Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Wars

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ultraviolet scissor flame (talk | contribs) at 05:45, 5 May 2008 (→‎Hello: FAR). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WPSW Navigation

Announcements and news for WikiProject Star Wars

August/October 2010:

User accomplishments: None
Recently featured: Sebastian Shaw (actor)
Other news: Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back and Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope has been demoted from Featured Article status! The article Cad Bane has appeared on the main page of Wikipedia on the DYK portion.
Updates: A project on the music task force has been created

Archive
Archives
  1. /archive 1
  2. /archive 2
  3. /archive 3
  4. /archive 4
  5. /archive 5
  6. /archive 6
  7. /archive 7

COTW

I would like to suggest that the Star Wars Collaboration of the week be renamed to the Star Wars Collaboration of the Month. This is what is being done in other WikiProjects (to give more time working on articles, and/or because membership may be less than active).

Name changes:

(If I missed any, feel free to add them.)

Once we have consensus here, we can list the category for cfr (possibly speedy), and someone can ask to have a bot to do the page moves, and redirect fixes. - jc37 14:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been here for almost a year. I'll give a little more time before I just do it. - jc37 07:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that anyone cares by this time, but I've performed the moves. (The links above are updated to the targets.) The Star Wars COTM is also marked historical until such time as someone wishes to reactivate the process, though, since it appears that WP:COTM, and its successor WP:AID, are both inactive/historical, I doubt we'll see this process reactivated. - jc37 23:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles facing severe editing

The articles, The Force (Star Wars) and Dark side (Star Wars) are going to be edited after a week af having placed requests for citations be added to statements in the article. These articles have very little in the way of citation. WP requires secondary sources of information, considering a requirement for inclusion. The week of waiting expires on 9/16. I would direct the attention of anyone wishing that these article remain without any removed ext venture forth and provide solid citation in keeping with WP policies. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, not only secondary, but tertiary sources are preferable. Evidence of others' original research which is verifiable. But I know what you mean, and yeah, those articles (I'm sorry to say) do suck right now. They need lots of improvement. --lincalinca 12:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't misunderstand me. Linca - the writing there is particularly well-written (from a writer's pov) and well-thought out (kind of a refreshing thing to see, actually); it just suffers from no real connective citation that could quickly launch it to GA status, I kinda felt bad kicking out all the uncited stuff and speculation. If some folk wnet back through some of those articles and properly cited them, they could earn the right to be GA. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lightsaber

I know I am not part of this WikiProject, but I thought it wouldn't hurt anyone if I simply pointed out that the lightsaber article could be greatly improved. Zouavman Le Zouave 20:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed PROD from Cularian System

Greetings! I wanted to let your project know I found a PROD for the article on the Cularian System on the grounds of real-world notability. I removed it because under that justification, the entire Category:Star_Wars_regions_of_space is not notable. There are several star systems in that category, along with a rather large article on Star Wars galaxy (which is listed as part of your project). I suggested in the PROD removal justification that the separate galaxy articles be reviewed, and possibly merged into the overview galaxy article, but I'm definitely not the person to take that on, as I don't even own episodes 1-3 :-) Thanks guys. DLPanther 13:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article proposal

It strikes me as odd that there's no chronology of tutorship in the jedi arts. This seems like something that would be quite a task to construct, but very applicable to the project nonetheless. The toughest part wouldn't be the actual construction of the chronology but referencing it. Tough, but not impossible.

I'd propose laying it out (to begin) something like this:

Emperor Palpatine/Darth SidiousYoda
Darth TyranusCount DookuQui Gonn Jinn
Obi-Wan Kenobi
Darth VaderAnakin SkywalkerLuke Skywalker

Except of course, you know, accurate? The colours could indicate a person's allegiance (Jedi, Sith, Dark Jedi, NJO or mixed). It can also be drawn up to indicate whether or not a person is EU or standard, all based on the colors. I've pretty muchy just chucked in dark red for Siths, blue for contentious and green for Jedi. What do you guys think? This is obviously a bit hogde-podge and could be heaps better, but it's a start. --lincalinca 12:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October - December 2007 Roll call

We haven't had one in a long while. Time to find out who's actually active. (And to purge the active members list once again.) - jc37 07:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I'm here, though doing more "behind the scenes" work, than article editing these days. - jc37 07:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I am still here, watching the articles for vandalism and a possible renomination of ROTJ. Greg Jones II 17:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yeah, I'm here, just, you know... wandering about. Occasionally updating stuff. It's a pretty daunting tast, to be honest. There's so much stuff missing and most of what's here is written so terribly in-universe, it's hard to undo that. But yeah. Present. --lincalinca 04:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, just so you know, Lincalinca, can you fix the number in your comment? You accidentally forgot to put a # (number sign) in your comment. That would be much appreciated Greg Jones II 09:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What? Yes I did? It's right there? I'm numerised as #3...? I'm sure I did that. Did somebody else do that? I'm sure it was me. --lincalinca 12:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Present. Returning to work on the vehicles articles, with the occasional odd AfD to get people riled up. --EEMeltonIV 10:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Here, sorta - editing out all the cruft and uncited, unsourced info - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I'm here, I'm just not all that active because of school. Grey Maiden talk 18:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Yavin

Battle of Yavin could use some serious work. In its current state, it doesn't really abide by WP:WAF. A few vocal editors who claim the article doesn't meet WP:FICT have persisted in turning it into a redirect for Star Wars: A New Hope. I don't think that's the course we should take; but we might consider merging Battle of Yavin, Battle of Hoth, and Battle of Endor into Galactic Civil War. Ichormosquito 11:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the galactic civil war started way BBY, it's just that at BY, it became a "serious" threat to the empire (hence Seth Mcfarland's parody in robot chicken saying it was "blown up by a bunch of F#$*&^*&% teenagers"). I'd recommend calling it "Battles in the Star Wars film saga" and encompassing the Naboo vs Trade Federation battle, Geonosis clone siege/insurrection and the taking over of the Invisible Hand as notable battles within the film saga, so as to cover all seiges within the six films, new and old. --lincalinca 12:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and all of the articles need a serious re-write anyway because they're very heavily in universe anyway. --lincalinca 12:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea. Ichormosquito 13:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Inca - stop reading my thoughts, you debbil (grn). I was going to say many of the things alrready stated here. 'Galactic Civil War' is a pretty broad term, which could apply to any number of galactic civil wars in scifi, and not just Star Wars. This doesn't appear to be a problem right now, but I can foresee it becoming so; perhaps adjusting the article title to reflect the nature of the civil war might sidestep these potential issues. I would propose Galactic Civil War (Star Wars) be the new name.
As well, I don't think merging these articles right now is the best course of action for any of them. Maybe later, but at this time, all three articles are a bit on the bvloated side and suffer from terribly in-universe pov - so much so that in some of them, I feel as if I have misnavigated and ended up Wookipedia instead. The Sith, Dark Side and Force articles suffered fromt hat as well, and I had to trim away all that which was uncited or too in-universe to remain. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What if we renamed it "Death Star trench run"? As a notable movie scene, I think it passes muster. We could include production notes; its impact on the special effects industry; and excerpts from scholarly criticism, while still retaining a small section devoted to plot summary. Ichormosquito 02:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now we're talking productively and out of the box! --lincalinca 08:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Star Wars Galaxies

Hi. is anyone watching the Star Wars Galaxies article? there have been some major edits recently, and then reverts of those edits, but i can't tell which are vandalism, and which are legitimate. Appreciate any help. Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 14:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars video game task force proposal

This is an idea I've been mulling over for some time, but only decided to propose now. Though it is more of a WikiProject Video Games task force, I thought it made sense to mention it here. I noticed it says on the main page of this WikiProject that it's effectively a collaboration of numerous projects, but I thought one task force specifically focusing on one aspect of Star Wars (and one which doesn't actually have so many high-quality articles) would be pretty useful. It's fairly self-explanatory, so check out the proposal. I'd be interested to hear what you think. Una LagunaTalk 18:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Book, possibly of interest to project members

An Edifice of Intent: The Metaphysics of Star Wars, seems well written, author states it's still in process. Benjiboi 00:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wookieepedia

For WikiProject Star Wars members, there is also another wiki thats made for star wars.Click here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olsonman (talk • contribs) 02:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, his right. It's way better; it is well worth looking at.Amassacre 12:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And it is crufty and uncited and of little practical use to us here, at the actual encyclopedia. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even bothered to read its FAs? Blue Mirage (talk) 11:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I use to been a member, I think I should be a member of the WikiProject of Star Wars Olsonman 23:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Wampa

Hi fellow Star Wars fans, Cliff Wampa is being prodded, just thought I'd let you know. --Montchav (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars.com

Recently, I've noted some references being added to a few articles from here. An example of these references would be something like this. There is no provenance to this info, and I am concerned about how reliable it is. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's official information on the official site for the series... I'd say it's reliable enough to be cited, though it sort of depends on how it's being cited. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Battle of Yavin Base

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article First Battle of Yavin Base, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of First Battle of Yavin Base. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the Great Hyperspace War has been turned into a redirect. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darth Ryba

A tag has been placed on Darth Ryba, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

No assertion of notability

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: Dark Horizons

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Star Wars: Dark Horizons, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Star Wars: Dark Horizons. Fayenatic (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars comics problems

Star Wars: Republic: there seems to be an article for just about EVERY issue and/or storyline of the series. Category:Star Wars comics also seems to hold a bit of this issue clutter. Wikipedia shouldn't be a guide to every issue of a series. I brought this up a while ago here (and mentioned it to the creator of the articles), however not much seems to have been done. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm resurrecting this question -- I've flipped through most of the Republic comics and their mostly just a plot blurb and list of characters. Can anyone articulate a reason not to have them redirect to the main Star Wars: Republic entry? Perhaps transplant the plot summary blurbs into a list on that page? --EEMIV (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of referencing

After browsing through half a dozen articles in the wikipedia Star Wars project, I have to say that, whilst fairly readable and well written, every single one of them was crying out for a

start -->

tag!

Proper referencing needs doing on these things, otherwise they come across like a big wodge of fan fiction.--feline1 (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past month, I've taken steps towards adding citations and footnotes to Princess Leia's article. However, almost all of these have been only for the two sections of the article I created . The whole article (along with many other Star Wars characters like Luke Skywalker and Han Solo) is unsourced, I notice. But I can only do so much, especially considering I don't know where a lot of the statements in Leia's article specifically come from. I'm currently researching the never-ending "Han shot first" debate, and will probably be of more help to Han Solo's Wikipedia page as soon as I can get info sorted out. Anyone else mind taking a crack at it? — Cinemaniac (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion on article organization

I have a strong suggestion about the organization of the primary articles about Star Wars - it can be found at Talk:Star Wars#Mass pruning, but basically I'm suggesting that since

  1. Star Wars original trilogy and Star Wars prequel trilogy are essentially empty and very weak articles with little more than synopses and lists
  2. Star Wars purports to be an article about the franchise itself

that the trilogy articles should be merged into something like Star Wars films, and the mass of information about the films that can be salvaged from Star Wars (ie: is sourced and written properly) be moved there, so that the Star Wars article can truely be written as being about the franchise, and not all about the movies with an "oh yeah, there were also books and tv movies" tacked on at the end. TheHYPO (talk) 13:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project page problems

  1. In actually displaying the templates in the template section, the Collab of the week templates all mis-appear at the bottom of the project page instead of where they should be.
  2. What is the point of the lightsaber image on the right column? Just seems to serve to waste a lot of space on the page

Cheers TheHYPO (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Leia Organa peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it right now seems oddly cluttered and, despite my adding of a lot of references, it lacks reliable source citations. Although I've already requested another peer review for another article, as long as it helps the articles get better, I've got the time. Any helpful comments are appreciated, as this should help me in expanding other Star Wars-centric articles (particularly bios like that of Luke Skywalker and Han Solo, also in dire need of certain expansion). Thanks. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 03:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The peer review was archived earlier this month. Thanks to everyone for their comments. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 01:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars film FTC up for removal

The Star Wars films are up for removal from Featured Topic status. Please take part in the debate. Wrad (talk) 04:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Character template

Hiya. Where can the template source for the Star Wars' characters be found? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update Much Needed

Odd. . . It looks like the front page hasn't been updated in over a year! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 22:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Army of the Republic

I through a bunch of tags on it, so I thought I'd bring it up. The article has no sources to verify it's claims what-so-ever, it has no third party sources to defend it's notability, it rambles, and looks like it's pretty much all original research. I'd recommend a complete rewrite, or maybe just transwiki to wookieepedia and redirect it to some other article here? Well, I'll let the experts sort it out, just throught I should bring it up. --Falcorian (talk) 08:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Immaculate Conception (Star Wars)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Immaculate Conception (Star Wars), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immaculate Conception (Star Wars). Thank you. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Jaina Solo

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jaina Solo, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaina Solo. Thank you. Grey Maiden talk 05:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars sequel trilogy

I've noticed that the Star Wars sequel trilogy just barely survived an AfD and looking at it, it needs a lot of cleanup, so there is quite a lot of work to be done on that, if we don't want it to go through AfD again.--EclipseSSD (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars comics images

Hello all. I just wanted to give you a heads-up. Several Star Wars comics images are up for deletion because they don't have fair use rationales. (I would imagine some screenshots have been tagged as well.) In case the Comics project can't get to them all in time, you may want to take a look through User:Hiding/no-rationale#S and add rationales if you think it appropriate. (The Star Wars images mostly begin with "sw".) Thanks! --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hiding also prepared this handy-dandy worksheet you can use if you so desire. 

{{Non-free fair use rationale
|Article           = <!-- THE NAME OF THE ARTICLE WHERE THIS IMAGE IS USED -->
|Description       = <!-- FOR EXAMPLE: Cover to '''New X-Men #114''',<br /> July, 2001. -->
|Source            = <!-- EITHER IT'S A SCAN OR IT'S FROM A LINK -->
|Portion           = <!-- EITHER A COVER OR A PANEL OR ARTWORK -->
|Purpose           = Image is used for purposes of illustration in the above-named article,
 a subject of public interest.
|Resolution        = Small size unsuitable to use for high quality reproduction
|Replaceability    = Image is protected by copyright, therefore a free use alternative won't exist.
|other_information = Although the picture is originally copyright, it is covered by fair use because: 
# It is a low resolution copy of a comic book cover, hence, only a small portion of the commercial 
product; 
# The use of the image will not affect the value of the original work or limit the copyright holder's 
rights or ability to sell or distribute the original comic book;
# Copies of this image could not be used to make illegal copies of the comic book; 
# The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of topics in the article. For a 
visual medium such as comic books, words alone cannot adequately describe the subject;
}}

Thanks again! --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a number of these images were added by User:Skope. So, if you take a look at his talk page, you can find a more succinct list. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Star Wars ship-mounted weapons

In this discussion we have mentioned a History Channel special that could be used as a reference. By any chance has any members of the project seen or own this documentary and if so any he/she/they help us to use it as a secondary source with the article under question? Thanks! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sith edits

I would like to get some eyes on the Sith article. I am encountering a lot of info being added with very little in the way of proper or even reliable sourcing. The article needs some re-writing, but by folk who know not to add a lot of cruft. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: Empire

I have added Star Wars: Empire issue pages to be merged into the main pages because the Star Wars: Empire page has nothing but the list of issues, and the issue pages themselves are stubs, and I think it would be better if they are merged. Also the issue pages on Star Wars: Republic are up for deletion because they are not independently notable, violates WP:NOT#PLOT as an extended plot description with no real-world content or context. Just thought to let you know. Gman124 (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To discuss the merger see Talk:Star_Wars:_Empire#Merger_proposal. Gman124 (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mandalorians

Just pointing this out, but the mandalorian article needs serious help. RC-0722 communicator/kills 15:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the articles concerning the Star Wars universe (and possibly Star Trek and other stuff) seem to be copied from another wiki or are just not very useful. — Raffaello9 | Talk | 00:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps all stubs, that should not be articles should be proposed for deletion.Blackngold29 (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a general article on Star Wars weapons

Instead of having "lists of weapons", there should be a general article on Star Wars weapons, citing examples in a typical sentence/paragraph format. Perhaps sections on each type of weapon would be a good idea, but this would definitely beat having multiple borderline-notable lists. — Deckiller 05:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Jawas?

Jawas redirects to List of Star Wars races (F-J), but they're not on there. Have they fallen through the cracks? Been forgotten? Hopefully this will bring the Jawas some justice. --MPD T / C 21:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kessel/Kassel/Castle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Wars_planets_(K-L)#Kessel claims that "Kassel" is also the German word for "guarded area". Being a German native speaker, I have to point out that this is simply not true. I'm not sure how to edit the article because the etymological proximity to English "castle" is there, and I know that Dutch "Kasteel" is also close by, but I can't think of a German word that sounds anything like Kassel and has this meaning. --Daniel Klein (talk) 12:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


StarWarsProject: Articles of unclear notability

Hello,

there are currently 23 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2008 and may be slightly outdated.)

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with the infobox colors?

Yep, that's my question. We don't do this elsewhere (or aren't supposed to), so we should purge this crazyness (making Sith the code word for red and whatnot). I suspect its a template issue. Where is that? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found it, but my relative unfamiliarity with html caused me to bollix up the code whilst attempting to remove the color assignments (I immediately self-reverted). Someone else needs to purge it. Might I ask for some assistance in doing so? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could I help?

I am not yet involved in this "Officially" however I have been making edits to things in the star wars portal, so I was wondering if it would be possible for me to help. Thank you... Stealth (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones

Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Lightsaber combat - a grand crufty mess

I would like to get some eyes on the Lightsaber combat article. I am encountering a lot of info being added with very little in the way of proper or even reliable sourcing. The article needs some re-writing, but by folk who know not to add a lot of cruft. Most of the referencing seems to be in the form of speculative end-notes. I posted a note in discussion asking for better citation three weeks ago, and have received no input on the post. I am about to do some wide-spread removals, so some clean-up sooner would be better than later. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Comics

Why is it that all the Star Wars comic pages are all stubs like, Rebellion. Why is it that this and many other Star Wars comic pages link to story arcs that only contain plot or are just stubs? would it not be better if all the arcs were merged together then at least there would be one good page. and most of the Star Wars comic articles violate WP:FICT and WP:N. So i suggest that all the story arcs of pages like Star Wars: Rebellion be merged into them. Anyone have any comments? Gman124 talk 22:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I have just joined the Wikiproject Star Wars, and I hope to be of help. I enjoy star wars and know quite a bit about it. I hope I can be of service! (I posted here since the main page said I should, I hope that that is ok....). Stealth (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me too :D cncplyr (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Star_Wars&oldid=210262697"