Discussion in 'Literature' started by jacktherack, Feb 22, 2014.
It looks like they had a Parasaurolophus on the Jedi council represented by Coleman Trebor.
From the Wookieepedia article on Marvel Star Wars #62 (Link)
"In the Swedish translation of the comic, Lando Calrissian compares Luke Skywalker's infamy
after shooting down Shira Brie
to that of Adolf Hitler."
Looks like you guys need to get busy creating an article for Hitler.
Remind us when was the last time you invested a good chunk of your free time for your fan community?
Adolf Hitler, known the galaxy over for compulsively shooting down friendly starfighters. The man just couldn't help himself. Sad case.
Shame on you, CT-867-5309.
Bring me the bore worms.
My biggest disappointment with Empire #31 is that the assassins went after president Si-Di-Ri with blasters, rather than jumping at him with their freaking raptor claws. I MEAN COME ON, THAT'S LIKE THE PERFECT OPPORTUNITY DARK HORSE.
I will never understand the whole Wookieepedia-bashing mentality. It's an enormous site with every god damn thing somebody could ever ******* wonder about Star Wars, set up for your browsing pleasure, free of charge. Like, if you notice some mistake or whatever, shut up and fix it, don't go to a completely different site and bitch about how unreliable the *whole* site is. If you don't like that there're articles on stuff you don't like, get the **** over it and click something else, it's not like you're paying per page.
You guys who do the site are awesome, you have way more patience than I do, and you've created a seriously helpful tool for research. You get a sincere thanks from me.
My "problem" with Wookieepedia is they have some very strange policies, like renaming their Jacen Solo article to Darth Caedus and being very particular about names in general, though at least they had a hard time taking the 3,000m Viscount retcon seriously.
But that leads to awesome things like this:
Strange policies born of necessity. When our naming policy worked the way it used to, we got complaints that Grievous was under Qymaen jai Sheelal, and Darth Bane was under Dessel, instead. The simple fact is that there are people who prefer one name, people who prefer another, and we can never make 100% of our users happy. We originally let people fight it out over each and every article, but that just resulted in a bunch of page moves and endless talk page debates. The policy, as written, has resulted in most things winding up at names that are, generally speaking, pretty intuitive. Jacen/Caedus seems to be the one outlier where people are uncomfortable with the way the policy worked out (myself included), but ... Darth Caedus WAS his name, and it WAS the one he identified with, and was identified by, for the last months of his life and at the time of his death. Even if we carved him out as an exception to the naming policy, we'd just be going back to having endless talk page debates as the Caedus advocates rightly pushed their case.
The Wook has 109,496 articles. Some are very good and thorougly referenced, like Raith Sienar's or Ulic Qel-Droma's pages. Others, especially older ones, make me cringe because there are no refs anywhere and you're forced to take the editors' word for it--such as Supreme Commander of the Imperial Forces. I guess this is the latter's example which gives WP part of its ill reputation on these boards. And yes, many articles are like that. But we've got close to 5,000 articles that have gone through a peer review process to ensure they are completely sourced and cover all the source material. This certainly isn't bad work. As for the poorer quality articles out there, they'll be worked on some day, and it certainly would be easier to do so if people actually helped instead of just pointing out laughing.
Now I realize another common complaint about the Wook is the presence of "real-life" articles such as plant or clothing. Now, you have to know those kind of articles are controversial even amongst Wookieepedians. This is the old inclusionists versus deletionists debate. I, for one, am in favor of writing articles like that in the condition they're not bland copies of a real-world dictionary: they have to be a window on the SW galaxy, describing some of its particular mundane aspects. As far as "plant" and "clothing" are headed, I think they're turning out pretty well and interesting.
And then there are also those who complain because we cover non-serious thing that "can't obviously be canon," such as Mount Sorrow or Jaxxon. What can I say, except that those people don't seem to understand that we document all things that appear in official Star Wars sources. We do not select what we think is good enough for us...
As a note - I've never seen anyone raise this objection, and it's frankly stupid that anyone would. That's how a wiki works. What I normally see in complaints - or more commonly jokes - about Wookieepedia are either the other two points you mention, or the inclusion of extremely insignificant characters/things like this guy (who I believe actually has an Unencyclopedia article as a result). I can understand that to a degree. But criticizing the quality of individual articles on a community-maintained site, one where it's possible to fix mistakes yourself without even needing to register? That would be ridiculous, and I can't say I've ever actually seen anyone say it.
As for the other stuff, I can certainly understand how shining a light on the weirder corners of Star Wars materials can look a little ridiculous, but the way I see it, if the joke's on anyone, it's more on the original authors than on the people documenting their work.
So yeah, chalk me up as another person who doesn't really approve of insults towards the Wook.
My critical views and comments about Wookieepedia are traditional. It is certainly a useful tool and I value the time that people put into it, but I fear that were I to alter my attitude towards the Wook, people might worry.
But I generally get along well with Wook folks such as
@jSarek so I don't think it's a problem.
Misa ab iPhono meo est.
I was all over the wook for a hot minute, and I'm still proud of my work on Booster Terrik and Gorm the Dissolver, but eventually it became one of the (rare) examples where I had the common sense to realize I didn't belong there. I'm too prickly about my writing and Booster became just an endless series of arguments about how I phrased one thing or another...I maintain my POV on the matter, but I'm able to recognize that it just brought out the worst parts of me and wasn't worth a perpetual fight against the current. Nowadays I use it all the time but only make edits if I find a typo or a particularly bad grammatical error.
Well, the results of the naming policy are one of the main reasons I avoid editing Wookieepedia these days. I mean, I was putting so much effort on researching stuff and then I clicked some links and found out that the first Death Star is listed under some ridiculous name, and I thought, "I waste all this time on a website that calls the %^#&ing Death Star the DS-whatever Expeditionary Whatnot"? ^%$# this $#!&." And then I thought, "I waste all this time on a website, period?" So that decided it.
But amidst all the pedantic debates, there are always people scouring articles for mistakes, adding references, or scanning away at old magazines to illustrate articles. That's why Wookieepedia has become an invaluable research tool for the SW universe, if you can overlook the stupid names some of the articles have. And unless people actually update it, how will it grow and become better? Some of the best-researched articles are amazing. And the reality of the situation is that Wookieepedia is used for research by SW authors who contribute things to the canon. It HAS to be thorough and well-researched.
And yes, dinosaurs. In Star Wars.
Are Dewbacks considered to be too amphibious like to be dinosaurish ?
The problem is, you guys have been forced to deal with the osik LFL has given us, namely the post-NJO and TCW, so of course there are going to be problems. You guys were guaranteed to have problems from people like myself, who have been completely alienated by the post-NJO and TCW. I still don't know how you guys are going to fix the mess that the Tantive IV retcon caused, which was where I first discovered what TCW was really doing and led me down the path to starting to actually reject some things that are official. The no list of products on company articles is another fairly recent policy that bugs me, and I can't be the only one who expects such articles to have a list products, not just to rely on product categories that should primarily be an organizational tool. I have made a fair number of talk page comments that have been lost to the sands of time.
I have had a similar experience, and fix little things whenever I can, which is part of the reason why I ended up here with my somewhat pessimistic outlook on things, thanks to what has been done to the universe I love by the people who are supposed to be its caretakers.
I think the Wook is an excellent place for getting original resources/books as they are listed. I'm probably the minority, but I always do research based on originals, so this is pretty valuable.
Documenting things is kinda what an online fan-based encyclopedia does, even silly articles, like SW dinosaurs. Cool that people actually take the time to do this. But being 'selective' is dangerous, because then there are biased articles, some editors who don't consider previous material or make assumptions, sometimes leading to a combative nature, which may turn off people from actually contributing. However, I think as communities we should work together instead of this separation of "us vs them."
...and yes.... DINOSAURS:
Maybe the quote is using "dinosaurs" to refer to large reptiles instead of the dinos we know from Earth. Still, the dinos we now know are different from the ones we thought we knew---recently, we know most of them had either feathery or fur-like coverings. So I don't think the SW dinos represent Earth dinos at all.
The Tiss'Shar kinda seem like stereotypical dinos from Jurassic Park, others look more like komodo dragons---it would be interesting how SW handles the fuzzy dinos. ....
And yeah, there are some recent "fuzzy T-rex" and ceratopsians too. Fuzzy dinos in space, Disney?
Yeah, we do have to deal with LFL's more questionable recent decisions. Such is the nature of a site such as ours; we can't pick and choose what is presented to us as canon. And, I imagine, the confused scrambling to deal with radical changes will only intensify as the sequel trilogy develops. Hopefully, the Story Group will de-mystify what the canon situation will look like going forward, but until then, we can only do what we did with the Clone Wars - note the contradictions and hope some get ironed out soon.
As for the list of products, pretty much all of our lists have been deprecated in favor of categories, because that "organizational tool" is automatically kept up-to-date as articles are categorized, while lists rarely are.
@jSarek my biggest issue with Wookieepedia (and issue is a strong word because it doesn't bother me at all but I would change it if it were up to me) is that there are certain ambiguities which seem to be arbitrarily broken down into a specific POV which may or may not have no more or less canonical support than another POV of the same ambiguity. Would you say that this is accurate?
Yes; unfortunately, this is unavoidable if we want to thoroughly document everything. For example, a character like Platt Okeefe may have led a very vibrant life, but one told to us in tidbits across many sources. If we want to cover her life story, we have to piece together the best order to put those tidbits in, and in some cases, the order may be little more than arbitrary. The best we can do is note in the Behind the Scenes or Notes and References sections that these ambiguities exist, and explain why a particular editorial decision was made. In general, I think we've been pretty good about doing so, but there is always room for improvement, particularly (as was noted) in older articles that haven't been brought up to modern standards.
Wookieepedia is basically being edited constantly, and yet you guys seriously don't believe you can keep product lists up-to-date?
We don't believe it, and that lack of belief is based in experience. Most lists were chronically out of date, and in many cases just plain incomplete. Categories do a much better job keeping track of that sort of information.
That is an exaggeration. Don't forget we actually have skin impressions from many species of dinosaurs so we know that creatures such as Carnotaurus and Iguanadon had scales.
Actually, feathers are usually limited to theropods (one type of ceratopsian had quills which are still different from feathers and proto-feathers, and only on its tail with the rest of the body scaled), and even then it was hardly universal (again - Carnotaurus.) T-Rex, from what I understand, only had feathers when it was young, as is the case for most of the larger theropods.
Birds do have both feathers and scales.
I would tentatively hypothesise that the fuzzy integument of pterosaurs - (close cousins to dinosaurs) was present in the most recent common ancestor of dinosaurs and pterosaurs - and was what feathers evolved from.
And that while the integument might have been mostly lost in larger dinosaurs - that doesn't mean it was completely lost.
Maybe the spines along the backs of diplodocids, are these same quill-like protofeathers?