Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Wars/Archive 3

message: This features defenitely would be a fun part of this project to add. If we were to do it, I think it should work like this: We pick couple articles a day (SW related) and as a community read them over. We make a peer review for the page of all the things than can be improved and vote on a score. Tutmosis 00:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with peer reviews. We don't have to have them on a timetable, we can just flag them.
A good process is to:
#SW peer review
#Fix article up based on the review
#Place the article on the index/flag it as a project article
#Hold a Wikipedia Peer Review
#Fix article up based on the review
#Flag it as a Good article
#Any final checks
#Send it into FA.
Deckiller 04:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, we can add the scores to the index. We can create a subpage for the "top twenty star wars articles" or whatever. We should probably do multiple assessments; before the path to a FA starts, and after the article reaches GA or FA status. Deckiller 04:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean like the Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive? Jedi6 09:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, kinda sorta like that. Deckiller 14:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article assessment 

message: Ive broken off the main part of Palpatines appearance into another article (Debate over Palpatine's appearance).  I have no clue what to make links in it.  Could someone else help with that?  Thanks. American Patriot 1776 22:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Might not want to do that; there have been AfD proposals for the satellite articles, all of which have resulted in merge commands. Deckiller 22:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, if we don't do anything, the article will never become fatured (last time it failed due to length which is currently, before the split, 81 KB)  This is a really great article but it is a rather daunting challenge to read.  If we cut it down and spread the articles out (ex. Charles Darwin) then this will most definantly pass with flying colors. American Patriot 1776 00:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, it's tough. I was lucky in that the New England Patriots is a nonfiction article, so I was able to create a satellite page. Perhaps it will need to be trimmed down and checked for succinctness. Deckiller 00:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palpatine 

message: I found this article on Special:Newpages. It seems to be about Star Wars. I don't know how important it is nor do I understand the copyright status of the source site, so I thought I'd list it here for the Star Wars experts. Please take a look. Thank you, Kusma (討論) 05:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be fact according to Wookiepedia but it is definetly not notable enough to have its own article. Jedi6 06:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should merge it into a List of Star Wars measurements? Jedi6 06:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! That statement right there just makes me wonder what percentage the SW articles make up of the 1 million+ Wikipedia articles. :P The Wookieepedian 06:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - List of Star Wars measurements. -Xol 02:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[MGLT]] 

message: Simple question: Do the standard rules of writing such as npov apply to plot summaries? Or is it genuine for a plot summary to express the same point of view displayed in the movie/book? Tutmosis 02:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also alot of the plot summaries violate copyright violations since they are ripped off websites. Jedi6-(need help?) 02:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that plot summaries should simply explain what happened, without giving any POV. It makes it easier for the reader to make up their mind that way. For instance, there was a dispute on Wookieepedia a while back as to whether their Palpatine article should blatantly state that Palpatine was evil. The decision was to simply state what the various SW fiction says about him, and the reader could see the evil themselves. The Wookieepedian 03:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only reason I ask is because on a certain book page, like the whole plot summary was very pov, only way to fix it is a complete rewrite. I wanted to know what you guys think about the issue before i start editing. Tutmosis 03:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think Darksaber (novel) is a pretty good model for books. POV usually means adjectives and descriptions and whatnot, and that means extra words, which is frowned upon in an encyclopedia. Deckiller 03:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I bet Tutmosis is talking about the new plot summary for Specter of the Past. I think a really bad example is The Evil Experiment Jedi6-(need help?) 03:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear god, that's a good example of POV right there, lol...Deckiller 03:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sad thing is that it was out collaboration of the week and we didn't spot it. :-( Jedi6-(need help?) 03:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. We took care of most of the plot summaries, but that was one of the ones that wasn't touched correctly (no perverse jokes =P). Deckiller 03:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... haha... that truly was the article that sparked the question. No offense to Amina skywalker. Tutmosis 23:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a bit of fun on the Yoda article where someone removed the fact that Yoda "deftly" dodged the senatorial pods saying that if he dodged them deftly then "the Star Wars kid should be declared as more skilled in the art of Juyo than Darth Maul". I never realised there was so much POV in simple plot summaries! His Imposingness, the Grand Moff Deskana (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV in plot summaries 

message: Why do some Star Wars related articles such as Boba Fett and Republic Commando not have the Wikiproject Star Wars template listed on their talk pages?  Is something that just hasn't been done yet due to the large number of SW related articles or are these purposeful omissions?  Thanks.
:We're in teh process of putting the project template on pages that are fleshed out, complete, and generally solid articles (not stubs, etc.) We will probably need some help dropping the templates and adding pages with the templates to the index, so feel free to help with that ^_^ Deckiller 04:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused about Templates (sort of) 

message: :Template:SW Craft. I find that most of the older vehicle articles have state the hyperdrive specification on their tables. Since i converted a few articles to the new template I had to remove any mention of the hyperdrive since it is not featured in the infobox/template. Should we insert hyperdrive specification into the template? Tutmosis 00:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's very important, because it needs a solid source and some hyperdrive stats are disputable. However, I recommend putting it in anyway, just for the sake of ships like the Falcon and the ISD, which are clearly marked as point five and four respectively. Deckiller 00:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I am embarrased to say I havent looked into how to edit/design templates, I tried before and I just ended up reverting the changes. Can some one with knowledge please do it? It would be greatly appreciated. Tutmosis 00:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:SW Craft and hyperdrive 

message: Is their an article listing new fictional concepts/measurements Star Wars introduced or might I recommend making such a page and merging related existing small articles into it such as MGLT. Tutmosis 00:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I highly recommend it. Deckiller 00:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay ill do some research then. Tutmosis 00:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Fictional Concepts in Star Wars 

message: Ive put up a peer review request for Palpatine to get some fresh ideas on what to trim down.  If yall cold help that would be great! American Patriot 1776 01:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palpatine peer review 

message: I have suggested a merge please respond at Template talk:Campaignbox Clone Wars (21.6-19 BBY). Jedi6-(need help?) 06:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template:Campaignbox Clone Wars

message: I created a infobox for Star Wars books at :Template:Infobox SW Books. Jedi6-(need help?) 22:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work. Deckiller 22:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice, ooooo pretty... American Patriot 1776 23:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks alot Jedi6, makes things even easier now! Tutmosis 00:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template:Infobox SW Books

message: Should we implement a news section on the main page? I think it would be intresting telling what the Wikiproject is up to or currently has done. Tutmosis 03:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Ultimately, I'd like to strucutre our project completely like Wikipedia:WikiProject Final Fantasy, if possible. Deckiller 03:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I like their to-do page. Its clean and organized. I think instead of making Things to Do Talk Page a redirect i think we should put all discussion in there. I think before items go off on our to-do lists it should be approved in that talk page. Also any other discussion regarding a specific article should go there too. Tutmosis 03:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main project page: news section 

message: I've been thinking about expanding the stub template into several variations. We could have a book stub, character stub, etc. That way the stub category could be collected into several types. And if none of the specialized stubs work you could just use the normal stub for a general purpose. What does everyone think? Jedi6-(need help?) 23:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree on this one, because we have under 200 stubs right now, and most stubs have been/will be merged into WP:FICT recommended "lists of" and whatnot. Deckiller 23:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't know we were below 200, never mind then. Jedi6-(need help?) 01:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub template

message: The source of this page is SuperShadow, which is famous for releasing false informations. Joppyhoppy 11:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean, all those sith appear in EU... Tutmosis 18:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: False Info from [[List of Star Wars Sith characters]]

message: I have added Versions and Related Books sections to that article. Versions lists the two original books, and the Related Books lists other books directly related to this book.
Each book information is listed in the following order: Author, Name, Year published, Isbn code, publisher, book type
Do you guys like this or should my changes be reverted? Also regarding the infobox, Which one of the original books specifications should go into the infobox? The first entry appears to be the pure original. The second books seems to be a reprint by another company. Tutmosis 18:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the original book was the Spectra hardcover edition published on May 1, 1991 (Amazon link). The paperback editions first came out about a year later. -- wacko2 02:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Changes: [[Heir to the Empire]] 

message: As you can see above, the template merged The Thrawn Trilogy and The Hand of Thrawn duology series of books together. It also lists books that are not even part of this 2 series such as the upcoming Allegiance (novel). Does anyone else think this template needs some clean up and structure? Tutmosis 01:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the two series should probably be sectioned off and identified as such. As well, Allegiance probably doesn't belong - there is no evidence as yet to indicate the book has anything to do with Thrawn. -- wacko2 05:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When creating that template, my intent was to group together the eight novels that Timothy Zahn has said form one complete story. The Wookieepedian 05:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, well I do not mean to insult your work, Im just saying users might get confused thinking that the books belong to only one series. When its actually two, even though the stories connects. Tutmosis 14:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I could change the title of the template to something like "Timothy Zahn octology" or something similar. The Wookieepedian 20:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this? Jedi6-(need help?) 20:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That one looks pretty good too. — Deckiller 23:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow that looks like the one in my Museum except for the colors. Yea I like it.Tutmosis 23:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. I think we have ourselves a winner! :P I'll copy it to the template. The Wookieepedian 02:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your welcome. I thought you would like it. Jedi6-(need help?) 02:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Thrawn Book Series template 

message: In less than two months we managed to get over 50 participants. We are now the fourth biggest WikiProject in the Entertainment catergory. We are right after Doctor Who, Anime and manga, and Films. Go us!!! Jedi6-(need help?) 00:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to hear. Tutmosis 01:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent work! I'm going to send a notice around in a few days notifying anyone who hasn't signed the role call to do so; anyone who hasn't signed by the end of the month can be excluded from the project list until they resign. — Deckiller 00:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome.  I noticed the recruiting/welcoming templates: Nice :).  Made me laugh a bit too. —Mirlen 22:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Congratulations

message: SPPs are common in gaming articles (for example, "You can go to the top and defeat the boss there.") In reality, this should be changed to "one" or "the player" or "the character" or whatever. Here is a google search:  Deckiller 21:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "You" usage 

message: Star wars game articles, such as Star Wars: Battlefront, have excess game information. Wikipedia is not a game guide; this information should be the subject of a transwiki. Deckiller 21:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star wars game information 

message: To make it easier to navigate, I'm thinking about using the todo's talk page like the Final Fantasy wikiproject: discussions on the todo list items (outside of some minor comments) will go there, and be archived upon completion. Deckiller 18:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree! Its clean and organized. Tutmosis 00:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Todo page