Talk: DKS MaXoO

Profile

Talk

Contributions

Collection

Welcome, DKS MaXoO!

Hello and welcome to Wookieepedia. I hope you like the place and choose to join our work. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

General help

Site policies

Contribution help

Wookieepedia aspires to be a reliable source for all Star Wars fans to read and draw information from, and as such, fan-created continuity and fan fiction are not allowed within our articles. All in-universe material must be attributable to a reliable, published source.

Do not remove talk page and forum comments, including your own, as they are part of the public record. Remember that you should always sign your comments on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wookieepedian! If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the Senate Hall, visit our official IRC channel, or ask me on my talk page. May the Force be with you! —SFH 21:50, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages

Please do not remove comments from talk pages as they must stay as part of the public record. Thank you. Supreme Emperor (talk) 13:51, June 12, 2013 (UTC)

You were just warned for this. Don't do it again. IFYLOFD ^{(Enter the Floydome)} 00:34, June 13, 2013 (UTC)
- IFYLOFD, I didn't know I couldn't edit my very own user page. No need to be aggressive. I'm still learning the Wookieepedian habits and customs. DKS MaXoO (talk) 01:30, June 13, 2013 (UTC)
  - It applies to every talk page, including your own. Sorry if I came off a little aggressive, it's just that this is a somewhat common problem and I don't have a whole lot of patience for it. IFYLOFD ^{(Enter the Floydome)} 01:36, June 13, 2013 (UTC)
    - Apology accepted. Maybe these two articles/quotes can help you understand why I should have the right to edit my own talk page as I want:
Wikipedia: Removal of comments, notices, and warnings :

"Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display and usually users should not be forced to do so."

Wikipedia: Don't restore removed comments :

"If a user removes a comment from their own talk page it should not be restored. By removing the comment the user has verified that they have read it. The comment is still in the page history, so it is not necessary to keep it visible just to show that the user received the message. It is also wrong to force them to keep it there as a sort of "Badge of Shame"." DKS MaXoO (talk) 02:42, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Wookieepedia is not Wikipedia. Their rules don't apply here. Cade Calrayn 02:46, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Supreme Emperor, I was about to respond to you on your page. I deleted my comment on the Yavin's Caprice talk page as it was not answered and hence became completely useless after I edited the page. I didn't know it was considered as an act of vandalism to remove my very own comments. Anyway, thank you for looking over my shoulder. Feel free to change the article back to the way it was if you think the Yavin's Caprice should not be considered as a Gymsnor-3 light freighter. DKS MaXoO (talk) 01:30, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Atrivis sector

Hello; basically, I undid you edit for the following reasons. Atrivis sector is a Featured Article, which is ascertained by the star tag in the upper right corner. As such, the page has gone through peer review and has to adhere to certain qualities and standards. Your edit introduced at least one unsourced item into the battle section, which is not allowed for Featured Articles. Also, there is no standard layout guide as to how sector battles are laid out in the sector article but the current format of Atrivis was neater in terms of infobox space. The general rule of thumb is to follow the examples laid down in FAs. Granted, this only amounts to two articles - Atrivis and Bozhnee - but these should set the example. Hope that helps. - Sir Cavalier of One^{(Squadron channel)} 21:06, August 17, 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your explanation. I have reviewed every known sector for the last few weeks and they now all have the same layout. The Atrivis sector is the only remaining sector which isn't like the others regarding the sector battles. The current format is not that neat, nor is it in chronological order like it is for the others. I'm going to edit this section again, but this time with all the items correctly sourced, since that is required for a Featured Article. As a Featured Article, the Atrivis sector should be seen as the example to follow, not as the odd one. Best regards. DKS MaXoO (talk) 13:27, September 1, 2013 (UTC)

Rhen Var battles

Hi there, I went ahead and removed the merge tag from Attack on Rhen Var. The source specifies that there was two separate events. Cheers, Corellian Premier^{The Force will be with you always} 14:04, August 31, 2013 (UTC)

Minor edits

Hey, DKS, if you're going to go on those major category-adding sprees, which is great, it'd be awesome if you could set those edits to minor while doing so so that they don't clog the RecentChanges. You can toggle all edits to minor in Preferences. Cade Calrayn 17:41, September 21, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that.--DKS MaXoO (talk) 17:44, September 21, 2013 (UTC)

Good work

501st dogma^(talk) has awarded you a Wookiee Cookie!

For fixing a slew of category issues, I think you deserve more than a pat on the back

Warning

If you're going to change a ton of categories, then I suggest that you pay close attention to the details. Per WP:LG, you must adhere to DEFAULTSORT, which automatically sorts out of the categories. I had to correct two of your errors already. I'm sure there's more, so I suggest that you stop changing more categories and fix your mistakes. Failure to do so would result in a temporary block from editing. Thanks, JangFett ^(Talk) 13:46, February 3, 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I'll use DEFAULTSORT from now on.--DKS MaXoO (talk) 13:52, February 3, 2014 (UTC)
- You're still not utilizing it properly. Look here: [1]. It should be Bespin, Raid on not Bespin 4 for the DEFAULTSORT. You have to use the actual article name, not some other name. When you use DEFAULTSORT, do not use the formatting for alphabetizing [[Category|Format]]. Just use the category and DEFAULTSORT. JangFett ^(Talk) 14:17, February 3, 2014 (UTC)
Please also pay attention to your formatting. There should not be a blank space between DEFAULTSORT and the category. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 14:54, February 3, 2014 (UTC)
You have been blocked from contributing for 1 week for continuous insertion of poor quality edits. DKS, during your time off, I strongly encourage you to look around at various articles, our policies and its consensus updates. You continue to overlink, even in status articles, you rarely pay close attention to your mistakes. Making quick short edits won't help you at all. I shouldn't nor should others clean up after you.. To contest this block, please contact the blocking administrator with the reason you believe the block is unjustified. JangFett ^(Talk) 22:28, February 3, 2014 (UTC)

Explanation

Hello. Apparently, you didn't see the point of these multiple short edits and misunderstood my intentions, so I wanted to explain myself.

First of all, I started these edits in order to clean up the categories for the Battles/Missions of the Galactic Civil War and the Clone Wars. The missions of these two conflicts used to be all mixed up within:

- Category:Battles of the Clone Wars

- Category:Battles of the Galactic Civil War

Missions are usually kept separated from battles when they are too many. This is why I cleaned that up. They are now in the right categories, where they should be:

- Category:Missions of the Clone Wars

- Category:Missions of the Galactic Civil War

Also, these categories and their subcategories are now alphabetized. I alphabetized several other categories too, including the following:

- Category:Missions

- Category:Battles

- Category:Battles of the Yuuzhan Vong War

- and several other subcategories in Category:Battles by conflict

Secondly, I started alphabetizing these categories using the [[Category|Format]] system because it is widely used by users. I was just following the commonly used system. Like probably most of the users, I didn't even know about the DEFAULTSORT system before you told me about it. When you told me about it, I started to use it right away. I believe this was proving my good will in these edits. And after Toprawa and Ralltiir told me not to leave a blank space between DEFAULTSORT and the category, I also started to do so right away.

As you can see on my user talk page, I was awarded a Wookiee Cookiee by 501st dogma for a similar work on Category:Imperial starships, which also consisted of hundreds of quick edits to divide everything into the right subcategories.

I believe my edits in this new project were good. If they weren't, they would have been massively undone by other users. And yet you decided to block my account hours after I was done with this long project. I was quite surprised. As you can imagine, this work was very time-consuming and for the benefit of Wookieepedia. I didn't do it in order to receive some kind of reward, but I really feel like I didn't deserve a blame for it.

Anyway, I'm moving on so I won't do these kinds of multiple short edits again if that annoys you. Understandably, I don't want to get into more trouble because of that. --DKS MaXoO (talk) 21:32, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

WEG

Please do not reuse WEG if you come across it. The template has been deprecated, and should be replaced with {{WEGCite}}. Cade Calrayn 21:05, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'll change my last edits.--DKS MaXoO (talk) 21:08, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

Starships

ProfessorTofty (talk) has awarded you the Pit Droid Award of Diligence!

for your tireless work in categorizing starships.

ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:08, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

No "???"

Do not add "???" to articles. Also, there should not be a space under an infobox. Trip391 (talk) 06:03, July 7, 2015 (UTC)

I'll change it right now.--DKS MaXoO (talk) 06:06, July 7, 2015 (UTC)
- Also, make sure you close the italics for The Unknown Regions when you use it in a reference, not like this. Trip391 (talk) 06:10, July 7, 2015 (UTC)

Hy i need some help with my post thanks

Not sure if you knew

But Prelude to Rebellion 0, which you list on your user page, was recently collected for the first time in Star Wars Legends Epic Collection: Rise of the Sith Volume 2.--ZapikCZ (talk) 16:02, January 8, 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!--DKS MaXoO (talk) 16:05, January 8, 2018 (UTC)

Wookieepedian of the Month

Congratulations, you've been elected Wookieepedian of the Month for February 2018! Feel free to add {{User WotM}} to your userpage. Cheers, 1358 ^(Talk) 00:14, February 1, 2018 (UTC)

Hurray! Thank you very much! --DKS MaXoO (talk) 00:58, February 1, 2018 (UTC)
- Congrats! --Lewisr (talk) 01:00, February 1, 2018 (UTC)

A Trooper's Tale question

I noticed the changes that you were making related to the date referncing of "A Trooper's Tale". Does that source state that it occurs in 22 BBY? If so, how does the source state this?--Exiled Jedi (talk) 16:29, March 4, 2018 (UTC)

This story is set before "Heroes on Both Sides" (21 BBY), which marks the debut of revamped appearances for several main characters. Considering that the comics featured in Star Wars Comic UK are published in chronological order, and that "Burn the Behemoth!" is the first comic in the series to feature the new character models, it can be concluded that "A Trooper's Tale" takes place in 22 BBY.--DKS MaXoO (talk) 16:37, March 4, 2018 (UTC)
- From what you are saying, that date cannot be sourced directly to "A Trooper's Tale." I am also not sure how this means that it has to take place in 22 BBY. Couldn't it take place in 21 BBY as well?--Exiled Jedi (talk) 17:52, March 4, 2018 (UTC)

Backup links

Hello! Thanks for your addition to the Trigalis/Legends article! Please note, however, that, per our Sourcing policy, citation templates with external links in them must always include a permanent archival link. Thanks, Imperators II^(Talk) 06:18, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT

Hello. Please be aware that conjecturally-titled articles should not be capitalized in the DEFAULTSORT template. For example, the "invasion of Tervissis" is an unofficial title and is thus not capitalized as a formal name. Please go back and revise all of your changes in this regard. Thank you. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 14:23, February 18, 2020 (UTC)

Hello. You might have noticed I'm currently adding more content in the categories Category:Battles by sector and Category:Battles by planet. Concurrently, I'm also correcting the DEFAULTSORT templates of many battles to sort them by alphabetical order in their categories. I accomplish this task by copying and pasting the titles of these articles in the DEFAULTSORT template.
Please understand it's a huge and monotonous task, so I'm not checking if every single title is conjectural or not. I'm just putting the battles in the right categories, and I sort them by alphabetical order. I'm simply replicating what is commonly done everywhere else on Wookieepedia.
Also, I was not aware of that very specific rule regarding the DEFAULTSORT template in conjecturally-titled articles. I'll be more careful when I edit comprehensive/good articles in the future. I've just changed "invasion of Tervissis" and "raids on Tervissis" in this regard. However, I won't be able to do that for every ordinary article. This task is already very time-consuming as it is, and changing a capital letter for a small letter simply won't change anything for sorting the articles by alphabetical order in their categories.
If one of my edits is not to your liking, feel free to improve it. Regarding the "debacle on Ord Torrenze", it's debacle "on", not debacle "of". Please go back and revise your change in this regard. Thank you.--DKS MaXoO (talk) 16:15, February 18, 2020 (UTC)

Archive link

Thanks for contributing to Wookieepedia! Please note that your edit to File:Cadinth_Run.jpg added an external link without including a backup link. Our Sourcing policy mandates the inclusion of a permanent archival link in all external links. Instructions for doing this can be found on the respective citation template pages. Thanks! NanoLuuke^{Cloning facility} 09:16, May 8, 2020 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Thank you for contributing to Wookieepedia! When editing, please remember to provide an edit summary more often. This helps your fellow Wookieepedians, particularly those patrolling the Recent changes, understand what changes you are making and why you are making them. Thanks! JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 23:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

File names

Hello. Just a heads up that using apostrophes in file names should be avoided. JediMasterMacaroni^(Talk) 02:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

3600s BBY

Hey there. I just want to check with you whether 3600s BBY, to which you've been adding links across various articles, falls outside the scope of the Wookieepedia:Notability_policy#Centuries_and_decades policy. OOM 224 16:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello there. Sorry it took me so long to answer, I just saw the notification for your message.

I believe the authors of The Essential Guide to Warfare wrote "the Sith Wars of the 3600s BBY" for two reasons. First, to differentiate these Sith Wars from the Old Sith Wars and the New Sith Wars. Second, because at the time of writing, Star Wars: The Old Republic was still releasing new content, meaning that they didn't know the precise end date of the events featured in the game.

To answer your question, I'm not sure whether 3600s BBY deserves an article or not regarding this policy. I think it would add more clarity regarding the other Sith Wars (Old and New). And also, it seems to imply that the events featured in the game are confined to this century only.

To continue on the same topic, articles have been rightfully created for 10,970s BBY, 9400s BBY, 9200s BBY, 7700s BBY, 5130s BBY, 900s BBY and 690s BBY.

I believe articles should be granted to the following centuries, since they are both explicitly named in The Essential Guide to Warfare and have one event assigned to them that does not have an explicitly identified date: 11,600s BBY, 11,500s BBY, 7500s BBY, 6700s BBY, 6100s BBY, 4100s BBY and 2500s BBY.

200s BBY (mentioned twice), 150s BBY and 30s BBY (mentioned three times) may also need their own articles.

Regarding 11,820s BBY and 11,100s BBY, I believe articles are not necessary, since the dates "c. 11,820 BBY" and "c. 11,100 BBY" both appear on the map of Contispex's Crusades (page 26).

—DKS MaXoO (talk) 02:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Hello DKS MaXoO, I noticed your edit to Uogo'cor suppression, and I wanted to let you know that we do not mention page numbers in references like this: Crisis of Faith, p. 3 (for example) We only link the source, without adding which page says what. Thanks! Cheers, Samonic 20:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Clone Wars Comic UK

Do you happen to remember your source for saying that the Clone Wars Comic UK stories were published in chronological order in edits like this a few years back? I'm trying to clean up the Clone Wars chronology on Timeline of Legends media and I'm having a hard time getting verifiable placements for those comics. RogueWhistler (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Nice work!

'Fan26' (Talk) has awarded you a Wookiee Cookie!

I've seen you in the recent changes lately doing a lot of good work re-categorising Legends battle articles by location etc etc. Thanks for all the effort with this monotonous but essential chore. Fan26 (Talk) 03:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Aargonar

Hey, quick question! Where did you find a mention of Battle of Aargonar (Clone Wars) in Star Wars: The Clone Wars: Episode Guide? I looked a while ago but could not find anything, which was part of the reason Battle on Aargonar was split off to be its own thing (nothing i could find links the TCW mentioned battle and the comics battle as the same event) Editoronthewiki (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Just an error on my part when I edited the article. This line was actually meant for Aargonar's article. Nothing indicates a connection between the two battles (that would be cool though).—DKS MaXoO (talk) 03:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Destruction of the Pakuuni Pirates

Given how First Battle of the Pakuuni system is now Destruction of the Pakuuni Pirates, are you going to move Second Battle of the Pakuuni system and Third Battle of the Pakuuni system to differently named articles? Rakhsh (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I don't intend to do that, but these articles could definitely use better titles!—DKS MaXoO (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Fact File 2014

Hello there! Thank you for the heads-up about the content on Faran in the Fact File remake series. I've noted that for implementation after the editors currently working on formulating a concrete policy on how we're treating the canonicity of this Canon-and-Legends-mixing series have done so, and I'd recommend that you hold off on adding content from those issues to other pages for now as well. Imperators II^(Talk) 09:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Chandrila

Hey there! When you have a chance would you be able to look at your objection on Chandrila here please? Vergence appears to have addressed and responded a while back. Thanks! Lewisr (talk) 05:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Done. I'll write a few more when I have the time to get back to it. — DKS MaXoO (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks so much! Lewisr (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Pius Dea Crusades categorization

Hi! I'd like to ask about your reasoning behind this change. The way I see it, the articles on the individual Pius Dea Crusades should still be in the "Pius Dea Crusades" category, no different than, say, having the articles on individual humans be in Category:Humans. I know that categories like that one that fulfill a strictly "these are all the known X" function are only one type of categories that Wookieepedia employs, the other type being "portal"-like categories such as Category:Chiss culture, which instead contain all pages related to a given topic, and I also realize that the Pius Dea Crusades category serves both functions, but it fulfilling the second purpose doesn't mean that it shouldn't also be used for the first purpose, i.e., listing all the known Pius Dea Crusades. Imperators II^(Talk) 07:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi! The main idea is to separate battles, missions and campaigns. However in some rare occasions, such as for Category:Pius Dea Crusades and Category:Alsakan Conflicts, the main conflict is actually divided into several conflicts, not several campaigns. It appears more clearly for the Alsakan Conflicts, which has both "conflicts" and "campaigns."
But more than that, I want to avoid having an article listed twice in the same line of categories.
For instance, if you put all the different Pius Dea Crusades in Category:Pius Dea Crusades, then you'll have the Twelfth Pius Dea Crusade article listed both here and in the sub-category Category:Battles of the Twelfth Pius Dea Crusade. You could decide to put the Twelfth Pius Dea Crusade only in the sub-category Category:Battles of the Twelfth Pius Dea Crusade to avoid this, but then Category:Pius Dea Crusades would list all the Pius Dea Crusades except the Twelfth, which is not very good for a user who would like to see all of them at once.
It's the same thing for the Alsakan Conflicts. If you put all the different Alsakan Conflicts in Category:Alsakan Conflicts, then you'll have the First, Fourth, Seventh, Tenth and Seventeenth articles listed both here and in sub-categories. You could decide to put these Alsakan Conflicts only in their respective sub-categories to avoid this, but then Category:Alsakan Conflicts would list all the Alsakan Conflicts except the First, Fourth, Seventh, Tenth and Seventeenth, which again is not very good for a user who would like to see all of them at once. —DKS MaXoO (talk) 10:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Another solution would be to create Category:Twelfth Pius Dea Crusade so that all Pius Dea Crusades appear in Category:Pius Dea Crusades without having the same article listed several times in the same line of categories. However, I find it sort of strange to have such a category with only one sub-category within it (Category:Battles of the Twelfth Pius Dea Crusade). Same thing for the Alsakan Conflicts, for which Category:First Alsakan Conflict, Category:Fourth Alsakan Conflict, Category:Seventh Alsakan Conflict, Category:Tenth Alsakan Conflict and Category:Seventeenth Alsakan Conflict could be created.
On a related note, there is also the category Category:Conflicts of the Old Sith Wars to distinguish them from the other conflicts of the era, but not related to the Old Sith Wars (Category:Conflicts during the Old Sith Wars), since the Old Sith Wars are the name of both a conflict and a period of history. —DKS MaXoO (talk) 11:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think it makes much more sense to have the individual Crusades in the "Pius Dea Crusades" category but place the "Battles of the Twelfth Pius Dea Crusade" category in the {{RelatedCategories}} template, as mandated here. Imperators II^(Talk) 13:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
  - Done. —DKS MaXoO (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Metharian Nebula Territories

Your recent edits to Metharian Nebula Territories omitted the fact that the region includes all of the Danjar sector/Legends, Elrood sector/Legends, and Tantra sector. Rakhsh (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi. That's because the HoloNet News does not clearly establish that the Danjar and Tantra sectors are located within the Metharian Nebula Territories.—DKS MaXoO (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. Rakhsh (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The sources you removed from the Legions of Lettow article

Why did you remove The Emperor's Pawns, The New Essential Guide to Characters, and The Jedi Path from the sources list for Legions of Lettow? All those sources mention Xendor's followers. Darklordoftech (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Darklordoftech

Hi! I put them back with the {{Imo}} template. —DKS MaXoO (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Ninn

Hi DKS MaXoO, could I ask where in Far Horizons is Ninn mentioned so that I can update the article if needed? Thanks, Ayrehead02 (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Ninn is mentioned on page 14. "A Politico may start life as a preacher for one of the galaxy’s many faiths. He might be from the bantha-worshipping Dim-U monks, the trendy, female-empowering Zealots of Psusan, the frontier- minded Children of Mani, the serious Order of the Ffib, or one of the chaste Priests of Ninn." —DKS MaXoO (talk) 11:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, excellent thanks. Doesn't sound like there's any new info for the page then. Ayrehead02 (talk) 12:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Adriana

Hey there, thank you for the info you added on the Adriana article! Just wanted to give you a heads-up that the Fact File template now indeed uses the sections (page ranges) instead of individual pages, in order to more closely align with the Sourcing policy. Cheers! Imperators II^(Talk) 23:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Redirects

FYI, you don't need to CSD the redirects, you can just overwrite them directly. Cade Calrayn 23:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Tibrin

Hey, was curious if you at all remembered where in The Clone Wars Campaign Guide Battle of Tibrin shows up; was hoping to sort that update before the update timer goes past a month. No worries if you don't remember; I do realize it was added few weeks ago, but much appreciated if you do recall the section.—spookywilloww^talk 22:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi! It's on page 154. —DKS MaXoO (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Much thanks!—spookywilloww^talk 19:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thisspias

Hello there! Could you please tell me where in the [[Star Wars Roleplaying Game Revised Core Rulebook] is Thisspias mentioned? Thank you! Imperators II^(Talk) 10:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

It's on page 207. —DKS MaXoO (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! Could you also please tell where Manforgon is mentioned in the same book? Imperators II^(Talk) 18:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
  - It's on page 241. —DKS MaXoO (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
While I'm at it, I saw that you used Star Wars: Attack of the Clones: The Illustrated Companion to reference the fact that Thisspias was an urbanized world. I don't know if you have noticed, but this information was actually first introduced on Star Wars Gamer 5's map. The writing is hard to make out, but the planets are actually colored on the SWG map according to their primary surface feature (barren rock or asteroid, desert, forest or grassland, ice -something- or glacial, indeterminate, jungle, marshland or -something-, oceanic, urban or industrial). —DKS MaXoO (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Also, the map of The Official Star Wars Fact File 1 is actually the first one to use personalized skins for the planets. The planets featured on the map of Star Wars Gamer 5 should be considered as nothing more than colored dots (like the maps of The Illustrated Companion and Fact File 139). Consequently, The Official Star Wars Fact File 1 should have the {{1stp}} template in articles such as Er'Kit, New Plympto, Sump, Thisspias and Xagobah. —DKS MaXoO (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- You're right, very well spotted. I'll correct those. 22:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I also wanted to ask you how we should source the planets featured on the five different maps of the NJO series. For Tion Cluster, I've used the {{Po}} template in the Appearances section, but there might be a better way to do it in the Sources section instead. —DKS MaXoO (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nah, those should stay as is. We should definitely not be shuffling the same media around between Appearances and Sources on different articles. Imperators II^(Talk) 22:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Star Wars Kids (1998) magazines

Hey there! Per your comment on Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Yarael Poof/Legends, I just wanted to double check and see if you had access to those three particular issues of Star Wars Kids and if you're perhaps able to help me out in narrowing down exactly what relevance they hold to Yarael (and the relevant page numbers if possible, for indexing purposes). Thanks! - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I've added the relevant page numbers in my comment. Regarding those three issues:
- "Jedi Crossword" in SWK 5 (p. 25) features a crossword puzzle. It contains an image of Yarael Poof similar to this one and the following text: "Jedi Master Yarael Poof has no hair on his head, so he's _ _ _ _" (answer: BALD).
- "Coruscant Puzzlers" in SWK 8 (pp. 24-25) features several minigames. One minigame is Where's Maul?, in which Yarael Poof is illustrated among other members of the Jedi Council (p. 24). Another minigame is a word search in which the player must find the names of the twelve members of the Jedi Council, including Yarael Poof's name (p. 25).
- "The Creature King" in SWK 9 features an interview of Nick Dudman. Page 5 contains this question and answer: "SWK: Which methods were used with which aliens? / Nick: Yoda was a hand puppet. Mas Amedda, who stood next to Chancellor Valorum in the Senate, was prosthetic makeup. A good example of the animatronic masks we created, besides the Neimoidians, was Yarael Poof." Page 6 contains an on-set picture of Yarael Poof (the same picture that is used in Star Wars: The Making of Episode I The Phantom Menace, p. 96, and in Star Wars Insider Special Edition 2012, p. 118).
- In case you're wondering, these three images — the prop photograph in SWK 5 (p. 25), the drawing in SWK 8 (p. 24), and the set photograph in SWK 9 (p. 6) — all show his cannom collar. —DKS MaXoO (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Slide Paramita

Hi, as Slide Paramita is a status article, because you made this edit, is there any new info? Not only would that by default require an update, but it also needs to have notes of being unlicensed IU media. Thanks. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Nothing new. Here's the text:
"Les professionnels de ce type de course sont assez peu nombreux et à 99,9% extraterrestres. Les plus connus sont: Ebe Endecott, Dud Bolt, Gasgano, Elan Mak, Ody Mandrel, Teemto Pagalies, Aldar Beedo, Clegg Holdfast, Fud Sang, Mars Guo, Bullseye Navior, Ratts Tyrell, Wan Sandage, Boles Roor, Neva Kee, Ark Roose, Toy Dampner, Mawhonic, Slide Parmita, Bozzie Baranta, Ben Quadinaros, Sebulba et Anakin Skywalker."
Which translates to:
"There are very few professionals in this type of racing, and 99.9% of them are aliens. The most famous are: Ebe Endecott, Dud Bolt, Gasgano, Elan Mak, Ody Mandrel, Teemto Pagalies, Aldar Beedo, Clegg Holdfast, Fud Sang, Mars Guo, Bullseye Navior, Ratts Tyrell, Wan Sandage, Boles Roor, Neva Kee, Ark Roose, Toy Dampner, Mawhonic, Slide Parmita, Bozzie Baranta, Ben Quadinaros, Sebulba and Anakin Skywalker." —DKS MaXoO (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Mustafar source sweep

Hello, DKS! I'm reaching out on behalf of Project Stardust. I've seen you do tons of source sweeps for various Legends status article nominations, dropping massive lists of missed sources. I was curious if you'd be interested in doing the same for Mustafar/Legends, as that's one of Stardust's current projects. Master Fredcerique(talk) (he/him) 04:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello there! I'll be glad to help you with it. Funnily enough, I had just planned to do a source sweep on Mustafar when I received the announcement of your project. Hopefully, I should be able to start in a few days, and it will probably take a little while. Before I get started, I was wondering if mentions of Anakin/Vader falling into a "molten pit" should really be considered as indirect mentions of Mustafar? It's a pity that we don't have a name for this particular lava river. —DKS MaXoO (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, that's great to hear! Thanks for the help. And yeah, I'd consider that an indirect mention. And who knows, maybe all this digging we're doing will uncover a random source that names the river. :P Master Fredcerique(talk) (he/him) 03:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Source check request

Heya DKS, I appreciated you catching those sources for the Pii related items (I plan to update the other planets when I nominate them later). I was curious if you could help me check for sources mentioning Pascwa which is from the same SWAJ. They don't have an entry in SWE, so I'm thinking there's nothing else out there for them. Just wanna be sure. Thanks! NBDani (they/them)^{Yeager's Repairs} 14:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

There's nothing else! —DKS MaXoO (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you! NBDani (they/them)^{Yeager's Repairs} 14:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Source check request

Hi DKS, If you've got some time I was wondering if you would be able to check your sources for any mentions of Peter Cushing that I might have missed when I took it to status. Thanks for your time. Commander Code-8 ^{Hello There!} 12:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Of course! I'll get on it. —DKS MaXoO (talk) 00:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- Done. —DKS MaXoO (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
  - Fantastic, lots to go through. Thank you!! Commander Code-8 ^{Hello There!} 07:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

SWAM release dates

I was unable to locate the month of the magazine's release date. Mind sharing where it is? NBDani (they/them)^{Yeager's Repairs} 19:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi! It is written on page 27 in every issue.—DKS MaXoO (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- Oof, can't believe I missed that. Thank you so much. BTW, you forgot to vote on your recent Restore TC, wanted to make sure you were aware. Also, not sure if you've been invited, but you'd be very-much welcomed on the Wook discord server if you ever wanted to join! (No pressure to if it's not your style!) NBDani (they/them)^{Yeager's Repairs} 23:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Help checking another source

Hey DKS, I was told you might have access to Star Wars Comic 7.3. I'm trying to check all relevant Rebels sources that came out prior to June 11, 2014 to see if they feature Special Adjutant's helmet. Would appreciate the help if you do have it. Thanks! NBDani (they/them)^{Yeager's Repairs} 19:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I do have this issue and the helmet is not in there. —DKS MaXoO (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Ghorman Massacre request

Hi again, I'm writing up Ghorman Massacre/Legends and wondering if you'd be able to check for any other sources. Thank you Commander Code-8 ^{Hello There!} 02:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Done. —DKS MaXoO (talk) 02:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Categorization

DKS, while I appreciate the enthusiasm, I'd please ask that you stop or at least reduce your categorization overhual efforts; every time you create these convoluted subcategory trees of intersecting attributes, you make it nigh-impossible to navigate for the average user on both desktop and mobile, and you break the ability for other users to use category intersection. Categories should ideally represent single attributes of a topic; that's why we separated the the astronomical-objects-by-type tree from the locations tree. The large-scale category overhauls I have done in the past were done with community discussion in Discord, and we are making a concerted effort to stop creating categories for intersecting attributes as it's extremely unwieldy and user-unfriendly. Cade Calrayn 21:27, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I see your point on categories ideally representing a single attribute. The need for these adjuments came from the fact that Category:Fruits and vegetables is currently placed within Category:Food by ingredient and Category:Vegetarian food—while clearly not all of these plants should be considered as food. The larger Category:Food should only have food in it. If that's fine with you, I think it's best to remove Category:Fruits and vegetables from Category:Food by ingredient and Category:Vegetarian food, and group together all the edible plants whithin Category:Edible plants (without the current subcategories that I have created). What do you think? Also, is it still fine to continue growing Category:Plants by planet? On a related note, I was wondering if you had seen my message on your talk page regarding {{RelatedCategories}}. Thanks! —DKS MaXoO (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Hey, erm, DKS. Not one to usually jump in on talk page convos but after you just stated you see the point on categories ideally representing one attribute, you pretty much immediately went and jumped to creating more double-attribute categories by combining Fungi and location. What is wrong with [Category:Plants of PlanetName] and [Category:Fungi]? A lot of this work is actively hurting category intersection and going against general community consensus by implementing widespread category overhauls without any prior discussion. Category intersection is also the most widely beloved tool introduced in recent years by casual readers of Wookieepedia, as backed up by poll data. This is also starting to affect a lot of status articles, and exactly none of their nominators have been contacted even though changes are being widespread-slapped on these pages. Please consider this a bit more carefully. I also disagree with the RelatedCategories thing proposed as automated, as does Imp, and we have both reverted some of those changes on our status articles. Because it's being slapped on indiscriminately without considering whether any relevant pages in those categories have been re-introduced into the new canon, yet slapping these categories on new canon status articles.—spookywilloww^talk 00:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
- Hi! Thanks for reaching out. I'm lost here. We have categorized battles, creatures, organizations, etc. by their location for a very long time, which is very convenient to find them in my opinion. If those categories are not to be used/created, why do we still have them? I do understand that you can use the intersection tool to search, for exemple, "Planets in the Core Worlds" with "Destroyed planets"; or "Moons" with "Grumani sector locations". However, I don't see how you can use it to find, for exemple, the "Plants of Dagobah" if there isn't a category for that. —DKS MaXoO (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
  - I know Cade differs slightly on why he opposes this, as well as others communally in Discord have their own reasons, but at least for myself and some others, there's a few issues specifically with what you're doing. One is simply the widespread editing of status articles without notifying, discussing, or asking any of their nominators. That has been over a decades-long precedent of it being polite to inform people of needed updates. Any widescale editing of status articles is going to get on the radar of the boards, pretty much because the community voted those individuals in to ensure those articles are maintained. And quite frankly it's just rude to not ask people who are definitely around: if someone quit Wook a decade ago, that's different, but a lot of people are easily reachable. Secondly, widespread category tree changes have been turned more into a collective community discussion as of recent, to prevent abuse and overcategorization, such as the cases that have been TC'd in the last year. This is because categories affect a lot of pages at once, and so why should one person's decision go unilaterally affect hundreds if not thousands of pages? Simply, the speed at which you're doing a lot of this: not just plants, whether that's the planets by affiliation being speed-added to pages without verifying that a planet is actually affiliated with a group, rather than based on outdated, unsourced page information (in one case, a group funded a honeymoon to a planet, but that doesn't mean the entire world is affiliated with it? and that was reverted). I personally simply urge you to exercise more caution; some of this work is viable, but a lot of it has been reverted for a reason, and those parts are mostly the ones that could've used a bit more research. This, for instance, is something Imp and I will continue to revert on current canon status articles where applicable.—spookywilloww^talk 01:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
    - Alright. Do you need me to revert all that, or do you prefer that I leave it to others? Also, I'm curious to know, if we're pushing the use of the intersection tool, does that mean that, for example, the Battle of Hoth—which is currently in both [Category:Battles of Hoth] and [Category:Battles of the Galactic Civil War]—will eventually be placed instead in [Category:Battles], [Category:Galactic Civil War], and [Category:Hoth]? Thanks again for your answers. —DKS MaXoO (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
      - Reverting isn't necessary; I believe some people (ie Imp) reverted those on-sight and others will be removed in the manual post-Appendix cleanup for ones added to status articles that are by inactive nominators. As for the question about battles, I'm not entirely sure I gather what it is referring to. We have, among newer creations, moved away from "hub"-like named categories. Instead of [Category:Hydian Way], its named Category:Locations along the Hydian Way. Instead of a category named "Category:Pijal", it is called "Category:Pijal locations." In that vein, "Category:Battles of the Galactic Civil War" makes much more sense as a category name than "Category:Galactic Civil War" does.—spookywilloww^talk 00:16, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Re: projects subpage

Due to the way Fandom protects JavaScript pages, we cannot delete or modify your JavaScript subpage; instead of tagging it with {{Delete}} you can just blank it completely. Once created it can't be deleted. Cade Calrayn 00:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Chief gunnery officer nomination comment

Hi, so with what you listed, how many of those publications mention "chief gunnery officer" directly by that title, if anything? Furthermore, for whatever doesn't, how many are clearly mentioning a position that's clearly "chief gunnery officer" in something else? Note that I'm checking the Fact Files now for "head gunnery officer." Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 04:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

- I looked through, and it's only the Fact File "head gunnery officer" references that are the same position. Let me know if anything else is found that I missed, and thank you in general for going through media and adding them to articles. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 05:37, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

Regarding Helix (disambiguation) and any similar disambiguation pages you're planning on creating, I'd draw your attention to Forum:TC:Disambiguation pages, where community consensus is pretty unanimous in opposition to such pages. While it's not moved to policy yet, I'd personally discourage making more of these, as they will likely end up TC'd or deleted under a future policy on the matter. Cade Calrayn 17:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Unlicensed sources

Hi there. Unlicensed sources are considered non-canonical by Lucasfilm per confirmation with Jason Fry, and thus should be listed in the non-canon sources section. Cade Calrayn 21:06, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the heads-up. It would be great if a bot could list them correctly all across the Wook. —DKS MaXoO (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

New Jason Fry's article

I just wanted to let you know and you might already know this, but you were credited in Jason Fry's article that was updated today. Nice work! (And Wook's Discord server is always open, I apologize if you've already been invited.) あざした (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for letting me know!—DKS MaXoO (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Zonama Sekot system

Hey there, noticed you wrote up the Zonama Sekot system article three years ago. A nice little informative article. I wanted to check with you, though, whether the prime rationale for creating it was that LECG gave us the orbital period for Zonama Sekot? Cause if so, I can see how that'd be a tempting conclusion to make ("the Earth has an orbital period of 365 days and is located in the Solar system, and Zonama Sekot has a given orbital period, so it must be situated within a star system as well")... except that 1) rogue planets that don't orbit anything are a thing both IRL and in SW, and 2) Zonama Sekot, a planet, is historically known to have at one point been orbiting another planet (Mobus). Which means that, for all we know, by 137 ABY Zonama Sekot could have just orbited a rogue planet, and thereby there'd be no "system" in the sense of "star system". Imperators II^(Talk) 17:27, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi! The idea was to create an article on the location where Zonama Sekot resided in 137 ABY, as it was mentioned in numerous sources. The name "Zonama Sekot system" is purely conjectural, since there is no evidence of a star in this planetary system. I have no objection to you deleting this article if you wish to avoid any confusion. The information contained in this article can easily be incorporated into Zonama Sekot's own article.—DKS MaXoO (talk) 02:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think the safest bet here would be to just cover it all on the Zonama Sekot article, which I've now redirected it to. Thanks for understanding. Imperators II^(Talk) 09:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Newest Stardust

Hello, again. I was curious if you'd be interested in doing a source sweep for Echo Base/Legends as part of the current Project Stardust. If so, I'll hold off on creating the index page for it until you're done, so as to capture everything. Also, I'm not sure if you do canon articles, too, but if you do, we're working on Cloud City. Master Fredcerique(talk) (he/him) 20:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Don't mean to bother. Just bumping this in case it got buried by the below post. Master Fredcerique(talk) (he/him) 04:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
- Hi! You were right to leave me another message. Sorry, I didn't see the previous one. I can do a relatively quick search for "Echo Base" but I won't be able to go so far as to examine all the sources that contain the word "Hoth". For comparison, "Mustafar" only gave me 280 sources, while "Hoth" gives me over 1100 sources (about a quarter of my collection). And I can not help you at all with canon sources. :p —DKS MaXoO (talk) 06:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
  - I kinda figured going broad with Echo Base's search would make it unwieldy, especially if you include Hoth. I'm sure you'll find tons of missing stuff even with a more specific search. Once you're done, I'll create the index for Echo Base. And the canon one was worth a shot, but noted. Thanks! Master Fredcerique(talk) (he/him) 08:21, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
    - Done. That should keep you busy for a while! —DKS MaXoO (talk) 11:50, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Clone Wars 6.14 check

Hi DKS, I'm writing up Battle of Parein II 4/Legends and am having trouble tracking down a copy of Star Wars: The Clone Wars Comic 6.14, would you be able to check it to see if there's any noteworthy information in it? Thank you. Commander Code-8 ^{Hello There!} 00:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi! There's an article on MagnaGuards which says: "The first sighting of these formidable droids was during the Battle of Parein Il 4, where one of Grievous' MagnaGuards killed Sannen, a Jedi Knight, before he could even begin his duel with the cybernetic General!"—DKS MaXoO (talk) 04:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you! Commander Code-8 ^{Hello There!} 12:10, 17 November 2025 (UTC)