Wookieepedia
Advertisement
Wookieepedia

Databank Link[]

Are we sure we want this in sources, not External Links? Most of the articles have it in External Links. What about pages on the Wizards.com site? Same deal, yeah? QuentinGeorge 08:44, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • My arguement is that the Databank is a very official source, so it should be considered more like a source rather than just an external link. The same goes for the Wizards articles - those articles are actual official sources. Perhaps the Sources section could link to their corresponding Wookieepedia article, while the External Links section could link directly to the source article on the WotC website. That could work. --Azizlight 08:59, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • I think we should save External Links for useful non-canon analyses offsite. For instance, the SWTC have relevant and useful information on a number of topics, but they're not canon; that's the sort of thing that should go in External Links. If it's a canon source, it should go in Sources, instead. jSarek 10:46, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • My reasoning for putting Databank links under External links is that... it's an external link. Sources are usually internal links to articles about sources rather than links to sources themselves. Perhaps it would be accurate to put "[[Databank (original)|Databank]]" under sources, but I think it would be confusing to users if the Databank link itself was under Sources because of the different nature of the link. – Aidje talk 22:07, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Completely agree with jSa—er, Aidje. MarcK 07:05, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Sources. I see what Aidje is saying, but I agree with jSerek on this one. External links could be used for the CUSWE article or some other reliable site, but if it's an official source, it should be under Sources...no matter the medium in which was delivered (book, web, whatever). It's not possible (yet) to link to the page of the source book, so we just link to the article about the source book. Brain works funny but that got me to dreaming about the day when all books are online. :) WhiteBoy 22:52, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Sources, so you don't need to guess which links are canonical and which are not (and you can always tell an external link from an internal link. The External links section is for unofficial links. - Sikon [Talk] 15:04, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Sources, for Sikon and WhiteBoy's reasons. I would also suggest we treat other articles on StarWars.com, WOTC RPG "web enhancements", etc. the same way. — Silly Dan 00:12, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • External links, my reason is format purposes, just not to have a different-looking link between the others. Making it standard will be also less confusing for ocasional editors and means no harm to the reader: Anyone how minds if a link provided in the wiki is official or not, knows perfectly that starwars.com is official. Thinortolan 14:12, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Appearances[]

  • Do we want "mentions" of the characters in appearances? ie, Quinlan Vos was mentioned in Ep3, but doesn't appear. QuentinGeorge 08:46, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • I think we should. Perhaps we should just write "(mentioned)" next to these appearances, that seems to be common practice at the moment anyway. Unless we create another section called "Mentions"... but I think that may be going overboard. --Azizlight 08:54, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • I think we shouldn't. Someone should have to actually *appear* to count as an Appearance. If he doesn't appear, but the mention tells us something about him that goes in the article, call it a Source. jSarek 10:46, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Completely agree with jSarek. MarcK 07:03, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • So you're saying that sometimes the film will be listed in Appearances, and sometimes it will be listed in Sources... isn't that a little confusing? --Azizlight 07:09, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • Not really; once this goes through, hopefully everyone will know that if a non-reference book/sourcebook etc. source (Episode III in the above example) is in the Sources section, then that means it's a mention, as opposed to a prototypical "source" per se. Hmm...don't think I've ever used the word "source" so many times in a single sentence. MarcK 07:14, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
        • Dunno...I think that's going to be too confusing for everyone. But I do see both sides. I can go either way on this one. WhiteBoy 23:01, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
          • I really think this one is a bad idea. As it is now, there are some people who erronously put things in the "sources" section when they really belong in the "appearances". If we start putting "mentions" in the "sources" section, then how will we be able to distinguish between errors and mentions? Some times it will be obvoius, however other times, especially with the more obscure novels, tihs could be potentially very confusing. I think it makes a lot more sense that if the subject is mentioned in a novel or film, put it in the "appearances" section, and write (mentioned) next to it. Or, another option is to add a "Minor mentions" section. --Azizlight 05:45, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
            • I agree with the minor mentions section, but only for articles with a small appearances/sources list. Like the Quinlan Vos example, it would have just the comics in appearances list, so a "minor mentions" entry would serve to stand out that is a movie-canon character even not physicaly appearing. Thinortolan 14:38, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • And another thing: when we're dealing with, say, an alien species that shows up all over the place (like Wookiees or Twi'leks), is it acceptable to put "see also insert names of major characters here" for additional appearances? Or should we just add all of the appearances? — Silly Dan 04:36, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Doing both things would be ok, up to making a basic list (usually just one or two entries). I mean, listing in Twi'lek article Star Wars Republic: Twilight as Appearances because there is an averagely detailed Ryloth view, plus Bib Fortuna and Aayla Secura as "See also" would be ok. While listing every comic, sourcebook and such, where a Twi'lek appear and every known Twi'lek character would just be adding noise to an appearances informative list. Thinortolan 14:38, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree with Thinortolan, as well as the thing about basic lists. Adding every book or movie that a character (unless it is a minor one who is not in all the books in the series) is is useless, because you could say the exact same thing by listing the series, if a character is in every book in the series. Listing all the seperate appearences is cluttering and adding more space, especially to main characters like Luke or Jacen, whose articles will expand a lot more in the future. Of course I will abide by the policy, but I do not like it and feel that it has a useless purpose. —Mirlen 16:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I have no preference one way or the other when it comes to listing individual novels in a trilogy (or similar) as separate entries. But I do have a related question: see below). — Silly Dan 17:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines for listing sources[]

I was thinking of some guidelines to use for which sources and appearances to list in articles where the subject and (a) is a general type rather than a specific person, location or object (like a type of vehicle, an alien species, or a type of soldier) and (b) appears frequently. For example, take Wookiees, Humans, astromech droids, starfighters, Jedi, etc. Listing every appearance of Chewbacca under Wookiee, or of R2-D2 for astromech droid, would, as Thinortolan suggested, add more noise than signal. How do these sound?

  • Any appearance in the six films should be listed, no matter how minor.
  • Any appearance in an adaptation (novel, radio play, etc.) of the six films should be listed if they don't show up in the version on screen. If they do show up on screen, only list the film.
  • Any significant appearance of an unspecified member of that group (like a novel where an airspeeder plays a significant role, but the model isn't mentioned.)
  • Any appearance of several members of that group (like a comic book with a large group of Ewoks.)
  • Any appearance of an individual where the backstory for a group is filled in (like an appearance of Chewbacca where he reveals some aspect of Wookiee culture.)
  • Any reference book or Databank entry that fills in backstory goes under sources
  • Any reference book or Databank entry that merely confirms the subject's existence rather than telling us anything new can be left out (no need to list every Jedi's Databank entry under "Sources" for Jedi, let alone Databank entries that merely mention Jedi.)

These are more guidelines than rules, and I think they follow established practice anyway, but I'd kind of like to see them written down. Thoughts? — Silly Dan 17:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources[]

  • Do we want "Includes even the smallest mentions" to be how we handle sources? I would think we would only want to have things that are actually used to create the article, not ever random mention found anywhere. jSarek 10:46, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • I think the idea of both the Appearances and Sources sections is to provide a complete list of where the subject appears in Star Wars literature. I think by doing that, it makes Wookieepedia itself more complete, and an extremely useful resource. --Azizlight 10:55, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree with Azizlight, plus it also gives a good guide for any source that can be "mined" to expand the article. (as in, "Oh, they missed this bit here!") QuentinGeorge 10:56, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • The thing is, a lot of mentions of a given subject are completely uninformative. For instance, if you were to take all of the times that some character mentioned that Thrawn was smart and could read psychological hints from art, you'd be adding a bunch of "sources" (at least two from the NJO alone that I can think of) that tell us nothing that we don't already know. Is it worth including every single mention of a character, even if the mention gives us no new information whatsoever? jSarek 20:58, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • That's a tricky one. Another example is: What if a source mentions "Senator Organa of Alderaan"? This probably isn't worth mentioning in Alderaan's list of sources. But what about "Senator Grebleips of Brodo Asogi"? Since Brodo Asogi rarely appears in any source, the mention is probably worth including in the Brodo Asogi article. This makes things a little confusing, as we can't be sure when or when not to include mentions in the sources sections. It might be easier just to include all mentions. Difficult decision though. --Azizlight 21:46, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
        • The difference is, that mention *does* provide new information - namely, the existence of a planet called Brodo Asogi. The Alderaan mention, however, provides no such new information. That's the crucial difference - if a mention provides information that goes into Wookieepedia, it's a source; if the subject actually appears, it's an Appearance; if neither occurs, it's probably not important enough to waste the readers' time with. jSarek 22:09, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
          • What jSerek said. *applauds* WhiteBoy 23:04, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • So, should we sort sources by (a) date of publication (more correct and encyclopedic), or (b) by title (easiest to do)? (Of course, if we wanted to include full publication info, we'd want to sort by author.) — Silly Dan 02:36, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Assuming that we will be listing the title only, I think sorting by date of publication would be best. --Azizlight 05:33, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with using sources to list every book or media meant to give useful information about the subject, not only the sources used for the article. I also vote for listing by date, although it will mean a few more work browsing the previously listed entries for an editor providing a new entry. Thinortolan 14:49, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)

On the topic of Sources, a good reason to continue with proper, complete citations is the numerous sources that share a name. For example, there is a Revenge of the Sith film, a book and a game that all share the exact same name. It's awkward to parenthetically note (video game), where a full bibliographical entry would make it clear which you were refering to (LucasArts, Del Rey...etc.). Just an observation. --SparqMan 08:19, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)

It certainly looks more professional to do it this way. — SavageBob 14:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
True, but we're all amateurs here. And I do mean that seriously: most of our regular contributors are capable of writing to professional or at least reasonable standards, but getting other contributors to write legible articles, let alone properly sourced articles, is like pulling teeth. Making the format for citations as simple as possible is one way, it seems to me, to ensure our articles are consistently sourced. —Silly Dan (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Title only in appearances and sources[]

Did we agree that it should be title only for appearances and sources? I mean, I agreed, but I don't know about everyone else. — Silly Dan 21:30, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Nothing has been agreed on yet, hence the creation of this page. People can continue to discuss it here. It seems that the most popular arguement at the moment is that additional information such as author, publisher, and year are not required, since all this information can be accessed by simply clicking on the title. --Azizlight 21:39, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • I think Title only is the way to go. It's redundant information, plus many references are still being filled in with additional info. Also, from a practical standpoint, there's only one place to misspell an author's name, hence only on place to have to correct it. WhiteBoy 23:08, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Title only for Azizlight's reasons. MarcK 00:22, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, title only. - Sikon [Talk] 01:09, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Title only. It's easier, and that's what people seem to be doing now anyway. — Silly Dan 01:20, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Title only. No shock, I'm sure. ;-) jSarek 01:45, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Title only. Are you really going to add all that extra stuff yourself? -- Riffsyphon1024 06:15, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Title only. No redundancy needed. Thinortolan 14:52, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Ready to be moved to Manual of Style?[]

One or two issues still remain unresolved, but I think it might be time to implement this temp page into the Manual of Style. Discussion will still continue on the talk page. Riff or Whiteboy, if you give this the nod, then can we move it to Wookieepedia:Layout Guide, and link it from the Manual of Style? --Azizlight 09:17, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • I second this suggestion. — Silly Dan 02:47, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Do what must be done! QuentinGeorge 05:19, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, Silly Dan's and QuentinGeorge's votes are enough for me, page as been moved, and linked from Manual of Style. --Azizlight 02:16, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Yep. And, BTW, as long as there's consensus (key phrase there), just go for it...you don't really have to wait for an admin to give the nod. Not a bad idea, though. :) WhiteBoy 06:27, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh sorry I didn't show up for the vote. Looks good though. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:52, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Sources sorting[]

Is it really wise to sort sources by date of publication? It doesn't seem like it would provide any sort of convenience to the reader; only complications to the editor, who is forced to go to each source's page and check when they were published. It's a lot of trouble for little if any gain. --MarcK [talk] 09:13, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, I for one think the Sources section should be sorted alphabetically, with the Appearances section sorted IU chronologically. --Imp 13:35, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • I figured sorting by date of publication was most logical; people can immediately look at the bottom of the list to see if the subject has appeared in recently released sources. I find this kind of information useful, but I know that some other Wookieepedians think it's meaningless. --Azizlight 13:47, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorting alphabetically makes more sense to me, but it's not that big a deal to me. WhiteBoy 17:23, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • It makes sense to sort "Appearances" chronologically by in-universe dates but "Sources" by date of publication. The value gained is that you can see what source first detailed a particular alien or droid model and how later sources have added more information. — SavageBob 14:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Another source question[]

Should very general reference guides like A Guide to the Star Wars Universe and the Star Wars Encyclopedia be included in source listings? They do contain canonical information, but in almost all cases, they don't add any information. For most articles, perhaps we'd do just as well to list the sources the Guide or the Encyclopedia include in their notes. (Possible exceptions include Bast, where the Encyclopedia is used to settle an argument about a character's fate.) — Silly Dan 12:59, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • I would say probably don't bother with listing these sources, but it's a difficult decision. I don't mind either way really. The same question probably needs to be asked about the Star Wars Fact Files, which apparently do contain little bits of new information. --Azizlight 13:08, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • I think they should be listed whenever they are used as source material for an article. Whether or not they are based on other sources, they are themselves authorized canonic sources. KEJ 14:02, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • I've been listing them. It makes as much sense to me as listing, say, one of the West End Games sourcebooks. — SavageBob 03:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Non-canon[]

Might I suggest this template be added to the LG? --Imp 13:43, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Non-canon appearances[]

Can't we simply put non-canon appearances in a separate subsection? --Imp 18:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree. --Azizlight 21:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Anyone else? --Imp 14:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      • How many non-canon appearances will there really be, though? I suppose it wouldn't hurt if you're, say, listing all the times Chewbacca's appeared on The Tonight Show or whatever. — SavageBob 03:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

References[]

Maybe this should be added as a "sources" section for the BTS section? As it is now, most, if not all, of the BTS sections are unsourced. Take a look here. I suggest we format it like the "Notes" section, with those nifty little sup links. --Imp 22:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking to copy to another wiki[]

I'm looking to copy a version of this (with some edits of course) to the Alien Species wiki, since it's a good policy. Would anybody have any objection to this?--Xilentshadow900 22:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

No problems. This and all wikis are licensed under the GFDL. All articles can be freely distributed. Adamwankenobi 22:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Appearances (cont.)[]

Continuing the discussion above...what's the final say on the "trilogy and series" issue? -- Ozzel 02:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Layout of main article[]

Hello. I'm new to Wookiepedia, and I don't know if this subject has been brought up before, or if it's currently being discussed. Anyway, I think the writing of main articles should be rationalized. I'm mostly thinking of the spacecraft/vehicles pages.
For example, right now, there are pages where the spacecraft/vehicle details come first, the history second (example : the X-Wing), others where it's the history first, details second (A-Wing). Shouldn't a uniform procedure be figured out ?
And, in more detail : in ship/vehicle description sections, the description is most often done randomly. Some ship descriptions will first talk about the ship/starfighter/vehicle's weapons, then its shape, then its engine, then its function... other pages will first discuss the shape, then the weapons, then the crew, etc. Check out different starfighter pages, for examples of what I'm saying (it's while cruising through those entries that I realized this).
Shouldn't a rational, uniform layout be adopted ? For example, first talk about the ship/vehicle's function (assault, support, escort, whatever), then it's shape (the dagger shape of the ISD, for example), then it's engine/propulsion system (Twin Ion Engines, four engines,etc.), then its weapons, then its crew, cargo, passengers... and only in the end discuss peripheral information.
This isn't the case right now. For example, on the T-65 X-Wing page, the first information given after the intro is the laser cannons and proton torpedoes, before discussing the fundamental info that should be treated first : the starfighter's shape, the S-foils... The first sentence of the article says the "X-Wing was reasonably maneuverable", but then the "fusial thrust engines", which allows the fighter to achieve "fast speeds" is discussed near the end of the section. Before that, you have detailed information about the laser settings, which IMHO should come afterwards.
Descriptions should follow a uniform pattern, starting with the most important/fundamental/basic features ; the information should be given in the order of decreasing importance.
These are just ideas ; I'd like to know if some people have been thinking on the same lines. Cizungu 15:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Cizungu

  • Yes, your ideas definitely have merit. On Wikipedia, aviation articles (and others, but aviation comes to mind specifically) have, for the most part, standardized layout (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content). This should really probably be discussed over at WookieeProject Vehicles but I'd hate to have you move it again. :-) RMF 21:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Behind the scenes - bullets?[]

Should bullets be used for information under the BTS headers? I see it done both with and without. -- Ozzel 19:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Still wondering on this one. -- Ozzel 03:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd say it depends. Often what happens with articles like these is that people come in and add a bunch of random information without any order to it. For this, bullets are fine, since all these are is trivia. However, if an editor wants to come along and convert all those ugly bullets to brilliant prose, collecting related trivia into paragraphs, etc., then the bullets should most likely get the ax. In short, I don't think it's something that needs to be in the layout guide one way or the other. — SavageBob 03:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Story-arcs[]

Under appearances, we are supposed to put only the story arc unless it's a standalone issue. Why? I don't think that's very comprehensive; some subjects will appear perhaps only at the end of an arc, so the specific comics they feature in should be listed, not the overall arc, since they did not appear throughout - Kwenn 16:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

  • The way I see it, a single issue of a comic story arc is like a chapter of a book. The issues are eventually collected in a TPB, at which point issue number is irrelevant anyway. -- Ozzel 02:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Plus it saves space. Of course, that might not be a compelling reason to you. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorting sources[]

Sources are supposed to be listed in order of publication with the newest first, right? Because I'm also seeing it done with the oldest listed first. I just wanted to double check, and then I think we need to add this to the Layout Guide. -- Ozzel 20:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I've always placed the Essential and New Essential Guides in order with Essential Guide followed by New Essential Guide, but listing them by publication should be the way (except in the Appearances section, of course). Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem.svg 20:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Opening 'Crawls'[]

So do opening crawls - games, TPBs, that one-off one in Cloak of Deception - always come first before publisher's summary?

Additions[]

Would anyone be opposed to adding a "Non-canon appearances" subsection for the "Appearances" section? It would help make the lists a little less cluttered. Also, how about a "Collectibles" subsection for the "Sources" section? Any thoughts? --Imp 18:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The non-canon thing sounds okay, but I'm not quite sure what you mean about collectibles. -- Ozzel 04:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I added the SW Tales tags to the Non-canon section. Added a section for spoiler warnings for in-article use. -Fnlayson 19:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Holonet News and RPG adventure books: Sources or Appearances?[]

I've been treating stand-alone RPG adventure modules such as Tatooine Manhunt or Death in the Undercity as appearances, since they have a storyline just like Dark Forces or other video games: not everyone else is. Most editors have been treating holonetnews.com articles as appearances, since they're "stories", but the Layout Guide was calling them sources until just now. What do the rest of you think? —Silly Dan (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I actually asked about this on IRC last night, before I changed it. I agree some would be more appropriate under appearances, since they're fictional and IU. I moved those two under sources though, because it was believed that was the most predominant consensus at the time. Make sense? Should probably bring this up for a quick CT vote. —Xwing328(Talk) 18:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

filming[]

I just added a short guide to Behind the scenes, feel free to delete or alter it if you feal like it. --Steinninn 19:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

  • filming - if it has a real world location, point out where it is and when it was filmed

Categories in preview[]

They don't seem to show up on preview pages. Perhaps that should be mentioned since I just spent 30 minutes trying to get it to work, only to find out it shows up after saving changes/page creation and not on preview pages. Fank 22:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

  • That seems like a skin-dependent problem: I can see categories just fine when using the monobook skin. —Silly Dan (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Appearances listing[]

Perhaps a list of all possible headings for appearances could be useful. So from 'characters' (A) to 'vehicles' (Z), and everything in between listed. Possible examples like the Death Star or Darksaber filed under vehicle or weapon; etcetera. Fank 06:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


Planets: Flora and Fauna list[]

I believe that when more than 3 or for animals or plants are mentioned on a specific world, that warrants a Flora or Fauna section as the case may be. Further more, I think these sections should be a simple, bulleted lists (like appearances sections) and not in paragraph form. These lists save space allow for quick referencing. Readers can find out more information about items on the list simply by clicking on the items individual article. This policy has already been done on articles such as Kashyyyk, Felucia, Dantooine, and Tatooine-- planets with a plethora of organisms. But, I believe Planet articles with as few as 3 or 4 organisms in a particular section can benefit from a list-formated flora or fauna section. This stops the need to include relatively minor organisms in the Description sections. It also, once again, allows readers to quickly identify organisms of a planet without having to read about the planets history, geography, etc.

Now some people list species in the Planet Info Boxes (see tatooine). For longer lists, this box gets unwieldy. It is better for the list to be in a separate section. I know some people don't like lists, but for this subject matter, it is the best way to go. I would like to get other peoples opinion on this. is there some sort of consensus? Can simple lists be the preferred format for flora and fauna sections? how many organisms does it take to warrant a section? Are the lists worth having if the organisms are mentioned elsewhere? IthinkIwannaLeia 19:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki[]

Since the page is locked, I was unable to add an interwiki link to Jedipedia. The link would look like this:

[[fi:Jedipedia:Ulkoasuopas]]

Can an admin do this, please? Xd1358 Talk 12:05, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

It has now been added :). Grunny (Talk) 12:56, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
Thanks :) Xd1358 Talk 13:07, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

Typo[]

There's a typo in the Images section: Images should be placed where they are most relevent and should not interrupt the flow or the aesthetics of the article. -- 1358 (Talk) 05:00, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Fixed :). Grunny (talk) 05:14, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Behind the scenes-question[]

Does blooper/continuity errors belong, if at all, under the behind the scenes section? Korsa3 04:03, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

  • Yes. Keep it short though. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo.png 04:21, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

Where is it?[]

Why there isn't section for the "Organizations"? Kreivi Wolter 20:47, March 7, 2011 (UTC)

Structure and location guidelines?[]

Are there any guidelines for articles about a structure or a location? Cevan IMPpress.svg (talk) 15:29, January 30, 2016 (UTC)

Junior novelization appearances[]

In the "Appearances" section there is a sentence which reads:

"Wookieepedia treats the film novelizations and junior film novelizations of the Star Wars original trilogy and prequel trilogy and the Star Wars: The Clone Wars film novelization as non-canon Legends material."

Since updated, canon OT junior novelizations were released a few months ago, I believe this should be changed to

"Wookieepedia treats the film novelizations and junior film novelizations of the prequel trilogy, the film novelizations and original junior film novelizations of the original trilogy, and the Star Wars: The Clone Wars film novelization as non-canon Legends material."

A bit wordy I know, but this can easily be quite ambiguous. Maybe "original" should be italicized even. -- Dr. Porter Resistance starbird.svg (Talk|Contribs) 06:00, August 20, 2017 (UTC)

Typo?[]

In this part: "For example, do not list Made Jade's infobox birth date as "17 BBY (18)";" am I missing some kind of inside joke, or is Mara Jade's name just misspelled?Cire Yeldarb (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Advertisement