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 :) Deckiller00:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Tutmosis02:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC) --Same things: trying my best to help out with the project, fixing and improving articles. Sometimes I am away for a day or two, really sorry for this.
BryanG: Too much going on at college recently to do much here, but I've been doing some link disambiguation when I have the time. BryanG21:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
FirestormWorking on several things, such as browsing the Star Wars Category and its subcats, and reorganizing it. I think the main category was way too large in its previous form; i've narrowed the scope of it a bit and put more things into subcategories, creating some such as Category:Yuuzhan Vong. Firestorm03:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
_-MoP-_14:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC): Going around seeing if I can do anything; have a userbox idea and am ready to make the Vibroweapon article into a real one if I get the go-ahead.
Rafael Limones17:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC): I would much rather have gone with Master Luke than stay here with you. I don't know what all this trouble is about, but I'm sure it must be your fault.
Jedi fox i did the vibrowhip article, been helpin dbz and digimon, thinkin of doing a xanatos article if there isn't one yet 12:31P.M. eastern time April 25
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.--07holsombd17:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
User:superstarwarsfan HI, I'm new to this site, but I love Star Wars and I want to help. (If I am doing something wrong PLEASE tell me!)
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. Tutmosis03:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
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. Tutmosis03:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Help page
I think we should make a help page. It would be a page to ask experienced Star Wars editors for help editing and for format. That way the discussion page can be used for discussing how things should be done and the help page to find help. Jedi6-(need help?)03:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Good idea, but i think we should put that into the upcoming Manual of Style page. Tutmosis
I'm going to be on a semi-Wikibreak for the next few days, but I already have the MoS in development stage. Deckiller00:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Standardizing Quotes
I noticed a variation between quotes in the articles...Most of the quotes in the character articles are Italicized while others, like the Jedi article are not. Also, the matter of citing varies to. For quotes in which a character is speaking of another character, I understand that it should be: —[Insert character name]. But what about an excerpt from a sourcebook, chronology, etc.?
For example, shouldn't they be cited within parenthesis, like this:
"It is known, however, that the brightest and best philosophers, priests, and warriors came together on a single world long ago to discuss their discoveries involving the enigmatic, mystical Force, and that the concentration of these efforts eventually led to the development of the Jedi Order" (Star Wars Roleplaying Game: Power of the Jedi Sourcebook).
as opposed to the way it currently is in the Jedi article:
"It is known, however, that the brightest and best philosophers, priests, and warriors came together on a single world long ago to discuss their discoveries involving the enigmatic, mystical Force, and that the concentration of these efforts eventually led to the development of the Jedi Order." – . Star Wars Roleplaying Game: Power of the Jedi Sourcebook.
I say do the second one for quotes from people and the first one if all their is is the source. I would always try to get who the quote was from though. Jedi6-(need help?)00:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I also think the excerpt should be in small letters as shown below:
"It is known, however, that the brightest and best philosophers, priests, and warriors came together on a single world long ago to discuss their discoveries involving the enigmatic, mystical Force, and that the concentration of these efforts eventually led to the development of the Jedi Order." – Star Wars Roleplaying Game: Power of the Jedi Sourcebook.
Alright, so it is supposed to be in parenthesis. And as for the small letters, I'm not sure what my opinion is of yet. Hm, I think perhaps we should have A Star Wars WikiProject Manual of Style Guide like Final Fantasy WikiProject does. —Mirlen22:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
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? -Xol02:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
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... —Mirlen23:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
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. -Xol15:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
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. —Mirlen22:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
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). -Xol00:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Todo page
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. — Deckiller02:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
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!) — Deckiller23:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Cantina article on AfD
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? BryanG23:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! 20-30 minutes :) But it's nowhere finished yet; we have to put detailed information on templates, each type of article/list, etc. — Deckiller15:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
No, Deckiller, that's when you're supposed to say, "Yes, it took me hours!" :P. 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. —Mirlen15:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Battle merging
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.
I'm not sure about that image. If the original photo of the Death Star is copyrighted, surely you can't just take it, modify the rest of the image a bit, and release it into the public domain? --Darth Revert(AKA Deskana)(talk)21:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
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. — Deckiller21:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
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. — Deckiller23:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
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.
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! —Mirlen13:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The informal message:
I don't know if we've been contacted yet, but according to this list, we haven't, and I would like to see SW articles on WP:1.0. —Mirlen15:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
List of articles to be submitted or needed to improved for WP:1.0 using these criteria.
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. -- Saberwyn10:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
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. BryanG17:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Movie titles
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. -- wacko222:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
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. -Xol00:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and I would vote for the colon after the episode number just if people don't want two colons. -Xol00:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
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. — Deckiller00:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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. —Mirlen01:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I found the previous discussion on this issue, on the Episode III talk page. So take a look there if you want. Personally, for stylistic reasons I'd agree with the single colon after the episode number, e.g. Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. -- wacko204:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
As I've brought up in the talk page of Episode III, I was the user who originally changed the titles too their current state (after explaining in the talk page). The reason for the change was that I noticed the differences between the formats on Wikipedia and on IMDB. I was suggesting we change it to Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith. I decided that the best possible source for the titles was the official site. Which has repeatedly had articles that refer to the films as Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith. After finding the same title format on the nominations ballot for the 2006 Oscars. I thought it warranted a change. I don't think it should be sent back to its original format, as it is the format I've seen the LEAST amount on the internet. If anything, we should change it to the IMDB format, since it has more punctuation. Otherwise, the titles should remain the same. The Filmaker21:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
Change the title of all Star Wars movies to Star Wars Episode #: Episode Title
I've never seen a Star Wars film title used without a colon to separate the episode # from the episode name. -Xol23:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
per my explanation above. The user Spongesquid most likely thought the titles should be that format because of the massive amounts of articles that still feature the old format. The Filmaker21:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Dagobyte Dagobyte Dagobyte Dagobyte
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 {{subst:bv-n|Yoda}} on their talk page. That sound good? Dagobyte. Darth Dagobyte(AKA Dagobyte)(dagobyte page)19:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC).
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. --DarthDeskana(Darth Talk)08:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
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. --GBX12:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I have him now!!! You may fire when ready, commander.Destroy this Dagobyte vandal we must, or vandalize he will.--07holsombd17:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
RelentlessRouge
Section Removed after 1 month of inactive status.
Converting references
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 {{ref label}} 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 {{cite book}}) 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 Weys05:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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. — Deckiller00:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Continued from User_talk:R._Koot#fair_use_of_the_image. Could we please have some consensus over wether the image [2] 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). – Xolatron14:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
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? – Xolatron18:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
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. - Tutmosis23:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
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 :) — Deckiller23:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
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. - Tutmosis23:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
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. — BrianSmithson14:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
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. – Mipadi13:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. – Mipadi01:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the list! We already have the main Star Wars article approved for Version 0.5. I'll add these into your table, please feel free to update this list. Thanks! Walkerma17:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Citations
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 Clayworth16:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Battle articles
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. — Deckiller20:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Generally speaking, only battles like Battle of Hoth of Battle of Geonosis really deserve their own article, since they are depicted in multiple sources (movies, books, games). Things that appear in, like, Battlefront II and a clone wars novel (or one of the two) violate number four of WP:FICT, which recommends keeping plot summary in the respective article, especially since most of the source articles are stubs anyway...— Deckiller20:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Lists up for AfD
We currently have several lists up for AfD. While I agree with most of them, I do disagree with two or three; ones that were designed to contain minor articles about their topics. I have been trying to show that one sentnece in the policy was created as a safeguard, and that the policy itself is not set in stone for the issues addressed. I'm not asking you guys to go vote en masse, but if you would like to contribute an intuitive and detailed arguement to either side, please feel free. AfD is not a war, and Wikipedia is not a contest, so if you are personally offended by the recent AfD pushes, don't get mad at Mike. He's just following his own interpretation of how Wikipedia should be run. I have mine, you have yours, and I think that this little incident can really spark us to continue our quest to turn star wars articles into encyclopedic entries. — Deckiller23:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
WOAH. Nice catch. Shows how much time I've been spending on RfA. In a sense, "RfA" COULD be stretched: Requests for Annihilation. Then again...RfA can get as nasty as AfD :) — Deckiller21:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
New ideas
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." — Deckiller21:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Merging Droids
Taipan198: Okay, I'm sorry. I'm a n00b (newb) at Wikipedia, and I really don't know where to post this. But I'd like to make a suggestion. On List of Star Wars starfighters I believe there's a mistake. You've placed Droid Star-Fighter and Vulture Droid as two separate droids. The Droid Star-Fighter and Vulture Droid are the same thing. The only difference between them is that they are produced by a different manufacurer and have a slight colour design change. They are still considered to be the same according to the Official Star Wars Database, [found here]. I believe that they should be merged together. Talk to me when someone replies. Sorry about mistaken instrusion again. Regards, Taipan198:
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. --Skope16:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid such an article would be deleted for being an "indiscriminate collection of knowledge", although if written well, it could work out. – Mipadi17:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
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 ^_^. — Deckiller17:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
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. – Mipadi17:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
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. --Skope20:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Encyclopedic push details (part one)
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).
(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 tennisman20:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Nice work. Ideally, I'd like to see sections on historical/fictional parallels, and perhaps development commentaries. — Deckiller20:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
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 tennisman01:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
massmerges
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. —Skope18:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
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. — Deckiller19:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
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). — Deckiller20:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
One of the HUGE problems with many of the articles that are being tagged for merge (and yes, I will eventually get around to all of them unless somebody else beats me to it) is that they appear to violate copyright laws. Skope, where exactly are you getting the text you call "Publishers description?" And please tell me that the "inside front cover" text isn't a direct copy of the inside front cover... CovenantD20:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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. CovenantD21:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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. CovenantD22:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
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. — Deckiller22:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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. — Deckiller01:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
New-ish article
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 tennisman01:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
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. — Deckiller01:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
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 tennisman01:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
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. — Deckiller01:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
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. — Deckiller01:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh it has an article? well then...you're the admin, should we/you merge them? as long as my text is kept, i don't really care either way. Teh tennisman01:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
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. — Deckiller01:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
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 tennisman20:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
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 tennisman21:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
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. — Deckiller04:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
AfD RuneScape
There is currently a proposal to delete all articles for RuneScape as they are based on fancraft and therefore inappropriate for Wikipedia. As this extensive project and its articles can also be considered as fancraft I have utilised for comparison only a selection of 4 categories and approxiamately 60 articles from your project to demostrate the scope of what is being proposed.
None of the articles from your project mentioned in this discussion are proposed for deletion, this notice is only to advise interested parties of these article that these pages have been referred to at AfD. Gnangarra
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. RobJ198103:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm getting on it. I've only gotten to KOTOR and Rebellion so far. My summer job finally kicked in, so that's slowed me down, and I've been away from internet connection for the past week or so. But just so you know... I haven't abandoned it. —Skope(talk)18:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind the help. I've got a lot on my plate right now, so I can't just sit here and wiki all day long. Monday, I will be able to though. But if anyone wanted to help, it's pretty straight-forward. Just look at the arc articles I've done so far and do the same bit. I've been just combining the synopses and dramatis personae from the individual pages into the arc. And with the DP, just combine them in alphabetical order and delete the repeated names. If you don't know how to (or just don't want to) mess with the covers, you can just leave it to me. And then redirect the individual issues to the Story Arc, then de-link the issues in the "Issues" list (both in the article and the series article). .... I know that all might sound complicated but it's not. —Skope(talk)16:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
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.--Cúchullaint/c20:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
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 :) — Deckiller20:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. Some of the articles are fairly long, though, like the Adi Gallia one, but something needs to be done.--Cúchullaint/c20:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
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. Dmoon104:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
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. 71.243.118.212:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
