Talk: Ubese/Legends

Back to page
Wiki-shrinkable

This is the talk page for the article "Ubese/Legends."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for discussing the topic in question. For general questions about the article's topic, please visit Wookieepedia Discussions. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.

Picture

The picture shows a brown skinned man yet the description box says they have skin various shades of gray. Is this guy the one exception? Shouldn't a more typical Ubese be used for a picture? --Jaguartalon 20:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that's just a dark skinned human wearing sack clothing that looks like some Ubese outfits.Aryeonos 02:52, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

Droid Factories?

Can anyone confirm (sources?) that there were in fact droid factories on Ubertica? The lastest update of this page is the first mention I've heard that Ubertica joined the Separatists.

Near-human?

Are these guys near-human? Our articles on the Uba system's planets say they are, but my sources only call them "humanoids." Is this from the WOTC RPG? — Silly Dan 02:39, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)

More questions

Anyone know how to reconcile the KOTOR II appearances of the Ubese, complete with environmental suits and "we hate the Jedi" attitudes, with the recent revelations that their planet wasn't destroyed until the New Sith Wars two or three thousand years later? — Silly Dan 12:49, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Could the sentence(s) that reference it happening during the New Sith Wars just be excised from that section and moved back to the appropriate time period? Lieutenant Gerard 23:59, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Not without contradicting the New Essential Chronology, it appears. My personal 100% fanon explanation is that the Jedi had to smack the Ubese down during the Old Sith Wars and during the New Sith Wars...but only the second smackdown blew up a planet. Perhaps the Ubese in KOTOR II were wearing environmental suits because they were working for a guy who sometimes liked to breathe a Ubese-toxic atmosphere. However, this is pure speculation. — Silly Dan 00:46, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • I still think the NEC and KOTOR II cause more problems than their worth, but that theory actually does make sense. And the ecological desturction happening during the New Sith Wars makes better sense, as Coruscant never hearing about it while it was rebuilding the Republic would explain things. -- SFH 01:00, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • No, no, no people! Quit blaming Dan! This is all KOTOR II's fault! The RPG sources published BEFORE KOTOR II placed the Ubese disaster in the time period of the New Sith Wars. Dan was CORRECTLY referring to these. It was not a new revelation. It was KOTOR II that messed things up. And the whole Uba II disaster was shortly after the discovery of the Ubese, so the two-time correction idea is nixed.

original Alien Anthology p. 108 "The Ubese are slight near-Humans...." That proves they are near-human;)

  • OK, thanks for the explanation! (I only had Alien Encounters, which left it vague, and KOTOR II, which is apparently wrong or confusing, but now has to be taken into account.) — Silly Dan 01:27, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not blaiming Daniel Wallace. The Ubese article had a section where he gave his reasons for placing the Uba IV destruction in the New Sith Wars, and they made perfect sense. And most of my personal problems with the NEC come from contradictions in KOTOR II, a game which was released very prematurely. I'm not blaming Daniel Wallace. -- SFH 01:28, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok, I have to eat my hat! JSarek and i just looked thru SOTE SB, old AA, and UAA, and all just say vaguely "millennia." SillyDan says AE also is vague. Looks like Dan AND I loose this round to KOTOR II ;) JustinGann 01:37, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • No, trust me, KOTOR II has got a lot of chronological mistakes in it, like the ancient Sith having lightsabers, though at the time the Sith Empire was believed to have been formed in 24,400 BBY. That has been retconned with the Sith being formed in 6900 BBY. Nice covering of a screw up. -- SFH 01:43, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think KOTOR II was the reason for that. I think the reason is that the schism mentioned in GAOTS as spawning the Sith Empire was said to last 100 years, and they (logically) in NEC equated it with the Hundred Year Darkness, rather than the 25000 BBY Schism (Xendor). Since Shayoto, alive at the time of the Krath c. 4000 BBY, could remember his Master's Master telling him about the Hundred Year Darkness, 7000-6900 sounds about right, rather than 250000!JustinGann 03:34, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • Dan told me that, internally, LFL always intended the Hundred Year Darkness to be the Schism that spawned the Sith. *shrugs* QuentinGeorge 05:39, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
        • Which meshes with GAOTS claiming the first schism lasted 100 years. The problem came when later sources started calling the 25000 BBY Xendor conflict the First Schism. In GAOTS, First Schism=HundredYear War, but now Hundred Year War is considered the 2nd Schism. Remember GAOTS was told in-universe, so I assume Marka Ragnos had never heard of the 25000 BBY conflict, and wrongly considered the Hundred Year Darkness the FirstJustinGann 05:44, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Both the First Great Schism and the Hundred Year Darkness lasted a century. Dark Jedi are hard to kill, and they don't go quietly. And what is GAOTS? -- SFH 05:48, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • Golden Age of the Sith, where the Great Schism was mentioned. QuentinGeorge 06:21, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
        • SFH, I am afraid you are wrong. The picture shown is from GAOTS. That is the source of the Fist Shcism being 100 years long. As I stated, GAOTS makes it clear this is the genesis of the Sith (locked at 6900 BBY by NEC). The Wiki article you point out is WRONG in equating this with the Xendor schism. The 100-year Schism referenced in that article and the Hundred Year Darkness are the SAME, so there is not "both." The author of that article confounds the Xendor "first great schism" with the first great schism from GAOTS, which is the hundred-year darkness.

There are NOT two Hundred-year schisms. The first schism, under Xendor and Ardeny Lyn, didn't last very long at all to our knowledge. I will correct that article;) JustinGann 07:49, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • It's not like it was fan speculation that said that the Sith formed in 24,400 BBY. There was a some canonical information that gave evidence to it, like the Powers of the Jedi sourcebook and the Tales of the Jedi Companion. -- SFH 01:26, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • TOTJC actually gave the date of 24,400 BBY? And what's the page# of POTJSB, btw?JustinGann 03:18, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • POTJSB introduced Adas, an ancient Sith Lord that had a Sith Holocron in 16,000 BBY. -- SFH 03:43, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Adas is not mentioned anywhere in that book. QuentinGeorge 05:05, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • My mistake, it was TOTJC. -- SFH 05:08, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah. I see. Keep in mind, WEG has a fair bit of dubious info. Regardless, Wallace has confirmed that the Sith dating comes from internal documents, and any "25,000" date is now considered erroneous. QuentinGeorge 05:16, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • Could Adas be an indigenous ruler of Ziost before the Dark Jedi came?JustinGann 20:18, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • The Holocron I mentioned was in the possession of the Rulers of Onderon after Freedon Nadd, so the intent appears to be that he was a Sith Lord. However, your theory is plausible. -- SFH 20:24, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • Ok, I'm confused, you claim TOJC places Adas 16000 BBY, yet CUSWE claims it places him 28,000 BBY. WHat's going on here?

Also, the TOTJ comics trump the TOTJC. THe comics themselves support the 6900 BBY date of the Schism. Note that Marka Ragnos indicates the Schism lasted 100 years, prior to the Sith Empire's emergence. Later, at Mt. Meru, Shayoto the Jedi Master says that his Master's Master was alive at the Hundred-Year Darkness. It seems much more likely Shayoto's Master Master was alive 6900 BBY than 25000 BBY, so the "new" date really isn't all that new.JustinGann 20:29, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC) But why does CUSWE give such a different date than you, both from the same source?

Ok Now back to the Ubese

Fun Off-topic convo you guys had four year ago. I just got around to playing KOTORII now. So back to the Ubese...I like how the article is now (just skips over dating). The BTS of Battle of Ubas IV has a great quote by NEC's author saying the dating remains a "descrepency" (more like somebodies mistake).

Any ways, Could someone who is good at uploading pics get a screen cap of the KOTOR II Ubese and place it in the article? They look much different from the ones in the movie (one would expect styles to change after 4,000 years). I think that neds to be included. I havent added the new Wiki editor software yet, and don't have any way to get screenshots from Xbox anyways. IthinkIwannaLeiaWaddaUthink? 01:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  • There. Added it, finally. Qwo 01:32, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Supposed Star Trek references

I would suggest that whomever wrote the bit about the Breen species from Star Trek do further reading about it here: [1] (someone on that page also wrote something about the two species' masks being similar in appearance, but again, no citations were present that linked to official statements to costume or prop designers, and appeared to be just another 'observation' that someone felt necessary to publish on an article). As it stands, the only published information regarding the design of the Breen helmets is contained in the book 'Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion'. Here it is mentioned that the design was meant to convey the idea that the creature underneath possessed a canine-like snout. It also talks about the 'scratchy voices' (which the Ubese, when they speak, do possess), which were inspired by Lou Reed's "Metal Machine Music".

Observations without citations is not information. So there. predcon 22:03, April 26, 2012 (UTC)