Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Wars

WikiProject: Star Wars (edit or watch this box)

Here are some tasks you can do, as organized by WikiProject Star Wars:

• Copyedit/extensive work: Yuuzhan Vong invasion, Star Wars: Galaxies, Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi
• Expand: Mara Jade, Secrets of the Jedi, Ambush at Corellia, Assault at Selonia, Showdown at Centerpoint
• Requests: All missing Star Wars Novels
• Stubs:
• Other: See the things to do page

Archives
/archive 1 /archive 2 /archive 3 /archive 4 /archive 5 /archive 6 /archive 7 /archive 8

It isn't needed

As you probably all know, there is a wookieepedia (And no that isn't a mispelling, they just had to change the domain name) Wikipedia does not need to make a starwars project when there is already a wiki that specializes in it, which is also probably more accurate. I do not believe that these will be deleted, but it should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.19.186 (talk) 04:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars sequel trilogy

I've done a bit of cleanup and improvement to the Star Wars sequel trilogy article, and wanted to know what everybody else, thinks, what I could do to improve it and anything like that. I've cleaned it up in a way to reflect current status of those films. Thanks, --EclipseSSD (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Iphoneorange

I would appreciate it if someone familiar with the dos and don'ts of Project Star Wars to take a peek at Iphoneorange (talk · contribs), as I'm concerned that many of the articles s/he is creating are too minor of importance for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thanks. -- 13:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a gander. Thanks! --EEMIV (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC on WP:FICT

A request for comment has been made to determine if the Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) proposal has consensus. Since this project deals with many fictional topics, I am commenting here. Input on the proposal is welcome here. --Pixelface (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Opportunities for merging articles

Check out the following - here, I think many of those can be merged - either into some form of new article or to existing articles. --Allemandtando (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Made-up dating

One thing I've noticed is that a lot of the star wars articles make a lot of reference to the made-up dating system of ABY with no explanation to the causal reader of what this actually means. suggestions? --Allemandtando (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Jedi Council Article

I wish to bring to your attention that the Jedi Council article has been at the receiving end of a series of edits that have essentially massacred it. Much of the in-depth content and detail has been lost, and the article is now merely a shell. In order to prevent an inevitable edit war, I have refrained from reverting these edits - but the article is in dire need of defence. As far as I know, the user making the edits isn't a member of the project. Would somebody have a look and take appropriate action? Thanks, TheMoridian 08:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No I'm not a member of this project and don't plan to be - I think those special interest groups tend to work against the core interests of the project. If people in this project aren't going to take care of clean-up work to bring those articles in line with our guidelines and policies then don't be surprised if others take care of the job. Articles about fictional items, places and people are not immune to normal policy and guidelines. this is an example of a fictional character written about the correct way. Notice how the description of fictional characters, places and devices are done as objects of the narrative not like they are real. Most of the Star Wars articles fail to hit the right tone, have the right level of depth or present anything resembling an encyclopedia article. I don't say that to be harsh, I say that because it is true.

Let's not beat around the bush about this - writing in an in-universe fashion is simply wrong and should be replaced with prose describe the item, character or place from a real world viewpoint. Some of the articles I cleaned up (and I'm not alone in performing this clean-up lightsabre combat has been virtually re-written to get rid of it's in-universe perceptive.) were absolutely amazing in their level of detail to in-universe concerns. One had lengthy passages about the fictional contractual arrangements for the manufacture of arms. --Allemandtando (talk) 10:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I second Allemandtando's removal of uncited in-universe plot summary and trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

And I rather 'third' it. While I disagree a bit that wikiprojects tend to work against the core interests of the Project (having people who know about a subject in a specific place has its definite advantages), there is a tendency for some of the projects to slip into a 'us-versus-everyone-else' mentality. I am not saying it occurs here - or at least, not nearly as much as some of the rabid zealot/fans in other projects - but I think its prudent to remain on guard about forgetting the point of the Project. We are here to share info with the rest of the world, not just fans. That means we have to write from a real-world point of view, so that the material is accessible to even the most casual of users. It allows them to test the waters of their interest; if they like the subject, they will plunge headlong in.

To carry the swimming metaphor a bit further, adding a lot of pointless detail, or to assume/speculate about facts not cited overwhelms the reader, and they end up drowning in detail. I cannot speak for everyone else, but when I almost drown, I tend to avoid the area that nearly did for me.

A way to help test your (speaking to the various members of this project, fan and non-fan alike) edits is to have someone who has precisely no interest in the subject matter read an article, and get their detailed feedback on what they get, and what they don't. If there are parts they don't understand, you need to improve that bit, using the parts they do as a guidebook on how to improve it. Additionally, folk from outside the project should not be condemned but praised for adding a breath of fresh air to the discussions. Granted, there are folk who come in like stormtroopers and put entire articles to the torch as well as anti-zealots (I think I am part of the latter, as fancruft and "canonicity" has zero eight with me). It is something of a natural response to the point of view presented in a lot of these wikiprojects - 'well, if you don't know why Lando was in Cloud City, why the frak are you here?' - I know I tend to see a bit o' red when some chucklehead deals me a response like that. Of course, that just perpetuates the lack of AGF that is required to lubricate the gears of friendly editing, and leads to the zany adventures we call edits wars.

Maybe we can all ease out of our corners and edit as equals. Us versus Them isn't going to work. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify my remarks about projects - the first is that a lot of projects slip into the mindset that they have some special authority over articles and that any major changes must be proposed and pass by them first. Also with a couple of projects (*not* this one), I've seen the very dangerous mindset that the decisions they make somehow bypass or are more important than core policies and procedures. The second issue I have is one of culture - wikiprojects are self-selecting by their nature and I think that the problem with discussion between interested fans is that they tend to consider what is more interesting to them as fans rather than our duty to the core drive of the project - to create a general readers encyclopaedia. This tends to cause conflict between members of the project and generalists like myself. I'm not saying that all wikiprojects follow into this trap but it's very hard to avoid under a long period of time. --Allemandtando (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh and check out Jabba the hutt --Allemandtando (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't wish to turn this into an argument, but I feel we have 2 different extremes here. While some of the articles may have far too much detail to be plausible (or informative to non-Star Wars fans), your act of 'cleanup' has gone for the other extreme; much of the in-depth content in the articles has been massacred. In summary, while I can see that your removal of the heavy in-universe content makes the articles more approachable for, using your words, 'someone who has precisely no interest in the subject... it takes away that extra content that fans don't know, leaving the articles nothing but empty shells for the fans who already know the basic content. So, why your edits are all very nice for most users, they really don't do anything for the fans (who make up a majority of the wikiproject members). If the articles need cleanup... fine - but consider the impact of your edits on all users, not just non-fans such as yourselves. TheMoridian 08:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

We are not writing for fans, we should never write for fans. That's why I'm wary about wikiprojects because a group of fans offer lacks the proper perspective. --Allemandtando (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! These articles are about Star Wars - do you not think that the major readers/ editors will be fans or users of knowledge of Star Wars?! So, you're just going to write for non-fans and ignore the fans? Surely you can see the dire faults with that idea? TheMoridian 09:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes we - because we are a general readers encyclopaedia, it's NOT a encyclopaedia for fans of X, Y or Z. Why do you think we have clean-up tags that say things like "this article reads like a fan page"? Read the MOS - Many fan wikis and fan websites (see below) take this approach, but it should not be used for Wikipedia articles. An in-universe perspective is inaccurate and misleading, gives undue weight to unimportant information and invites unverifiable original research. Most importantly, in-universe perspective defies community consensus as to what we do not want Wikipedia to be or become. Writing in-universe is explicitly wrong. --Allemandtando (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No, sorry, we aren't a "general readers encyclopaedia". Wikipedia is (from the beginning) a place where we can provide summaries of all subjects of interest and also provide exhaustive detail on those subjects, conveniently linked, categorized, and searchable for readers who want more detail because we are an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs.. Readers who want more detail aren't general readers and specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs aren't for general readers, but for "fan" of these topics (from Arts, to Medicine, to Fiction).--213.140.15.164 (talk) 03:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Revenge of the Sith

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith has been delisted from FA status. I just want to bring this attention to here. 18:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess my meds must be off, 'coz I am not sure where to find the specific discussion about this article's FAR (please free to provide a link). As well, it might be worth to suggest improving the steps in the delisting discussion that the attendant Wikiproject be notified that something wicked this way comes. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The link to the FAR can be found here. 20:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If this article isn't promoted to at least GA by 2008-09-24, then Star Wars episodes will be removed as a featured topic for no longer meeting the criteria - rst20xx (talk) 00:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Time for some nuclear strikes

Is it worth cleaning up articles like List of minor Star Wars characters? Are we better served just nuking the articles? --Allemandtando (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked at WP:LIST in a while, but my observation has been that lists tend to have a lower bar for establishing the topics' notability. My inclination for lists like this is to substantially trim, similar to (shameless plug) List of Star Wars starfighters, List of Star Wars air, aquatic, and ground vehicles, List of Star Wars spacecraft. They could probably stand to have some expansion -- especially in terms of marketing/merchandise, since many of these have been turned into toys, Lego sets, etc. --EEMIV (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

hah - WP:LIST links to that article. Even if we agree it should be kept, we also agree it has to represent a real world perspective right? --Allemandtando (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team,  () 20:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Default importance of template

Why does it default to Top importance? See here: Template_talk:StarWarsProject#Default_importance --DanielPharos (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 1035 articles are assigned to this project, of which 327, or 31.6%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subscribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars video games

There is discussion happening currently at Talk:List of Star Wars video games#new categories about the organization of the list. There haven't been many editors involved - if anyone would like to comment, please do so there. – akmata 13:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have assessed all the Star Wars articles

Resolved.

I have looked at, in the last 24 hours, every star wars article (1,017 of them) and rated it on the assessment scale (stub,start, etc), so they are all rated, and have an importance measure. Therefore can I please have a Star Wars barnstar? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yay, Thanks so much!!! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to keep churning in this project; I no longer edit fiction articles (except FACs), and this project could use the activity. — Deckiller 04:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Nomi Sunrider

Would appreciate comment, critique, (help) etc.

¤ Nomi Sunrider ↔ (start-to-finish)

♥

The article needs to assert some notability, read up on WP:N. If you have specific questions, ask me or others here. The article needs things like creator interviews describing how they came up with the character, or fan reaction to the character. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

HK-47

What makes him more notable, or more worthy of having a page which is separated from the main list? Texcarson (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably nothing particularly "big" -- although I'm pretty sure he and Kreia both received some Best of... awards (villains, sidekick, humor...something like that) the years of KOTOR's and KOTOR2's releases. In general, the KOTOR/KOTOR2 character articles and lists of are a mess. Just take a look at Revan... --EEMIV (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject Star Wars participants...WikiProject Media franchises needs some help from other projects which are similar. Media franchises' scope deals primarily with the coordination of articles within the hundreds if not thousands of media franchises which exist. Sometimes a franchise might just need color coordination of the various templates used; it could mean creating an article for the franchise as a jump off point for the children of it; or the creation of a new templating system for media franchise articles. The project primarily focuses on multimedia franchises. It would be great if some of this project's participants would come over and help the project get back on solid footing. Also, if you know of similar projects which have not received this, let Lady Aleena (talk · contribs) know. Please come and take a look at the project and see if you wish to lend a hand. You can sign up here if you wish. Thank you. LA @ 05:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

AFDs

Several Star Wars articles are currently up for deletion:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamino
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle droid
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protocol droid
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamorrean
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twi'lek
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ssi-Ruuk

96T (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dates in Star Wars. The above debates are now closed as keep (most of them with no consensus), with the exceptions of Gamorrean (still ongoing) and Twi'lek (redirected). 96T (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Franchise naming convention discussion at WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject Star Wars participants...WikiProject Media franchises is currently discussing a naming convention for franchise articles. Since this may affect one or more articles in your project, we would like to get the opinions of all related projects before implimenting any sweeping changes. Please come and help us decide. Thanks! LA (T) @ 23:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Great article

Anyone with an interest in working on Star Wars Expanded Universe or any other article that delves into the EU and its maintenance should check out the Sept. 08 issue of Wired, which has several pages with Leland Chee, Lucasfilm's internal-consistency guru. There are several references to conflicts, the nature and degrees of "canon," etc. --EEMIV (talk) 02:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The code to cite it, if it saves you some time, is

<ref name="wiredsept08">{{cite journal|last=Baker|first=Chris|year=2008|month=09|title=Master of the Universe|journal=[[Wired Magazine]]|pages=134-141|publisher=[[Condé Nast Publications]]}}</ref>

MTFBWY. --EEMIV (talk) 03:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Just so long as no one starts applying canon to Wikipedia. Canon and four quarters will get you $1 on Wikipedia, meaning canon has precisely no value here. If it is reliably and verifiably sourced, it has the same value as something considered canon, for the most part. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, completely agreed. My general notion is that a "canon criterion" for inclusion here is non-npov. The idea that the meaning of canon varies between people -- i.e. is non-npov -- comes across in the Wired article. I wasn't suggesting this article/canon be a litmus for inclusion; rather, that it might be useful for improving the ORish/speculative content at, for example, Star Wars Expanded Universe and Star Wars canon. --EEMIV (talk) 03:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of {{FreeContentMeta}}

{{FreeContentMeta}}, which is used in the {{Wookieepedia box}} template, is under discussion. Please see template talk:FreeContentMeta#Inline or floating to participate in this discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)