So... it's not often that I have the "inside scoop" in Star Wars, so it's not often that I make edits here (the last time I did was to the Sarco Plank page adding information from the "Visual Dictionary"). However I was looking at the page on Carnivorous plants and I noticed what seemed to be two big omissions. There was the "Vixus" from the Carnage of Krell episodes from "The Clone Wars", and the Drengir from the current "High Republic" arc in books and graphic novels.
I decided to add text on both although I couldn't figure out how to get the referencing to work (a problem I also had with my "Sarco Plank" entries). However I carefully checked entries on the information I was entering that was already in the wiki to ensure it was consistent. I noticed that the "Carnage of Krell" page made reference to an unspecified "Carnivorous Plant" but found the reference to "Vixus" elsewhere where it is called a "creature" and compared to Sarlaccs and Rathtars. I actually think this is not only inconsistent but also an error because the visual dictionary calls the Sarlacc a "worm" (ie an animal) and not a plant but the "Carnivorous plant" page has a dedicated section on the Sarlacc giving what it calls a disputed biology.
Being a bit short of time and hoping to expand later I created a sort of "placeholder" text and tried to reconcile these contradictions by stating there was a controversy (that being said, I think the Umbaran species is clearly intended to be a plant.). The Drengir I would have thought were completely uncontroversial in this regard. I tried to include a quote from the Claudia Grey novel (which is where I first saw them as I have not yet read the graphic novels) but a google search didn't tell me who had spoken the quote in the novel and I couldn't figure out how to get the quote formatting correct, so again I added it as "placeholder" text.
I had hoped that somebody better versed in the editing tools would improve on my entry, instead of which user VergenceScatter simply deleted the as "unverified" text.
Put simply; although I have been a member here for several years, I have made very little alterations to the text here because I don't usually have useful information to add. I feel discouraged by what I see as an act of vandalism to my text and this makes me feel unwelcome and that there is no point in me making any contributions in future.
I wonder if that is really how the admins wish me to feel about these things?
Kind Regards Dave Dickinson (OptikaNET) —Unsigned comment by OptikaNET (talk • contribs)
- All information on Wookieepedia (ideally) needs to be attributed to a reliable source. This is important for any wiki. We document what reliable, published sources say. Original research such as introducing possible explanations for inconsistencies is not permitted. For example, in the edit in question, one of your sentences started with "There has been some speculation" — speculation by whom? Unless that speculation is in-universe, it is Original Research. Same with "but it is likely that the Vixus is another example of a carnivorous plant." It is not up to Wookieepedia to draw such conclusions. VergenceScatter was well within their rights to undo your edit and it was certainly not an act of vandalism.
This does not mean that you or your contributions are unwelcome on Wookieepedia. We welcome anyone who wishes to build the ultimate Star Wars encyclopedia. If you need help with sourcing your edits to reliable sources, you can check out our Wookieepedia:Sourcing or ask another editor for help. We are more than happy to help. 1358 (Talk) 17:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)- If you're struggling with reference and quoting formatting then I'd also recommend checking out our beginner and intermeditate editing tutorials which cover how to handle this kind of stuff. Ayrehead02 (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't originate the speculation on Wookiepedia - it was already here from other contributors. I didn't know how to resolve it, so I simply highlighted it. The "Carnage of Krell" nd the "Vixus" page contradict each other. One refers to a plant, the other refers to an animal. The page I was editing speculates over the category that "Sarlacc" belongs in, so I mirrored that approach. If my writing style is at odds with the house style then other users are welcome to adjust the text. Deleting it altogether is aggressive and unwarranted in my opinion.
Never mind. I simply won't bother contributing in future. Job done! —Unsigned comment by OptikaNET (talk • contribs)
- We'd like you to contribute to the site. I removed your edit because it was both formatted incorrectly and unverified and contained. I would be happy to assist you in re-adding the non-speculative correctly, if you provide the sources that you got that information from. VergenceScatter (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)