Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Wars/Archive 9

Galen Marek his own article?
Is it possible for an article about Galen Marek? I mean being the main character in Force Unleashed and the upcomming Force Unleashed II, having been featured in Soul Calibur IV and revolving alot around Darth Vader's life? --VitasV (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Are there any secondary sources that discuss the character? If they exist and you can provide them, I think we might be able to have one. The Wordsmith Communicate 23:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The character currently is sufficiently covered at Star Wars: The Force Unleashed and Star Wars: The Force Unleashed (project). Like so many EU characters, he has no notability outside the significant works (and, really, only one significant work: the game) in which he appears. Unlike e.g. Master Chief (Halo), he's the protagonist of a merely mediocre game; popularity among the Star Wars fanboy community isn't going to move into culture beyond the games themselves, i.e. lead to significant third-party coverage separate from the works, warranting a separate article. I suspect he'll continue to be covered as part of the overall coverage of works in which he appears. --EEMIV (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Mehhh, I think we should focus on figuring out what articles DON'T warrant articles before we move onto new ones. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Image Problem
There has been a recent problem with regards to a specific image, Image:Spirits.jpg, which has Fair use rationale, being replaced by exactly the same image, Image:Spirits 1.jpg, which does not have FUR. The FUR image has been replaced in the articles Force (Star Wars), Anakin Skywalker, and Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi by. As I understand it, the image with the FUR should be used. -- The Taerkasten ( talk ) 22:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They're not exactly the same, one has Hayden as Anakin and the other has Sebastian. IMO the Hayden one belongs in Star Wars Ep VI: ROTJ because the text surrounding it is talking about the changes that were made to the original cut, particularly, the replacement of Sebastian with Hayden. –xenotalk 22:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My mistake, they aren't exactly the same. I guess I oversaw that fact. The problem remains that Spirits 1.jpg doesn't have a fair-use rationale. -- The Taerkasten ( talk ) 22:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Boba Fett
I've done some significant rewrites and expansions to that article (the latest was the second of two waves; did a big overhaul in the fall-ish). I'm thinking about putting it up for GA status, but would appreciate some eyeballs from this group first. --EEMIV (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm no fan of the lead image. I don't think using a fan-made costume is good to demonstrate the character. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I second that opinion. The infobox image on Fett's Wookieepedia article is a much better substitute.--Eh! Steve (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people
Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:
 * 1) supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
 * 2) opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced article if they are not sourced, so your project may want to pursue the projects below.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people
If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here
 * List of cleanup articles for your project

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip
 * Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip
 * Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

Ikip 02:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people
Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:
 * 1) supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
 * 2) opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people
If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here
 * List of cleanup articles for your project

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip
 * Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip
 * Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

Ikip 02:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Star Wars sequel trilogy
I've noticed that there has been continuing addition and removal of the link to the Star Wars sequel trilogy on the Star Wars template, and others. Since there has been quite a few deletion discussions on this article, including whether this article should exist or not, I am wondering where the article stands with this project. Should there be something done about it, and if so what? -- The Taerkasten ( talk ) 20:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that if it is to be included in the template, it needs some kind of note with the name. Saying "Sequel trilogy" makes it sound like a reality.  Needs to say "Rumored sequel trilogy" or "Sequel trilogy (rumored)" or something similar.  Nothing wrong with saying "rumors" if such rumors are verifiable in reliable sources. Erik (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say "Possible", "Proposed", etc. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It used to say "Proposed" but EEMIV didn't like it. Powers T 18:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, to call it "Sequel trilogy" is too suggestive; we need some kind of name that tells readers that it's merely proposed. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Pop culture sections
What is the projects feeling on pop culture sections? I know, SW is pop culture, but I'm referring to things like the pop culture section recently added to Tatoonie, which is mainly a bunch of mentions from cartoons etc. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Bulleted lists of "In popular culture" are generally useless crap, and should be supplanted by a broad but not indiscriminate explanation of the topic's reception/impact. Big lists of popculture trivia are perhaps better cut-and-pasted to the talk page to put in editors' view to prompt them to construct something more useful. --EEMIV (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Specie Classification of characters
I notice that characters appearing in the movies without obvious 'alien-like' body/face features, tend to get classified as Species Human (e.g. Luke Skywalker etc). As the Star Wars Universe is famously set 'A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away', how can this classification be justified? The Human wiki page refers to us, ie. Homo-sapiens, native to planet Earth and is discordant with the series' extra galactic frameworkl? If this is the wrong place to discuss this (or if it has already been discussed) please advise. Trinkella (talk) 09:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move warning
Based on offsite collusion, a comment I left on his talk page, as well as a reasoning I used to oppose a similar extensive and controversial move, will probably soon be requesting that every Star Wars article that uses the naming format "Star Wars Episode #: Subtitle" to "Star Wars: Episode # Subtitle" because the official Star Wars website uses the latter name formatting and Wikipedia uses the former in order to make a point.— Ryūlóng  ( 竜龙 ) 10:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I NEVER said I was going to move ALL of the pages, or even one of them. I said I was THINKING of it, but then I read this and realized that you all reached a consensus already. And how is that Power Rangers move controversial? You're the only one here making a big deal out of it. Stop being a tattle tale.  Heavydata (talk) 11:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a controversial move because you are requesting that every single page that has "Power Rangers:" in the title have the ":" removed from it. That's over 50 pages. Also, it's considered bad etiquette to go to other pages to continue an argument.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 11:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Then why did you post that stupid "warning" here, when I said I decided that I wasn't even going to do anything? Heavydata (talk) 11:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Jesus. Both of you, please: "Move along, move along." --EEMIV (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I could care less what happens to Power Rangers articles, but I think that the suggested change in the Star Wars one would serve no purpose. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like anything is going to come of this except more accusations, so i'm archiving it now. These aren't the droids you're looking for, move along, etc. The Wordsmith Communicate 16:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Category for people
Category:Star Wars has several sub categories; but none for ...people (which could include writers and crew) or ...actors. I think it should. Anyone disagree? Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure the cat. guidelines advise against creating "people associated with movie/show X" cats -- except for super-head-honchos -- because actors, writers, etc. would have a billion cats. --EEMIV (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Notification regarding Wikipedia-Books
As detailed in last week's Signpost, WikiProject Wikipedia books is undertaking a cleanup all Wikipedia books. Particularly, the saved book template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of the books. Title, subtitle, cover-image, and cover-color can all be specified, and an HTML preview of the cover will be generated and shown on the book's page (an example of such a cover is found on the right). Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class Star Wars articles should have covers.

If you need help with the saved book template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Books, and WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.

This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 22:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. Earwig Bot ( owner &bull;  talk ) 22:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Celebration V
Anyone else going to Celebration V? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Star Wars: The Clone Wars episodes
FYI, I've redirected all the Clone Wars (2008 TV series) articles to the List of episodes. They were overwhelmingly laden with "trivia and details" sections, OR, giant swaths of plot summary ... and nothing about critical reaction, development, etc. etc. --EEMIV (talk) 03:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Moons and planets notable I think for an article
There are some moons and planets that in recent years might be notable enough for an article based on their appearances through out Star Wars media and their notability amongst fans. They are: --VitasV (talk) 08:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Dantooine
 * Kessel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.59.22.91 (talk) 08:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Korriban
 * Nar Shadda
 * Ord Mantell
 * Sullust