Talk: Yoda's species/Legends

Back to page |
< Talk:Yoda's species
Wiki-shrinkable

This is the talk page for the article "Yoda's species/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.

Article title

Any proposals for a better title? MoffRebus 01:46, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • I like Yoda's species, which redirects here. — Silly Dan 03:20, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, "Yoda's species" sounds good.--Valin Kenobi 05:05, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Personally, I always called them Dagobans, cause Yoda always seemed to look like he fit in on Dagobah, but I doubt that's what will be selected. Yoda's species on the other hand... -- SFH 05:07, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • I propose Not-Whill :) QuentinGeorge 05:10, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Not very encyclopedic, but I understand your reasons. -- SFH 05:17, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • How about Those little green guys? :P -- Riffsyphon1024 05:41, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • If it comes to that, I like to think of them as Yodels. ;D.--Valin Kenobi 06:41, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Personally, I've always thought they were called Muppets --LightWarden 02:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Any other proposals on that? MoffRebus 00:45, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I guess you went ahead and decided to move it, but if I can repost my objection from the other talk page:

  • I think the Unknown Species title is the most neutral one possible. "Yoda's species", while it's probably how most people out of universe would think of it, doesn't work for an in-universe article, as it makes the entire species sound like it revolves around Yoda. - Lord Hydronium 00:51, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • I must say, this move was a great idea. Admiral J. Nebulax 02:38, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • Really? I find it to be informal and fairly unencyclopedic, really. "Yoda's species" suggests a frame of reference with Yoda at its center, namely that of the viewer. It may be the name that most people think of it under, but so is Thrawn, and that's a redirect too. It's not in-universe, either; I haven't seen any source call it that, and nobody would have called, say, Vandar "Yoda's species". Unknown Species (Yoda, Yaddle, and Vandar Tokare) simply states exactly what it is, with no specific frame of reference. "Unknown", as well, is the designation in things like the Databank. - Lord Hydronium 03:15, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Placeholders can be out of universe, like 'Dominique Chionchio's Jedi'. I don't think either that 'Yoda's species' is the best schoice, but certainly 'Unknown Species (Yoda, Yaddle, and Vandar Tokare)' is totally unpractical and not good for a topic name. MoffRebus 12:41, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, if some people don't like this, what do you suggest? Admiral J. Nebulax 12:45, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • The only better solution I can think is 'Yoda's Unknown Species'. So far only two people are against it while four (including me) are pro. If there is more opposition I am sure someone can find a better name than both MoffRebus 12:55, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • The difference there is that the fact that Dominique Chionchio (curse you for making me try to spell that ;-) ) plays that Jedi is the only reference point we have on her, and also as that character is from What's the Story, that's her sole defining characteristic. If Yoda was the only member of this species, that would work, but he isn't. "Yoda's species" suggests that Yaddle, for example, is defined species-wise only by her relation to Yoda; it puts undue importance on one member for out-of-universe reasons. I don't see what's so unworkable about the original. It fits with the usual pattern of main topic ("Unknown species", which everything calls them already) plus disambiguation in parentheses. "Yoda's species" can still be a redirect, as well as Unknown Species (Yoda), and all other terms that people might look them up under. Thrawn is a good precedent on how even if nobody thinks of a topic under a certain name, we still keep it under that name to be consistent (that is, his main topic is Mitth'raw'nuruodo, even though everyone's going to look up "Thrawn"). - Lord Hydronium 13:11, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • So any suggestions? Admiral J. Nebulax 13:22, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, yes, go back to the original. I'm curious as to why that apparently doesn't fly. - Lord Hydronium 13:42, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
        • Any other suggestions? I'm interested in hearing what other people will (hopefully) suggest. Admiral J. Nebulax 15:36, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
        • I think continuing to call them "Yoda's species" is fine. He was the most famous member IU and OOU, as far as I can tell. — Silly Dan 15:50, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
          • While you have a point, it should be titled something that does not have a member of this species's name in the title. Admiral J. Nebulax 16:00, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
          • To analogize, let's say we were never given the name of the X-wing, but everything in ANH was exactly as it was. Would we call the X-wing "Luke Skywalker's fighter"? That's how most people recognize it, and Luke may be the most famous Rebel of that battle in-universe, but that simply isn't accurate. It's no more Luke's fighter than Wedge's, or Biggs', or Porkins'. Similarly, this isn't Yoda's species any more than it's Yaddle's species or Vandar's species. It particularly doesn't work for Vandar because 3000 years before Yoda's birth, nobody would have been calling him "Yoda's species". And whether a title is cumbersome shouldn't be a criterion. That's what redirects are for. Delta-7 Aethersprite-class light interceptor is a good example of this. If Unknown Species (Yoda, Yaddle, and Vandar Tokare) doesn't work (although I am curious as to why), I suggest anything of the form Unknown Species (some disambiguation), since that's how they're always referred to. - Lord Hydronium 22:21, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
            • Actually, for your example, it would probably be called "Unknown Rebel fighter". And I still think "Unknown small species" is good enough. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:14, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
            • Precisely, because we only see Rebels use it. We could assume there's an in-universe impression that it's primarily a Rebel fighter. But we don't only see Luke use it, thus it wouldn't be Luke's fighter. "Unknown small species" is better than the current one, I suppose, but it's rather vague. The list of unidentifiable species has several small guys. That's what I liked about the original. It said what they are (an unknown species), and then disambiguated that by listing its known members. That's consistent with the usual approach to titling articles. - Lord Hydronium 23:35, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
            • Addendum: Don't get me wrong, I'd like to come to some sort of consensus/compromise, which is why I keep bringing up that I'm curious as to why the old title didn't work. It's hard to posit a argument when I'm not sure where everyone else is coming from. - Lord Hydronium 23:39, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
              • Why didn't George Lucas stick with Whill? It would be a whole lot easier for us. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:39, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                • Well, we could always call them frogs. ;-) jSarek 00:18, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • You know, I'm starting to think Dagoban sounds like a good idea. Just too bad no one else probably will -- SFH 00:20, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • "Well, we could always call them frogs". Well, considering Yoda was similar to Kermit the Frog... But the reason Dagoban wouldn't be good is because (as far as we know) the species wasn't from Dagobah. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:32, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

We can use the words 'unknown', 'little', 'green' and 'tridactyl' to find an adequate description. MoffRebus 13:07, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Let's see: "Unknown little green tridactyl species". Doesn't sound good. Admiral J. Nebulax 14:51, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Just to throw another wrench in the works, Vandar is actually brown. - Lord Hydronium 22:25, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Great. Okay, let's try this: "Unknown little tridactyl species". Still sounds stupid. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:17, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • I hate to sound like a broken record, but what exactly was wrong with the original title? I wouldn't keep repeating this, except nobody's addressed it. - Lord Hydronium 08:13, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • They were originally called Unknown Species (Yoda, Yaddle, and Vandar Tokare). -- SFH 18:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • To me, that seemed too long. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Length shouldn't be a problem. After all, we have Delta-7 Aethersprite-class light interceptor, Eta-2 Actis-class light interceptor, A5 Juggernaut Heavy Assault Vehicle/wheeled, etc. And as I mentioned, I'm trying to keep the titles consistent as Main Title (disambiguation). But I do agree that that doesn't scale well; it would get unwieldy if more members were added, and it's a rather uncreative description. So if that doesn't work: Unknown species (small tridactyls)? Unknown species (tridactyl)? (If there aren't a significant number of other three-fingered unknown species, that is) Or perhaps just plain Unknown species (which is a redirect to the list right now), as that's what everybody calls them anyway, and adding a link to the list at the top? - Lord Hydronium 22:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Perhaps Unknown tridacyl species? Or even Yoda, Yaddle, and Vandar Tokare's species? Admiral J. Nebulax 23:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
          • I think Dagoban is a good title. I mean, Dagobah is the only planet on which this species appears in the movies that the species could have originated from. I mean, they probably didn't originate from Coruscant, as that is the only planet on which they appear in the movies, besides Dagobah. I mean "Yoda's species" sounds sort of uncyclopedic, not to insult anyone, naturally. KFan II 01:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
            • KFan II: The problem is, we have no evidence they come from Dagobah, and since the planet was uninhabited and Yoda seems to have chosen it relatively at random, there's plenty to suggest they don't.
          • Nebulax: I could go with Unknown tridactyl species. It's a fairly good description, and uses one of their two common traits (the other being their smallness, which while their most distinguishing feature, is unfortunately really vague). The problem with the other, like the original (which, BTW, I've changed my opinion on; I agree now that it is a bit unwieldy), is that it doesn't scale well to additional members. Especially if, as below, there are unidentified members at Ruusan. "Yoda, Yaddle, Vandar Tokare, and some anonymous guy at Ruusan" doesn't really have a good ring. - Lord Hydronium 03:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
            • Then if others agree, it can be moved. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
            • That title sounds good to me. - Alpha Fire 20:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
            • I'm comfortable with it. -- SFH 20:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
            • Nice, that's somehow what I imagined MoffRebus 11:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
              • I'll move it now. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
                • MoffRebus, please don't put comments in the middle of a discussion. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I still say the current title looks positively stupid. Yoda's species is a perfectly respectable name for the article--it makes reference to the most commonly known (IU and OOU) member of the species. IMO this is another case of the "in-universe attestation" standard being carried to an illogical extreme. In order to be a worthwhile real-world reference, articles have to have sensible titles, and these pretensions of in-universe authorship *coughDaccough* are just getting silly.--Valin Kenobi 08:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  • No, fine the title is. Until confirmed, change it, we should not! (Though I, personally, would like "[Redacted by administration]." Darth Anxor(Rule the Galaxy) Revanchist Sith 11:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • The article title is probably inaccurate, given the question on how many toes they have (3, 4, or 5). "Yoda's species" is the only thing close to an official name ever given (in The New Essential Guide to Alien Species, released after all but the last two comments on this page's location), and we should stick to the names given in sources, and not made up ones.--Tim Thomason 23:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Is NEGAS written as though it's an IU document? If it is, "Yoda's species" is probably the best title for it, then. (I suspect more novice users would look for this article at "Yoda's species" anyway.) —Silly Dan (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Yeah, it's written IU- I'm borrowing my cousin's copy and could type the article verbatim if need be. Dewback rancher 01:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
          • The only OOU part of the guide being a "notable appearance" note for each species.Dewback rancher 02:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
            • I've always called them Froglings....CountAlucard 14:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I vote leprechauns. they're small, quasi-mystical green people with large ears.66.42.173.161 14:57, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Poor writing

"This race was one of the wisest species out there. Also members of this species had extraordinary Force potential." Is it fair for us to extrapolate that (ignoring the crap writing) from the three examples we're shown? --SparqMan 06:18, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • One is indirect, two is a coincidence, three begins to sound like a pattern. -- SFH 06:23, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Although it may well be true, personally I don't think we're justified in making blanket declarations like those two that SparqMan points out. Maybe it should be something along the lines of, "All three known individuals of this species displayed considerable Force potential and were considered wise leaders among the Jedi"? And for that matter, do we necessarily know whether Yaddle's and Vandar's Force abilities were that "extraordinary" compared to other Jedi of "conventional" species?--Valin Kenobi 06:42, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Inferring anything about the species from the example we have would be premature. After all, Zabrak aren't all force-sensitive, even though Agen Kolar, Eeth Koth, Darth Maul, Bao-Dur, and Kadrian Sey were. QuentinGeorge 06:53, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:48, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • There are cases of entire species being Force-sensitive though (such as the Miraluka, as well as the Anzati and the Neti according to the Ultimate Alien Anthology) so I wouldn't rule it out entirely --LightWarden 02:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

fixed it P.h 22:02, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)p.h

What about Gorc and Pic? At first I want to say, that I read in their Articles, that they are a mutated Gamorrean and a mutated Kowakian Lizard-ape. But I can't accept this. For me, those two have always been members of the same species as Yoda, and always will. And if this is the case, it adds more variety to the whole species. Now only 3 of the 5 members are wise (I would say Gorc and Pic are not). Only 3 are extremly old (Gorc and Pic seem to be much younger than Yoda, but maybe they are also some hundred years old). And only 4 are small. Gorc is much bigger than a human! But still all members are force-users, although Gorc and Pic are not so good (Kyle Katarn killed both in a 1vs2, but wasn't yet very trained in the Force).

I think it should at least be mentioned in this article that Gorc and Pic have long been thought to be members of this species by many fans, until there came some ... canon-prophet, and made them to mutants. And that some fans still can't accept the "reality".--TeakHoken84.40.25.242 01:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Other members

Wasn't there a carving of one of these guys on Ruusan? Kuralyov 01:04, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Forgive me if I am mistaken, but was the person Boba Fett interogates in the beggining of Outbid But Never Outgunned a member of Yoda's speicies? (He's also the person who gets eaten by the Globblin). Xeran 23:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Page history

Now that the page history is all messed up from the moving, I'm making a note here that it can be found here. The talk page history can be found here. We probably have a template for that, but I have no idea what it is. - Lord Hydronium 23:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Revelation of the species' name and origin

Okay, this might not be the best thing for a talk page, but am I the only one here who thinks Lucas will reveal Yoda's species name and homeworld in his will? It seems very likely to me.--Commander Jake 13:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't think he cares that much about it. It's more probable he'll get bored one day and come up with one. --Sauron18 10:22 23 June 2006 (CDT)
    • Judging by the size and color of all three of these little guys maybe they were intended to be goblins/orcs. Ugluk

Prehaps Lucas wasn't jokeing in Intervies. prehaps we should call the artical "Frog". Yes? No? Valin "Tnu" "Shido" Suul 00:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that the information will come out at some point. Though the fact that Lucas has persisted this long in the silliness of keeping secret something that logically can't be that completely unknown in-universe might mean I'm wrong. (There's no logical reason that Yoda would for his entire life have felt the need to keep it a secret, and besides. A galactically famous figure like Yoda would surely have a difficult time of so completely hiding his origin even if he tried.) Red XIV 02:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

  • It could actually be unknown to the creatures themselves in-universe, they're very rare after all, and could be completely displaced from their homeworld and their history lost. Or maybe their species is against having a traditional name for whatever reason, maybe they don't have a language or normally speak at all ( hence their weird grammar when they try to speak basic ). It's all conjecture, but there would be ways to explain them not having a standard name in-universe. Personally I like the idea of this remaining a mystery, since every detail about every character and species on-screen for even a fraction of a second has been given an elaborate history, it's kind of refreshing to have some mysteries out there. Eric-Wan 22:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Personaly I think that Yoda's Species is what I call True Jedi. Because True Sith would tend to be hulking violent creatures that were extremely violent and passionate, the opposite would be diminuative kind creatures but equally gifted in the force. mebadatbball 6/26/08
  • Maybe because Yoda's Midichlorian count was so high, his parents named him after the species' homeworld. ---dvader518
  • You've all got it wrong. Yoda is obviously human. If you were strong enough in the Force to live for 900 years, you would go through some serious changes yourself. That is just what a 900 year old human looks like. Deal. ;) 216.235.173.146 01:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Anonymous User, 29 Nov. 2008.

Correct?

Likely as a result of the above confusion, various Hasbro action figures of Yoda produced since Return of the Jedi have featured either three, four or five toes in a variety of arrangements'' - yet the photo only shows three and five-toed arrangements. 06:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Two Things.

The New Essential Guide to Alian Species has this species registerd under "Yoda's Species" and if not changed to that a mistake should be corrected. the guide allso says the species has seven tows Valin "Tnu" "Shido" Suul 02:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Um... no, it says five. Read above. Oh, yeah…and it's spelled "toes". Cutch 02:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistency?

The article states that "All three known members..." then states that Minch was "a fifth, lesser known member of this species...". Is there a fourth one that is not included, or is this just a typo? --208.102.19.86 02:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

  • There is at least four - Yoda, Yaddle, Vandar, an anonymous member of the Army of Light and Minch. QuentinGeorge 02:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct foot number?

Well, I think the official number is four, since ESB was his first appearence, and that is how he is portrayed, aswell in the 6th and 3rd... What do you think?-Pizza the Hutt

  • I'd think you're wrong. Read the BTS section about toes - it has been very clearly established now. Retcons happen all the time. Cutch 17:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think four should be canonical, but I suppose different subspecies have different numbers. Darth Anxor(Rule the Galaxy) Revanchist Sith 11:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It is FOUR. Pause the scene in the 3rd (revenge of the sith) movie when he's Battling Darth Sidius, when Yoda falls at one point you get a clear view of the four toes her has - three in front 1 in back. --Hollielle 00:40, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

Death of the species

Okay, picture this. The year's 217 ABY, during the sith-impeial war, do you think there are still some of this species left? If they've been wiped out, is there any chance of them being recently cloned?

  • This is no discussion board, if you want us to give ideas to your fanfic, go to the Star Wars Fanon wiki - TopAce 21:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Unsatisfactory resolution to number of toes issue

Hi there, sorry to dredge this up again, but I've been away for a while (I originally contributed the whole number of toes section of this article, BTW). Although I accept the fact that the New Essential Guide to Alien Species has come out since that time and officially stated that the number of toes is five, I still want to question if this nevertheless qualifies as a canonical determination. Now, I freely admit I'm no expert to the finer points of canonicity laws on Wookieepedia, but it is certainly my understanding that the actual 6 films are of the highest level of canon (G-Canon, right?), and that info in the films always overrides info from any other source, regardless of also being official. Now, even though my article section pointed out that the portrayals in the film ARE inconsistent, it is inarguable that the most common arrangement is the clearly-seen anisodactyl digits, as show in ESB, ROTJ and ROTS. The only other arrangement clearly seen is the tridactyl-with-blunted heel glimpsed in TPM. As my section states, the five-toes star-shaped feet are not actually visible in AOTC itself, and is only known about due to the turnaround images of the ATOC digital model (and one is only assuming it even IS the final model) featured in the Chronicles: Prequels book.

So, even though the new Alien Species book (which, I think it's pretty obvious, just looked at Chronicles without considering the several prominent shots in ROTS of the more common/up-to-date anisodactyl feet) is official, surely it is a lower source of canon than the films themselves, despite their own minor inconsistency? I would think that since four out of Yoda's five film appearances show him with no more than four (i.e. anisodactylly-arranged) toes, and that the only film which notionally does feature five toes does not clearly show them onscreen, then G-Canon would dictate that Yoda has either three or four toes, not five. And if a single canonical answer is required for this article, I would nominate four anisodactylly-arranged toes, as that is the most commonly (and most clearly) appearing number in the films themselves.

Anyway, let me know what you guys think. PacifistPrime

    • <sigh> Think of it as a giant retcon. Cutch 03:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, I can't blame you for having a lack of enthusiasm for the topic; I admit it's minutiae in the extreme, but I nevertheless think my question is valid. So, my proposition remains; shouldn't the majority of actual film appearances be considered more canonical than some poorly-researched reference book? Anyone else have an opinion on this? PacifistPrime
        • Consider if he had retractable toes, kind of like other animals claws. Or, what if 2 of his supposed 5 toes were cut off, leaving him with the 3 we see in the movies. Because of unknown possibilities like this, there are many things that we can not simply assume. —Xwing328(Talk) 05:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
          • With the films contradicting each other, it seems to me that a third outside source would be warranted, even if it did introduce a third answer. Also, shouldn't this article be renamed? I mean, there's a major argument over the number of toes the species possesses, so we name the article after how many toes the species has? That seems silly even without considering the controversy. If we didn't have a canon name for twi'leks would we call them "unknown five toed species?" Lonnyd 21:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
            • Hnnn… you do have a point there. No objections from me. Cutch 22:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
              • Tridactyl can refer to either fingers or toes. Vryce 22:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, me again, the guy who started all this. In the absense of any consensus or convincing argument, I'm taking the advice given to me (see: Forum:Question about canonicty rules here at Wookieepedia.) and alter this article to still have the New Essential Guide to Alien Species statement, but will amend it to point out that is is obviously contradictory and that the canonicity question is still open. I'll also attempt to ask Leland to give us a definitive answer on this. If anyone has a violent objection to this please discuss it here rather than reverting my edit straight away. I REALLY don't want to get into an edit war over this. Thanks, PacifistPrime

  • If you want to avoid an edit war, then I would suggest to change the article name. If "tridactyl" is true in one case, but not so true in the other, then I think it's not the perfect title. Many other titles already have been suggested. What about "unknown long-living species"? And just that it is mentioned:
  1. "unknown" is wrong. We know Yoda, do we? What is unknown is the species' name.
  2. "species" maybe wrong, too. We never saw families or children, eggs, or any other indication for a species. What if they are mutations or results of experiments, like Gorc and Pic? Maybe it's unlikely, but as long as we don't know it...

Let me suggest "not namely known, long-living, sentient life form"--TeakHoken91.7.44.3 13:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

... Just a side note on the toe thing. What if we accepted all visual toes as proof? Meaning, we could assume that Yoda actually has had varying numbers of toes. Would could even go as far as suggesting that toes grow and fall off similar to how reptiles tails/limbs can grow and fall off. --75.158.2.200 00:32, April 26, 2014 (UTC)

toes

officialy how many toes does yoda have Clonetroop125 22:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

AOTC toes

I was watching the fight scene between Yoda and Dooku in Aotc and when Yoda starts to spin you can see in slow motion that he does have two toes on the back of his foot. So shouldn't we take out the part of this article stating that it isn't visible in the movie?Stormiefan 14:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Really if you look in the Star Wars Visual Dictionary it says he has three toes.

Yoda's Species=New Title?

Because the NEGTAS calls the species "Yoda's Species", should that be the name of this article? For one thing, its an officially published book. Two, apparently this book is in-universe. Well, yes or no? Zakor1138 04:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Well? Anyone? Sorry, but nobody's answering me. Zakor1138 18:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    • No, this title is far more accurate. Yoda wasn't the only member of his species. --Imperialles 18:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm aware that there are more of these species, but thats what the New Essential Guide to Alien Species calls it. Zakor1138 18:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
        • It's not the species' name, the name of the species is still unknown. This title is more accurate. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 18:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
        • I am also aware of that, but its a nickname that seems official. Like I said, it is in the NEGTAS. Zakor1138 18:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Regardless, to answer your original msg: the page isn't to be moved until the official name is released, if ever. Unknown tridactyl species is far more encyclopedic than Yoda's Species, especially since we know of several other members of the species. Greyman(Paratus) 18:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Fine then. All I was saying is that the NEGTAS says that, but whatever. Zakor1138 18:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure if this really is all that "encyclopedic" a title: not only does Yoda apparently have more than three toes/foot (so his species only has tridactyl hands), having three fingers is one of their least notable physical features. Why not "unknown short species", "unknown long-lived species", "unknown pointy-eared species", etc? Is it because the word "tridactyl" sounds more scientific than "pointy-eared" or "funny-talking"? 8) —Silly Dan (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Completely agreed with SillyDan. He really points out the logical flaw in your thinking. Since when are species classified by toes? - breathesgelatinTalk 01:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Other than the two-toed and three-toed sloths, you mean? 8) (Of course, Wikipedia tells me both types have three toes on their hind feet, and no one goes around calling them "bidactyl and tridactyl sloths.") —Silly Dan (talk) 02:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Move discussion

A thread on moving this article may be found at Forum:"Yoda's species" vs. "Unknown tridactyl species": I'm putting it there because more people are checking for new forum threads than are watching this article, and moving this page would mean fixing a lot of articles to avoid redirects. —Silly Dan (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Minch on Dagobah

When I read the comic,I got the distinct impression that this was supposed to be Yoda at a younger age, going by a nickname perhaps, Yea or nay? Sochwa 11:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

santa claus

i think we should have Santa Claus on this page. i tried but it got dleted. but why not just say something 'Santa Claus is also a member of Yoda's species. Though this is definitely non-canon.' i think it should be considered.

Dagobah?

Yoda went to Dagobah after fighting Darth Sidious. Perhaps his specie comes from there?

We haven't seen any others on Dagobah, have we? I doubt Yoda would hide out on his species' homeworld. --Golden Monkey 16:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Agree. They cleared that up back after RotS as well, I have an old SW: Insider that says Dagobah wasn't his homeworld (nor was it a ruined version of Naboo).O-ChampionOfTheForce-o 02:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Another member

Another member of Yoda's species is clearly seen in Clone Wars Chapter 24, at 45 : 26 on the Volume 2 DVD. It might be Yoda himself, but it is definately a member of the species.—Darthtyler (Talk) 22:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This guy. The one in the red circle.

This guy. The one in the red circle.

Topps card image

Didn't see it was non-canon anymore, only described as "legendary" and "rare". It's even displayed on the OS article without any Infinities logo or special remark. VT-16 13:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I was going by what I remembered from browsing Star Wars Insider 107 (which I don't have in front of me), describing some of the images in the latest set as images which the Expanded Universe has since diverged from. Maybe someone with the issue can clarify? —Silly Dan (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
    • "Sneak peek at Topps new Star Wars Galaxy Series IV set, which reveals several pieces deemed too "controversal" back in the '90s" I like the sound of that. VT-16 13:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Elf

From the Empire Strikes Back novel:
"Yoda, you seek, Yoda." Mention of that name surprised Luke, but he felt skeptical. How could an elf like this know anything about a great teacher of the Jedi Knights? "You know him?"
I think that's the closest anything has ever gone to giving a name to Yoda's species. -- Xell Khaar 03:48, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

Yoda and Dagobah

Just a thought .. I was under the impression that after Yoda failed to defeat Palpatine that he had to go into exile and eventually ended up on Dagobah. I didn't think he was actually from there..just as Obi-Wan wasn't originally from Tatooine. He went there for his exile but also to watch after Luke. You know, kinda the same situation...the Jedi had to go into exile once Palpatine and Vader took over. 66.227.141.33 23:57, March 5, 2010 (UTC) Zaneia

Midi-chlorian count

At the start there is a quote about the Yoda species having a midi-chlorian count of around 4 million, yet in The Phantom Menace when Qui-Gon jinn takes a sample of Anakin's blood Obi-wan states; " the readings are of the chart; well over 20 000, that's even more that master Yoda" Tyyyvokka 01:44, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

The Quote is dealing with a very inaccurate holo-news report.--Chairman Jack the Black 01:47, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

The midi-chorian count is inaccurate.--User: Leonardo Sunstriker

How many?

How many confirmed members of yodas species are there?Darth smeg02 14:50, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Topps card, non-canon?

What, the Topps card is non-canon all of a sudden? Why? 76.175.186.237 01:46, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

  • When was it ever canon in the first place? ~ SavageBob 01:52, October 16, 2010 (UTC)`
    • Was it even stated as non-canon? 76.175.186.237 02:44, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
      • Not sure. It's at least been published officially now: [1]. I can make no claims as to its canonicity/non-canonicty, though. ~ SavageBob 04:18, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

Lannik?

Should the obvious similarity to the Lannik species (height, ear size etc.) be mentioned on this page? (Maybe the two species are distantly related or evolved on the same planet.) Hunter 4-LOM 11:47, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought

I was just thinking, is it possible this species is composed of force-sensitive humans that have lived longer than usual because of their unusually refined force talents? Lorchyism23 14:56, July 17, 2011 (UTC)lorchyism23

  • Hi, Lorchyism. Please read the template at the top of the page: This talk page is not to be used for speculation, only for discussion of the article in question. Thanks! ~SavageBOB sig 14:58, July 17, 2011 (UTC)

Article Name

Sorry to restart this topic, but I really don't like "Yoda's Species" as a name, I was thinking "Unknown Diminutive Tridactyl Species" I think as it describes 2 of the species identifying features it kinda works (without using the word "little"). any thoughts? --Dkwolf27 19:57, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

West End Games Stats?

I heard West End Games actually released stats, a name, etc, for Yoda's species for it's Star Wars RPG, but it was shut down a week later when Lucas found out and ordered it squelched. Does anyone have access to these stats?  :? --173.226.155.147 23:35, February 21, 2012 (UTC)Double J.

Species

if there are sith purebloods there are probably jedi purebloods. you don't think that that's what yoda species is do you

  • This is not a page for discussing fan theories. It is for talking about changes to be made to the article. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 18:58, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

Yoda as a baby

What is the baby Yoda? It will be featured in a new movie or something like that? Is there a page about Yoda linguistics? Nnnooooonnnnn (talk) 19:37, December 19, 2019 (UTC),

Regarding Yoda's AOTC toes...

I know that this topic has practically been done to death at this point, but I would like to point out that Yoda objectively DOES have 5 toes (3 in the front, two in the back) in Attack of the Clones.

While Yoda's feet are indeed not included in any of his close-up shots, the keen-eyed among you should be able to spot that he DOES in fact sport the aforementioned toe arrangement in the final few frames of the shot that shows Yoda from behind as he rushes to catch the pillar dropping onto Anakin and Obi-Wan.

In case my previous description of ghe aforementioned shot was too vague, said shot also includes Dooku rushing up the ramp of his Solar Sailor in the background.

And just to prove my point, here is a link to a high-resolution video of the Yoda vs Dooku duel scene, including the shot I've mentioned. In case anyone wants to fact-check me, the shot I've been talking about starts at about 2:21 and ends at about 2:23 in that video.

Either way, my point is: because of this evidence, I believe it necessary to redo the parts of the "Number of Toes" subsection of the "Behind the Scenes" section of this page that make mention of Yoda's five-toe arrangement, as well as the parts that make mention of his toes in AOTC. I'm fully willing to make these changes myself, I just request that unless someone has a better idea on how to phrase the changes I've suggested (or, if I somehow managed to get something wrong), nobody drastically change those very specific parts of this page.