Talk:Wookieepedia

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was to move this page --Lox (t,c) 12:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Currently we redirect wookiepedia to star wars wiki, but according to their own website, they changed their name formally.

Voting

 * Support. Olessi 17:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Star Wars Wiki site says it has changed its name. JimmyTheWig 11:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Certainly it is legitimate to describe them as the Star Wars Wiki, but if they've changed their name, and given that it is possible a new wiki might start one day, it seems more legitimate to use Wookiepedia. --Maru (talk) Contribs 17:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikia vs. wiki
While I appreciate the PR aspect of it, I'm not sure defining Wookieepedia as a "wikia" is more helpful than just a "wiki". Thoughts?


 * A Wikia is a wiki hosted by Wikia. I know it's confusing, and I think the names "Wikicities" and "Wikicity" were better than "Wikia". --Sikon 11:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * But Wikia is the commercial, branded term created by the company, and not only that is understood by the general public, I suspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SparqMan (talk • contribs)


 * I'm with Sikon here. Hell, I'm an admin, I've editted on a number of Wikicities-hosted wikis, and I had no idea what that meant (well, I figured it out after reading up on it, but you know what I mean). --maru  (talk)  contribs 05:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Whups, I did mean to sign. Thanks =). So do we incur the wrath of the gods by changing it back? --SparqMan 07:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, no way to know but to try. I shall endanger my reproductive potential by finding out and recklessly going first- just as evolution intended. --maru  (talk)  contribs 19:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, this'll teach me to read talk pages before editing the article. I've pretty much done s/Wikicities/Wikia/, maintaining the 'wiki' description. I hope that's okay. I believe it is appropriate, since reverting my changes would be silly - Wikicities no longer exists. --Fuzzie (talk) 06:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand the objections. The page originally said Wikicities, but since Wikicities was renamed to Wikia, I changed it to use the new name instead. Please see the Press releases/March 2006 for information on the name change. Angela. 06:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Angela, I thought it was pretty clear our objection: next to no one has heard of Wikia, but Wikicities is much better known. I'll give you an example- if I were writing about Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith, should I link to Qymaen jai Sheelal or General Grievous?  One is more correct and recent than the other (much like Wikia and Wikicities), but nevertheless vastly less known and hence usable. I mean, Google hits are quite clear; there are roughly four times less for Wikia than Wikicities. We would be doing readers a disservice by not a least including a note after employing this novel nomenclature of the previous name. --maru   (talk)  contribs 07:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * My original objection regarded replacing the text "Wookieepedia...is a wiki" with "Wookieepedia...is a wikia" based the noun "wikia" means nothing to most users compared to "wiki". The latter objections belong to others. --SparqMan 09:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I know this post is over 17 years old, but the main difference between the General Greivous and the WikiCities sitution is that Qymaen jai Sheelal is not inherintly "more correct" than General Grevious, whearas at the time Wikia was more correct than WikiCities. 2601:240:8301:140:E85D:CA51:D09C:2700 (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the host of the wiki belongs in the intro paragraph at all. Take a look at my recent edit and see if you think it improves things. --Doradus 20:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

SW fanon wiki
I can't see any evidence that the SW fanon wikia is a parody of Wookieepedia. It's just what it sounds like: a SW fanon wikia. That said, I think the link can go. --SparqMan 18:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Removing it. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Note to the person or persons whose edits we keep reverting
If you think we should go into more detail on the SW fanon wiki and its problems with vandalism and trolls because you genuinely think that it's relevant to an article on Wookieepedia, please explain your reasons why on this talk page. If you're just doing this to lobby for someone to appoint admins on the fanon wiki, remember that Wookieepedia and Wikipedia are completely separate from each other, and Wookieepedia only shares a hosting service with the fanon wiki, so any attempt to get people's attention here or on Wookieepedia won't help. Moreover, doing so through vandalism and impersonation will just annoy people.

If you're just here to troll, well, there's no point to this message. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete
Delete-- Per Guy's statement "wikipedia is not a listing for fan wikis". If you are going to have that rule, then be consistant about its enforcement. --Vix
 * One could also say that Wikipedia is not a listing of university professors, musical groups, city streets, etc., etc.: but the Wikipedia community has developed formal and informal rules which determine which profs, bands, streets, and fan wikis get Wikipedia articles. So, articles on Wookieepedia, Memory Alpha, and Comixpedia are kept, while others are deleted. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

*Grumble* bureaucratic Morons
I can't believe that wookiepedia merged the Anakin Skywalker article with the Darth vader article. In terms of size, it would explode (believe me the content on wookiepedian articles like that are huge). Also, it is clear that Darth vader is different from Anakin Skywalker with or without the suit. Either way, HE said it himself that he is not Anakin Skywalker at anymore.

What i'm trying to say is, please, do not change the Wiki articles on the two articles that wookie merged. Probably some do****** did it for some reason to fit himself. Hmph, ever since they started removing the special articles links (in the from of like eg: this place is just a big desert. With some really unfriendly inhabitants] (i just made this up.), and now they removed this links, which not only do leaves people asking, "what is this referring to" But it makes them seem just lazy, unlike before. And to think they say it "clutters it up", Well, isn't the point of wookiepedia to be the most detailed and elaborate star wars wiki ever??

all I'm saying is, wookiepedia has changed man. it should go back into its original glory, to the time where the order and archives were completely detailed and elaborate, where the quotes linked to many articles themselves, and the links to there articles, where in sentences and simple words like "this". Traitors!!!! (supporters of the merge)

Pece Kocovski 08:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Peace be with you, nobody is considering merging these articles on Wikipedia. - Sikon 09:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This aged well 2601:240:8301:140:E85D:CA51:D09C:2700 (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Good, wiki should be alright as it is. Pece Kocovski 03:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, why did Wookiepedia do that? I've just registered as a Wookiepedian. And indeed, the first thing I checked out was Darth Vader's page, but I was redirected to Anakin Skywalker. That's not cool. Moonwalkerwiz 04:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Trust me when I say this, it was a close call to merge the articles. A very close call. Jasca Ducato 11:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Aw, you guys must have missed Episode V. Watch it - It outlines the reason for the merge. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 07:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Fourdot, why don't you stop being such a sarcy git. Jasca Ducato 11:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

To Onorem
My source is the collected archives of Wookieepedia user talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.108.154 (talk • contribs)
 * WP:VERIFY --Onorem 12:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV too. -- I need a name 14:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

name change
What's with the name change? Why was it changed to go along with Kyle Katarn? When did this happen?
 * It's an April Fool's Day joke which will go away by Monday. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 04:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. Thanks.

Owner
The owner, de facto, is Wikia.inc. Wikipedia is listed as owned by Wikimedia Foundation; the same applies to any wiki hosted on Wikia.inc servers. George Vitikainen 12:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's interesting logic. My dog has tags that say I am the owner of her. Does it follow that all dogs are de facto owned by me? Natalie 06:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, but wikia still owns any wiki hosted at *.wikia.com. Wookieepedia is located at starwars.wikia.com. It is stupid to say that Chad, or any "community", owns the site. Otherwise Wikipedia would be owned by its "community" and not the Foundation. They might own the content, but not the place where they store it. Raaso 10:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Being the owner of a server does not make the one the owner of a site. The site is made up of it's content, not it's host. Natalie 10:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So, the content of Wikipedia is "owned" by the Wikimedia Foundation and not by the editors? Raaso 10:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And look at this: The "site itself", and the Wikia trademarks, are owned by Wikia, Inc.. The "wikis" are owned by the communities. No one user owns any Wikia. Now, what's the difference between "site", "wiki" and "content". Raaso 10:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea who owns the content of Wikipedia. But how is that relevant? This article is about Wookiepedia. You seem to be under the impression that Wikia and the Wikimedia Foundation are the same thing, which they are not. If you had bothered to read our own article on Wikia, you would see that it says in the second paragraph that Wikia and the Foundation are separate institutions.
 * Wikia is a web hosting service. They happen to only host wikis, but that's hardly relevant. The Wikimedia Foundation, on the other hand, is a non-profit organization that operates about a dozen different free-content projects, including Wikipedia.
 * Lastly, you cannot draw your own conclusions about the ownership of one website through the ownership of another website, as this would be considered original research. You have consistently failed to verify your edits with reliable sources; so far the only sources provided at all have been blogs and discussion pages on Wookiepedia. That hardly qualifies as a source for anything, much less this supposed controversy.
 * As far as what Wikia means by saying that the wikis are owned by the communities but the site is owned by Wikia, I don't know. I imagine, however, that it means that Wikia owns the domain name and server space, while Wookiepedia (in this case) owns the content. Natalie 11:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Boo Hiss
Wookieepedia sucks. To many people are blaming ExtremeWookiee for things he never did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.226.87 (talk)
 * This is not a place to talk about Wookieepedia itself. This page is for discussion about how to improve this article. --Onorem♠Dil 13:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

non-English wiki list
I had been reverting edits that removed these links, but now I'm not sure I think they belong either. Are these sites actually related to Wookieepedia, or are they just other wikia hosted Star Wars sites? If they aren't directly related to Wookieepedia, I don't see the point in having the links on an article about Wookieepedia. I'm going to remove them in the next few days if there are no objections. --Onorem♠Dil 14:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is an official relationship: inter-language links on the English Wookieepedia are made much as they are on the English Wikipedia. I suppose it's not a particularly close one, since most editors only edit in one language.  Additionally, several of the languages listed don't really have a lot of content available. I think the German and Polish wikis, since they're fairly large wikis which aren't hosted by Wikia but are the official affiliates of the English-language Wookieepedia in those languages, should at least be mentioned and linked separately.  I could see the other links replaced with a simple external link to all the Star Wars wikis on Wikia. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Similar
How similar are articles from Wookieepedia allowed to be to those on Wikipedia? Imperial Star Destroyer (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia takes an "out-of-universe" perspective, whereas Wookieepedia is "in-universe." A good starting point for pointers would be to look at the writing-about-fiction guidelines, along with some sci-fi-related features articles, like Padme Amidala. --EEMIV (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Plus we have articles on the most trivial of items. What would be considered non-notable here, would have an article on Wookieepedia regardless of notability, as long as it is canon. -- Riffsyphon1024 (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Refimprove and elinks
I have added a refimprove to the article. WP:RS says wikis cannot be used as reliable sources, and furthermore, the only reference which establishes some-notability is the link to Sci Fi. I would personally do more to establish said notability, as well as to improve the list of references, as Sci Fi is the only legitimate, from what I can see. Furthermore, the whole article should be cited for the claims it makes.

In similar spirit, I have removed the external links which are not to the English version, per WP:EL. --Izno (talk) 22:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Popular acclaim
"Now this is what life day is all about... Wookieepedia be damned! I'm going to tag the entry as inaccurate... but first, let's sing!"
 * Wookieepedia was mentioned in TIME magazine on May 29, 2005 as one of Wikia's largest wikis; only Star Trek's Memory Alpha was larger, though as of November 12, 2005, Wookieepedia has exceeded Memory Alpha in legitimate number of articles.
 * On September 26, 2005, Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, mentioned Wookieepedia in an interview on C-SPAN.
 * Abel G. Peña mentioned Wookieepedia in his October 11, 2005 blog, calling it a "staggering enterprise."
 * Nathan Butler mentioned and gave his support to the wiki in a recent episode of his ChronoRadio internet radio show.
 * SciFi.com selected Wookieepedia as its Sci Fi Site of the Week on November 28, 2005.
 * TheForce.Net acknowledges Wookieepedia for the first time on December 2, 2005, comparing it with the Completely Unofficial Star Wars Encyclopedia.
 * On March 27, 2006, Wookieepedia was mentioned in the official Wikia press release covering the relaunch of Wikicities under the new name Wikia.
 * Dan Wallace puts Wookieepedia links in his blog. He also admitted being a "giant fan of Wookieepedia."
 * John Jackson Miller mentioned Wookieepedia in behind the scenes comments for Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic 6: Commencement, Part 6 as the source of the conjectural name "Padawan Massacre of Taris," which was later canonized in issue 11 of that same series. Also, he dedicated a blog post called "On Wikis and Wookiees" to it.
 * On September 4, 2006, Wookieepedia was mentioned in the New York Times.
 * In Matt and Ben Loewen's audio commentary for A New Hope, done as an episode of their fan audio show Star Wars FM, they cite Wookieepedia as where they looked for information on the retconned appearance of the 501st in the film. In reference to the site's name, Matt quips "I love that name!"
 * Pablo Hidalgo mentioned Wookieepedia in one of his blog entries. He stated "...there's a variety of reasons I can't go into that playground as someone on the official side of things. I try to avoid it, though from what I've seen it's pretty darn impressive."
 * In an interview with comedian C.C. Banana regarding the 30th anniversary of Star Wars, Peter Mayhew was asked if he contributed to the site, and replied that while he hadn't, "I do click onto it every now and again."
 * In an NBC blog, Aaron Bleyaert wrote about Wookieepedia's quick response to changing Motti's name to the disputed but, as of now, G-canon name Conan Antonio Motti. In the blog, released a day after George Lucas's statement, he praised Wookieepedia for their quickness in incorporating it into the Star Wars mythology.
 * On May 4, 2007, Variety.com wrote an article on Wookieepedia. The article was later included on Star Wars Hyperspace and the starwars.com Homing Beacon #187&mdash;making this the first time the official site has recognized the existence of Wookieepedia.
 * On May 18, 2007, StarWars.com again mentioned Wookieepedia in the Behind-the-Scenes Stage Programming" section of its article "Insider's Guide to Celebration IV: Part III." Wookieepedia was later mentioned in the printed form of the guide available at the event.
 * Wookieepedia was alloted time on the "Behind the Scenes" stage during Celebration IV for a trivia game set up by members of the Wookieepedia community.
 * In the June 2007 issue of Reason Magazine, an article about Jimmy Wales discussed the Star Wars wikia community as one of the largest wikis.
 * On the June 19, 2007 episode of his radio show, Howard Stern&mdash;an influential radio shock jock&mdash;mentioned Wookieepedia, and proceeded to read from the Wookieepedia entry on Darth Nihilus.
 * In Issue #121 of ToyFare magazine, the "Twisted Toyfare Theater" section is devoted exclusively to The Star Wars Holiday Special, with Lumpy questioning Chewbacca about Life Day, and Chewbacca responding that he should look it up on Wookieepedia.

- Mallatobuck in Twisted Toyfare Theatre Sept 2007


 * TimesOnline mentioned Wookieepedia as being one of the best Wikipedia spinoffs and referred to its "regularly amusing Quotes of the Day."
 * RiffTrax's Kevin Murphy worked a Wookieepedia reference into their commentary for The Star Wars Holiday Special.
 * Wookieepedia was mentioned in StarWars.com's February 12, 2008 Photo Caption.
 * The Official Star Wars Blog mentioned Wookieepedia's April 1, 2008 joke.
 * Wookieepedia was mentioned in Dan Wallace's article "The Essential Expanded Universe" in Star Wars Insider 101.

"incomplete second Death Star[citation needed]"
Anyone even remotely familiar with Star Wars can attest that the object depicted on the logo is indeed Death Star II. If you need a citation for that, you need to see a psychiatrist about your OCD. - Sikon (talk) 11:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the citation is needed for it being analogous to the Wikipedia jigsaw logo, not it being of the second Death Star. -- I need a name (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly the concept is along the lines of "under construction and incomplete". Btw, who removed my name from the article as conceiver I wonder? -- Riffsyphon1024 (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed teh dork stuff about RPG
Because seriously.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.85.225.249 (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is it called wookieepedia instead of wookiepedia?
I don't understand. Wookie and pedia should be wookiepedia shouldn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.107.237.75 (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the correct spelling is 'Wookiee'. -- I need a name (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.107.237.75 (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The alleged spelling change from wookiepedia to wookieepedia was tagged as citation needed since October 2017. Even if true the change of spelling is trivial so I have rewritten the sentence to simply attribute the name to Barbry. -- 109.76.194.20 (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

WTF?
Try this: www.wookieepedia.org. All I can say is: THIS IS BULLSHIT!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.56.92 (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * http://www.wookieepedia.org/ is a parody. The website this article is describing is at http://starwars.wikia.com/. jcgoble3 (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It's still a FUCKING SHILTOAD of GAR-BITCH!!! 70.126.56.92 (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Please calm down and be civil. Also, this is not a discussion forum. jcgoble3 (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Wookieepedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150215111009/http://darthipedia.com:80/ to http://darthipedia.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wookieepedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150621014246/http://qdb.zervonn.net/qdb/quotes/tag/publicserviceannouncement to http://qdb.zervonn.net/qdb/quotes/tag/publicserviceannouncement

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The Old Republic MMO in the Legends Tab
It's noted in this article that "'Legends' tab only includes information from sources released prior to the 2014 reboot." This isn't true due to the fact that the MMO Star Wars: The Old Republic has seen several content releases after 2014, but the content of those releases is still placed under the Legends tab on the wiki. A good example is the Feast of Prosperity, which is an event that first appeared in 2019's Onslaught expansion but is still categorized under Legends. Any thoughts? --Bpjb (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Deadnaming
Was wondering if it would be appropriate to have a short paragraph mentioning Fandom's decision to ban the deadnaming of transgender individuals in response to recent events on Wookieepeda. So far, the story has been covered by Comic Book Resources, io9, GameRevolution and a Spanish-language website called Tomatazos. I'm not sure if this is worth mentioning on the Wikipedia article. Just a disclaimer, I also edit on Wookieepedia.

''In late March 2021, Wookieepedia held a vote to ban deadnaming, which triggered debate within Star Wars fan circles around the naming of the non-binary artist Robin Provonost's article on the site. In response to the situation, Fandom, the wiki hosting service which hosts Wookieepedia, updated its terms of use policy to prohibit deadnaming across its websites. In an official statement, Fandom Director of Community Safety's Tim Quievryn stated: ''

Just wanted to get feedback before I posted it on the Wikipedia page. Have also done it on the Fandom and Deadnaming articles. Look forward to hearing what others think. Andykatib 08:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Have incorporated content from Wookieepedia after consulting with the two sources referenced in the first sentence. Usually, Template:Wikia content is used to incorporate content from Fandom sites like Wookieepedia but usually excludes non encyclopedic content. Open to hearing advice and input on those issues. Andykatib 01:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Here is an updated version following recent developments: ''In late March 2021, Wookieepedia held a vote to ban deadnaming, which triggered debate within Star Wars fan circles around the naming of the non-binary artist Robin Provonost's article on the site. In response to the situation, Fandom, the wiki hosting service which hosts Wookieepedia, updated its terms of use policy to prohibit deadnaming across its websites. Fandom also permanently banned two administrators, citing a pattern of "bullying and intimidation." In addition, Wookieepedia's administration apologized to Pronovost for the pain and anguish that they have endured as a result of the website's deadnaming vote. '' Will add it to the page. If you have any issues or objections, please feel free to revert or to raise them on the talk page. Will be open to feedback. Andykatib 07:30, April 3, 2021 (UTC)

Removing the "Cancel Culture" section
Everything under this heading is, in my opinion, a forum argument that is being given drastically undue weight. It's sourced entirely to the wiki itself (primary, user-generated) with the exception of a single article on a niche Russian gaming news site. Even if we assume said site is reliable (it's never been brought up at RSN), a single fluff piece is not enough coverage to justify inclusion, especially not an entire subheading.

The IP who reverted my removal asked for a third opinion ("ask moderators to decide" in their words) but I wanted to bring it up here before asking anywhere else. Input is appreciated, thank you. Moogle.png (kupo) 16:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi. Firstly I thank you for opening this discussion. Secondly, I apologize for my possibly bad English, it is not my native language. Thirdly, actually I had my Wiki account long ago (many years ago to be honest), but I am no Wiki user anymore so I forgot my nickname and password, that's why I have to redact anonymously. Now let me answer.


 * 1) Actually, IXBT is rather reliable source on Russian Wiki. I don't know if it is valuable here, in English Wiki, but I think it can be.
 * 2) As I can see about conflict in English Wookieepedia in 2021-2022 when 2 administrators there were permanently blocked and new administration staff even apologized to non-binary artist Robin Pronovost you (I mean authors) used sources from English Wookieepedia forum and discussions. So I think, Russian and English Wookieepedia sources can be accepted as important ones here.
 * 3) Situation with these changes in modern English Wookieepedia's policy is very closely related to the conflict that followed with Russian Wookieepedia after that.
 * 4) As I wrote in the article there was noticeable reaction to that conflict in Russian social media indeed, so I can use it as source too, if English Wiki's source politics allow that.
 * 5) "a single fluff piece is not enough coverage to justify inclusion" - I have to remind, that your information about banning 2 administrators from English Wookieepedia was based only from 1 source.

Sincerely, --85.132.11.53 (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

At the very least, the writing is STRONGLY biased. I'd support its removal. remainsuncertain (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I wonder if we could cut it down to a single sentence like "In 2022, a similar dispute occurred on Russian-language Wookiepedia over the use of gender-neutral pronouns." and stick it at the end of the history section. I think even that would be giving it too much space given the low quality of the single source we have, but it seems like a decent compromise. Moogle.png (kupo) 00:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. If it is the only way to keep this information in article, I agree. --94.20.157.134 (talk) 08:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Almost-unanimous consensus here is its total removal. Even the abovementioned compromise adds that "even that would be giving it too much space." -Bidbey (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I also agree with its removal. It's written far from a neutral point of view and there isn't any reliable source to justify its inclusion, even for a single sentence, in my opinion. Bidbey (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wookieepedia is user-generated content and therefore unreliable as a source. In this case it could be used as a primary source since what's being described is the contents of Wookieepedia itself. It would be difficult to avoid original research in summarizing the issue, as the removed content shows, which was strongly POV and biased. My opinion is that the issue is not very important and need not be mentioned in our article. If it is mentioned, it should be greatly condensed compared to the removed content and written in a much more neutral tone, and sourced to one or more third party sources rather than to the site itself. CodeTalker (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are  not  required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Source. --94.20.157.134 (talk) 05:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That policy page states that "when dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering," which is the exact opposite of what you are suggesting. Bidbey (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "the exact opposite of what you are suggesting" - on what exactly? I am getting tired to repeat that this source is quite authoritative on this topic. It’s starting to seem to me that my colleague is simply ignoring all my arguments, and his openly vandalistic raids on Russian Wikipedia only prove this --85.132.11.53 (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Restoring the "Cancel Culture" section
Folk, we had a lot of conversation about the whole situation on Russia Wikipedia article about Wookieepedia, where administration confirmed, that IXBT.games is authoritative on this topic.

Also as we all can see here, in discussing, during a month and a half 3 of 5 Wikipedia's members (also with me) were agreed not deleting but editing that section on 1 sentence. Unfortunately, it was deleted anyway without any decision of administration or voting about it.

So, because all of these facts I would like someone from English Wikipedia administration come here and solve this issue. --94.20.157.134 (talk) 08:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see ANY of the 5 commenters clearly agreeing to restore the content. I don't see how you reach the conclusion that 3 agreed to that. There was a suggestion to add a single sentence about the issue but no one except you has supported that. My reading is that the clear consensus is to leave the material out of the article.Also, what happens on Russian Wikipedia has no bearing on what we do here on English Wikipedia. And on this project, administrators do not adjudicate content disputes. CodeTalker (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "I don't see ANY of the 5 commenters clearly agreeing to restore the content. I don't see how you reach the conclusion that 3 agreed to that. There was a suggestion to add a single sentence about the issue but no one except you has supported that" - with all my respect, I see you didn't read what I had written at all. I wrote "Also as we all can see here, in discussing, during a month and a half 3 of 5 Wikipedia's members (also with me) were agreed not deleting but editing that section on 1 sentence " above and "Fine by me. If it is the only way to keep this information in article,  I agree " before. I ask you to be more careful and pay a bit more attention on what others say\write. Also I ask to remind you that for example in Sweet Baby Inc you used 2 sources - Igromania and Gry-Online, and this is despite the fact that you are not sure about Igromania yourself and didn't discuss about Gry-Online at all. So your doubt about my source seems a bit quite ambiguous. --85.132.11.53 (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As CodeTalker said above, none of the five commenters agreed to restore the content. I can try to translate the comments to Russian if you are having any issues communicating in English. --Bidbey (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Who are the three editors who you think agreed with you about retaining the information in an edited form? I'm not seeing such a thing in the above discussion.Also, what the heck are you talking about regarding Sweet Baby Inc? I have never edited that article, nor did I participate in the RSN thread you linked to. Are you confusing me with another editor? CodeTalker (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)