Discussion on moving articles
Alright, now I know that those articles being VfD'd and really minor articles need to be moved over here, but what about larger more well known articles? I know they should remain on Wikipedia, but should they also have a copy over here? Shadowtrooper 02:33, 14 Mar 2005 (GMT)
- That's something we (the SWW community) need to decide. I'm not really sure what I think at this point. One pro of having our own copy is we could have a more detailed article than what may be appropriate at Wikipedia. But a con is I also don't like the idea of having duplicate info. Right now, I'm leaning toward making a copy of the Wikipedia article and from then on it's our own article. Thoughts? Cbarbry 03:54, 14 Mar 2005 (GMT)
- That sounds like a good plan to me. People might eventually question the value of having the articles on Wikipedia if they're here too, but I think it's still worth it, if it makes this site more complete (or less glaringly incomplete). When this site starts surpassing Wikipedia in some categories, we can make external links. Right now, it looks funny. We've got all these minor facets of Star Wars but we're missing a ton of huge stuff. Ideally, this should be a repository for any Star Wars Wikipedia content, and any other valid Star Wars content. Unless there are any hardware limitations or anything? (This was me, March 14)-LtNOWIS 20:15, 16 Mar 2005 (EST)
- No limitations that I've been made aware of. Cbarbry 06:35, 16 Mar 2005 (GMT)
- That sounds like a good plan to me. People might eventually question the value of having the articles on Wikipedia if they're here too, but I think it's still worth it, if it makes this site more complete (or less glaringly incomplete). When this site starts surpassing Wikipedia in some categories, we can make external links. Right now, it looks funny. We've got all these minor facets of Star Wars but we're missing a ton of huge stuff. Ideally, this should be a repository for any Star Wars Wikipedia content, and any other valid Star Wars content. Unless there are any hardware limitations or anything? (This was me, March 14)-LtNOWIS 20:15, 16 Mar 2005 (EST)
- Alternatively, we could have this be specifically for Star Wars content forced out of Wikipedia. I don't think that would work as well, too many links would go to Wikipedia. -- Riffsyphon1024 13:27, 31 Mar 2005 (EST)
- -LtNOWIS 16:35, 14 Mar 2005 (GMT)
- For the links back to Wikipedia, especially ones used frequently in articles and around the site, a simple redirect can be created. I have already done it for various actors like Ian McDiarmid because his name shows up in various articles on the movies and of his character Palpatine. It made more sense to create an article with his actor name and then redirect back to an article that will always be monitored and updated as his career expands. The same concept was applyed to the link for 2005 in the Current Events, as that article is constantly being updated. Now as for the other minor links, extras should be deleted and ones important to defining a term, but only found in that article, should be manually redirected (i.e. Wikipedia:whateverweregoingbackto). On another note, we will get the large articles moved over, plus create brand new articles for every nook and cranny of the Star Wars galaxy. -- Riffsyphon1024 17:31, 14 Mar 2005 (GMT)
- I was kinda thinking something along those lines. If this is the Star Wars Wiki, it should probably be a one-stop-shop for Star Wars info--everything you need to know and then some. Major articles (especially the main Star Wars article due to its cultural significance) should remain at Wikipedia but have a copy (maybe with more info) here. Shadowtrooper 02:14, 15 Mar 2005 (GMT)
- For the links back to Wikipedia, especially ones used frequently in articles and around the site, a simple redirect can be created. I have already done it for various actors like Ian McDiarmid because his name shows up in various articles on the movies and of his character Palpatine. It made more sense to create an article with his actor name and then redirect back to an article that will always be monitored and updated as his career expands. The same concept was applyed to the link for 2005 in the Current Events, as that article is constantly being updated. Now as for the other minor links, extras should be deleted and ones important to defining a term, but only found in that article, should be manually redirected (i.e. Wikipedia:whateverweregoingbackto). On another note, we will get the large articles moved over, plus create brand new articles for every nook and cranny of the Star Wars galaxy. -- Riffsyphon1024 17:31, 14 Mar 2005 (GMT)
- OK, sounds like we're all pretty much in agreement then. After thinking about it several days, plus with the discussion at Wikipedia, I really think this is what we need to do - we need to have everything - and the easiest way to get started is copying the articles that are already in Wikipedia. Cbarbry 06:35, 16 Mar 2005 (GMT)
Which Planets?
Do we leave those featured in the movies and transwiki the rest? -- Riffsyphon1024 10:03, 12 Mar 2005 (GMT)
- That's what I think. If we didn't see it in a movie, I figure it's minor. I think we should still have it listed here, just (at the least) redirect to the Wikipedia article. Or we could trim down the Wikipedia article to just an "executive summary," and then give more detail here. Thoughts? Cbarbry 10:37, 12 Mar 2005 (GMT)
- Tis a tough one. I have already copied both Naboo and Tatooine over. However that means reloading the images for them. Dern, I can't decide. -- Riffsyphon1024 11:58, 12 Mar 2005 (GMT)
- See above. Let's copy them all. Cbarbry 06:35, 16 Mar 2005 (GMT)
- Tis a tough one. I have already copied both Naboo and Tatooine over. However that means reloading the images for them. Dern, I can't decide. -- Riffsyphon1024 11:58, 12 Mar 2005 (GMT)
Star Wars on Wikiquote
I remember there is an article about quotes from Star Wars movies on Wikiquote. Should it be moved? --LouCypher ☎ 22:52, 12 Mar 2005 (GMT)
- Copied, yes. Good idea. Cbarbry 06:35, 16 Mar 2005 (GMT)
- Copy it to Wookieequote. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:30, 20 Mar 2005 (EST)
- The term "Wookieequote" brings to mind pages full of nothing but "raarrrhhnnnrrrr". hehe. So where is this Wookieequote, anyway? Aidje 14:56, 31 Mar 2005 (EST)
- Copy it to Wookieequote. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:30, 20 Mar 2005 (EST)
Redirects
When something redirects back to Wikipedia, how does one look at the actual redirect article? For internal redirects, I just type it in, and when the article appears, click on the "redirected from so-and-so article" link. But for Wikipedia redirects, I can't do that. I guess someone should cover this in detail on the help page, but I don't feel qualified to do that.-LtNOWIS 20:15, 16 Mar 2005 (EST)
- Hmm. The difficult way is to put
http://starwars.wikicities.com/index.php?title=Article_name_here&action=edit
- into your browser's address bar. Other than that, I don't know. But this brings up a question. Maybe we should not do any direct #REDIRECT's back to Wikipedia. Maybe we should have a "See also" section with the link back to Wikipedia. This would encourage SWW to have its own articles on things. Thoughts? WhiteBoy 03:07, 20 Mar 2005 (EST)
- Though I haven't done this from the beginning, here is what I have recently been using as my guideline:
- If it is an article that I think will be referred to alot in SWW but doesn't really relate to Star Wars, I create a #REDIRECT to the Wikipedia article. Example: Official language, which is used by one of the government templates, I believe.
- If it does relate to the Star Wars universe, I #REDIRECT to the appropriate SWW article. Example: Empire in the original Wikipedia article took you to an article about government. I redirected it here to go to Galactic Empire, which I thought was more likely what people would think here.
- If the article could/should potentially hold its own here, then I have been saying "Article pending" with a manual link (versus an automatic #REDIRECT, which is more difficult to edit) to the Wikipedia article. Example: R.A. Salvatore or any author, actor, etc. It may be best to link to the Wikipedia article which would stay current with that person's work and we would not have to duplicate that effort.
- What do y'all think? WhiteBoy 23:05, 26 Mar 2005 (EST)
- Though I haven't done this from the beginning, here is what I have recently been using as my guideline:
- I suggest using Soft redirects instead since interwiki redirects can be very confusing for people who don't realise they're suddenly on a different wiki. (Wikipedia has just disabled these type of redirects completely, and it's possible Wikicities might have to in future). Angela 13:35, 3 Apr 2005 (EDT)
Awards?
Can we make a section for awards like barnstars for those who demonstrate excellence in Wookieepedia? -- Riffsyphon1024 22:48, 20 Mar 2005 (EST)
- I'm sure we can. What do you have in mind? What do we use for medals? What categories? WhiteBoy 23:30, 22 Mar 2005 (EST)
- They would obviously have to fit the theme of Star Wars. We could impliment various things like lightsabers for an exceptional skill award, or characters like Chewbacca for a Wookieepedia all-around award. Just floating these ideas around. I also have a paper breathing down my neck (due tomorrow). -- Riffsyphon1024 11:27, 23 Mar 2005 (EST)
- I've got the game X-wing Alliance, they have a bunch of awards. I could probably rip a couple give 'em a cool sounding name and presto, a new award. Shadowtrooper 17:47, 25 Mar 2005 (EST)
- I would like ours to be original. I could whip up something nice using my photo editor, much like I have for Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:46, 26 Mar 2005 (EST)
- I've got the game X-wing Alliance, they have a bunch of awards. I could probably rip a couple give 'em a cool sounding name and presto, a new award. Shadowtrooper 17:47, 25 Mar 2005 (EST)
- They would obviously have to fit the theme of Star Wars. We could impliment various things like lightsabers for an exceptional skill award, or characters like Chewbacca for a Wookieepedia all-around award. Just floating these ideas around. I also have a paper breathing down my neck (due tomorrow). -- Riffsyphon1024 11:27, 23 Mar 2005 (EST)
Here is my first attempt at a Wookieepedia award of diligence, or something to that matter.
New Wookieepedia award. Oooh aaah.
- Now I don't mean to be rude, but I'm not sure I like it, maybe just something simple. Like the SWW logo (not on anyone), could make one award. Shadowtrooper 16:50, 2 Apr 2005 (EST)
- Yea, I thought someone or something wearing it would throw it off, but as this is informally Wookieepedia, a Wookiee must be incorporated somehow. -- Riffsyphon1024 18:00, 2 Apr 2005 (EST)
- Seems like something a bit smaller would be ideal. Perhaps various stylized Wookiees would work—if we have anyone capable of doing the art. Aidje 21:42, 2 Apr 2005 (EST)
- Stylized how? I'll see if I can make anything useful. Shadowtrooper 22:41, 2 Apr 2005 (EST)
- How? uh... I guess that's where the capable people come in :-) I'm no graphic artist; I doubt anything I made would be very useful. Aidje 17:05, 3 Apr 2005 (EDT)
- Stylized how? I'll see if I can make anything useful. Shadowtrooper 22:41, 2 Apr 2005 (EST)
- Seems like something a bit smaller would be ideal. Perhaps various stylized Wookiees would work—if we have anyone capable of doing the art. Aidje 21:42, 2 Apr 2005 (EST)
- Yea, I thought someone or something wearing it would throw it off, but as this is informally Wookieepedia, a Wookiee must be incorporated somehow. -- Riffsyphon1024 18:00, 2 Apr 2005 (EST)
- I have created an award page, based off of Wikipedia's Barnstar Award page, but no barnstars here. See Star Wars:Award Proposals. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:19, 6 Apr 2005 (EDT)
Lists
Should these lists of characters and places be deconstructed now that we have all the freedom to give each thing its own article? -- Riffsyphon1024 17:12, 25 Mar 2005 (EST)
- Hmm, I've been wondering about that, too. My initial thought is yes, but we have bigger things to do right now trying to get everything going: getting the articles copied over, help pages made, etc. - infrastructure kinds of stuff. What do you think? See discussion below, too. WhiteBoy 23:08, 26 Mar 2005 (EST)
- I've done some of the list fragmenting, and will continue to do so. Fragmenting the lists will help with knowing what articles need to be CFW'd and, in some cases, written. -- Aidje 23:55, 5 Apr 2005 (EDT)
- I've finished fragmenting all the lists at Minor characters in Star Wars. I've also fixed all of the links that pointed to them, although more may come from CFW'd articles. I don't know if they're going to be deleted or what, but whatever's going to happen to them can happen now. -- Aidje 17:53, 9 Apr 2005 (EDT)
- I've done some of the list fragmenting, and will continue to do so. Fragmenting the lists will help with knowing what articles need to be CFW'd and, in some cases, written. -- Aidje 23:55, 5 Apr 2005 (EDT)
Layperson's Guide or Glossary
For a little while now, I've been thinking about something like this here on SWW. The beginings of some of my essential guides have Layperson's Guides to Technology that provides a short, to-the-point description of things that the average SW fan may know little about. Is there enough interest here to start a glossary of select common terms (like repulsorlift and hyperlane)? If so, I'll get on it once I get a little more done in the Catalogue. Shadowtrooper 21:58, 26 Mar 2005 (EST)
- Nice work on the catalogue! What do you think about this...combine all the planets, moons, sectors, etc. into something like this catalogue for the "list" or "quick view" and then give each celestial body its own page like we were talking about above. Thoughts? WhiteBoy 23:24, 26 Mar 2005 (EST)
- I already have the Repulsorlift article up (I authored it at Wikipedia before all this). Also I have already made major changes to the Moons of Star Wars and the new Stars of Star Wars articles, that simply list everything and gives each an article link. Start filling the redlinks before they drive us all mad! I am considering doing the same tonight with the overfilled Planets of Star Wars. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:44, 26 Mar 2005 (EST)
- "Quick view"? Man am I lost (I'm kinda slow today, can you elaborate please?) Shadowtrooper 15:08, 27 Mar 2005 (EST)
- I already have the Repulsorlift article up (I authored it at Wikipedia before all this). Also I have already made major changes to the Moons of Star Wars and the new Stars of Star Wars articles, that simply list everything and gives each an article link. Start filling the redlinks before they drive us all mad! I am considering doing the same tonight with the overfilled Planets of Star Wars. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:44, 26 Mar 2005 (EST)
Help
I've noticed that the help page is completely blank! What, if anything, are we planning to put in there? How to create/edit articles and that sort of thing? Shadowtrooper 15:43, 30 Mar 2005 (EST)
- We need to develop our own help page. For now, I've added a link to the Wikipedia:Help:Contents page. I suggest we use this page and/or the MemoryAlpha:Help:Contents page as a place to start for our own. WhiteBoy 18:33, 5 Apr 2005 (EDT)
- I'm assuming that you and Riffsyphon will be doing most of it (since you are the admins), but if I can help, please let me know. There may be people here who aren't already familiar with wikipedia, and they're gonna need some help if they want to contribute. And on a side note, can we make articles in other languages? I noticed the Star Trek one can.Shadowtrooper 10:06, 6 Apr 2005 (EDT)
Format for systems versus Sectors
When we name systems, the word "system" should remain in lower case, while the word "Sector" when coupled with the name of a sector, should be capitalized. -- Riffsyphon1024 13:27, 31 Mar 2005 (EST)
- OK. Seems to me that good info like that should be in a Manual of Style-type page, which should be linked to on Help:Contents. WhiteBoy 18:38, 5 Apr 2005 (EDT)
- I have created the Manual of Style page. Feel free to add to it. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Linking to Databank on official site
It seems to me that perhaps we should have a standard format for doing this. I've been using, for example "Star Wars Databank: Yoda". Perhaps we could use that, or "Official Databank Entry for Yoda" or simply "Official Databank entry". There are many possibilities, but it seems to me that it would be beneficial to have a guideline for this. Aidje 20:33, 31 Mar 2005 (EST)
Clarification: I'm talking about a standard format for linking, in the "External links" section of any given article, to the Official Star Wars website's Databank. Aidje 20:35, 31 Mar 2005 (EST)
- Well, simply "Databank entry" works. It gets to the point once someone knows what the Databank is. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:13, 1 Apr 2005 (EST)
- I'd support "SW Databank entry" or just "Databank entry". I think, though, that this just needs to be handed down from the top; it's an arbitrary standard. --GenkiNeko 05:31, 2 Apr 2005 (EST)
Getting rid of Wikipedia text
Alot of articles copied here might describe something to be of or in the Star Wars universe or saga. It would be helpful if someone could remove this little quips in articles. I commend Aidje for his/her work on this already. -- Riffsyphon1024 16:12, 5 Apr 2005 (EDT)
- Thanks. By the way, I've been using the term wookieefy to describe the actions of which you speak, as opposed to wikify, which refers to adding wiki markup and such. Do you think this is confusing, or is it ok? I find it useful to have such a term, but am aware that it could be slightly confusing. -- Aidje 16:37, 5 Apr 2005 (EDT)
- LOL...I like the term! And, yes, specifying that it is a fictional character (planet, whatever) is the standard format at Wikipedia. One can make an assumption that the visitor of this site knows that the articles are about the fictional Star Wars universe. With that said, I agree that we should take out this redundant info as well as non-Star Wars links (like "wheel"). WhiteBoy 18:48, 5 Apr 2005 (EDT)
- I'll add that last suggestion to Star Wars:Wookify. -- Aidje 19:01, 5 Apr 2005 (EDT)
- LOL...I like the term! And, yes, specifying that it is a fictional character (planet, whatever) is the standard format at Wikipedia. One can make an assumption that the visitor of this site knows that the articles are about the fictional Star Wars universe. With that said, I agree that we should take out this redundant info as well as non-Star Wars links (like "wheel"). WhiteBoy 18:48, 5 Apr 2005 (EDT)
Pictures
- We really need the Star Wars pictures from Wikipedia. Can we just copy/steal images over from there, or is there a more intricate way of doing it? Certainly images that don't violate copyright laws on Wikipedia wouldn't violate them here.-LtNOWIS 00:14, 6 Apr 2005 (EDT)
- If Wikipedia says that they are okay, then same applies here. -- Riffsyphon1024 01:19, 6 Apr 2005 (EDT)
GFDL
Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Copyrights#Users' rights and obligations. You must adhere to the GFDL for articles moved from Wikipedia. I don't think mentioning it in the page history is enough and would suggest you use a template like Template:Wikipedia on any articles using Wikipedia content. Angela 06:10, 6 Apr 2005 (EDT)
- The link you proved stated three requirements:
- your materials in turn have to be licensed under GFDL,
- We're fine on this one.
- you must acknowledge the authorship of the article (section 4B), and
- We're fine so long as we post the history, that tells the authorship.
- you must provide access to the "transparent copy" of the material (section 4J). (The "transparent copy" of a Wikipedia article is its wiki text.)
- Anyone can view the wiki text by hitting the edit button.
- What are we missing? -- Aidje 14:40, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT)
Links to Wikipedia/ Hard redirects
I've noticed that people have been using direct links to Wikipedia in the form "[[Wikipedia:Bottle|bottle]]" (just an example), as well as by making a hard redirect from a Wookieepedia page. I think that this is very confusing, either way. I've changed some of the hard redirects into soft redirects (such as Mark Hamill, and I've also just plain removed some of the "[[Wikipedia:Bottle|bottle]]" links. I thought that we had decided not to use such links since they could be so confusing, but I recently noticed that people are still putting them in articles. I think it would be a good idea to always make it clear if a link will go to an external site, even if the site is Wikipedia—or especially if the site is Wikipedia, since it looks very much the same as this site. I've stopped removing the "[[Wikipedia:Bottle|bottle]]" links until a consensus is reached on what we should do with this. -- Aidje 13:10, 9 Apr 2005 (EDT)
- Right. For simple things that aren't really Star Wars related such as "bottle," I would just remove the link. I think we decided that we want to take out most all the #REDIRECT pages that go to Wikipedia. The exception I would say on this would be stuff that is commonly used such as the Publisher link in the video game template. This is common enough that I wouldn't want to have to redo all the links. Yet someone may want to find out the difference between the publisher and the developer. That's why I have left the link in the game articles I have moved. Make sense? WhiteBoy 21:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- It does make sense, but I still think that it makes even more sense to have a mini-article here on SWW and a link to the Wikipedia article in the "See also" section. A good example is LucasArts: a short blurb explaining what it is, then a "See also" section linking to the Wikipedia article, as well as an "External links" section for quicker access to other sites without having to go through Wikipedia. This also provides the opportunity for categorization (as with actors) and additional "See also"s. For "Video game publisher", this could be benefited by the creation of a "Video game publishers" category. The SWW article entitled "Video game publisher" could be in that category with "*" as the sort name. A hard redirect can't be in a category. In short, I think that it would be beneficial to have mini-articles on SWW for what would otherwise be redirects; the benefits: 1) no confusing interwiki redirects 2) we have our own short blurb, so we don't have to rely on Wikipedia 3) we get our own quick list of relevant "External links" and "See also"s. -- Aidje 21:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
New Article
I don't know where this goes but someone should just move this to Sate Pestage SGCommand
- If you find something on Wikipedia that doesn't exist on SWW yet, simply copy it and Wookify it accordingly. -- Riffsyphon1024 17:16, 12 Apr 2005 (EDT)
- ...and I've given some direction in how to do that here - Star Wars:Community Portal. WhiteBoy 21:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Terminology
Perhaps we could start trying to lay down correct terminology for certain entries in the Wikipedia. I've noticed several entry titles not only have spelling mistakes, but certain vehicles, vessels and technologies are referred to by different or even fan-made names. As an example, the droid gunship seen in Battlefront was apparently named a 'Mechanized Assault Flyer' by a review website, but, thanks to its inclusion in Revenge of the Sith, is now known as a Heavy Missile Platform droid gunship. Trivial to some, perhaps, but if we could list items we are unsure about, or spotlight those we believe have the wrong titles, we could try and organize current and future entries a little more. - Kwenn 21:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I've added Template:Cleanup-verify. We can flag questionable articles with this template. Will this take care of what you're looking for? WhiteBoy 22:07, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Another similar issue, though not dealing with technology, is characters known by multiple titles. For example, Admiral Piett: he remains "Captain Piett" for much of the article—both titles are correct, but not all of the time. On the other hand, his real name, Firmus Piett, is always correct. I think that officers and such should, if possible, have their articles placed on their real name, even if they are typically referred to by a title. Unfortunately, regular users can't move this article to Firmus Piett since it has a history. -- Aidje 16:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I've noticed some "provisional" class names used as article titles for obscure ships or ship variants. Examples are the Allegiance-class Star Destroyer and Dominator-class Star Destroyer. I don't agree with this, since it can cause confusion among readers. Fortunately, the authors of these articles have stated that these class names are not official. However, in the case of the Allegiance-class, that statement was buried in the middle of the article. I can definately see how someone could miss that, so I edited the article so that it was clear from the first sentence that Allegiance-class is not official. Even then, I don't think that's enough. Someone looking over the list of spaceships might see Dominator-class and Allegiance-class, and assume that those names are for real. I suggest referring to these obscure ship classes ONLY by the name of their representative, NOT [name]-class. For example, say Dominator, not Dominator-class. Article titles should be changed to follow this convention. That way, articles about the Dominator or Allegiance would be no more incorrect than articles such as the one titled Chimaera JimRaynor55 09:18, 28 Apr 2005 (EST)
- Another similar issue, though not dealing with technology, is characters known by multiple titles. For example, Admiral Piett: he remains "Captain Piett" for much of the article—both titles are correct, but not all of the time. On the other hand, his real name, Firmus Piett, is always correct. I think that officers and such should, if possible, have their articles placed on their real name, even if they are typically referred to by a title. Unfortunately, regular users can't move this article to Firmus Piett since it has a history. -- Aidje 16:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Putting Pictures on Wookieepedia
How do I put pictures on Wookieepedia? Can I paste? I'm confused. 67.172.18.154
- If I'm not mistaken, you need to become a member first. It's free, and you don't need to give out much if any personal information. Then you can click a link on the left navigation bar that says "Upload file". You can upload pics and audio clips with that feature. Shadowtrooper 02:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Spoiler Warnings
Is there any need to add spoiler warnings to anything other than unreleased material? Surely we've all seen Episodes I and II; we don't need spoiler tags for this info. Same goes with the other movies and released EU material. Message boards such as TF.N's Jedi Council have a no-spoilers policy that prohibits spoilers relating to newly-released material for two weeks after the publication date. After those two weeks, users are able to discuss the material freely. RotS info should still be tagged, and new EU such as Dark Nest or Legacy, but older stuff surely need not? - Kwenn
- Everything that reveals a plot must have a spoiler warning. Someone may not have seen A New Hope yet. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Patrolled articles
What the heck does "[Mark this article as patrolled]" do? Shadowtrooper 02:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I have yet to figure that out myself. It serves no purpose if you can watch an article, and then I can do things like protect it. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
copyright violation
I'm not sure where the proper place to report this is, so I'm putting it here.
A quick Google search showed that most of the articles by Kosure seem to be taken from this site: http://mobz.org/starwars/ - Vermilion 06:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) Thats true they have, as they were all written by me. --Kosure 21:51, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Darth Mantus
Mantus insists on posting SuperShadow material on the Wookieepedia. As you may or may not know, SuperShadow has been around for years, posting fake reports and false information on his site. He claims to be in close contact with George Lucas, and his fake info is apparently Lucas's true vision. Trust me, it's not. Articles like Darth Rage and Darth Voltres, and any referances to 'Dantius' Palpatine need to be removed.
- Looking at his talk page, it looks like this has been resolved. -- Aidje 17:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Planets and systems
Question: Is there any point to creating articles on systems where only one planet has ever been detailed? I'd suggest that in some cases, "Xxxxx system" should just redirect to an article on the planet "Xxxxx". Silly Dan 21:34, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- In those cases, if the planet is the sole planet in the system, then it is okay to write about the system in the planet's article. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)