I'd say not necessarily, it reads to me as though planets are just being brought into the overall Clone Wars, yes Yerbana being in the Outer Rim probably helps, but that doesn't by default make it a part of the sieges. That's just me though, and I'm sure someone else will read it differently and go against what I think. You can either ask someone else or just go with what you think --Lewisr (talk) 17:02, April 20, 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the source makes it clear in several instances.--Vitus Infinitus 17:48, April 24, 2020 (UTC)
Please provide backup links where possible, so that others don't have to do it for you. UberSoldat93 (talk) 13:02, April 30, 2020 (UTC)
Hey! I'm not sure, unfortunately I don't own the book. Try checking with Tommy-Macaroni. Sorry about that!--Vitus Infinitus 02:14, May 1, 2020 (UTC)
Looking for markings that are similar to other B1 models is not exactly the point. Saying that a droid has marks similar to a OOM-Command Droid is not enough evidence to assume is a OOM command droid since its just a paint job. As for animation models, unless you have evidence that its an actual different animation model and not an animation error, you should assume that its a B1.--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 20:03, May 2, 2020 (UTC)
I put back in the previous image of 4-A7 instead of . Just because it is also used in the Legends side, is no reason to replace it with a lower quality image from the same scene. Particularly when it is being put up for FA nom. Just letting you know. - JMAS 00:22, May 3, 2020 (UTC)
Hi Editoronthewiki. The passage just says "With her real workers workers exterminated and her ability to make new eggs ruined by the Empire, one Geonosian queen goes crazy and begins "hatching" worker droids. A queen's instinct to breed and rule is strong." Ayrehead02 (talk) 13:40, May 11, 2020 (UTC)
Yo Editor, if you jump on Discord I can dm you images of the pages. Ayrehead02 (talk) 22:59, May 29, 2020 (UTC)
That's fine, but make sure to make this fact clear in the body. UberSoldat93 (talk) 17:20, May 31, 2020 (UTC)
Hey, Editor, congratulations on your nomination for WotM, your work is definitely deserving of it, however, I'm about to make my very first CA nomination on the Legends Relgim Run, and I'm confused on the part of where and what I have to copy and paste. I've added in all the references to where they belong, added an image of the Relgim Run's location but the actual hyperlane is highlighted. I was wondering if you could help me out. But first, could you look it over to see if it's CA material? Cheers! 16:24, June 11, 2020 (UTC)
- I actually figured out what I was having trouble with earlier. 02:25, June 12, 2020 (UTC)
Hi Editor,
I noticed you made some edits relatively recently, regarding the canon OOM and B1 droid convolution.
Just to let you know, I also did some research into this on the EU/Legends side of things, just over a year ago, and the origins of those designations. You may have seen this detailed in the relevant Legends articles, which I updated with sources, but if you ever want some insight into why I believe this confusion over droid model/series came about, feel free to drop me a message.
Keep up the good work!
Just wanted to give you the heads up that I uploaded a higher quality B2 super battle droid image and inserted it here on your workbench. - JMAS 19:36, June 28, 2020 (UTC)
So? I was referring to the newer CGI series, not the one from 2003.
--Godzillafan4ever (talk) 22:01, July 16, 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for contributing to Wookieepedia! Please note that your edit to Age of Republic - Anakin Skywalker 1 added a link to a social media post without including a screenshot of the post. Our Sourcing policy mandates the inclusion of a screenshot with all social media post citations. Instructions for doing this can be found on the respective citation template pages. Thanks! 1358 (Talk) 11:56, July 26, 2020 (UTC)
Just as an FYI, you have a couple of broken refs on your workbench page that are showing up in an error category. -- Sulfur (talk) 03:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
If you do a search for "Cite error" on the page, you should find two. The first is a missing reference for "Dark Lord 14", the second is that "CVD control ship note" is defined multiple times with different text. Hopefully that helps a bit -- Sulfur (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, we wouldn't want to confuse the poor bot, would we? Thanks for the tip. SilverSunbird (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello there! I'm sorry if I bother you I'm writing about the dark side article. I don't think Yoda was mistaken when he said the dark side will dominate one's destiny forever. Decisions and actions made out of the dark side pretty much ruled Anakin's destiny. I don't believe he meant there is no chance for redemption if you fall, I believe he meant it will change your destiny and push it to a direction you cannot change anymore. Like Gunray's deal of Sidious what he chose to make out of greed, it set his fate despite at the end he only wanted peace and he didn't care about money. Yoda himself said nothing is in stone and he witnessed the redemption of Ventress and Vos, this would resolve the contradiction. Let me know what you think! WriterBuddha (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
You have a link to "Capacitor (device)" on your workbench which should be updated to Capacitor. SilverSunbird (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I promise I will get around to it eventually, but right now I don't really have time (also introversion). SilverSunbird (talk) 01:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations on becoming project leader of WP:TCW! As an original member and one time leader of the project, it's pretty awesome to see it still alive and well after ten-plus years. I'll be around to help out with the project, albeit less frequently. See you around and best of luck, JangFett 05:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I was wondering if this necessary or not to add this quote on Grievous (Canon) page "More machine than alive, though more dangerous for it." - Yoda on Grievous from the Canon book Star Wars: Absolutely Everything You Need to Know. It the same quote Yoda said in Labyrinth of Evil but without saying Grievous name.
Is The Droid with a Heart whole story about "Grievous admired droid and wanting to mirror their abilities" consider 100% Canon? Because on Grievous page, someone removed the "According to Legend" and believe it entirely true by rewriting the "Becoming a cyborg" section. Here my version before someone reverted back to his version: between revisions of "Grievous". I only tried to change it because I don't really see how an already existing cyborg Grievous can get fatally injuries and almost destroy his original body(?) if it saying "the Sith approached Sheelal with an offer to convert him a cyborg" unless I'm reading it wrong.
Because we already know eventually Grievous voluntarily gave himself over to mechanical modifications by gradually trades his biological parts with mechanical one until only his eyes, brain and vital organs remain. After a shuttle crash that almost entirely rebuilt him by Geonosian engineers then received his training by Count Dooku. Well that how I see it happening. Also for some reason someone keep messing up the ref link for example: switching "Lair of Grievous" to "Lair of Grievous2", "HC 8" to "HC 82" and even duplicating an already existing ref link with a source link to it. RealCarlosV (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Imperators II 13:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Looks like Lewisr has fixed it for me, thanks for bringing it to my attention. ThrawnChiss7 12:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Editor. Just wanted to clarify something about what went down in the Pride subchannel, as the SH has now been locked by the administration. As I said in my original message, no one was ever able to produce evidence of E.K. Johnston having said that Padmé and Sabé were intended as “sisters”. Any tweets that were produced as “evidence” for a strictly platonic relationship between Padmé and Sabé did not even include mention of Padmé and Sabé themselves, and were purely circumstantial evidence. Though Mike Chen once referred to Padmé and Sabé as “sisters” in a tweet, he has never written Sabé at all, and has only written Padmé in a couple of scenes, so his reading of the Queen’s Shadow trilogy does NOT reflect Johnston’s. Moreover, I did provide textual evidence of Padmé’s attraction to Sabé, and repeatedly offered to provide it once again for those who didn’t want to scroll further back in the chat. The fact that this offer was brushed aside so many times told me everything I needed to know: that the people in the Pride subchannel had no interest in even considering my point of view. Everyone believed spookywilloww’s claim that a mysterious Johnston tweet had referred to Padmé and Sabé as “sisters”; spookywilloww didn’t even have to produce this evidence to be taken seriously, and indeed, she never did. I, on the other hand, provided dozens of quotes as undeniable, in-universe textual evidence, INCLUDING multiple instances where Padmé experiences jealousy while witnessing Sabé flirt with someone else, and was dismissed out of hand. I suspect that most of the Pride subchannel didn’t even look at the evidence I sent, because if they had, I am so confused as to how anyone could have characterized this jealousy in particular as “platonic friend behaviour”. Queen Amiadala (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Star Wars: Timelines has explicitly stated the events of Thrawn are in 14 BBY. What is wrong with being bold in updating the page? If people disagree with me I am happy to discuss it. ThrawnChiss7 23:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Okay, we have reached an understanding on chapter 19 of Thrawn. However, as a stated on the talk page, 15 BBY is around 14 BBY, and thus not a contradiction. Saying that the novel was "c. 15 BBY" while also saying that it "cannot take place in 14 BBY" makes zero sense. ThrawnChiss7 20:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Lewsr added the version that said "15 BBY". I am confused about what your logic is here: "around 15 BBY" means that it could take place in others years close to 15 BBY and still be "around 15 BBY". ThrawnChiss7 20:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for updating it, looks good. ThrawnChiss7 12:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Is it ever confirmed if Eternal Rur was lying in Doctor Aphra (2016) 6 too? --Goodmind (talk) 11:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Imperators II 19:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi,
I think that this semi-editing war what we’re doing in the Jedi Order article regarding non-attachment etc. has gone long enough, we should have a real and good-faith discussion on it instead!
It’s a fact that George Lucas created the Jedi Knights as the heroes of the six movies and the six seasons of Clone Wars, and their teachings on attachment and compassion as well as their behaviors guided by these teachings are supposed to be taken as the moral of the story, not as something that needs to be challenged or fixed.
It’s also a fact that Dave Filoni and others, like Cavan Scott are holding personal views on this that are different from Lucas’ and they voiced their opinions in some interviews. In the light of this information, certain parts of their work might reflect their takes, like the Martez sisters’ storyline in the post-Lucas Clone Wars season.
But these parts are not amounting to a substantive basis upon which their takes can be established as canon. Nor these parts can be taken as core elements around which the narrative should be interpreted, nor they should be. For example, just because High Republic comics are showing more physical affection between Jedi Knights, this is not a sufficient reason to conclude, Lucas’ movies are showing less of it because the Jedi Knights depicted in them are frowned upon physical affection. This should be the starting position when we decide, what’s difference between the two eras of the Order, and indeed, whether or not we have enough evidence to decide if there’s any substantive difference between them.
Trying to present Lucas’ story and the stories by Filoni and Scott and others as a unified narrative is not an easy task, but we must take caution and we must base this narrative strictly on what we can derive from the source material itself, (for example, the notion that “yoda basically telling anakin to go mediate his problems away” is in direct conflict with what we can see in the movie) and when we have definitive proof that there’s a conflict of narrative intentions (see Lucas’ commentary on Luke leaving Dagobah and how Scott interprets the scenes) we should not resolve it by pretending, there’s no conflict or by choosing to reframe the whole narrative around one of them.
MTFBWY
Bendeguz01 (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for answering! Allow me to present my counterpoints:
The Republic and the Jedi Order fall in the Prequel Trilogy, that’s true, but I struggle to see, how the notion that this is because there was something wrong with their teachings or ways, can be derived from the source material.
In fact, Lucas explicitly said, the Prequels are showing us what a Jedi Knight is and how they should operate, calling the era as the “heyday of the Jedi.”
I would like to address the “dive too far into the non-attachment rule” interpretation, and the suggestion that it undermines compassion. It’s very important to note that non-attachment is not the same as detachment. I’m aware that many, including Dave Filoni is fond to this idea, that the Jedi were “too detached” but there’s a serious misunderstanding here, because it’s going against the conventional way of thinking about these things.
Detachment is to not engage with something emotionally, it’s a state of aloofness. Attachment is the feeling that you love or like something or someone and that you would be unhappy about them. Non-attachment is not aloofness and emotional disengagement, nor it is the lack of liking or loving, but the lack of the feeling that you have to keep the things and people you like and love in your life, because your happiness depends on having them and keeping them. This is why attachment is forbidden for a Jedi Knight, this is why they need to let go. And this is why they have to make compassion the center of their life: when you’re compassionate, you’re loving unconditionally, because your focus is on to make your loved ones happy. Lucas stated that he modelled the Order after buddhist monks, and the definition of Jedi teaching of non-attachment on the films and show and in interviews, is identical with buddhist teachings.
Indeed, in High Republic stories, this doctorine is indeed shown to be misunderstood by some Jedi Knights, and it’s perfectly reasonable to assume that this was also happening in the Prequels and in Clone Wars era. Ahsoka seems to struggle to understand this in Jedi Crash, for instance. But there is just no reason to believe that in that era, the misunderstanding was any more widespread. For example, the case of the Martez sisters perfectly mirrors the High Republic case of Greylark (but in all fairness, it should be noted that these cases have nothing to do with non-attachment: personal, warm and affectionate engagement with others is not dependent on attachment)- why should we assume that one incident during late Republic era represents the whole Order in general?
By the same token, take a look at the comic “Quest of the Jedi” set during the time of the High Republic: Vix, the padawan maintains a quiet arrogant view on being a Jedi, and her master does virtually nothing to address this or to teach her humility. Yet, in Episode II, Yoda states that arrogance is a problem. However, based on this, we shouldn’t jump to the conclusion that High Republic era Jedi were more arrogant in general. Similarly, we shouldn’t assume that High Republic era Jedi, who seem outright disgusted by the rustic look of “battle sabers” compared to the beautifully crafted sabers of the time, are more vain, and placed more importance on beauty over effectiveness, compared to late Republic era Jedi, who can admire and appreciate the simple hilt designs, as it shown in the Clone Wars show. Or, that the High Republic Jedi were more like a consumer society: they getting ready for sabers to be lost in battle, so they decide to produce simple sabers, while during the late Republic era, even the loss of these simple sabers is considered to be a huge mistake.
I admit, I am not too familiar with the story of Iskat Akaris, but based on the wook article she comes off as someone who doesn’t like being a Jedi Knight in the first place - what supports the idea that she would feel differently in the High Republic era? Jedi also fall to the dark side during this period of time, like Azlin Rell: one fallen Knight doesn’t mean the failure of the Order.
As for Living Force, I suffer the same limitations but isn’t there a section where the Jedi are gathering personal belongings to donate them to refugees? Based on this, they don’t seem to became less caring than before.
I just see no objective, rational evidence in the source materials to support a substantial negative change in the Order between the eras. And don’t let us forget, the head of the Order during both eras, was the very same Master Yoda. If there was no change in leadership, why would the general attitude of the Order have changed?
Bendeguz01 (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
But I see the recent edits on the article seem to made it better. Regarding your arguments, you are right, the Jedi aren’t perfect, nor designed to be: they are human beings, but also humans beings who trying their best. Not being infallible doesn’t mean they somewhat lost their ways - there is no indication supporting this claim in the films or TV show George Lucas made and as he made them. On the contrary, the problems presented in other media is nonexistent in works made under Lucas’ guidance. The fall of the Jedi didn’t root in the Order, but in the Republic: it was the system what was in decline, not the Jedi. The Republic started to rot and failed the Jedi. So, during the prequels, they struggling with a difficult situation, but, as Lucas said, they themselves are on their peak as an organization. We didn’t really need a High Republic era to show this: the era called “High Republic” by Lucasfilm and not the “Golden age of the Jedi” for a reason. Indeed, this is the golden age of the Jedi - because this is the High Republic era - the system is working as it should be, the Jedi get all the support from the government they need. Based on what we got, I still don’t see any reason to assume that the Jedi during Late Republic era changed for the worse. I don't know what's coming in the future, but at least the behind the scenes section can clarify things about the intentions about the Jedi and their role in the story. Bendeguz01 (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
But if we rely on canonical material, for example in the case of the Jedi losing public support in season 5, nothing indicates that they deserved it, aside the fact they forced to participate in the war. There is no indication of a widespread negative change. Based on the material, regarding High Republic, I would suggest late Republic Jedi also shared a hug etc. offscreen, because there is nothing about a swift of overall attitude. Especially if authors themselves of High Republic material say the approach to the philosophy is no different in the High Republic than later times. Also, we should try to not let the story to distort by claims with no actual trace in the story itself. Like the ones Dave Filoni likes to make time to time, for example, misquoting Yoda from Episode II. or directly contradicting the story he supervised, when saying the Jedi were to blame in Anakin's fall because they didn't care about him. Someone who worked as close with Lucas or read as much Expanded Universe stuff (where most of the Jedi around Anakin trying to get close to him) as Filoni should have known better. Filoni also probably believes Luminara Unduli is lacking of actual compassion, while in the episodes featuring her in Clone Wars, she is far from that. In season 7 we can hear about an unfortunate event with the Martez sisters, but based on the previous episodes, Luminara is far from emotionally distant, that's just not her personality. I know Filoni believes the opposite, regardless, the material doesn't play out that way, because it just doesn't make sense if we take the rest of the Clone Wars in account.
Hello.
It's obvious that we interpret things very differently. So let's discuss this in a more friendly manner.
Please allow me to clarify my positions.
Despite Cavan Scott indeed is a canon writer, this doesn't mean that his opinions on George Lucas' movies are canonical information. He shows High Republic Jedi Knights living among the people they protect, diffused in the galaxy and he claims, the fact that in George Lucas' movies and tv show they shown to live in one temple, means that they're "locked away in their temple," which means, as you put it, "they're isolated." However, this claim lacks any rational basis. In Lucas' stories, the Jedi Knights are accessible to and engaged with the people of the galaxy, they travel across the galaxy to guard peace and justice. The fact that they don't live among people doesn't mean that they're "isolated" from them. There's a change, sure, but there's just no reason to believe that there's a negative change in the quality of their Jedi activities. Let's not forget that even in Scott's comics, Yoda lives in the village for some time, but then he returns to the Temple. And since Scott's works are not inserting any evidence into the narrative that would support his claims, said claims are not amounting to a canonical information.
As far as I know, Living Force quite clearly explains that although Yoda and other Council members try to teach young Knights to pay attention to the here and now, and what seems irrelevant when they see the big picture - working for the well-being of the galaxy as a whole - can be terribly important to the individual. Is that novel really supports the notion that the Jedi are becoming "isolated?" (In the way how Scott implise) Or rather, it shows that they're getting more and more involved in the galaxy on a global level?
As for "Although Lucas said that, it is disproven by the events of those films and other prequel media, such as Tales of the Jedi" - let's clarify that Tales of the Jedi is not created by George Lucas and I fail to see, what supports your claim that anything in his own work would run contrary to his statement.
Anyway, although to me, it's clear that Scott's and Lucas' views on the Prequel Jedi are radically different, I see no reason to change the way how you arranged the behind the scenes section.
WriterBuddha (talk)WriterBuddha