Forum:SH:URGENT: StarWars.com September 2011 Revamping

Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH:URGENT: StarWars.com September 2011 Revamping

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. Toprawa and Ralltiir 07:49, February 25, 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to let everyone know that as of a few hours ago, StarWars.com is no longer what it once was. It's still there, but a new Oasis-esque skin is now in use throughout the site. While it looks very cool (and Wookieepedia even receives recognition on every encyclopedia entry!), this presents a very big problem to all of our previous formatting for the site.

{{SW}}, {{DB}}, {{Hyperspace}}, and probably several more of our templates are now obsolete—none of the old links (save for starwars.com itself) work. Many, many, many articles across the site are going to require updating not just formatting-wise, but for the new "Encyclopedia" entries (the Databank's successor).

It would be great if some of the highly tech-savvy members of our community could come up with new ways to cite the new Encyclopedia and various online articles on SW.com, but we still need to preserve the old templates somehow. Archive.org will probably do it, but I'd like to see others' opinions about how in general to tackle this complete revamping of the official site. CC7567 (talk) 04:36, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

  • It's part of their overall plan to take us over. :( JangFett (Talk) 04:41, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
  • It'd be one thing if they offered us all jobs as official archivists (at the very least, official titles as official Lucasfilm staff), but I highly doubt it. This move makes me very wary. It may have been done so that they can use text from us without permission (as we'll be unofficially official), but knowing Lucasfilm... We're gonna all end up with stomach ulcers by the time TCW is over and done with. :| Trak Nar Ramble on 04:47, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
  • We should probably switch the templates over to archive.org, and add a new one for the Encyclopedia pages. And let me just say, I have a really bad feeling about the Wookieepedia links. Like the feeling a zebra has when a lion looks at him across the plain. Or the feeling the Polish had in 1938. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 04:50, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
    • How about we modify {{SW}} to only point to archive.org (like what happened with {{WizardsCite}}) and then move it to a new template page altogether, like {{SWArchive}} or something? (And correct everything to {{SWArchive}} using one of our bots?) That way, we can use SWArchive for (nonexistent) pre-2011 articles and {{SW}} beginning now for the site's new layout. CC7567 (talk) 05:05, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
      • That idea makes perfect sense. And I'm all for the bot. Though, how long could we keep using archive.org? Perhaps we should consider a more permanent off-site archive in the future. Trak Nar Ramble on 05:07, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
        • Modifications have been made to {{SW}}, {{DB}}, and {{Hyperspace}}, the only templates affected. (Strangely enough, the blogs weren't taken down, so {{SWBlogs}} can be left alone.) All that's left to do now would be:
          1. move {{SW}} to {{SWArchives}} and correct all the template usage via bots;
          2. create a new {{SW}} template for post-today usage after that; and
          3. create {{Encyclopedia}} or something for the new Encyclopedia. I need to get offline, but I encourage tech-savvy users to implement the above. CC7567 (talk) 06:31, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
  • It may also be time to revisit this in some form. jSarek 08:17, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
    • Hmm, I'm not sure that we need to go that far. I'm not even completely sure how that would help. From what I gathered, it sounds like that discussion was for placing whole sections of books on the Wook. I think that if some tech-savvys can take care of the templates, we'll be good to go. Cal JediInfinite Empire (Personal Comm Channel) 13:36, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
      • This is far worse than I feared. All the WTS entries have gone and those were often the only official source about these characters and other entries. Also, what will happen to The Clone Wars Episode Guides now? How will we be able to get new information from the new episodes when SW.com isn't keen at all to post any information about them? --Sompeetalay 15:17, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
        • I saved all of the databank as .mht files this April, which I can give people information from if they wish to work on the articles that correspond to these pages. Why did they have to do this revamp?--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 21:42, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
  • Update regarding the templates: {{SWE}} is up and running for the Encyclopedia, while we're waiting for {{SWArchive}} to be implemented site-wide before creating a new {{SW}} template. CC7567 (talk) 17:48, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
    • It would be really good for a bot such as KillerRoboLeia3000 to update all the links to the old Databank. Good to know things will be taken care of in due time. Hanzo Hasashi 18:21, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
      • As mentioned above, I believe that we were simply going to keep the original Databank entries as they are now (since they're still valid resources, even if they're currently inaccessible) and simply add the Encyclopedia entries as new sources to articles. I'm hammering out a CT proposal right now for all of this. CC7567 (talk) 18:28, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
        • Will all of them eventually get updated archived links? Hanzo Hasashi 18:33, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
          • The Databank entries, or the Encyclopedia entries? If you're referring to the Databank, links to archive.org's records of each page have been listed as part of the change to {{DB}}. Not all of the DB entries were archived, however, so some may still be lost. If you're looking for archive links beyond archive.org, I'm not sure if there are any good ones that we can implement site-wide. CC7567 (talk) 18:38, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

Please see Forum:CT:Citing the new Star Wars site for a CT dealing with the implementation of the Encyclopedia and the new citation templates. CC7567 (talk) 22:56, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

  • As a general note to all, {{SW}} is now ready for use. CC7567 (talk) 04:35, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, the Atlas is still around. You may already have known that, but I'm informing you anyway. I dunno if the revamp screwed up our original links to it (haven't checked, yet), but at least it still lives. Trak Nar Ramble on 03:44, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

  • Intriguingly, the Xim article is still up, and no longer behind the Hyperspace paywall. DD97Which bear is best? 13:57, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
    • On that note, we probably need the bots to go back through and re-template references to the Atlas online companion and the Xim article to the non-archive template. jSarek 00:22, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure

Since it's now apparent that Lucasfilm is going to overhaul the official site every few years, breaking huge amounts of links along with it, we may want to seriously consider preemptive archiving with WebCite. This Wikipedia page explains how to use it. Master Jonathan — Jedi Council Chambers Wednesday, September 14, 2011, 19:44 UTC

Videos from the old site

Just a heads up that videos no longer work since the revamp, at least if the Drunk Driving PSA is any indication. Should we change links to YouTube and other video sites where available? ~SavageBOB sig 03:33, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

  • I personally would feel rather hesitant officially using third-party video sharing sites like that. I know we already use the third-party archive.org, but we would actually need to find proper uploads of the inaccessible videos first, and then there would probably be copyright issues. Perhaps it's best to let readers search for third-party sites themselves without us telling them to or making it easier for them. CC7567 (talk) 04:33, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
    • Well put CC. I strongly disagree with using Youtube or any other "third party" as a source. Cal JediInfinite Empire (Personal Comm Channel) 12:44, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
      • Not as a source, as a link to the videos that were taken down. I'm not lawyer, so if there's some inherent liability issue with us pointing folks to YouTube or whatever, so be it, but pointing them to a blank archive page is, at best, pointless. ~SavageBOB sig 13:25, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
        • True, but I don't think it would be too wise anyway. It would be rather difficult and not very productive to set up whole new rules for youtube videos. We've made it this far without youtube when other Wikis have taken youtube on. And we would have to verify that it is truly the real video. For example, I looked up a trailer for the new "The Hobbits" LOTR movie on YouTube. I found one that said Official trailer. So I clicked on it to watch it. It opened up with showing some scenes of Frodo, and then all of a sudden, it switched to something else entirely that had absolutely nothing to do with LOTR or media at all! So, someone could say that it is the official video from starwars.com, but they might have changed it themselves and done such a good job at it, nobody would notice the changes. Cal JediInfinite Empire (Personal Comm Channel) 13:35, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
          • A couple months ago some friends and I were looking up the trailer for Sherlock Holmes 2, and we found an "Official trailer" on YouTube. When we watched it, it took us several minutes to realize all it was a fan video of different scenes from other movies put together in a very clever and misleading way. So, yeah, there are people on YouTube who know how to make pretty misleading "Official videos." MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 15:39, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
            • Point taken. The difference here is that we have already seen (and linked to) the "official" versions from the SW site before they were taken down. It should be possible to identify whether a YouTube version is indeed legit or has been hacked up, right? ~SavageBOB sig 17:29, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
              • Somewhat. But, since movie making happens to be a hobby with me, I happen to know some of what people can do with movies. Like Fred said, you could be watching it for several minutes without realizing anything is different. If someone has the proper technology, and I know this somewhat from experience, they can change a video just enough so you can't tell the difference. In other words, if in the canon video someone says for example, "Anakin is the Chosen One!" But the video keeps right on going, you might not notice that in a fan video changed it ever so slightly to say that "Anakin is not the Chosen One!" It seems rather ridiculous, but you'd be surprised at how many people would not catch something that major just because it's just one word! And then if we didn't catch that little mistake, and we link to it, then people are going to get confused about whether Anakin is the Chosen One according to canon sources. So after that long speel, :P I'd say still no, since people can a video look very convincing. If we were to link to it, someone would have to go through each video with a toothpick and make sure it matches the original. Cal JediInfinite Empire (Personal Comm Channel) 18:51, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

It took some time for me to create it, but finally I published a list with all the titles and descriptions of the old StarWars.com video section on my user subpage. I hope that this list will help Wookieepedians with better sourcing articles and finding copies of the videos. Have a nice weekend, C-3P0 19:25, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

Updating "Sources" sections

As it will necessarily be a group effort to update the myriad "Sources" sections that will require updates based on the new Encyclopedia, and all signs point to this passing, let's keep track of what we've done here. If you read through an Encyclopedia entry and update the "Sources" sections of everything that the text mentions, make a note of it here so that we can coordinate our efforts. Per the discussion below, peruse text and images from the "Relationships" section. Use {{SWE}}. eg, *{{SWE|groups|rebelalliance|Rebel Alliance|archivedate=20140105140007}}

Be sure to include things mentioned in the stats, listed under "Species," "Affiliation," "Weapon," etc. Be careful not to include Clone Wars if "The Clone Wars" is listed under "Appearances." That's talking about the out-of-universe TV show.

Be thorough. Don't forget to look at the encyclopedia entry's pictures for appropriate (Picture only) updates. Some of the articles scroll through three main pictures --- look through all three of them. Include species for (Picture only). eg, if there's a picture of Kit Fisto, add the entry to the "Sources" section of both Kit Fisto and Nautolan with a (Picture only). If there's a picture of Mace Windu, add it to the "Sources" section of both Mace Windu and Korun with a (Picture only). Etc.

Don't forget things like weapons, such as personal lightsabers --- if there's a picture of Yoda holding his lightsaber, add a (Picture only) to the "Sources" section of both Yoda's lightsaber and lightsaber. If there's a picture of Han holding a DL-44 heavy blaster pistol... well, you get the idea.

Don't forget locations --- if there's a picture of people on Coruscant, add a (Picture only) to the "Sources" section of Coruscant. The (Picture only)s might be a little tedious, but please be thorough. In short, study pictures closely.

Happy hunting. Menkooroo 06:49, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

Characters

Locations

Technology

Groups

"Relationships" sections?

The "Relationships" section in each Encyclopedia article seems to contain unique text. Eg, the article on Rebel Alliance has Leia under the "Relationships" section and talks about her specifically in regards to the Rebel Alliance. This info isn't repeated in Leia's actual encyclopedia entry. The article on Leia lists Luke under "Relationships" and talks about him specifically in regards to Leia. This info isn't repeated in Luke's encyclopedia entry. So, for example, Imperial Senate is mentioned in the "Relationships" section of Rebel Alliance. Should *{{SWE|groups|rebelalliance|Rebel Alliance|archivedate=20140105140007}} be added to Imperial Senate's "Sources" section? I say yes, as this info isn't repeated in Leia's article. If everyone agrees, then be sure to include the "Relationships" section in your hunting. Menkooroo 14:00, September 18, 2011 (UTC)

  • Hmmm... but what about the pictures? Should the picture that appears in the relationships section be included, too? eg, Nien Nunb lists "Rebel Alliance" under the "Relationships" section and includes a picture of the Home One Briefing. Should all the characters in that picture get *{{SWE|characters|niennunb|Nien Nunb|archivedate=20140112093750}} {{Po}} added to their "Sources" section? The picture does reappear in the "Rebel Alliance" encyclopedia entry, for what it's worth. Menkooroo 14:08, September 18, 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't see why not. If a subject is mentioned or pictured in a certain entry, then that entry should get listed in the subject's article. CC7567 (talk) 19:29, September 18, 2011 (UTC)
      • Sounds good. Everybody be sure to keep this in mind when updating articles. Menkooroo 06:03, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
        • For Rugosa above, I added it as a source for all the items in the Relationships boxes. --Eyrezer 09:28, September 19, 2011 (UTC)

Lazy Linking

So I've come to recently notice that the new Databank-replacing Encyclopedia on StarWars.com, though gracious enough to now link to us for more information, has made at least a few errors in the articles their entries currently link to. Just for example, their entry on the planet Mandalore is linking to our article on Mandalore, the leadership title, instead of "Mandalore". I was wondering if anyone else has noted any further errors with StarWars.com's linking, since that seems like something that may be worth a mention in the Behind the scenes sections of the articles concerned, and if there was anything we could do to better prevent potential confusion. Obviously the {{Youmay}} template is going to come in handy, but do we have anyway to...I don't know, intercept?...people who click on the StarWars.com links when they get here, and let them know that the actual article they're looking for is [[Blank]]? Bella'Mia 08:54, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

  • I've not had much success using the "contact us" link on the SW.com site, but it might be worth a note from an admin if anyone finds an erroneous link. I mean, we should at least make sure they know about any such errors, I think. ~SavageBOB sig 13:27, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
    • On the other hand, in this specific case, I'm not so sure TOS has the wrong idea. Since TCW included Mandalore, the planet is now by far the more notable of the two uses of the word. jSarek 22:27, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
      • A note regarding the background of this Encyclopedia linking to us. I talked with Dan Wallace directly about our recent transformations and to his recollection, it was a company outside of LFL that had performed the new design. However, it is unclear how much LFL has control of their own website or how much leeway George might have had towards this. I cannot recall the name of the company at this moment, but perhaps requests should be relayed through them? Two cents. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:17, October 31, 2011 (UTC)