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Stars, Systems, and Sources[]

Right now, there are a large number of unsourced stars and systems. I believe a large number of these can be sourced if we are allowed to make a couple of basic assumptions, which I believe are borne out in nearly all, if not all, cases.

  1. Systems are normally named after stars. This is obvious in the WotC planet format, which lists "System/Star" as a single entry in the format (e.g. here and here). Thus, unless given reason otherwise, a source that provides a star name should be sufficient to provide a source for the existence of its system.
  2. Planets with numbers as part of their name (e.g. Garos IV, Barab III) imply that they're the Xth planet orbiting the star with that name, and thus also the Xth planet in the system with that name, where X is the number. Thus, a source naming a planet with a number in its name should be sufficient to provide a source for the existence of its star and system, again, unless given good reason otherwise.

There may be exceptions to these rules, but they would be very much exceptions; if they turn up, then we simply rename the articles, much as we would do if we encountered a name for a ship or alien species that we only had a incomplete or provisional name for. Applying these rules will allow us to GREATLY cut back on the unsourced articles we are currently faced with. jSarek 08:31, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • While I am kinda wary of adding sources to articles that are just conjecture, I do agree that something has to be done about the influx of sourceless articles (sorry about that, btw). Wasn't there a discussion about creating a conjecture template a while back? I think this would be a good time to put it to use. StarNeptune 09:18, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • No need to apologize; you've been doing the right thing, totally. However, I think this is a case where a conjecture tag is unnecessary. The two rules, I think, are held to pretty closely; I personally can't think of any counterexamples, and it's hard to think of how there *could* be counterexamples (in the case of the former, it would make the RPG stat templates unworkable or at least very kludgy; in the case of the latter, why would you be numbering planets out from a star with one name when the star has a different name?). jSarek 09:57, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • Ask the good people of Clak'dor VII, sixth planet in the Colu system. — Silly Dan 19:53, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • Kriff you, and the mindbending-yet-totally-canonical piece of evidence you rode in on! ;-) I want Troy Denning's hide. Okay, that leaves two questions: 1) is that exception (and any others that are out there) sufficient evidence to make the rules a bad idea, and 2) is there similar evidence for systems with different names than their stars? jSarek 23:09, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • I know that the Endor system's primary star is not named Endor. StarNeptune 23:12, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • Don't blame Denning, jSarek -- blame whoever decided that the Bith didn't live on the 7th moon of a gas giant called Clak'dor. Anyway: (1) It isn't evidence enough to make it a bad idea, and (2) in nearly every other case, a system is named either for its sun or for the most important planet in the system. Therefore, any unsourced system which has the same name as its star or a major inhabited planet can be assumed to be sourced, as far as I'm concerned, as can any star "X" with a sourced planet named "X III" or similar. — Silly Dan 23:53, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
            • That was Denning - he invented the Bith's home planet and system in Galaxy Guide 4: Alien Races. Anyway, thanks for the support on the two questions. jSarek 09:05, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)
              • True, but someone else named the other planets in the system. — Silly Dan 18:01, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Also consider this rule may apply to races and species of planets, whereas they have the same names, or names with -ians or -ans. -- Riffsyphon1024 16:40, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • That requires a bit too much conjecture: the Myomarans could be from Myomar, Myomara, Myomar XII, Nooblehoff in the Myomar system, five systems in the Myomaran sector, etc. — Silly Dan 18:01, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with jSarek in that the systems and stars articles are causing too many unsourced articles. But really, if something is not actually named or identified in any source, then i think it *MUST* include the {{conjecture}} tag. JustinGann has done a fantastic job with these articles, however many of these are conjecture and have not actually been identified as canon. I'm betting that articles like this are not in the Holocron Continuity Database. --Azizlight 23:29, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

News from Wikipedia[]

Over on Wikipedia, they've temporarily disabled the rights of anonymous editors to create new pages, though they are still allowed to start new talk pages and edit existing pages. Will wikicities do the same? Should it? — Silly Dan 23:53, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't think it goes far enough. I believe anonymous users should not be allowed to edit at all, registration should require an email confirmation, and the IP address should always be listed next to a registered user's name. —Darth Culator (talk) 00:56, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • And everyone should wear little armbands with the Star of David on them. CooperTFN 00:58, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, that's the fastest any conversation I've started has ever been Godwinized. Just wanted to bring it to people's attention. — Silly Dan 01:15, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • Heheh. I try. =) CooperTFN 01:17, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • Yes, I'm impressed at how cleverly you took my desire to make life difficult for vandals and trolls and equated it to mass genocide. I salute you, sir. —Darth Culator (talk) 03:09, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)
            • T'was but a joke, good sir. CooperTFN 03:14, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Given the availability of free and/or anonymous Internet e-mail service providers, I see no reason that users who want to contribute could not join without raising privacy concerns. --SparqMan 01:46, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is Wikipedia. Their experiments (and this is an experiment) shouldn't concern us in any way. I see no reason to disallow anonymous editing. - Sikon [Talk] 09:27, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Redlink List[]

  • Not sure if it could be done, but it could help get them made. Is there a way that once a link is made to an non-existing page, that it would be automatically added to a list of non-existing links? Then maybe a link to the list could be added to the main page so people could easily access the list and try to create the links. Once a redlink article is created then it could automatically be taken off. It would be better then having us manually making the list (which would take ages). DarthMaul431 04:38, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Well there is such a thing called Wanted pages. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:20, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

List of templates[]

I added an "Other" section to Wookieepedia:Template messages/User namespace/ and added the Firefox template. I'm pretty sure I've seen some other user templates floating around. If you know of one that's not on the list, please add it so we can keep a complete list. This will allow everyone to know what all templates they have available. WhiteBoy 17:03, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • I've also begun going through the list of templates there to list a few that we can delete, merge together or redesign. --SparqMan 20:14, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Unused Pictures Page[]

There are probably bounds and bounds of pictures that are unused and a lot are being repeatedly being uploaded. Is there a way to have a page where all the unused images are listed or can be viewed? —Unsigned comment by Razzy1319 (talk • contribs).

Lostworlds category?[]

Back in October there was a discussion about potentially creating a category related to what has been termed Star Wars Lostworlds (officially planned/cancelled/unpublished EU material) Articles on stories never written. It seems there is already an artice on HK-51 that would sort of qualify. I am planning on massively overhauling and updating my Star Wars Lostworlds web page over the next few months, and I might be willing to help create and "seed" such a category along with articles on a few of the better known "Lostworlds" here in the Wookieepedia. Would there be any interest in this? --Darth Kevin 22:03, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • We've got a couple articles up already, other than HK-51: see Alien Exodus and Sequel Trilogy. I'd welcome some more. — Silly Dan 23:47, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure that it is properly organized "as is". I would submit that "cut" stories and content should not be part of "non-canon articles" category, or that there should be better clarity. Most of what appears in the non-canon category is official material, even if declared apocryphal or non-canonical. However, cut and cancelled content is not even official. My personal opinion would be to separate official non-canon completely from cut, cancelled and unpublished material. I did not coin the term, but the term "Lostworlds" has been used for a while now and perhpaps it should be used here as a new upper level category as it better describes the concept than "cut". The disclaimer at the top needs to be clarified for different articles as well. For example Jorallen is not a subject removed from a final version of a canonical Star Wars source since the source was never even published in any version. --Darth Kevin 00:06, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • This is a subject I have greta interest in, and I love your page there. I'd say go for it. Kuralyov 06:30, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd like to help with this category, too. I was actually going to write an article on Dark Tide: Siege earlier, but didn't know where to place it. StarNeptune 06:53, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • I've been told on other boards (TFN JC Lit) that there has been an ongoing debate on this topic. I would propose to mass change the categories of the multiple "cut" entries and change the name of categories, however I think there should be some sort of community consensus before doing such a thing. Also, I would hope there would be an easier way to do it than by manually changing each entry already in the "cut" categories. My proposal would be the following:
      1. Create a new single high level category named something like "Lostworlds" or "Unpublished". Then keep away from subcategories if possible as it could get messy otherwise. Place this category on the main page under Expanded Universe.
      2. Move all "cut" entries to this category.
      3. Create several different warning templates for cut content, cancelled/unpublished EU, etc.
Just my two cents. --Darth Kevin 02:33, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Category[]

Maybe, and this is just a suggestion, maybe we could put Category (or categories) (whichever it is) underneath recent changes or random page so as an easier way for people to navigate the Wiki.

Just a suggestion. —Unsigned comment by CBenoit (talk • contribs).

  • What do you mean? Special:Recentchanges is a special page that cannot be categorified. Special:Randompage takes you to a random page, for which the categorification depends on the content. It can be any page. - Sikon [Talk] 14:32, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • I mean, on the side navigation bar, just below either the Random Page or the Recent Changes page, have a link to the Categories list page. That way if someone wants to look up a character, they can click Category, go down to that character's species, click that, then go over to his/her's character name. This would be helpful and informative for those who have trouble finding characters who may not know the correct or complete spelling. —Unsigned comment by CBenoit (talk • contribs).

Quotes[]

Beside a Quotes Template maybe we could put a more sign that would redirect to a page that has all the quotes about the subject matter. Maybe even in the future, they could be rotated.

Series names in book titles[]

We are inconsistent in our use of series names in the listing of book titles in article names and links. Example: for the MedStar duology, we use the series name in the book title, but not in the Black Fleet Crisis or Corellian Trilogy. Avoiding the use makes for quicker link typing, but less context to a user/reader without an encyclopedic knowledge of book titles. I wouldn't mind seeing the series names integrated. Thoughts from the masses? --SparqMan 16:14, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Noticeboard?[]

Is there any kind of noticeboard page on the Wookieepedia? Basically where we can post notices and reminders to other users? In particular, to point out any mistakes frequently made across the Wiki (e.g. common misspellings, misconceptions, erroneous facts, known fanon info etc)? - Kwenn 19:01, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, not really, although there is Wookieepedia:Requests. I suppose a noticeboard is a pretty good idea. --Imp 21:38, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Isn't that what this is? --SparqMan 23:40, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • How about an offshoot, like Wookieepedia talk:Community Portal/Noticeboard, solely for notices, rather than discussions - Kwenn 14:32, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • Or we could tack it on to the existing Community Portal page, where I think it would be far more likely to be seen by casual users. jSarek 21:17, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Marital Name Issues[]

Why arent Names of married persons hyphenated? ---Razzy1319 17:51, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • They're rarely supposed to be. Have you ever seen "Jade Skywalker" or "Organa Solo" hyphenated in print? CooperTFN 21:02, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Hyphens are generally used only with children who take the names of both parents. - Lord Hydronium 00:12, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Stuff that disappeared[]

  • Content of
    • Popular pages
    • Wanted Pages
    • Short pages
    • Long pages
  • Search capabilities of the image list

--Razzy1319 21:10, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Also, the number of views in each article (usually found on the bottom of an article near the Terms of Use link) is missing as well. DarthMaul431 23:14, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • And I'm often getting previews when I try to save, and the maintenance functions have been turned off. It's apparently all part of an effort to reduce stress on the database server. —Darth Culator (talk) 23:24, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'm having that preview problem as well. DarthMaul431 23:29, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.
More Fandoms