Wikia

Wookieepedia

    Talk:What Wookieepedia is not

    107,673pages on
    this wiki

    Back to page

    Image galleryEdit

    Thoughts on this one: It's not an image gallery. Images should be uploaded to enhance articles, but articles should not exist as galleries of Star Wars images. --SparqMan 02:21, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

    • Except for the articles in Category: Galleries? (Of course, those are galleries of pictures actually used in articles.) — Silly Dan 02:52, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • We should probably also note that it is not free file hosting. Images should only be uploaded for use in articles. --SparqMan 04:40, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

    Trivia siteEdit

    "Wookieepedia is not a trivia site" ... maybe we could rephrase that? It kind of is, by definition. — Silly Dan 03:04, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

    • No, it's not. Trivia is by definition trivial. There are plenty of sites dedicated to small, insignificant pieces of information. Perhaps we should scale it? For "background" topics, small pieces of information are all we have. For Han Solo, we don't need to note every pieces of off-screen information available in that article. --SparqMan 04:39, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • Still possible to make a separate page for this stuff? -- Riffsyphon1024 22:00, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

    Not a forum Edit

    Thinking of adding this: Article talk pages, user talk pages, and the Community Portal talk page will attract discussion and conversation: that's what they're there for. However, these discussions should stay focused on issues relevant to Wookieepedia, such as "When was this character born?", "Where did this image come from?", and the like. General Star Wars questions such as "Who was the most powerful Dark Lord of the Sith?" or "Which movie did you like better, Empire or Jedi, are best left for a forum such as the Jedi Council Forums or the Official site message boards. Comments? — Silly Dan 02:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

    • I agree. There's too much foolishness on the talk pages (such as you described) going on. RMF 02:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed. Talk:Star Wars: Legacy comes to mind.. --MarcK [talk] 02:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Mind you, a bit of conversation is inevitable and helps community building (I've noticed cooking advice on user talk pages and silly but vaguely on-topic comments on article talk pages, which don't really hurt the wiki.) I can't help but think there's something that should be added about that. — Silly Dan 02:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmm... and my silly link to Three Amigos comes to mind, too, which is totally off topic. WhiteBoy 16:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

    Not a fanfic posting site? Edit

    Should we make a note pointing out that the primary purpose of this wiki isn't to write elaborate fanfic on user pages? Or am I being too grouchy about this? —Silly Dan (talk)

    • I find this to be a disturbing trend. People should be here to work on the articles, not writing about their own characters. I don't mind it if it's minimal, but if a fanfic character's bio is almost their entire userpage and that's all they work on, then we have a problem. StarNeptune 05:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
      • How about, "Your user page is not your primary contribution to this wiki", with a note that an elaborate biography on your user page without substantial article contributions impresses no one? Something like that. —Silly Dan (talk) 03:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Guess I shouldn't have brought up that category... -- Riffsyphon1024 04:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

    What with the new discussion on userbox proliferation, perhaps something like this should be added:

    "Your user page is not your primary contribution to this wiki: Your user page is meant to give some information about yourself, and to help organize your contributions to Wookieepedia. For example, you may wish to include a list of the Star Wars reference books you own, list some articles you worked on that you're proud of, or mention the articles and projects you intend to work on. You might also want to give personal information like your user name on Star Wars message boards, your favorite characters, what languages you speak, or a link to your personal page on another site. See Wikipedia:User page for more information on proper use of user pages.

    Your user page should not be thought of as a personal homepage (as mentioned above, Wookieepedia is not a free host or webpage provider.) In particular, writing a long imaginary biography of your persona in the Star Wars galaxy, or putting up a "collection" of dozens of userboxes or images, is not particularly helpful to Wookieepedia. Your user page should help you contribute to writing and editing articles for this project—it is not a substitute for improving the articles on this wiki." —Silly Dan (talk) 04:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

    • I like that. StarNeptune 04:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree, though it seems like a shame that we have to make rules like this when only a few people are getting out of hand (you know who you are). RMF 04:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • But what if they were to make a subpage about their fan character? It could still cause people to behave as they are now, without actually breaking any rules. I also would like the option of a user showing off some of their work staying. Most of what I do here is redirects, general cleanup, and so forth (and my articles range from painfully stubby to spelling errors galore) but I'm particularly proud of some of the articles I wrote, and damn it, I want people to know I wrote it. However, some people are getting out of hand on this matter. -- SFH 20:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
      • We should say "your user page, and associated subpages" somewhere in there, then, since the idea is not so much "keep your user page uncluttered" as "don't waste too much time on non-Wookieepedic activities." As for a contributions section, I don't object to people listing their contributions (I have my reasons for not listing every page I've contributed to, but others do want such a section, and that's OK.) —Silly Dan (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • And that was the reason I enjoyed reading user pages, heh. Anyway, I'm all for the fan character subpage, or even a section for Wookieepedian fan characters, just as long as everyone knows it's fanon. Though whether or not there should be requirements to it is a whole different matter.... DAWUSS 16:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

    Consensus trackEdit

    I started a new consensus track discussion on this...please drop by and comment. —Silly Dan (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

    Wookieepedia is not a battleground is too particular. Edit

    I hate to say this, but I do not like how Jar Jar Binks is used as an example in the "Wookieepedia is not a battleground" section. Maybe it could say "how you hated a particular character in a comic/movie" instead of "how you hated Jar Jar Binks" (I just brought this up because I actually am a fan of Jar Jar Binks, and this slightly offended me.) - Posted by Lone Dire Cat (talk)

    • Indeed, inserting Jar Jar seems a sort of WP:POINT. - Sikon [Talk] 05:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • You're right, Jar Jar hating is so passé at this point. Maybe I should replace it with "how angry you are that the Jedi Exile is female now." Or, better yet, with something non-specific. 8) —Silly Dan (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
      • the jedi exile is a good example, especially at the moment but it may be best to use a non-specific example, people might assume that were rubbing it in there faces about there views..however stupid the view is Jedi Dude 12:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you! I just felt that particular characters should be left out of this article. Lone Dire Cat 11:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

    Trivia? Edit

    The section on trivia seems a little vague and difficult to define. How can we define something as too trivial when most things contained on this site are looked upon by most as very trivial? I mean, we certainly don't want to discourage people from writing those one-line articles! And that's what I would assuume is outlawed if I were a new user reading this page. :) Adamwankenobi 20:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

    • I think what SparqMan was trying to get at was that there's no need to put every possible bit of information in an article if it gets in the way of writing a good article. For example, the fact that Nikto Guard number #12 was killed by Luke Skywalker is an important fact to add to that Nikto's article, and to the article about the sail barge battle, but it should be left off the Luke Skywalker article or an article on Niktos in general. Similarly, old versions of the Mission to Mustafar were written by someone obsessed with giving out a frame-by-frame description of Vader fighting the the separatists, complete with describing whether their final scream was more of an "argh" or an "aiee", and which order who had which appendages removed. No one wants that. —Silly Dan (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

    We're not myspace, livejournal, ... Edit

    ... bebo, last.fm, blogspot, etc., etc., hence the ongoing discussion at Forum:Excessive useless edits. Someone want to help me come up with wording for this? —Silly Dan (talk) 03:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

    Wookieepedia is not Wikipedia, to a certain extent Edit

    The policy states that "some of our rules, policies and article standards differ greatly from those of Wikipedia" which many people are very quick to point out when discussing some stuff or during a dispute. YES wookieepedia is NOT wikipedia which is plain and obvious from the website address onwards BUT wookieepedia also follows certain wikipedian guidelines that are listed in wookieepedia's policy pages! assume good faith, be bold, wikilawyering just to name a few. well rounding off, i think that the policy should state that "while some of our rules, policies and article standards differ greatly from those of Wikipedia, certain relevant policies are accepted as Wookieepedian policy and should be adhered to" or something like that. im not saying that we should review EVERY single wikipedian policy as to how suitable they are for wookieepedia, im hoping that at least it should be made known that some wikipedian rules do apply, and are relevant to what this wiki is all about. just a thought Songjin 05:07, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

    Hi. Any rules that do apply are described in the policy pages on this wiki. If a Wikipedia rule is not described in a policy page on this wiki, it does not apply, so it is fine as is. Cheers, Grunny (talk) 07:45, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

    Interlang Edit

    Could any admin pleas add the interlang template, change the es-Interiki to "Star Wars Wiki:Lo que Star Wars Wiki en español no es" and add the de-Interwiki "Jedipedia:Was Jedipedia nicht ist". Gulomi Jomesh (talk) 13:20, February 20, 2013 (UTC)

      Around Wikia's network

      Random Wiki
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia_talk:What_Wookieepedia_is_not
starwars.wikia.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2013-48
62558
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:SBATKAT2DBCWB4CNAPUQ2RLPOPELH4ZX
<urn:uuid:a83b77dc-d739-4323-b0f5-cd863a50f954>
2013-12-09T01:35:30Z
199.27.78.194
sha1:QISRHO26QWJNUK4SWKLKHHD46XYY65LF
<urn:uuid:f92b6e3f-0903-4578-b04a-ea8b32db3e7e>
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia_talk:What_Wookieepedia_is_not
response
<urn:uuid:2892c02e-6c79-438c-b2e8-1f0df5f583a4>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-33-133-15.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2013-48
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web with URLs provided by Blekko for Winter 2013
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf