how they look, citation needed
The only source Prae'tus#Biology and appearance cites is starwars.com/databank/volo-bolus, which is only about one member of the species, and i don't think we should assume anything about Volo Bolus's body is necessarily true for the whole species or even the majority. In particular, claiming that they have a series of ten small orange spikes encircling their faces concerns me, when we know Zabraks have different numbers and arrangements of spikes on their heads, and some Twi'leks have more head-tails than others. Twi'leks, Mon Calamari, Rodians, and Humans also come to mind as examples of species with more skin/color variations than revealed in their first canonical appearance. The Databank doesn't even seem to show if Volo Bolus's lower limbs have hands, much less how many fingers (and we still can't be sure how many toes Yoda has). (The Prae'tus page also includes Volo-Bolus.jpg, which shows some fingers on the lower hands, but also attributes the pic to starwars.com/databank/volo-bolus, where i do not see that pic.) Do other sources show other Prae'tus who resemble Volo Bolus? That would at least suggest that the appearance is not a singular modification like Grievous having more arms than others of his species, not an amputation like Cliegg Lars losing part of a leg, and not a mutation like the three-eyed Human Trioculus, and not a case of artificial coloration like when Elassar Targon used a gilding set on his horns or when Queen Amidala wore facepaint. (See also: Earthling nail polish in various colors, Earthlings with facial piercings made of bone... Might a non-Human observer mistake such piercings for natural weapon-growths like tusks or antlers?)
Wishing everyone safe, happy, productive editing, and may the Force be with us. --96.244.228.208 12:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Hey! Great question, and as someone who's written quite a few of the site's species pages over the past year or so, they often just come down to observational information. We write them as we see them, and its more of a case of "we can't assume there's variation until we have confirmation," as opposed to the other way around. It's much more concise to not have to write in articles a way that accommodates every potentiality, which can grow really pedantic really quickly, though generally that's how it goes for much of the site from a visual perspective anyway. Like for a lot of one-off character pages we include their outfit as a part of their appearance/equipment section, even though we obviously know they've changed outfits throughout their life, just sort of an understood I suppose. As new information is revealed, we can update the page to include options/cover the variation of the species, but until then we only have Volo to work with. And if we're ever given reason to believe some of their features are cosmetic like you mentioned above, we can update or remove info accordingly, but again, for now we just kind of have to operate as literally as possible.
(Apparently there seems to have also been more information revealed in-game that seems to indicate the species is also a Nikto subspecies, so the page will need to be fixed more soon anyway.)As for the database citation, it seems the image was updated on the Star Wars website with the release of the game, though the one they had on there original did apparently show all four limbs! Just a case of referencing dynamic sources that can unfortunately be changed over time, but we could definitely switch that to citing the game instead now since the page was made way before launch. Hope this helps answer your questions! - MTrac1000 (talk) 12:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)