Star Wars Wikipedia

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2005-04-28 06:43am

I was just pointing out what certain trek tards will say when they discover it.

They would probably scream "HOLOCRONS AIN´T CANON!!!111!111ONE!" if we used that instead.

Jay · Post by **Jay** » 2005-04-28 06:56am

They would probably scream "HOLOCRONS AIN´T CANON!!!111!111ONE!" if we used that instead.

Sigh. Ain't it the truth.

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2005-04-28 06:09pm

VT-16, I've noticed that you made a couple of new entries for the Dominator Interdictor Star Destroyer and Jerec's Vengeance. Great work, but do you think provisional class names should be used as article titles? I know that's what Saxton does, but I don't really agree with it. Couldn't it lead to confusion for less knowledgeable readers, even if there's a disclaimer in the article saying that the class name isn't official? When I gave the Allegiance-class Star Destroyer article a big edit, I made sure to state that Allegiance-class is fan made in the first sentence. Throughout the rest of the article, I either directly referred to the Allegiance itself, or I said things like "ships of this class." Don't you think it would better if articles such as those on the Allegiance, Dominator, and Vengeance had their titles shortened to just the names of the ships? Kind of like the ones on the Chimaera and Lusankya?

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2005-04-28 06:14pm

Of course, you´re absolutely right! I´ll have the names of the individual ships and the refer to the provisional class-names in the text.

The Original Nex · Post by **The Original Nex** » 2005-04-28 06:24pm

Jim Raynor: Might I suggest you remove the Tector reference from the Allegiance entry. The Allegiance cannot be a Tector as the Tector has no ventral bulb.

I'd edit it myself, but since you re-hauled the entry, I thought I should let you know.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2005-04-28 06:24pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Then we should claim it by force. A Wiki is obviously more important than some wanker's site.

If you define "some wanker's site" as the official site, then... yeah, whatever.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2005-04-29 12:40am

Jim Raynor wrote:VT-16, I've noticed that you made a couple of new entries for the Dominator Interdictor Star Destroyer and Jerec's Vengeance. Great work, but do you think provisional class names should be used as article titles? I know that's what Saxton does, but I don't really agree with it.

Dominator is official per Starships of the Galaxy by WEG. It's in the ISD section that there are interdictor variants.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2005-04-29 12:47am

Rogue 9 wrote:
Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Then we should claim it by force. A Wiki is obviously more important than some wanker's site.
If you define "some wanker's site" as the official site, then... yeah, whatever.

That would only apply if the OS calls it "The Star Wars Holocron." If they don't use that phrase, then it should be free to use.

The only sites I've been able to find with Google that are actually called "The Star Wars Holocron" are one that hasn't been updated since 2002, and some French message board with less than 35 members.

Therefore, the term is free for the taking.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2005-04-29 01:01am

Ender wrote:
Jim Raynor wrote:VT-16, I've noticed that you made a couple of new entries for the Dominator Interdictor Star Destroyer and Jerec's Vengeance. Great work, but do you think provisional class names should be used as article titles? I know that's what Saxton does, but I don't really agree with it.
Dominator is official per Starships of the Galaxy by WEG. It's in the ISD section that there are interdictor variants.

Its one thing to say those variants exist, but the question is whether the ship is the "Dominator-class."

RedWizard · Post by **RedWizard** » 2005-04-29 01:14am

Ender wrote:
Jim Raynor wrote:VT-16, I've noticed that you made a couple of new entries for the Dominator Interdictor Star Destroyer and Jerec's Vengeance. Great work, but do you think provisional class names should be used as article titles? I know that's what Saxton does, but I don't really agree with it.
Dominator is official per Starships of the Galaxy by WEG. It's in the ISD section that there are interdictor variants.

Starships of the Galaxy wrote:"In order to reduce the Interdictor's dependence on escort ships, a few Interdictor Star Destroyers have been built. These ships are identical to Imperial Star Destroyers, except they replace over half their normal weaponry with four gravity well projectors."

It doesn't say anything about the class name.

Edit: That's from the WotC book. WEG also had a book with that name?

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2005-04-29 10:49am

The Original Nex wrote:Jim Raynor: Might I suggest you remove the Tector reference from the Allegiance entry. The Allegiance cannot be a Tector as the Tector has no ventral bulb.

I'd edit it myself, but since you re-hauled the entry, I thought I should let you know.

Already done.

Tribun · Post by **Tribun** » 2005-04-29 02:17pm

Hm, when reading about Alderaan in the wikipedia, I wondered if there are conflicting informations.
The wikipedia writes:

. Ice-rimmed polar seas were the only large bodies of water, though thousands of fresh- and salt-water lakes provided habitats for a large variety of flora and fauna.

Yet as we see in Episode IV, Alderaan has large oceans:

Episode III isn't much helpful, because nearly half of the planet is dark, and a continent pushs it's way prominently in the foreground. In fact, looking at Earth with Europe, Africa and Asia would create a similar ratio of water and land:

So the question still stands, which are we to belive is true?

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2005-04-29 03:18pm

That's partially due to an error of using image of the Endor matte painting instead of the one for Alderaan in some sources.

The Original Nex · Post by **The Original Nex** » 2005-04-29 05:03pm

The ANH and ROTS Alderaans don't contradict eachother. We're just looking at two different hemspheres, one with mostly water, and one with mostly land. Earth is sort of like that too.

Tribun · Post by **Tribun** » 2005-04-29 05:37pm

Apart from that, the entry is more flawed, because it states that the planet had a moon.
Fact is, Alderaan never had a moon.

Just a question, are some of the entries copy and paste jobs?

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2005-04-29 05:47pm

Yeah, that happens a lot for Wikis. A lot is taken directly from Wikipedia.

The Original Nex · Post by **The Original Nex** » 2005-04-29 05:48pm

Tribun wrote:Apart from that, the entry is more flawed, because it states that the planet had a moon.
Fact is, Alderaan never had a moon.

Just a question, are some of the entries copy and paste jobs?

Yeah. You can always edit the entry if it's incorrect.

RedWizard · Post by **RedWizard** » 2005-04-30 08:55pm

Anyone want to help with some rabid anti-Saxton editors over at Wikipedia?

A quote from the thread:

SparqMan wrote: The "incredible cross sections" books are rife with mistakes and inaccuracies. Who says that the movie novelizations are above EU in the canon hierarchy? I find Saxton's attempts to apply the physics and realities of our world to the Star Wars universe futile and at times insulting.

Emphasis mine. He seems to have edited his post to remove that, but it can still be seen in the history.

000 · Post by **000** » 2005-05-06 07:12pm

There's a vote going on in the community portal talk page about whether or not to insist on spoiler tags for every article and/or nonspoiler articles.

Personally, I think putting spoilers tags everywhere is redundant-- it's a freakin' encyclopedia, the articles are obviously going to have spoilers. I could understand putting spoiler warnings above summaries in articles about books and such, and putting RotS warnings for the next month or two on related articles, but putting spoiler warnings absolutely everywhere is stupid and breaks up the flow of the article. This one guy even thinks that articles should be as spoiler free as possible-- so, what, we're supposed to leave out Palpatine coming back after Endor from his article just in case someone didn't read Dark Empire?

Anyway, if anyone else thinks this policy is stupid, please, head over there and cast your vote.