Welcome, Rokkur Shen!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:
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: ~~~~. For an optimal viewing experience, Wookieepedia recommends using the Monobook skin. For help changing your skin preference, see Help:Skin. 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! —Trak Nar Ramble on 08:32, December 11, 2012 (UTC) |
Slow down for a second
Hold on with all of your date editing for a minute --- you're removing sourced statements and replacing them with unsourced statements. Before you continue, can you explain why you're asserting that there's no difference in months between the GRs and the GSc? Where exactly is that coming from? Menkooroo (talk) 09:15, December 11, 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. I'll start a thread in the Senate Hall to see where the 35:3:3GrS date originally came from, just in case there was a source for it. In the meantime, it looks like the references you've been removing should stay --- for example, here, the reference note beginning with "{{Ref|<ref name="Math-GrS">" would still be valid, even if GRs and GSc start at the same time --- it just states that there's a 35-year difference. Cheers. Menkooroo (talk) 09:30, December 11, 2012 (UTC)
- Aaaaaand the thread has been created. Feel free to chime in. It's not that I don't trust you; I just want to make sure with absolute certainty that the three-month difference doesn't come from anywhere. :) Menkooroo (talk) 09:35, December 11, 2012 (UTC)
BBY
Hey there. Due to the nature of the BBY dating system, something like 21.5 BBY is 22 BBY, not 21 BBY. Something twenty-one and a half years before the Battle of Yavin would be in the twenty-second year before the Battle of Yavin, not the twenty-first. Cheers. Menkooroo (talk) 13:59, December 11, 2012 (UTC)
Calendar
Hello, you are probably right about your edits but you can't do it like this. Revert your edits on the ABY/BBY pages and wait for a consensus on the forum before delete other content. Hk 47 (talk) 14:19, December 11, 2012 (UTC)
- Revert you edits. You have to convince the others before or it will be considerd vandalism. Hk 47 (talk) 14:38, December 11, 2012 (UTC)
Moving pages
Please don't rename articles by cut-and-paste. The page history must be moved along with the text. Use the "move" function to rename a page instead. Thank you. —MJ— Holocomm 03:11, December 12, 2012 (UTC)
Removing links to sites containing the scripts
Even though those sites are fanon, the scripts still exist there, and thus we use them as a source. The site itself isn't a source, but the scripts are. Please do not remove the links. If you found a better site with the scripts available, feel free to change the links, but don't remove them entirely. Thanks. Trak Nar Ramble on 08:56, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
- Menk might be able to shed some more light on this one. Trak Nar Ramble on 09:02, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
- There has been some question in the past on how verifiable the scripts are, but I don't think we've ever been able to come up with a definitive answer. I think the best solution would be to add a disclaimer along the lines of "According to the scripts presented on the fansite starwarz.com" (similar to what's written here) rather than removing the links altogether. It's a dissimilar situation to the timeline gold one --- the timeline gold, as a fan project, can't be used as a source for in-universe information, but these scripts can be used for out-of-universe, behind the scenes information, provided they're the real thing. Menkooroo (talk) 09:29, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
Reverts
Since I only reverted edits on three articles, I thought the intention was pretty clear that I had personally checked and confirmed these names as being accurate. If I was attempting to undo your work or disagreed with it, I would have reverted everything. - Cavalier One
(Squadron channel) 10:22, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
- Both Nishr Suppression and Nishr Campaign are single source articles, and therefore do not need {{1st}} tags as they are the only appearance for either battle. And Battle of Tiems has a {{1st}} tag on the top-most entry. - Cavalier One
(Squadron channel) 10:31, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
- Single source appearances/sources really do not need any identifying 1st tags unless you are contending that there is some confusion as to what source the information comes from when only a single appearance is listed? By common sense, a single appearance means that the information comes from that source. I see no reason to add the tags. If you want to, go ahead. But if you put the templates on those three articles again, I will remove them and lock the articles if necessary to prevent edit-warring. If you want to start a CT on the issue, be my guest. - Cavalier One
(Squadron channel) 10:43, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
- I've moved it to the Senate Hall. You're asking for a discussion on the subject, rather than a clear vote. CTs should only be created for clear proposals with voting options. As you are asking for opinions and a discussion on the matter, the Senate Hall is the more appropriate place. It can always be restarted as a CT once clear options are discussed and presented. - Cavalier One(Squadron channel) 11:18, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
- I've moved it to the Senate Hall. You're asking for a discussion on the subject, rather than a clear vote. CTs should only be created for clear proposals with voting options. As you are asking for opinions and a discussion on the matter, the Senate Hall is the more appropriate place. It can always be restarted as a CT once clear options are discussed and presented. - Cavalier One
- Single source appearances/sources really do not need any identifying 1st tags unless you are contending that there is some confusion as to what source the information comes from when only a single appearance is listed? By common sense, a single appearance means that the information comes from that source. I see no reason to add the tags. If you want to, go ahead. But if you put the templates on those three articles again, I will remove them and lock the articles if necessary to prevent edit-warring. If you want to start a CT on the issue, be my guest. - Cavalier One
Chabosh.
Do you honestly think I'd put it there as an appearance and removed the {{1stID}} without a reason? Yes, it is mentioned in the game, and yes it's called the Battle of Chabosh. I'd rather you not accuse me of falsifying info, and there is a {{Conjecture}} tag for a reason. Cade Calrayn 
02:42, January 16, 2013 (UTC)
Confirm templates
Before you go adding templates to every single article, please check its sources. If the battle is not named, a {{Conjecture}} template would be more apt. Otherwise, please do not add templates to every single article without first checking its sources to make sure that the template you're adding is indeed correct. Thank you. Trak Nar Ramble on 08:40, January 16, 2013 (UTC)
- Some of those articles weren't from Dark Forces, such as the Mission to Mon Calamari, which is sourced to The Glove of Darth Vader. If the title isn't specifically named in the book, then a {{Conjecture}} tag would work better. Trak Nar Ramble on 08:50, January 16, 2013 (UTC)
Date removals.
Hey.
Next time you try to remove dates you feel are speculatory, make sure you at least address the issue to the guy who created them first (in this case, probably Cade Catalryn) before doing so. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 12:29, January 16, 2013 (UTC)
- Rokkur, I suggest you take this up to the talk page instead of edit warring. You should know that three reverts is enough for a block. Cheers. Stake black msg 12:38, January 16, 2013 (UTC)
Adumar
It's fairly obvious that you're not even paying attention to half of what you do, as I clearly modified the GrS dates to reflect the removal of the 3-month difference. They aren't speculation, it's logic, as the reference clearly explains. Cade Calrayn 23:24, January 16, 2013 (UTC)
- What else should we call it? It was a battle, and it happened during the Galactic Civil War. Ergo, Battle of Duro with a conjecture tag. Just because the title of the page is "Battle of Duro" doesn't mean that we're saying straight out that is was called the "Battle of Duro". It's a title, and the conjectural or canonical title is the bolded part in the intro. Cade Calrayn 23:52, January 16, 2013 (UTC)
- I w under the impression that it did have a conjecture tag, and for that I apologize. You have caught me at a bad time, and the fact that you are adding the tags without doing the research yourself comes across as kind of lazy in my opinion, and that irritated me. If you do intend to do the research, then I apologize, but as I said earlier I'm not in the best frame of mind. Cade Calrayn 00:21, January 17, 2013 (UTC)
- I must second this assessment. Adding those tags to whatever battle that has a conjecture tag on it, without propper evidence, will not solve anything and contributes in nothing to the Wookieepedia. The Conjecture tag works as "Not Identified in any material" and that itself already provides proof. If you can dispute that claim, then sure go ahead and add the ID tag. If not, then you shouldn't add it as it is futile. It's like adding a "Needs sourcing" to every single article that isn't fully sourced.Winterz (talk) 00:53, January 17, 2013 (UTC)
Warning
|
|
User warning: Three-Revert Rule.
You have come close to violating, or have already violated, the Three-Revert Rule. If you continue to edit-war, an administrator will block you from editing. Please reconsider your approach, and pay attention to the advice others provide. |
Re: Page log
I honestly have no idea. o.o Grunny is more well-versed in this than I am, so he may be able to help. Though, let me check something first... I think I may have an idea what that may be, so I'll get back to you. Trak Nar Ramble on 07:57, January 17, 2013 (UTC)
- Found it. You're just triggering an abuse filter that's designed to log any mention of sysop names, in the event of possible attack. I've triggered about a dozen of similar filters, so it's no big deal. The filters are there to weed out the troublemakers, mainly, but innocent users often trigger them unintentionally. Trak Nar Ramble on 08:01, January 17, 2013 (UTC)
Re: Typo
Sure thing. One last deletion before I head to bed. :D Trak Nar Ramble on 09:45, January 17, 2013 (UTC)
Kohlma
Oh, I had no idea. Thanks for telling me.--Darth Pythonis (talk) 03:58, January 19, 2013 (UTC)
Notice the first paragraph in the Behind the scenes section of the article. They probably mixed up the location of this castle (probably instead suppose to be on Serenno) with the headquarters of the Bando Gora. Also, how can Dooku have a base here at the same location and same time of the Bando Gora?--Darth Pythonis (talk) 04:14, January 19, 2013 (UTC)
So maybe it is confirmed that the castle was actually on Kohlma and not an error, but there is still something that I'm still confused about. Wouldn't Komari Vosa knew that Dooku was on the moon because she is force-sensitive? In addition, right before she died, she quickly said that "he [Dooku] is here"—so she would have known and sensed if Dooku was there or not.--Darth Pythonis (talk) 04:27, January 19, 2013 (UTC)
Userpages
Hey, just a quick heads up, you shouldn't edit another users userpage without their permission. Thanks, Supreme Emperor (talk) 15:02, January 19, 2013 (UTC)
- For inactive users the inactive tag can be added, otherwise I would suggest just giving the a heads up on their talk page. Supreme Emperor (talk) 15:35, January 19, 2013 (UTC)
Re:Guard
It's most certainly fanon when you remove a referenced date, even if the date is correct, and add your own unsourced date. As for the supposedvandalism, the Internet cut out as it saved the page. Cade Calrayn 03:32, January 20, 2013 (UTC)
- My intention was to remove the false, unverified and fan-created date of 22 BBY that you added in place of the incorrect date of 21 BBY, which is the definition of fanon. However, the server error prevented that. Cade Calrayn
Skaross system
Can you explain me your idea for this one. Hk 47 (talk) 14:10, January 26, 2013 (UTC)
Re: Double Redirects
No prob. :) I go through the Special:DoubleRedirects page nightly to find any that need fixed simply out of habit. Trak Nar Ramble on 09:59, January 27, 2013 (UTC)
Saberan Marcross
That is also used by the uploader as Marcross' picture in the Hand of Judgement page—see for yourself. It says in the book that he was shot by his uncle, and I believe he was even holding his arm. The uploader used it for Marcross on the HoJ page, so it should also be used for the infobox image rather than that same picture of the three stormtroopers from the cover.--ARC Commander Colt (talk) 16:08, January 28, 2013 (UTC)
- Glad to help! :)--ARC Commander Colt (talk) 04:13, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
Re:Breha Organa
Hello again, Rokkur. Well, cumulative lists are usually frowned upon here on the Wook—although I'm quite certain that The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia article could use a "discrepancies and errors" subsection. However, some of the encyclopedia's mistakes are already referred to in the BtS of articles such as Yam'rii, Darth Cognus, Gactimus, Hoover, Nichos Marr, Tanbris and Serra Keto. There are other cases, I guess, but I haven't discovered them yet.
As far as Breha is concerned, I really think we should seek the Word of God. We should ask Leland Chee, but not simply say "When did Breha die?" We should provide clear examples of the discrepancy, just to be sure Chee doesn't miss any pieces of the puzzle—don't get me wrong, the Holocron continuity database is something brilliant, but its content is much more limited than ours. After all, Breha Organa is now a movie character, so I would be surprised if there were no clear cut answer on her fate. --LelalMekha (talk) 12:00, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
Monsters and Aliens
No worries, Rokkur :) Any help is tremendously appreciated! You know how confusing this book can be at times... Stake black msg 03:36, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
Carida(n)
Hey Rokkur. I see your doing some work on Carida system. Might I recommend something, though? Reorganise the info so that is chronological. Cheers! Stake black msg 14:16, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't mean the appearances and sources sections, I was referring to the body, really. Stake black msg 14:49, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
Carida / Caridan
- My apologies, I wasn't aware. I just re-read the Jedi Academy Trilogy recently and found myself on that article, noticed the peculiarity of the merge template and thought to fix it. Didn't realize it was an ongoing issue that anyone was trying to correct =) — DigiFluid(Whine here) 17:22, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
- On a side note, I did not revert Hk's edit out of spite or to argue the point, that is just not the appropriate way to move the page. The redirect needs to be deleted and then the correct page moved to preserve the history, as you have asked an administrator to do. Cade Calrayn 17:25, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Rokkur, I noticed you moved Carida system to it's old name per Jedi Academy trilogies (released 1994). Mind I remind you that in newer sources such as The Essential Atlas and it's online companion plus recent TCW Point of No Return also The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia and latest The Essential Reader's Companion and others call this system Carida system. Caridan system is like calling Coruscant system - Coruscanti system, it's just slightly different name (not a different system)- for that read whole entry in TCSWE (they first name it Caridan system then at the end of short entry Carida system). I think it should be all corrected back to Carida system - which is newest a proper name. Cheers --Jedi Marty (talk) 21:45, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
- Marty is correct - The ERC calls it the Carida system. Cade Calrayn 21:54, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
- *sigh* I wasn't implying anything. I was simply letting you know my reasons behind the edit, since the edit summary could have been misinterpreted, just as you did with my statement here. As for the Caridan system issue, Anderson's original naming means nothing - later sources override older ones, and the ERC calls it the Carida system, so it's the Carida system. Cade Calrayn 23:17, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Cade here. As for your question you post on my page I quote from TCSWE: "Carida One of several planets in the Caridan system, it was large ... (But at the end of entry) ... Nova Station was located in the remnants of Carida system. It floated just inside ... " Also entry for Carida Nebula The Collection of crimson dust and space gases marked the remains of the Carida system, which was destroyed ... Then TERC entry under JA trilogy pg. 316 quote: " The possesed Kyp next targets the Carida system in his swath of vengeance-fueled destruction." There you have it,Rokkur. How much more prove do you need? --Jedi Marty (talk) 23:38, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
- Hey Rokkur, here I found latest IU sources: Fate of the Jedi: Outcast or before that Legacy of the Force: Invincible (btw they're also under appearance sect. of Carida system article). That's the latest IU sources I could find. And I can't find anywhere that says OOU sources doesn't count as latest sources for naming convention. Where did you get that information? Btw I'm glad we're all trying to solve this problem with civilized talk and not going into edit war.--Jedi Marty (talk) 23:58, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
- It's not, and as far as I know never has been, true that OOU sources can't override IU sources. Besides, thanks to Culator, the name "Carida system" appears in Champions of the Force itself (pg. 48), I, Jedi, Star by Star, Legacy of the Force: Inferno, and the sources Marty stated. Cade Calrayn 00:08, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for your input Cade. For your question Rokkur, I don't know if we should have both articles. Carida system is the name of that system per mentioned sources above and that didn't change after destruction. And Carida Nebula is remnant after destruction as per TCSWE and it has own entry. Is it better to have two separate articles or just one for Carida system with mention of aftermath and appearance of Carida Nebula? I don't know, I think it depends on how much info we have and if it's worth of creating new article or just add that info to Carida system article. --Jedi Marty (talk) 00:44, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
- It's not, and as far as I know never has been, true that OOU sources can't override IU sources. Besides, thanks to Culator, the name "Carida system" appears in Champions of the Force itself (pg. 48), I, Jedi, Star by Star, Legacy of the Force: Inferno, and the sources Marty stated. Cade Calrayn
- Hey Rokkur, here I found latest IU sources: Fate of the Jedi: Outcast or before that Legacy of the Force: Invincible (btw they're also under appearance sect. of Carida system article). That's the latest IU sources I could find. And I can't find anywhere that says OOU sources doesn't count as latest sources for naming convention. Where did you get that information? Btw I'm glad we're all trying to solve this problem with civilized talk and not going into edit war.--Jedi Marty (talk) 23:58, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
- Marty is correct - The ERC calls it the Carida system. Cade Calrayn
Battle CT
Just in case you'd not noticed, I revised the battle titles CT with the provisions from the discussion. I mention this just because your reject vote was (at the time) based on Tope's reasoning that they hadn't been written in, but that's been fixed now. If you're still interested in adopting with the changes, it should be more to your liking now. If not, well, I guess it remains a vote against ;) — DigiFluid(Whine here) 16:26, February 4, 2013 (UTC)
Re: HQ images
Not that I know of, though that is a great idea and it may end up being something we could gain access to sooner. I'll run it by Eric and see what he can sniff out. Thanks! :D Trak Nar Ramble on 04:32, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
Vision
Yeah, nevermind, I realised this shortly after reverting. Sorry about that. Stake black msg 02:16, February 8, 2013 (UTC)
Re: Cleo Mangi
I am not having any luck whatsoever. The only "Cloud City Technician" card I can find is this one, and he is clearly indicated to be male. The only other female card I found is Kebyc. This one is a mystery and I'm starting to become highly suspicious of it... Trak Nar Ramble on 04:31, February 10, 2013 (UTC)
- Me neither, and at the moment, I haven't the foggiest on where to acquire those sources. My eBay spending this month is reserved for a Kotobukiya ArtFX Zuckuss figure that I've had my eye on for years, but couldn't convince myself to spend over $100 on. :P Trak Nar Ramble on 04:52, February 10, 2013 (UTC)
- Something to that effect, yep. Basically, where this individual was seen in ESB, then a blurb on how that individual was given a small backstory by Decipher, date of publication, etc. There's quite a few "unidentified" CANs that you could take a look at to get a feel for how the Bts should read. I'll check back tomorrow, as I'm heading for bed. I should have been in bed a few hours ago, as I need to be up in five. Trak Nar Ramble on 08:49, February 12, 2013 (UTC)
Quit whining
[Redacted by administration] -- Darth Culator (Talk) 06:05, February 10, 2013 (UTC)
- Perfunctory protest against administrative vocabulary. Karohalva (talk) 06:19, February 10, 2013 (UTC)
Re: Thuku image
To be honest, the debate about specific canon levels is not usually applied to issues across the site. That is not to say that the image you're proposing is of bad quality, but yes, image quality is—again, in general—commonly the deciding factor about which image belongs in an infobox. When there are disagreements, the proper course is for the community to vote on the image. If you feel you have a better image to adopt than the current one, you are welcome to start a vote on the talk page so that the community can decide which one best suits the infobox. CC7567 (talk) 21:04, February 10, 2013 (UTC)
Re: Mace Windu
Hi there, your comment is understood completely. Just thought it would be worthwhile adding it in though next time I'll wait before adding in stuff from future episodes. I notice no one adds anything about Mace at all from books and other stuff so I do it myself. As for Obsession, I believed that some of those parts were verified to be non-canon though I understand the point you're making. 124.181.152.246 07:13, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
Re: Greedo
Han shooting 1st. what I was trying to do was please the classic fans by removing the needless sentence. over all it would seem the original lines as well as the new lines point toward greedo not shooting as such Greedo shooting a shot of at all is error in continuity. I'm not even going to say why its not logical its on the Han shot first page.
a loyal Star Wars fan Sparduckk117 —Unsigned comment by Sparduck117 (talk • contribs)
Image sourcing
Linking to an offsite file URL is not a proper source for an image. This is how the Cloud City technician image should have been sourced. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 21:56, February 16, 2013 (UTC)
- Also, just linking to the StarWars.com article here on Wookieepedia, as was done for this image, is not an appropriate or accurate source. An article on Wookieepedia is not an officially licensed source. You need to the use the {{SW}} template and link directly to the page on StarWars.com where the image was obtained from. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 04:37, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
Cats cats
Hey Rokkur. Rememer to always categorise the categories you create. Cheers! Stake black msg 12:19, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
- Woops, sorry. Rokkur Shen (talk) 12:23, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
Re:Queequeg
That's not how the {{Nickname}} template works, Rokkur. If he does not have a canonical name, then it must be conjecture based on Chee's statements. Please properly move the article to an unidentified article and use the correct template. JangFett (Talk) 16:38, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
Luke Skywalker
Hello Rokkur Shen, You have helped me recently in my editing and I was wondering. I wanted to expand the Princess Leia section of Lukes Romance's but there appears to be no where to do so. I believe that this is called a locked page but is there any way to work around this. Thank You! Grand Moff Wiluff Tarkin (talk) 17:18, February 19, 2013 (UTC)
- The article Luke Skywalker is only semi-protected, so you should be able to edit it as an registered user. You may want to have a look here: Wookieepedia:Protection policy#Semi-protection It may be that you're account is not old enough or you may be required to make a set number of edits before you're allowed to edit semi-protected pages. However, I'm not an administrator so am not 100% sure. Hope this helps. Rokkur Shen (talk) 01:39, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
MAGL art
(Picture only), unfortunately... Stake black msg 14:00, February 24, 2013 (UTC)
Word count
Hey! You're right; headers shouldn't be included in word counts, nor should tables of contents, quotes, or image captions --- only the article's prose. I usually just copy and paste into MSword. Menkooroo (talk) 02:48, February 26, 2013 (UTC)
Camo guy
Well, I just found about Pablo Hidalgo's post while reading through Joe Corroney's Facebook feed. Once I had read Pablo's update on the official blog, I started writing the new article and uploading a new infobox picture. We both wanted to do the same thing, it seems, but I was quicker. Those things you do when you get bored... at 02:45 AM. --LelalMekha (talk) 01:46, March 6, 2013 (UTC)
CT change
Hey, Rokkur. A heads-up about a change to Forum:CT:OOU Layout Guide: Published narrative works, since you've already voted. Per the discussion section, "Cast" has been changed to "Credits" and will now include crewmembers as well. Take a look. Menkooroo (talk) 04:29, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll leave my vote as is, as I still support the proposal. Rokkur Shen (talk) 07:55, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
- The next change is an aesthetic one about image alignment in the "Main characters" section. Take a look. Menkooroo (talk) 04:04, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
Executor image
Regardless of the quality, the image is still significantly different enough. Toprawa and Ralltiir, who was the primary author of the article to FA status, previously reverted the change and I support his decision to do so. - Sir Cavalier of One(Squadron channel) 10:45, March 12, 2013 (UTC)
Stop
...I have one important question to ask you. It's serious. JangFett (Talk) 01:59, April 2, 2013 (UTC)
Wetrosky
Wetrosky was given a warning the previous day regarding blanking pages. The day after receiving said warning, he blanked another page. MJ did reduce his ban, but regardless he did violate policy. Supreme Emperor (talk) 02:09, April 2, 2013 (UTC)
April Fools' stuff
Per IRC discussion, we're keeping up the AFD pranks until April 1 is over in every inhabited time zone. That means 11:00 UTC or 7:00 am EDT. —MJ— Council Chambers 02:16, April 2, 2013 (UTC)
Archive
Hey, just a heads up that when you archive talk pages, you have to manually move the contents of the talk page into the archive page. Thanks, Supreme Emperor (talk) 03:29, April 3, 2013 (UTC)
Ban
I actually deleted the page cause I thought it was Fanon not because of not editing semi-protected pages which has been resolved. Wetrosky (talk) 04:15, April 3, 2013 (UTC)
R5-H6
Hello, could you please elaborate a bit more on your deletion tag on R5-H6? Did you make sure Gardulla has no astromech droid named that? Thanks. 1358 (Talk) 21:20, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks. Redirecting the page is good to avoid confusion. Cheers, 1358 (Talk) 12:50, April 7, 2013 (UTC)
Naboo Royal Starship Droids
Rokkur, I was in the process of making some additional updates to the article on the Queen's starship, specifically re. the droids assigned to it during the TF blockade escape. Have you seen this site: http://www.angelfire.com/droid/astromechs/page8.html It shows some interesting information that stands contrary to the Wookieepedia data, specifically regarding the R2-C4 'Seefor' droid being aboard the ship at the time. There is also a cut image from the Ep. I Expanded Visual Dictionary (which I don't have on hand) that shows some production stills of the droid hold, and only SIX astro units appear in the docks, and the text specifically state that there were only six droids aboard, and not listing (or showing) 'C4.' That site I reference goes on to tell a compelling story recounted by Don Beis about how the 'C4' body may have been retrofitted with a 'barrel-shaped' head, thus becoming G8-R3 for that portion of the film. Question is, does that angelfire web site qualify as a legitimate 'quotable' source in your mind, and is there a canon publication -- perhaps one of the ones sourced -- that you know specifically indicates that R2-C4 was aboard the J-type 327? (I do not have those Insiders and various other periodicals to be able to confirm or deny the content re. 'C4').--Chachap1 (talk) 11:26, April 7, 2013 (UTC)
Sith Emperor
Rokkur, it's been two weeks, so please be sure to check your objections in the Sith Emperor nom. Thanks, JangFett (Talk) 22:53, April 8, 2013 (UTC)
Re:Primus Goluud
Investigation Crew Skill Mission "Lost In Translation": "<<1>> identified the transmission as a distress call from the Primus Goluud system." Cade Calrayn 03:25, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
- To be honest, I only moved the Sith Emperor to Vitiate in the first place because I knew that you would refuse to compromise or back down on the issue. It's like I said on the FAN page: Unless you're willing to make a vote on the talk page or something, you're not going to get your way, so please either strike your objections or bring it to a vote. Cade Calrayn 03:28, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
Sith Emperor vote
Cheers for the heads up. I might've missed it otherwise. — DigiFluid(Whine here) 23:31, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
Re:Systems
Actually, the EAOC does introduce new minor systems. JangFett (Talk) 02:05, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
Squab/Skor System
Hey, Rokkur, quick question. Why'd you move Skor system to Squab system? The Essential Atlas is a newer source and should take precedence. ~Savage
12:26, April 20, 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, is that how we're treating it now? At the time the book came out, there was some confusion over what to do, and as a non-planet guy myself, I just assumed the new names overrode the old ones. Is there a another example of where we've decided to go against the "new" name? Also, should Squab system indicate that it was also known as the Skor system, or are we assuming that those names are completely non-canon? ~Savage 12:47, April 20, 2013 (UTC)
- I'll have to dig through some of my archived stuff. I jotted down some quotes from various forums and blogs regarding the appendix naming conventions a while ago after it was explained to me by another user. I've simply been continuing with how it was explained to me. System names have had their names changed to reflect what the atlas authors thought people would look up. But this makes no sense if your looking for a system location that is not even mentioned. Often, these renamed/alternate system names appear only in the appendix and no other source as they're intended to be used as a quick planet location guide only. I myself have always been inclined to stick with the previously established system names.
- I personally don't like that system names that were derived by the original authors of novels, comics etc (and which have been in use for years by a number of sources) have been thrown out the window for the sake of making it easier for a 10 year old to find a planet he's looking for. It is supposed to be a system list after all. I get what the atlas authors have tried to do but it just doesn't work very well most of the time.
- An example I can think of is the Corellian system, yet for some reason the appendix appears to list it as Corellia system. I don't know about you but it'll always be the Corellian system to me; Corellia system just doesn't sound right. Another is the planet Antar 4, which as far as I know has always been in the Prindaar system but now the appendix lists it under the "Antar system". Say you pick up a source that lists the Prindaar system and you want to find it in the atlas... bah-bow, too bad - it's not listed because the authors changed the name. Anyway, some of that's my own opinion/rant. I'll try an get back to you with those quotes that support the way it was explained to me soon. Rokkur Shen (talk) 13:36, April 20, 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, I agree with you that the authors should have probably used the older canon names in the index. My question, though, is whether we should not include both names in the first lines of the affected system articles. For instance, "The Squab system, also known as the Skor system, was a star system located in the Outer Rim." Something like that. In other words, is there anything to indicate that we shouldn't consider the index names to be canonical alternatives (rather that replacements)? ~Savage 14:47, April 20, 2013 (UTC)
- Hmmmm not sure, I'm still trying to track down the exact quotes. If you feel that we should at least mention the Skor system on the Squab system page, as you've mentioned, I've got no real problem with that. Or maybe in the BTS section? Rokkur Shen (talk) 14:52, April 20, 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, I agree with you that the authors should have probably used the older canon names in the index. My question, though, is whether we should not include both names in the first lines of the affected system articles. For instance, "The Squab system, also known as the Skor system, was a star system located in the Outer Rim." Something like that. In other words, is there anything to indicate that we shouldn't consider the index names to be canonical alternatives (rather that replacements)? ~Savage
- An example I can think of is the Corellian system, yet for some reason the appendix appears to list it as Corellia system. I don't know about you but it'll always be the Corellian system to me; Corellia system just doesn't sound right. Another is the planet Antar 4, which as far as I know has always been in the Prindaar system but now the appendix lists it under the "Antar system". Say you pick up a source that lists the Prindaar system and you want to find it in the atlas... bah-bow, too bad - it's not listed because the authors changed the name. Anyway, some of that's my own opinion/rant. I'll try an get back to you with those quotes that support the way it was explained to me soon. Rokkur Shen (talk) 13:36, April 20, 2013 (UTC)
Fanon templates
Can I just ask why you're adding fanon templatates to articles that already have listed appearances. I'd check myself but I don't have the EA. Commander Code-8 G'day, mate 06:32, April 29, 2013 (UTC)
- I believe many of these to have been created simply because a system name was placed in the atlas appendix. Most of the planets I have tagged as fanon are not mentioned in the sources that are listed on the associated system page. I've tagged them in the hope that others may verify, as I didn't want to stick a delete tag on them outright. Rokkur Shen (talk) 06:35, April 29, 2013 (UTC)
WOTM
Hey Rokkur, just wanted to say thanks for supporting my nomination for WOTM last month. I really appreciate it. Supreme Emperor (talk) 14:02, May 2, 2013 (UTC)
Archiving
You seem to have accidentally removed a 3RR violation warning from your talk page archive in this edit. As you're aware, talk page discussions should left intact. Thank you. 1358 (Talk) 11:09, May 20, 2013 (UTC)