Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Wars/Archive 4

message: Project members, please sign your name below. You may also write a brief blurb on what you're up to, but that's optional. This way, by the end of the month we know who is active and who isn't.
# Deckiller: Up to the usual stuff, working on the MoS a bit, looking around SW articles for information to add to this. Many, many other tasks in progress too :) Deckiller 00:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it's enough to warrent its own article. — Deckiller 03:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. I'll be sure to do it as soon as I'm finished this stupid homework. M o P 03:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is up at Vibroweapons. _-M o P-_ 00:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: User:07holsombd I am writing a book about an event called the Sub Wars. It isn't finished yet. It will take place after the Galactic Civil War and before the Yuuzhan Vong Invasion. If you have any ideas/suggestions please add your comments to my talk page.--07holsombd 17:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMPORTANT: March/April roll call 

message: #Master of Puppets 03:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it's enough to warrent its own article. — Deckiller 03:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. I'll be sure to do it as soon as I'm finished this stupid homework. M o P 03:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is up at Vibroweapons. _-M o P-_ 00:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: User:07holsombd I am writing a book about an event called the Sub Wars. It isn't finished yet. It will take place after the Galactic Civil War and before the Yuuzhan Vong Invasion. If you have any ideas/suggestions please add your comments to my talk page.--07holsombd 17:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: If you ever see a Star Wars template without a catergory please add the following code to the template:



  
Thank You. Jedi6 22:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

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 recently updated Template:SW character and added color-standardization. For fear of mass protests, I let all previous usages work - so everything will look the same, but switching to the new sytle is recommended (by me). Please see its talk page. It uses a new "color=????" parameter that specifies the main affiliated faction. Comments? -Xol 02:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The grey color seems to be too light, but I'm fine with the grey.  However, I'm not sure if it's really necessary to have the Portrayer section, however... —Mirlen 23:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have three greys... a darker one for Imperials, and a lighter one for Indepentent, and the lightest for "no color given", which might have been what you saw - it's what automatically appears on the template page. I've make the Independent color a little darker, and then had the Empire be *dark* grey. And the CIS is black. And the Portrayer section has been in there for a long time. Along with height, it isn't really necessary, but could be useful. I'm trying to add a [show] link that will expand the table to have all of the properties, but normally hide ones such as portrayer. That's difficult though. -Xol 15:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see.  And Portrayer really was always there?  Huh, I'm so observant :P.  Anyway, maybe something more useful would be birth/date years, but if I'm outruled by majority, *shrugs* Portrayer it shall stay. —Mirlen 22:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Birth and death dates were once included, but consensus opted for including them as such: Jedi Shmoe (205 BBY – 150 BBY), either in the header or the name underneath the image (I'm not quite sure which). -Xol 00:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color update 

message: I am going to do a major restructuring of the Todo page before putting the MoS on Wikipaper this weekend. Hopefully this will stimulate some activity and keep things organized. I'll try and adapt WPFF's concepets with my own. — Deckiller 02:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take your time, but not too much time ;). —Mirlen 23:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Todo page is pretty much done, except for convos on each item (there seem to be few at the moment). — Deckiller 00:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright :). (I seem to be adding smilies way too much...Oh well :P). —Mirlen 22:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo page

message: Hey guys, I haven't seen anyone around in the last day or two. Everyone doing okay? — Deckiller 17:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm here I just couldn't edit much the last few days due to computer problems. Everything does seem to be slowing down though. Jedi6-(need help?) 19:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anybody there?

message: Given that they're doing the work for Star Wars in 3-D, perhaps someone could start the In-Three article? Seems to be a lot of info there . Nil Einne 23:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In three 

message: Hey guys, I know the WikiProject has been slow lately (several of us are on WikiBreak), and I've had some issues of my own. Nevertheless, I plan on sparking up some new activity in the next few days by talking to each and every one of you about what you feel like doing in this project. I'd like to see a bit more activity on this talkpage, though I do admit that it'll be easier once the MoS is completed (someone shoot me if I don't get it done soon!) — Deckiller 23:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey guys 

message: The cantina article has been nominated for deletion. While it doesn't have any SW info right now, it had some ealier this month before it was removed without comment. The thing is, the article didn't really have any info that wasn't already found elsewhere (like in Mos Eisley Cantina), so I'm not really sure what to do here. Any thoughts? BryanG 23:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I voted to change to disambig. — Deckiller 15:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cantina article on AfD 

message: Here's what I have so far:
* Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Wars/Manual of style
— Deckiller 02:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow—looks great!  That must've took you a long time. —Mirlen 15:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! 20-30 minutes :) But it's nowhere finished yet; we have to put detailed information on templates, each type of article/list, etc. — Deckiller 15:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Deckiller, that's when you're supposed to say, "Yes, it took me hours!" .  Just kidding, anyway, I'll add my two cents whenever needed, and I did say that I would like to help work on the MoS guide, so I'll try. —Mirlen 15:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manual of Style 

message: We're going to have to "prosify" the endlss video game mission articles. See the Things to Do merge chart toward the bottom for several of them. What needs to be done is as follows:
* Take the information from the "battle" articles and combine it into a plot summary for the game/mission section.
* Redirect the battle articles to the game articles.
Star Wars barnstars will be given out to those who work on this extensively. Thanks! — Deckiller 21:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle merging

message: I made this userbox, and Jedi6 thought I should make it into a real one; here it is;
  
Just wanted to know what others thought. _-M o P-_ 12:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It lives!!!!  Jedi6-(need help?) 01:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, that's awsome. Griz 20:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I was thinking about that but the Wookiepedia logo is under free use too. Jedi6-(need help?) 00:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox question 

message: Like Portal:Cricket, I think we should have a Star Wars quiz. That may help us seal the deal on featured portal status. The quiz should be a weekly set of, say, ten questions. I can put this together if you guys want. It's just something fun for people to do. The highest scores will be displayed somewhere, and we can just have a bit of fun with it. — Deckiller 21:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, no feedback. That's a good thing, I can handle this how I want :) Expect the first quiz to be ready within a few days. — Deckiller 23:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That just means we trust you Deckiller! :-) I just hope people actually do the quiz. Jedi6-(need help?) 23:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's up :). I hope people do it too. Some are easy; some are hard. We may have to find an incentive system. — Deckiller 00:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do it. And ace it. Just a question, whats the content? Is the EU included or only film material? _-M o P-_ 00:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything and anything related to Star Wars. — Deckiller 00:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quiz

message: Quite frankly, our coverage of Star Wars video games is not encyclopedic. Please see the various Final Fantasy articles for good examples of how video game articles should be. As a Star Wars project collaborator, I need users to:
* Cleanup prose
* Remove unencyclopedic content (such as "tips", "cheats", "hints", "how to" guides, and so on)
* Replace "you" with "the player", "one", "the character", and so on.
* Add influences, criticism (referenced), significance, etc.
— Deckiller 02:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm on it.  I'll start off with removing unencyclopedic content and replacing you/one/I/etc. with its proper terms. —Mirlen 15:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Game articles need major cleanup

message: The formal message:
Hello. I'm a member of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing articles using these criteria, and we are are asking for your help. As you are most aware of the issues surrounding your focus area, we are wondering if you could provide us with a list of the articles that fall within the scope of your WikiProject, and that are either featured, A-class, B-class, or Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Do you have any recommendations? If you do, please post your suggestions at the listing of all active Arts WikiProjects, and if you have any questions, ask me in the Work Via WikiProjects talk page or directly in my talk page. Thanks a lot! —Mirlen 13:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team|Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team]] cooperation

message: Our index is following basically the same exact format as this. Expect the reform to take place soon. — Deckiller 22:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement

message: Was just cruising through the main cat, and I found an article titled Mission to Devaron. I've had a squiz, and it sounds quite suspect, so I thought I would refer it to you guys and seek the professional opinion. -- Saberwyn 10:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on a survey of Wookieepedia articles, it appears to be from the comic Jedi: Aayla Secura. I've never read it, so I can't say more than that. I tagged it for cleanup, it might need to be merged but I'll leave that to someone who's more familiar with it. BryanG 17:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mission to Devaron 

message: A few days ago, a user named Spongesquid moved four of the six movie articles. Apparently he thought, for stylistic reasons,  that the colon should come after the episode number in the movie titles. While I can't find the details now, I thought that there was previously some agreement that the colon should come after the words "Star Wars". I really don't care which way the titles appear, but I do wish that there would be some consensus on this and then leave the titles permanently alone, because I hate having to change the wikilinks to the movies every so often. -- wacko2 22:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps there should be *two* colons... Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace. Sorry, I don't know about any past decisions about this. However, it should follow the standard title: subtitle method for movise/books etcetera, though I'm not exactly sure how that would apply. -Xol 00:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and I would vote for the colon after the episode number just if people don't want two colons. -Xol 00:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a tough decision. I'm basically neutral (I don't really mind), but if you want my honest opinion, I'd like to see it as Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. — Deckiller 00:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the official Star Wars site uses numerous ways to name the episodes. Also the style conventions doesn't seem to have anything about this mostly because no other movie would dare to have a title this long. Jedi6-(need help?) 00:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, it should be Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace. The Wookieepedian 00:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never seen that one before, whats your source? Jedi6-(need help?) 01:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMDB, Yahoo and BBC listed it that way.  But I don't think IMDB and Yahoo are reliable sources, and as for BBC, I'm not really sure. Lucas Arts lists it as Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace.  I don't really have a preferences, but I like the way The Wookieepedian suggested.  But probably the way with one colon is correct. —Mirlen 01:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I say we do Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. If no one objects I say we just put that as the correct version in the manuel of Style. THen all the back to forth changes will be stopped since we will have an official styleing rule to refer to. Jedi6-(need help?) 00:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually the official site has multiple ways of refering to the movies. Also Wookieepedia seems to use Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace.  I've never seen any Wikipedia articles with a dash and I doubt that it's allowed.  In the end this version just looks better (to me at least). Jedi6-(need help?) 22:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Movie titles

message: There is a problem at Yoda. An IP editor is randomly adding Dagobyte into the article. It started with him trying to convince me that we should change Yoda's race to Dagobyte, but since I was unconvinced, he has been replacing random words with Dagobyte and won't stop. I'd like to request that people add this page to their watchlist to deal with this problem. I'm keeping my eye on it, and so are a few other editors from the looks of it. I suggest that any user which adds the word Dagobyte into the article inappropriately be given a  on their talk page. That sound good? Dagobyte. Darth Dagobyte (AKA Dagobyte) (dagobyte page) 19:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good, I'll watch it. -Xol 00:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Me too, DAGO-BITE-THE-DUST man! -GBX 20:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is starting to get ridiculous. Practically all the edits to the page are the Dagobyte vandal and he's now even taken a liking to vandalising my user page. I'd propose an IP-range block but it seems like they're registered to schools so an IP range block is unlikely to be approved. --Darth Deskana (Darth Talk) 08:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's on to us, quick, TO THE DEATH STAR! Anyway, I put a tag that will disable IP or recently registered users from edtiting on Yoda's Page. --GBX 12:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Inserting the  template onto a page does not protect it. If you would like the page semiprotected, visit WP:RfPP (requests for page protection) and add the appropriate request. --Darth Deskana (Darth Talk) 17:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just did that --GBX 15:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Semi-protected Yoda I have. Jedi6-(need help?) 23:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have him now!!! You may fire when ready, commander.Destroy this Dagobyte vandal we must, or vandalize he will.--07holsombd 17:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dagobyte Dagobyte Dagobyte Dagobyte 

message: Check out this string of edits I made tonight.  This pretty much needs to be done on all Star Wars-related articles.  It's a three step process ... First, I remove all of the Ibid. and duplicate links and just point all of the refs at the same note (although  would technically be more appropriate here, we're going to remove it in the next step so it doesn't really matter).  Then I put the article through Ref converter.  And finally, I go back in and use proper citation templates (such as ) to format all of the reference notes.  It takes awhile but the result is a more clean-looking reference list and book data divided into useful metadata (which the cite templates do).  --Cyde Weys 05:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ai, Ai Captain Cyde. Jedi6-(need help?) 06:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, just when I was getting comfortable with the previous method of citing... -- wacko2 02:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Luckily, this one is easier to figure out!  --Cyde Weys 23:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Converting references 

message: Well yes, I tried to edit the Category:Star Wars spin-off films page, but I don't exactly know how. I guess I would have to write a new article, but I can't. Here is some info about this movie: http://panicstruckpro.com/revelations/
They have free downloads as MOV or WMV there, but if you look further, you can also find BitTorrent downloads for HQ DVD images. Yours w-sky, 03 May 2006 (CET)
:See Star Wars: Revelations. The Wookieepedian 02:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Revelations" - great spin-off movie missing here 

message: Sorry I haven't been around much lately; been very busy with IRL issues and the like. I should slowly pick my edits/day back up to 200-250 within a month. — Deckiller 00:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sorry guys

message: *Read the article over, and if you wish, vote your thoughts. Judgesurreal777 23:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode III up for FA Status

message: I'm back!!!!!! Good to be back :) What's new? — Deckiller 19:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm back!!!!!!!

message: Someone needs to update the feature article we picked Force (Star Wars) in April.--Team6and7 21:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update portal 

message: Due to the efforts of a large amount of contributors, Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith has passed FAC!!!  - Tutmosis 22:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations on new FA 

message: Continued from User_talk:R._Koot#fair_use_of_the_image. Could we please have some consensus over wether the image  is or is not fair use. Until then, I'd rather not have the page changed to a different state than it was in previously with only one editor favoring the new version, while all past editors seemed okay with the old one (including the image). – Xolatron 14:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Vibroweapons]] - fair use image? 

message: I know that both the Jedi Civil War and Second Sith War refer to the same war, but I'm wondering which is/should be official. Anons are often changing one to the other repeatedly, sep. in articles such as Sith. In Knights of the Old Republic I, it is always referred to as the Sith War, short for the Second Sith War. But in KOTOR II, it is the Jedi Civil War. I prefer the former because I feel that in KOTOR II, people don't really understand that the Jedi and Sith are so different, so they call it a "civil war", when they really are completely different. To quote KOTOR I, "Some people distrust the Jedi almost as much as they do the Sith. They don't understand either group". So, what are the opinions of everyone else? And what should we do for referring to it that won't cause people to change the name every day? – Xolatron 18:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jedi Civil War]] vs. [[Second Sith War]] - which should be official name? 

message: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction):
A new proposed policy would if passed, which I think is likely, will unofficially ask alot of rewriting to be done to Star Wars articles. Why? well if you read Describe this universe section, almost all articles I've come across speak in a  "in-universe perspective" when the "out-of-universe source" is preferred.  - Tutmosis 23:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This may actually be a good thing, for it will turn star wars articles into professional encyclopedic articles, with ushers to Wookieepedia for detailed in-universe perspectives. It could become the definitive moment of this project. I'll just have to make sure I stay back this time :) — Deckiller 23:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yea, I never said it was a bad thing, I'm just saying most articles will need a rewrite to comply with such a policy.  - Tutmosis 23:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a clarification: The essay is a proposed guideline, not policy. Essentially, it would say "articles on fiction should look like this" rather than "articles on fiction must look like this or they will be deleted." ;) Incidentally, Dmoon1 recently rewrote Jabba the Hutt per this guideline, and I think that article has a good chance of becoming a featured now. — BrianSmithson 14:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Agreed. Right now, Wikipedia and Wookieepedia tend to duplicate each other's efforts a lot. I think it would help a lot to have Wikipedia deal with issues in a "real world" perspective, and link to relevant Wookieepedia articles when appropriate. – Mipadi 13:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New proposed policy 

message: I just wanted to alert this wikiproject of the potential deletion of this template. The justification of the removal is that Template:Portal already exists and this is repetetive. I would go ahead and replace all instances of the template, but the image that you have used with the template appears to be deleted. I don't want to replace a ton of templates with a broken image. Get back to me if you would like me to replace the templates at a later time.--SomeStranger(t|c) 14:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bah, you beat me to it! Any replacement image can't be fair use is my understanding, so here's the link to Category:Star Wars on Commons. Either that, or we could use the default portal image as some of the similar projects are (Star Trek, Stargate, etc.). I really don't care, but it would be nice to have some input before the TfD people start replacing it. BryanG(talk) 01:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you could do is upload a blank image entitled "starwarsimage.gif" and we could replace the old template using that image. Then if you wanted to change it at a later date, you could just upload a new image and all of the portal images would be changed. As far as fair use goes I would suggest using something handrawn or rendered by a member of the wikiproject or otherwise who chooses to release all rights.--SomeStranger(t|c) 01:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea - I'd say go with it if no one else speaks up within the next day or two. BryanG(talk) 04:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that all of the templates have already been replaced by a bot. I think that if you all want to add an image at a later date it would be best to just ask the owner of the bot to run it through again.--SomeStranger(t|c) 01:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of [[Template:Star Wars Portal]] 

message: I don't know if anyone around here noticed, but Palpatine has been delisted as a Good Article. See Talk:Palpatine. 131.96.202.20 21:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out. The comment accompanying the de-listing makes a good point: Too many Star Wars articles read like real, not fictional, articles. Keep that in mind when writing Star Wars articles. Save the "biography"-type stuff for Wookieepedia. – Mipadi 01:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are real! jk :p ILovePlankton 02:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Palpatine

message: Please read Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones over and Support (or Object) to it gaining FA status! :) The Filmaker 03:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode II article up for FA status

message: Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team for Wikipedia 1.0 would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in offline releases of Wikipedia based on their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 1.0 (not yet open) and later versions.  Hopefully it will also help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to your Arts WikiProject article table any articles of quality articles|high quality]]. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist automatically for you, please contact us.  Please feel free to post your suggestions right here.  Thanks! Walkerma 05:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest the primary Star Wars article, George Lucas, and the six movies. — Deckiller 18:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Expanded Universe (Star Wars) also needs to be included. The Wookieepedian 18:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0 

message: I'm not a member here, but I've noticed that a lot of Star Wars articles don't make it clear which works verious bits of information about characters come from. Stuff from the movies, books and games are all mixed up together. More citations in the articles would certainly help that. DJ Clayworth 16:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: :Category:Star Wars battles needs a lot of work. Many of these battles are basically episode summaries of an episode of the Clone Wars, or a chapter summary of the climax of a novel. This information needs to be placed into its appropriate source article; see WP:FICT. I've been working on this, but my Star Wars-fu is very limited with all this new clone wars stuff coming out. — Deckiller 20:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle articles

message: I'm sorry if I appear stressed out over the recent AfDs, it's just that things take a lengthy step-by-step process, and when that process is interrupted, it actually does more harm than good. That is the issue with fictional articles — leave them untouched, and they may blossom into encyclopedic masterpieces.
Anyway, that aside, I was skimming through some of the major movie battles. Most of them are still all plot summary. However, Endor and Yavin briefly describe similarities to real battles. There needs to be an out of universe SECTION made on stuff like that. "Influences". There also needs to be a "significance on other literature" section, and perhaps a "criticism" or "development" section. Learning how Lucasfilm created, say, the Battle of Endor will turn the article into an encyclopedic, out-of-universe prose piece, in lieu of a mere plot summary. WP:NOT may see a new rule: articles with all plot summaries are not allowed; articles must balance in-universe synopsis with out-of-universe sections." — Deckiller 21:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New ideas

message: Hyperspace is an integral part of the Star Wars universe, yet we don't have a cohesive article on it. I propose creating an article such as Hyperspace (Star Wars). Information contained in articles such as Hyperwave Inertia Momentum Sustainer could then be included in such an article, instead of in their own. – Mipadi 16:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as it has plenty of info to warrant its own article, because there will probably be some merge-hounds after you saying there's no need for this separate article.  But yes, I support your proposition. --Skope 16:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would rather place all our important hyperspace information in Hyperspace (science fiction) or Hyperdrive, but I'm afraid that would grow to encompass too much Star Wars-only information. – Mipadi 17:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Another idea is to create a general Technology of Star Wars page for all devices and technology, with a subarticle or two if necessary. — Deckiller 17:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm afraid such an article would be deleted for being an "indiscriminate collection of knowledge", although if written well, it could work out. – Mipadi 17:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, it won't be deleted if it is written in a format similar to Spira (Final Fantasy X). If anything, it would make for an easy featured article that a list or several articles on other topics couldn't even consider. As a matter of fact, I userfied Star Wars devices to try and prosify it ^_^. — Deckiller 17:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think something like that would be great, if we could write about the technology of Star Wars in a general sense and tie it back into the "real world" in some way, and wrap in the discussion of devices, instead of writing it purely in a list format. – Mipadi 17:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, this is one of the things I wanted to get across on the creatures and devices list RfAs. If anyone else wants to help out, I have it userfied on User:Deckiller/Star Wars devices :) — Deckiller 17:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article: Hyperspace (Star Wars) 

message: What are we going to do about replacing the puzzle piece image for the Star Wars Portal? (or can we replace it)  I mean, I'm a Photoshop fiend, so I could make whatever yall want.  Are we not allowed to use certain images?  Does it have to be something created by a user, not a copyrighted image?  ...and kinda the same question with the userboxes. I mean, it's a great image of a lightsaber when it's 800px wide, but when it's down to 40px, it's a 1px wide shiny toothpick. --Skope 20:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal image 

message: For those of you who read the newsletter, here are a few of the details:
* We should start with Star Wars technology, creating a full article that broadly encompasses communications, travel, vehicles/ships, weapons, devices, and other technology. The article would briefly explain key in-universe information, dicsuss influences and appearences, significance, and so on.
* Naturally, there will still be articles like Droid and so on (but only when absolutely needed).
A few people have discussed their agreement on my talkpage, so I think it would be easiest to explain it by showing an example. Over the next several days, User:Deckiller/Technology of Star Wars will display this concept in an article format. — Deckiller 01:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedic push details (part one) 

message: (I'm not sure where to put this, but anyway...) The Yuuzhan Vong invasion page is on the list for copyediting. I just spent the better part of 20 minutes (for me, that's a long time) on editing it, and I think it can now be taken off of the Extensive Copyedits list. Read it and see! Teh tennisman 20:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work. Ideally, I'd like to see sections on historical/fictional parallels, and perhaps development commentaries. — Deckiller 20:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can possibly add some developmental things, but I really don't know stuff outside of the series itself relating to it. Someone else will have to work on parallels and such, I'm mostly editorial and book-facts. Teh tennisman 01:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still on copyedits? 

message: We've got a big load of merge tags popping up on the articles for individual comics courtesy of CovenantD.  Thus far it's been limited to Empire and Knights of the Old Republic, but it'll get around the rest eventually I guess.  Just letting yall know what was going down if you have an opinion on the matter.  I guess I'd be a eensy bit biased on the matter. —Skope 18:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might not necessarily be a bad idea to merge thm all into the main article if the plot is summarized and it's covered genrally. — Deckiller 19:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: ...or perhaps into story arcs instead of the whole thing in one article? —Skope 20:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a pretty good idea, as well — it would also allow us to merge all those battle articles (many of which are contained in a clone wars list). — Deckiller 20:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a plan to me.  —Skope (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know nothing about star wars comics, so we may need someone who is an expert on the subject. — Deckiller 20:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read them all, save for the 1970s Marvel comics.  —Skope (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm soon to go around and delete all of those "inside front cover" parts, don't worry.  I've realized the error of my ways, and have removed all of the ones I added.  And the publisher's descriptions are from all over the place: their website, amazon, other online vendors with info of their product, to which I link to in external links.  Oh, and unless you just really want to add 150 more merge tags, you don't have to worry about going after the other sets (Republic, Legacy, Rebellion, and X-wing Rogue Squadron).  I'll go with whatever is decided on in the KOTOR and Empire surveys and do the same to the rest. —Skope (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your offer to accept the results as applying to all the similar articles is very gracious - thank you. I'm gonna have to go find a barnstar for you :-) As for the publishers descriptions, as long as you're not taking them word for word from another source it should be okay. Writing a summary in your own words would be even better, since you have read them all. CovenantD 21:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, merging the comic "battles" depicted in List of minor Clone Wars battles and :Category:Star Wars battles would be an excellent way to provide a foundation for some of the story arcs. I also think Battle of Jabiim serves as a story arc, so there's another gold mine. — Deckiller 21:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I kinda am taking them word for word from another source. *sheepish grin*  And believe it or not, I've already gotten warned/reprimanded/scolded/or whatever about the whole descriptions and cover things by another admin.  I'm in discussion with him as we speak about my presumption that the description use is/was thought to be fair use. —Skope (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as you learn from this and take corrective measures :-) And for the record, I'm not an admin, just an editor who's spent a lot of time reading up on Wiki policies. CovenantD 22:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. However, I am an admin, and I am ashamed that I let this slip under my radar. Extreme copyvios are often criterion for speedy deletion, not to mention other policy violations. Wookieepedia does it (which I tried to warn them about), but that doesn't justify its practice on Wikipedia. Fortunately, however, the arc merges will do two things: first, they will remove the copyvios; and second, they will compress information scattered on numerous "battle articles" and whatnot. — Deckiller 22:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alrighty, it's all decided now.  The descriptions are out the door.  Darn admins-who-are-also-lawyers =P  .... I've finally had Fair Use explained to me in a way that I can understand it.  The article on here was just out of my mind's reach.  I guess I'll have to hone my summary-writing skills now so the articles lacking them will have some content besides intro and template.  So do we actually have to wait for the merge surveys to play out, or can I just go ahead and get onto merging stuff, since I made pretty much all of the articles in question? —Skope (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed; it's usually a good idea to be bold about minor merges. — Deckiller 22:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus we already have enough comments to get a sense of which way it's going to go. CovenantD 22:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks like a very good start. — Deckiller 00:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess they can have their own article. — Deckiller 02:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  massmerges 

message: Thought you guys might be interested in weighing in on this debate-- someone is requesting the removal of spoiler tags. -plange 01:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's a good wikifriend of mine, and I do agree with him to a degree. However, I don't necessarily mind either way, so I haven't contributed much to the debate. — Deckiller 01:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler tags up for deletion 

message: I recently greatly expanded the Praesitlyn article, but the only facts I had were those from the book Jedi Trial. I would greatly appreciate it if someone who had any more information could add to it, or just edit it to where it is easier to read and any factual errors are fixed. If there is nothing, I will remove the stub lister. 
Signed,    Teh tennisman 01:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We might want to integrate the text back into the planet list if it can't get any larger than that, or if it's not covered by more than one source/story. — Deckiller 01:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my thought except for the fatc that I think that book needs an article, or to at least be included with something Clone Wars-ish. Teh tennisman 01:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, the book merits its own article. If the book can get its own article, a lot of this info can be summed up in the plot synopsis on the article, so it's not a retelling. — Deckiller 01:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The book has its own article. — Deckiller 01:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's something else that can be integrated into the synopsis: The Praesitlyn Conflict. If we can get all that information into the synopsis while highlighting the planet on the list, I think we can have a very nice compromise between everyone. — Deckiller 01:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't realize it had so much info. Might as well merge w/out my stuff. Teh tennisman 01:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, considering that both are plot points in one book (and not mentioned elsewhere), I think it's fair to combine the information into a plot synopsis. What it does is it still keeps the information (thus satisfying the inclusionsits) while placing it inside of a synopsis on the book article (which satisfies the deletionists), while at the same time merging redundancies. Plus, thanks to Wikipedia's history and editing system, we can always revert if it receives objection (which I highly doubt). In reponse to your last comment — always put priority on how you describe it, unless you think the other article does a better job. — Deckiller 01:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The other article is longer and has more info; I didn't have the book on hand when I wrote the Praesitlyn article, so the conflict article is most likely better. I say merge and then delete redundancies, like you said. Teh tennisman 20:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A note on the book article: It sucks! I did a bunch of copyediting, and I think we should replace the book article with my Praesitlyn article. It could also use to include some mention of the lovers from the Praesitlyn army (Erk and what's-her-name) after the merger. Teh tennisman 21:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article must be on the book, not the synopsis. We are an out of universe source, so we have to take an out of universe perspective. The Praesitlyn information should be included in the synopsis of the book article. The book article shoudl also have development information from the author, in addition to reception and criticism. — Deckiller 04:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New-ish article 

message: GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 23:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Love it! — Deckiller 00:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barnstar 

message: Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace is now up for featured article candidates! The Filmaker 00:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode I FAC

message: *Take a look at this: :Category:Star Wars comics. All those pages on single issues?! Come on now, they all aren't notable. This is Wikipedia, not a comic site where you post each and every issue and what it's about.  This problem was mentioned at the Comics Project talk page as well (last month). It was said, it was getting cleaned up. From the looks of it, it is far from cleaned up. RobJ1981 03:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Star Wars comics

message: Todo list has been archived — time to start fresh. — Deckiller 20:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo archives

message: Recently someone has been moving information about minor characters out of lists to articles with "(Star Wars)" behind their names (ie Adi Gallia (Star Wars). The intuitive titles all still seem to be redirects to the lists, though he's removed all mention of them. I put merge tags on the ones I could find, you should be able to find them in my contributions from today.--Cúchullain t/c 20:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they should be moved rather than merged, if the topic even needs its own article. Dmoon1 20:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They should all be merged back into their respective lists, and while we're at it, we should pick up the stubby character articles that have slipped through our fingers, as well :) — Deckiller 20:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine to me. Some of the articles are fairly long, though, like the Adi Gallia one, but something needs to be done.--Cúchullain t/c 20:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was this long when it was removed from List of minor Star Wars Jedi masters, but some of the excess detail could be probably be trimmed. Dmoon1 20:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. Superkeerby August 9, 2006
I think I got all of them. I remerged them "as is", since the editor who moved them into separate articles seemed to do little more than that. Dmoon1 04:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Characters

message: I stumbled across the Jedi Religion page while doing an internet search. First let me say that the page is just a list of references to other pages and does little to explain The Jedi Religion as an encyclopedia should. Secondly I couldn't help but notice that The Jedi Religion is listed as a parody religion. I don't think that this is an accurate description as many people sincerely subscribe to the Jedi Religion. Something should be done to rectify this situation. 71.243.118.2 12:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Jedi Religion