Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Chronology of Star Wars

3519:

have pointed out, that's not supported by policy or guidance or consensus. It's just supported by my personal morality on what's right. I think this article violates a number of fundamental points about what we're supposed to do here, from breaching copyright to breaching original research to breaching neutral point of view and breaching ideas we had against being used for marketing purposes. However, all the information is verifiable, it is of use to readers and it isn't false. There's no consensus here that this article or articles like it are a bad thing. So the article must, if kept, be edited in line with our policies. Which means every entry needs a cite, and every conflict within the timeline is listed, and only explained if a reliable secondary source can be cited. If there are none, we don't explain the conflicts. I donl;t believe there are secondary sources, but I'm prepared to be wrong. Do you think there's a consensus to delete? I don't, I don;t think there is even if you fall back on policy, because you'd be relying on the most contentious parts of policy, and overlooking

3095:, which notes that it is illegal (among other things) to reproduce or make derivative works of copyrighted works without legal justification. The key point here is derivative works, which are defined as being an expressive creation that includes major, copyright-protected elements of an original, previously created first work. The only legal justification we have for making derivitaive works is that of fair use, but that involves demonstrating transformation. We fail here somewhat because what we have created isn't new. Now it can be argued that WIkipedia might possibly get away with publishing this stuff, but that's not the point. The point is that we have commercial reusers, so it isn't enough that we can get away with it. On Knowledge (XXG), our goal is to be a free content encyclopedia, with free content defined as any content granting the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, and otherwise use the works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially. So that's the basis for my thinking. 995:

material. The current wording is not really definitive--about 20 variations have been tried in the last few weeks. But the compromise consensus is that it applies to the coverage of works as a whole, not articles. There seems also to be consensus that extends even wider that the availability of references to a plot makes an article on it possible. (I dont really like that part myself, because references are a matter of chance for fiction), but i accept it as part of the compromise. Perhaps you disagree. Discuss it there, if you like, but I think the view will be speedily rejected as something we have already compromised on. I shouldn't have to explain the advantage of compromise of FICT related questions--we have no actual fundamental agreement, we won;t completely convince each other: we can either fight it out indefinitely instead of working on article, or we can compromise. Choose.

3087:

copyright holder has in exploiting their work to produce such a chronology and sell it. We're giving it away for free, basically. Now, we can use non-free content minimally, so we can use points within the chronology in relevant articles, but groupoing it together in one article to show the timeline is not minimal usage. So you can say in an article on the character Harry Potter that he got a scar on his head at this point, that's minimal usage. The minimal extent is only to use as much of the plot as is needed to illustrate or facilitate understanding for a reader. And finally, non-free content must be encyclopedic and meet content standards. So it needs to be in keeping with

3187:

subject to copyright, but creative expression is. Basically, the only place that will ever determine whether we breach copyright or not is a court of law, and ultimately it is therefore a call for the board to make rather than for me to make. The board reserve the right to take down any material which they do not believe would be defended in court using fair use defense criteria, so I think they have to take the lead on on summarising and infringing fictional works which are subject to copyright. I retract my assertions as flawed and perhaps subject to copyright paranoia.

1852:, because they are owned by the same parent company? Furthermore, Any "retconning" that might exist in this article that isn't based on actual sources can be removed, and it would still leave a lot of decent information. Unresolvable contradictions should simply be described, rather than explained or filtered (if there is no source explaining the contradiction, and no blatantly obvious explanation or mistake), as we do in any other article where conflicting facts appear in reliable sources ( 3668:. I respectfully, but strongly, disagree. There's a distinction between a plot summary and a chronology, albeit a blurry one, and this is the latter. Rather than explaining every event ever to happen in Star Wars (it'd be 10 times the size if it did), it summarises some of the most important events and links to their respective articles. It could be a decent navigation and reference source. It just needs consolidating and cleaning up. 2652: 1511: 2681:

sourced, and as such are things we ought to be including in a paperless encyclopedia. I've already used this source to add citations to a few of these events (if I have time I'll add more), and it has led me to further sources and information about the subject. The fact that you are somehow unable to derive any useful information from these sources should not prevent the rest of us from doing so.

2188:, just of Star Wars as a whole. This article becomes an extension of what in a paper encyclopedia would be a huge article on Star Wars. It complements and expands on the subject, and I think this is an important example of giving the world free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That is, after all, what we are doing. Cheers, and happy editing. 2878: 629: 3243:

sources does not make it such. "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is 'source-based research', and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Once again, we are building a storehouse off all human knowledge.

2565:. Reluctantly convinced by some of A Man In Black's comments above that there probably isn't enough outside commentary on the chronology, though I fully admit that if this article wasn't such a mess I might've been inclined to argue usefulness to readers if nothing else. The fact that it's probably mostly a clumsy transwiki from 3558:

contending that describing the fact that primary source 1 conflicts with primary source 2 is original research misunderstands what a description is. But like I say, I think this should be deleted for relying mainly on primary source. There's no two ways about that. All the sources are fiction, and are therefore primary source.

1693:

same information may be presented in each related article. If chronologies weren't helpful, people wouldn't create them. And incidentally, The Lord of the Rings has a chronology at the end simply because so many of his readers requested it of him. (Yes, I can source it, but no, I really don't want to go find the book it's in.)

3117:- Are we certain that this is the case? I mean no slight whatsoever, but rather want to get to the heart of this. Because what you're saying would then seem to apply to geneological tables (family trees) as well as quite a few other lists. So it sounds like we really need to know if this is legally accurate (and since 3300:

and, yes, it is overly detailed and immersed in the lightsaber wielding world of The Force. However, the cultural significance of this iconic series makes it notable! everyone has heard of star wars- whether they like it or not. After all, 390,127 people declared themselves "Jedi" in the British 2001

3086:

I didn't cut and paste as properly as I'd like. The first mistakle a lot of people make is in assuming that non-free applies only to images. It actually applies to all non-free content. A plot is non-free content. That's how it applies. We're basically infringing upon the commercial opportunities a

1048:

A chronology of notable events, basically a list of them (as DGG says) is as notable as the events it lists. The article serves (or can serve!) for a overview of when the events in different notable media are taking place within the fictional chronology, thus allowing the reader an easier overview of

522:

I'm just insanely amused by "Adolf Hitler (1889 – 1945) was an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party, popularly known as the Nazi Party. He was also noted for his contributions to gardening." Not sure if it was vandalism or a parody somewhere. -

402:

No, it is common for reliable sources to be written by those who have an economic interest in the topic. For example, a mathematics textbook will typically be written by a person who has a vested interest in maths education/research. This is no bar to our usage of such sources. The guideline makes

67:

in this close because while the arguments were based on similar elements, the two articles are quite different in composition and content; it's not fair to apply the same standards in this respect.) Does this article contain unverified claims and original research? Most definitely. But AfD, as noted

3588:, but, to date, nobody has come up with a book or URL from which this material has supposedly been copied. I stand by my position that, with a little tidying up and some research as to the contradictions, this would be a perfectly good article and an authoritative source for researching the subject. 3557:

as these are primary source, that the two sources conflict. We don't get to streamline the chronology, we don't get to decide one source is "truer" than another, we don't get to take a point of view. Since this article is built on primary source, it must only make uncontentious descriptions. Anyone

3259:

This is an article written based one one single primary source, with lots of conjecture based on other primary sources (and some random comments in secondary sources that are chiefly about other things). It's two different kinds of OR (Lucasfilm's own theory of how their work fits together, and lots

2899:

Neither of those links offer any commentary or content. They just offer two (mostly conflicting) timelines, both cited to whatever the latest Lucasfilm-licensed fan guide was. "Here's two timelines in the entertainment sections of newspapers, now let's give 100K of plot summary that doesn't resemble

2141:

Such a massive series, covering so many books, movies, animated series, merchandise, and having such a vast cultural influence, is notable enough to have side articles about its various aspects. The list helps organize all the series, and is thus quite helpful to those seeking information about it.

2021:

ideas on what this article should cover is not notable, not that the subject itself is not notable. As a tertiary source, we are "supposed" to be covering subjects in the manner of secondary reliable sources, and if all they do is excerpt primary sources, then there's no good reason why we shouldn't

1779:

would seem to suggest that such pages are allowable. And honestly, I'm still not seeing a reason why simple facts from a primary source cannot be collated for presentation in whatever way may best benefit the reader. And I highly doubt that you can assert that a chronology of in-universe information

908:

I have the Star Wars Encyclopedia, several of the "Essential Guide to X" books, and a whole lot of primary sources (books, movies, etc). I acknowledge that the article as it is now is a steaming pile of shit, and the article after I finish with it will be about 1/10th the size it is now. Most of the

647:

That's a really great job of attacking the analogy while not addressing the point. A shotgun Google search full of junk has never established anything on its own. You're saying, "Well, maybe there are some good sources there!" I'm saying, "You'll need to point them out, because my digging got zero."

2680:

Then I'd say you have a very different definition of "coverage" than the rest of the speakers of the English language. The factual claims I'm getting from this are factual claims about when certain fictional events took place within a fictional timeline. These are facts about fiction, independently

1950:

Silly me, I thought we were talking about notability, now you are talking about real-world details? There are sources for that too, but of course you'll dismiss them because they are not independent. (Again, where would this information come from if not ultimately from the creators of the fictional

1405:

I assume you have proof that the article is in violation of somebody's copyright? And if so, that there is some barrier that prevents you from simply removing the offended sections? Because if not, then its not a valid reason to delete. If it actually is copyvio, then after this closes i'm going to

3518:

I don't recall saying there were any. If I'm honest, I think this is a copyright violation. But since I am not a judge, I can't rule that, and it is only a judge who can, not a lawyer or anyone else. If I were to back my judgemenbt, I'd say delete, per my extensive arguing up above, but as people

3445:

per DGG and because it seems to wildly surpase any and all sourcing guidelines. Yes, the best material is going to come from secondary sources that aren't independent, but there are plenty of books, articles and reviews to build something like this without those non-independent sources if needed.

3136:

Showing the timeline is not minimal usage to my mind, because the point of the article is to show the timeline, not to discuss the impact of the work. Our whole usage of copyright material rests upon a fair use defense, which means we have to offer critical commentary and use copyrighted material

2596:

article cited above). Furthermore, books written by authors not involved in the creation of the original stories, and published by major publishing companies—even though licensed and authorized by the creators, developers, and publishers of the original works—ought to be considered independent for

2183:

fail notability. Primary sources can be used when trustworthy for factual content, they are not required in this instance to establish notability. If there are problems with the article, they can be amenable to editing, and given the household name status of the subject of Star Wars, notability is

2036:

This is going in circles. There's nothing you can say in this article that isn't taken directly from a Lucasfilm timeline or excerpts of same. If you think it's acceptable to just duplicate their timeline, considering nobody has ever said anything about the timeline, then you're just wrong. If you

1692:

isn't "good encyclopedic writing"? I might suggest that a geneological table of greek mythology might do the same thing. Yet I would suggest that such a table would be incredibly good for an encyclopedia, and indeed, presenting the information this way would help aid understanding, even though the

1011:

It's an in-universe navigation tool, when we already have lists that cover both in-universe and out-of-universe organizations, in a way that is overwhelmingly filled with in-universe factoids and not works. Some works (non-canon ones) aren't linked at all, whereas some are linked many, many times.

958:

I believe it is considered a standard. I know the official Star Wars Encyclopedia uses BBY/ABY for dates, and has something of a timeline as well. As for the rest of the information on length of standard days/years etc, I would have to look it up, as there may well be some valid SYNthesis concerns

632:

is relevant to the topic of "Jesus break dancing"?) does not mean that all Google searches are non-topics. Google test doesn't mean you necessarily have a topic, but it doesn't necessarily mean you don't. Actually looking at the search results and refining your search terms is how you properly use

1801:

Simple facts from primary sources are very different from collating every event that happens or is referred to or is implied in a licensed work, filtering out contradictions, retconning anything that doesn't fit, and incorporating the whole into a coherent timeline. There's a ton of C-canon stuff

801:. I'm working on converting it into a decent article. I'm removing a lot of the cruft, and once I remove what's uncitable i'm going to find citations for the rest of it. I've got primary sources, as well as the Star Wars Encyclopedia and several other books that count as third-party, so claims of 734:

offers the following commentary on the timeline: "This time line was compiled by fans, based on the movies, Lucasfilm-approved novels and comic books. There are still disputes about what is regarded as official text" and "There is controversy about the exact year Luke and Leia were born. The Star

376:

No, it was written by employees of Lucasfilm. It's not useful for commentary on the subject of the Star Wars timeline, because the only thoughts on the subject are going to be those who create and maintain that timeline. There's no hope of commentary from people other than people selling you that

3606:

I'd be amazed to see this article become a perfectly good article and an authorative source and remain within the law. I'm also intrigued by the idea that an article on Knowledge (XXG) should be an authoratoive source. Out of curiousity, what do you understand by the terms "derivative work" and

2124:

Thank you for your observation, but I think it's a dismissable observation since I'm using arguments based upon policy and current practice (as opposed to statements like "fancruft" and a those who have a "bias" against anything plot-related - who, by the way, could probably do with a re-read of

994:

NOT PLOT refers to coverage of a topic, not a specific article " The coverage of a fictional work should not be a mere plot summary. " If our entire coverage of Stat Wars was limited to this article it would fail. But it isn't. This is essentially a navigation page to facilitate understand the

939:

Useful way to organize information. Essentially a list. I doubt there will be difficulty sourcing almost everything to the canon, though I'm not sure how much does need to be included. But an entry in a table is not a full article, & does not need to be itself notable, or else every word in

673:

The point is that I had seen no evidence that you did any digging at all, because my digging was actually turning up sources which I have pointed out; though now how I see you dismiss every source brought up I'm not sure more digging would be worth the effort, because I have no idea what kind of

3708:

but that's not the point. There is sufficient coverage in quasi- independent sources of the core in many publications, in my opinion, to warrant it's inclusion. A lot of the rest of it is interesting and chronologises (try pronouncing that- if it's even a word!) material documented elsewhere on

3186:

specifically states it applies only to "copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files", so it does not extend to text as I mistakenly assert above. The second point is that the level to which copyright law covers specific um, "fictional facts", is unclear. Plot itself is not

2925:

So you are reverting information from independent reliable sources, because they conflict with other primary sources, sources you claim are unsuitable to use in this article, and don't "comment" on the sources? Except in their editorial section, newspapers aren't supposed to "comment", they are

426:

But a mathematics textbook will be covering concepts covered by many different texts, and not covering theories created by the mathematician or the publisher. Problems arise when we look to a Lucasfilm work for commentary on Lucasfilm's works. If the timeline is of popular interest, where's the

3242:

exists to keep people from publishing their theses here in the guise of an article. This not the case here. The creators do not compile and synthesize information to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly in the sources. They do not cite themselves. This is not OR, the use of primary

746:. There are no doubt more sources to be find, but disimissing each one by one, without actually examining them, and reverting improvements to the article is not helpful, and strikes me as extreme bad faith. I'm not going to edit the article to improve it if you going to keep reverting me. 1903:

coverage of fictional topics under your requirements, because all information about fictional topics ultimately derives from the fictional works, or from their creators. We could have 10,000 independent reliable sources covering this subject, and you'd still say it's not notable. Sheesh.

3562:

even notes in its introduction that it is a work of fiction. But I'm quite prepared to play long term. I am reasonably sure that in 100 years time this article will not generate as much controversy, and maybe, it would have been quietly prodded at some point between then and now.

1662:

It duplicates those lists as a navigation tool. It duplicates the many, many, many articles summarizing the plot of each of those films, books, games, comics, etc. as content. Arranging the same content infinitely in different ways is not good encyclopedia writing. -

735:

Wars Encyclopedia puts their birth at 18 BBY, but www.TheForce.net speculates 20 BBY." What newspapers decide to report and or "repeat from licensed fan-guides" is in itself a form of commentary, because they are deciding the information is "worthy of notice", i.e.

87:. However I have nagging doubts about outright deletion in this respect. Editors below have shown there is content that does bear significance to the series as a whole. In the interests of preserving good content, I recommend a merge, either to Star Wars or to 3651:- essentially a modified, extended plot summary, almost entirely composed of either original research or material lifted straight from primary sources. I don't believe this topic has the real-world notability required to justify an article in its own right. 1789:

The fact that you are shocked that I might suggest that nobody has discussed the chronology of Star Wars means that you've lost perspective here. No sources other than self-publishing Star Wars fans and Lucasfilm have seen fit to comment. Since those aren't

1719:

Likewise LOTR. Here, we have no such sources. This is closer to the Buffyverse and MGS timelines I noted above, which have been deleted exactly because nobody else has ever felt the need to comment in a reliable source about the chronology of that fictional

726:: "Star Wars Episode I: Incredible Cross Sections," www.starwars.com, "Star Wars Behind the Magic," "Star Wars Episode I: Visual Dictionary," "Star Wars: Episode I The Phantom Menace Movie Scrapbook," Lucasfilm Ltd., 20th Century Fox. None of them are the 2977:- Synthesis from primary sources. Indiscriminate inclusion of trivial events, people, places, etc. The wealth of redlinks (discounting dates) indicates that much this context-less amalgamation of plot detail and trivia is better suited to Wookieepedia. -- 1983:

Significant coverage is commentary. I offered a number of questions a source that actually said something about this timeline might answer. Entertainment sections of newspapers excerpting Lucasfilm publications doesn't answer any of these questions. -

1517:

The article needs a lot work to avoid more AfDs, although it's pretty clear to me that a viable article can be made here. I recommend adding some out of universe info, like the years of films and whatnot. Also, should probably remove the redlinks. -

3686:, and the plot of the work centres on events within a galaxy over a timeframe. If you just want a navigation aid, use a template. if you want to be an encyclopedic reference source, go summarise secondary sources, oh wait, we don't have any, do we? 2332:

Many of us join projects we have some doubts about to watch what's going on. I do. A good number of the eds. who oppose these articles are in fact fans of the subjects involved--it is not necessarily about not being interested in the fiction itself.

573:"). Perhaps Hitler's garden is not quite as non-notable as you thought? Perhaps the results of Google searches should not be routinely dismissed simply because you are able to create search terms which turn up thousands of irrelevant hits? Is 2022:

do the same, other than to satisfy your personal opinions about what Knowledge (XXG) shouldn't cover. Finally, there is no policy or guideline that says "entertainment sections" are any less reliable then any other section of the newspaper.

940:

Knowledge (XXG) would need a full article attached. Some things are minor. . The only part that needs to be rescued from the charge of SYN is the calendar's arithmetic at the start. But perhaps it is standard, and I'm just ignorant.

407:

or it is overtly promotional like advertising. This is not the case here. The chronology of the Star Wars universe is of popular interest and it is naturally written by authors who have a specal expertise in the topic. If the work is

306:

have written and as such it's per definition a secondary source (as not being written by those who have created the material in question). The style used to do so (in-universe rather than outside view) does not change this fact. Regards

2798:

how can something fail both OR and copyvio? And whatever its merits, it does not fail NOT PLOT. I quote "The coverage of a fictional work should not be a mere plot summary." "The coverage" is the wording, not "every article about it"

1762:

Just off the top of my head, I can recall articles which discuss the chronologies (including the "original" ones which included Mace Windu and/or Anakin Starkiller). Discussion and comparisons to mythology, and Campbell's the Power of

3380:

but do we have an article listing every significant event of the series in chronological order? That's what this is and, if refined, could simply be a timeline and a collection of links to the most important events in the Star Wars.

3168:, I've made a u-turn. I think it probably is a matter for teh foundation. I reckon we should probably just avoid copyright paranoia and let the board take the lead on this issue. They'll be able to source better opinions than mine. 3301:

census. The article could be a perfectly valid encyclopaedic entry if some of the more intricate detail were removed and the majority of the events on the list were links to existing articles or those of significance in the series.

562:

The gardens are laid out simply enough. Lawns at different levels are planted with flowering shrubs, as well as roses and other blooms in due season. The Führer, I may add, has a passion for cut flowers in his home, as well as for

245:. As there has been much discussion covering similar topics on two separate AfD pages, in order to determine clear consensus, I ask that the closer take all the comments from both discussions into consideration of both closures. - 688:

You digging has twice turned up articles that end with "Timeline taken from Star Wars Encyclopedia" and offer no commentary on the timeline at all. I offered a ton of questions that a good source might answer, or you could read

261:

the Star Wars stories appear in so many media, and have attracted so much attention, that this is almost necessary to allow readers to make sense of the disparate articles. The BBY fan notation is widely used. References like

2721:

You can shout "infographic" and "entertainment magazine insert" to the rooftops but it doesn't make the newspaper any less reliable. And page "F-4" is from the actual entertainment section, not a so-called "magazine insert".

1165:

wikipedia is not a fansite, and this is a fork from many of the other star wars articles, it does verge on a copyvio, and asided from the guide (non-independent) there are no reliable, indpendent sources that discuss this

242: 186: 3709:

wikipedia. Granted, what's left after that is little more than utter tosh that no1 is seriously going to be looking up and seriously overcomplicates the article and should be removed, but the article itself should stay.

118: 1837:

seen fit to discuss the chronology of Star Wars? Also, "licensed" does not equal "not independent". Is an "authorized biography" not allowable as a reliable source for an article on a person? For that matter, if an

91:(which could make good use of the out-of-universe discussions of canon found in the lead of the article in question.) However what, where, when to merge and such is a decision best made outside the purview of AfD. 1053:

as a deletion reason does not serve as a policy-based reason. OR, RS, V, SYNTH and SIZE issues can be fixed by editing and do not warrant deletion (as sources exist as pointed out above). Clearly does not violate

1082:"a chronology of notable events" - what? A bunch of fictional events in a science fiction series are not notable I'm afraid, unless it can be proved that there is significant, non-trivial, third-party coverage. 1390:

rather than on Star Wars as a whole, and this book has been previously discussed - it is not reliable as it is a primary source and, as the article only sources this one document, we are breaking copyvio.

3031:

Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace.

2695:

You linked to a transcript of an infographic from the entertainment magazine insert of a newspaper. You can shout LA TIMES! to the rooftops but it's just repeating some press material from Lucasfilm. -

3073:

Two questions: First, I'm not sure how that applies here. (I can only guess atm.) Would you explain? And also, I'm sure I missed it somewhere, but would you please link to the copy in File namespace?

674:

source you would accept to support this article. Perhaps if I knew what an AMIB-approved source that would support a fictional timeline would actually look like, I could refine my searching further.

1959:; while notability requires independent coverage, and the plot policy requires real-world coverage, no policy or guideline requires "independent real-world coverage". To suggest so is to conduct an 2380:. At what point do we place the dividing line between what is "crufty fan-squee trivia", and encyclopedic material? And who makes that choice? I hope you're not suggesting that it's us performing 189:. An un-sourced, in-universe, non-noteable article. While Star Wars might be noteable, the timeline/chronology is not. This belongs on a fan site, not an encyclopedia. The articles fall foul of 1775:

But all of that aside, why should it be required to be discussed? A chronology is merely a presentation of information. Why should we show bias as to what "form" the information is presented?

2627:

article about the number of hours in a day, and makes some unsourced claims about the ordering of months in the year. And a large amount of information in the timeline doesn't even cite a

825:

will be moot. I acknowledge that as it is, the article is a flaming pile of shit, but i'm going to work on it. also, it is a nominee for WikiProject Star Wars Collaboration of the Month.

599:

Perhaps I just need a better silly juxtaposition of words to show that the Google test doesn't necessarily mean you have a topic. (Plus, dude, major offhand references there.) Maybe

1285:

or transwiki - no sources exist that allow for an encyclopaedic article on this. I have some of the books I think this is copied from, I'll check and remove any copyvios I see. --

2736:

I'm not terribly concerned with convincing you, but anyone who'd care to look will see that it's clear that it's a transcript of a graphical excerpt of a Lucasfilm publication. -

2013:

does it say that "Significant coverage is commentary"? Commentary is coverage, but not all coverage is commentary. Futhermore, if reliable sources aren't answering the questions

1347:

Actually, no. Even if they were both applicable in this case (which is currently under discussion on this very page), neither of those in and of themselves are a valid reason to

884:. There's no point having this article if it's just a re-creation of some sources - this is currently the case and therefore the article should be deleted. Also, whilst assuming 113: 959:

there. But the format for referring to years is generally accepted and (I think) official canon. Anythong I can't find a cite for and isn't notable will be getting thrown out.

68:

below, is not cleanup, and primary sources have been provided that could be used to reliably source much of the article. Of course, when possible it's nice to rely on reliable

3479:. Every entry is going to need citing to the primary source itself. Conflicts within the timeline have to be shown, and only explained by citing reliable secondary sourcing. 1611:

That article covers books. This one covers important storylines from books, movies, comics, video games, G-canon and other canonical sources. Thescope is completely seaprate.

178: 3149:

I don't think this article is at all workable, I think given this chronology has been published a couple of times we're basically infringing copyright by reproducing it here.

1431:

tells us how the chronology and continuity of the Star Wars universe is maintained. Material of this sort is an excellent basis for this topic whose notability is evident.

3723:

We haven't even got quasi-independent sources. All we've got are works of fiction, which are primary sources and somewhat questionable. That's what the debate is about.

1922:

What process went into creating this timeline? How has it evolved? How has it been received by fans? How does the management of a timeline affect the franchise as a whole?

1133:

that's already present in our hundreds-of-articles series on every single licensed book, comic, and whatnot. This borders on copyvio; we're the meat of a work of fiction (

480:

All of your Google News hits are mentioning this book briefly, or using the not-uncommon English word "chronology" or variations of same in an article about Star Wars. -

63:. The main arguments boiled down to whether this meets the notability guideline, and the whole original research bit. (A note before going on: I didn't consider the 3144: 1454:- so someone reads books, tries to put an order to things, finds 1 published chronology, MAKES UP a dating scheme and tada... we have an article. Seems like pure 1653:

All right, I'll bite... What articles are you suggesting that this page duplicates? (Not that I necessarily agree that partial duplication is a "bad thing".) -

3076:

I strongly support Chronologies (for the various reasons noted above). However, if we're in violation of NFC, I'll likely switch to delete on those grounds. -

1428: 48:. Short close rationale: Doesn't meet GNG, probably won't, but there's good content here that can be and should be used. The nitty-gritty reasoning? Read on. 1241:

in its current form (or userfy); it is potentially notable, as I'm sure that at least one independent source has covered it. Find them, and recreate then :)

3140: 145: 140: 2900:

those references at all" isn't good referencing. What content other than "So-and-so did this in such-and-such year" do you plan to put in this article? -

877:

So what sources are they? Please describe and if they are books, can you tell us what they are and how their usage as citations will aid the article with

149: 739:. Finally, I have found some information about Lucas's role in the creation of the story chronology and how it is maintained by "continuity editors" in 1802:

that has been shuffled and reshuffled and reshuffled, but none of that work shows here because there are no good sources documenting those retcons. -

1096:

Events like those that happen in the main Star Wars movies have been covered by countless sources, analyzing real-world connections and suchlike (see

1963:

of Knowledge (XXG) policies and guidelines in order to advance your position. And what does the format of the information have to do with anything?

132: 2597:

the purposes of notability and verifiability. Finally, compiling facts in ways that aid navigation for the reader is one of the main purposes of

2477:", including his address for verification. Okay, "god" in this case would be Mr. Lucas, which does not mean that he is a real god in a religious 453: 3584:. If it's a copyvio, frankly, then George Lucas or the applicable authour should come up with some proof. If it's blatant, then I'd agree with 1527: 3523:. I'm beginning to think the only way forward is to let these articles grow and grow until someone files suit. Then we'll get a consensus. 3750:

the article gives useful information that helps one undertsand terminology used in other Knowledge (XXG) articles, mostly about Stars Wars.

1899:! What are you expecting, the L.A. Times editorial staff to travel to Corsucant to do independent research of the subject? We couldn't have 3508: 3366: 3337: 3275: 2915: 2830: 2751: 2711: 2670: 2521: 2353:

I like the content just fine, but it's thoroughly inappropriate for Knowledge (XXG) as it's a crufty mess of plot and in-universe details.

2311: 2268: 2056: 1999: 1940: 1885: 1817: 1746: 1678: 1643: 1601: 1555: 1152: 1027: 708: 663: 618: 538: 495: 442: 392: 344: 2037:

have a decent source that says something about the timeline, I'm all ears, because I think that the topic is interesting, but reprinting

2506:

have many sources cited, and not a one of them is the Almighty or His various prophets. Now let us never speak of this analogy again. -

1759:

That said, your main concern is that no one has discussed the chronology of Star Wars? (Pardon my while I pick my jaw up off the floor.)

3424:

He appears to have explained his reverts well enough in the edit summaries. I think it's improper for you to use such sources as well.

284:

The aforementioned book is a primary source - that's like saying that everybody who has a website should have a wikipage regardless of

3628:: Clean up as necessary, don't destroy information. Keep per precedent of chronologies of other bestselling works of fiction such as 354:

It is independent because it was not written by the subject - persons such as Darth Vader or Luke Skywalker. Furthermore, it is not "

17: 1370:

demonstrate the falsity of the nomination's claim that this is not notable. The rest is a matter of content editing, not deletion.

3239: 1842:

contains the vast majority of the information for a clearly notable person, are we not allowed to use that source? Can we not use

325:

This is a timeline of plot summary in licensed fictional Star Wars works. That's a licensed fictional Star Wars work. How is that

3410:, improvements to the article using independent reliable source citations, in an article which that editor is arguing to delete? 3134:

In what sense would it be like a family tree? You can't copyright a family tree, since it is material within the public domain.

1918:

That is the essential fallacy of in-universe thinking. No, I don't expect them to go to a fictional world to observe and report.

1706:

I'm still not seeing the issue. I know you know I ask this with respect and deference: What's the problem besides IDONTLIKEIT? -

1508: 860:

The majority are in my living room. Some are in my bedroom, but I try not to have too many there, else it clutters up the room.

2623:

a horrible mess, and I can see why some might want it gone. Before you even get to the timeline, it contradicts itself and the

3014:

Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.

2566: 1769:(And I seem to recall discussions about where the Ewok films (or the Holiday Special) fall in the "chronology" of the series.) 2278:

As mentioned above jc37, you are a member of the WikiProject for Star Wars, so it's more than likely that you are applying

1794:, Knowledge (XXG) should also not comment. You're making a lot of "It's important to Star Wars fans!]] arguments here, but 64: 3682:

Actually, there is no distinction. You are summarising fiction. In this instance the fictional work being summarised is

1853: 1756:

Oh, I know you're a fan of Star Wars. That's not what I meant. I was being a bit more general than that. (PLOT, and such.)

3092: 1688:

Wait, so you're saying that it collates primary source material, and groups the information in a different way, and that

2102:

And can I just cherp in here and add that, as a member of the Star Wars WikiProject, jc37 is more likely to be applying

976:

The article needs to show that it can provide real-world context on the subject in hand, otherwise it immediately fails

3774: 3759: 3732: 3718: 3695: 3677: 3660: 3641: 3616: 3597: 3572: 3532: 3513: 3488: 3469: 3455: 3435: 3419: 3390: 3371: 3342: 3310: 3280: 3254: 3229: 3196: 3177: 3159: 3129: 3104: 3080: 3062: 2986: 2969: 2948: 2920: 2894: 2859: 2835: 2810: 2792: 2756: 2731: 2716: 2690: 2675: 2644: 2614: 2578: 2526: 2493: 2441: 2425: 2416: 2388: 2364: 2344: 2325: 2316: 2291: 2273: 2248: 2236: 2215: 2199: 2165: 2129: 2119: 2061: 2031: 2004: 1972: 1945: 1913: 1890: 1865: 1822: 1784: 1751: 1710: 1683: 1657: 1648: 1623: 1606: 1573: 1560: 1531: 1495: 1470: 1440: 1418: 1400: 1379: 1355: 1342: 1320: 1294: 1273: 1247: 1231: 1196: 1179: 1157: 1113: 1091: 1075: 1032: 1006: 989: 971: 951: 921: 903: 872: 855: 837: 755: 713: 683: 668: 642: 623: 592: 543: 517: 500: 465: 447: 421: 397: 371: 349: 320: 297: 275: 249: 230: 97: 36: 1367: 2370: 3460:

I concur- the subject would be difficult to write about if it weren't so extensively referenced in primary sources.

1523: 600: 1780:

doesn't help a reader. Otherwise, such chronologies would never be published (supply and demand, and all that). -

263: 136: 2184:

beyond question. Real world significance is important, but we do not need to show the real world significance of

83:

to the timeline, as demonstrated, but also shown none of these rise to the level of significance required by the

3773:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

3504: 3362: 3333: 3271: 2911: 2826: 2747: 2707: 2666: 2517: 2307: 2264: 2052: 1995: 1936: 1881: 1813: 1742: 1674: 1639: 1597: 1551: 1436: 1375: 1269: 1148: 1023: 704: 659: 614: 534: 513: 491: 461: 438: 417: 388: 367: 340: 35:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

2241: 2107: 1715:

The genealogy of Greek myth (which would not be clear-cut) would be an appropriate encyclopedic topic because

1515: 470: 128: 103: 3537:

And to go further, attempts to erase conflicts are POV pushing and original research. If one source states

3249: 2965: 2873: 2481:

sense, although hard core fans of the Star Wars universe would probably disagree with me on that one :). --

2210: 2194: 1583: 1537: 1290: 1175: 1305: 1055: 814: 723: 474: 202: 52: 3430: 3023:

Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.

2436: 2411: 2359: 2231: 1480: 846:

You working on it doesn't make it anymore noteable though, does it. Where are these sources you speak of?

362:". The main chronology exists in numerous editions and so this constitutes such strong evidence. Q.E.D. 356:

self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.

3520: 2402: 3714: 3673: 3593: 3465: 3386: 3306: 3122: 2868: 1519: 1192: 3244: 3165: 2205: 2189: 1582:

version of a list we already have in out-of-universe form? If I were going to fix it, I'd make it into

1309: 1257: 3629: 549: 3164:

Stricken, not so sure of my ground now, actually. I've left a few remarks, but given points made at

2854: 2488: 2279: 2103: 1219: 890: 571:

Was it creepy to sleep in Hitler's garden, where Bormann and Goering literally strutted their stuff?

3494: 3352: 3323: 3261: 2901: 2816: 2737: 2697: 2656: 2507: 2297: 2254: 2042: 1985: 1926: 1871: 1803: 1732: 1664: 1629: 1587: 1541: 1432: 1371: 1265: 1138: 1013: 909:

events listed are not notable in any way, and I plan on restricting it to the select few that are.

694: 649: 604: 553: 524: 509: 481: 457: 428: 413: 378: 363: 330: 2398: 1059: 3656: 2405:. I acknowledge that said interpretation is only my opinion, but what else could it possibly be? 1628:

And there's a list for each of those, as well. Organized in in-universe chronological fashion. -

1286: 1171: 566: 88: 2598: 1960: 1100:

for examples). That some are not that notable is not the concern of AFD but of cleanup. Regards

885: 822: 210: 3425: 3415: 3225: 2944: 2890: 2727: 2686: 2640: 2610: 2592: 2552: 2431: 2406: 2354: 2226: 2027: 1968: 1909: 1861: 1829: 751: 743: 679: 638: 588: 583:

turns up a bunch of articles about various cab drivers that have nothing to do with the film?

29:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

3183: 3110:

No problem on the paste (especially since we're both responding in two separate discussions).

1776: 1717:

many, many reliable sources independent of the ancient Greeks have seen fit to comment on it.

1540:. This is a BBY-organized list of plotpoints, lacking context to attach them to any works. - 1330: 1215: 1205: 1050: 977: 218: 214: 60: 56: 3728: 3710: 3691: 3669: 3612: 3589: 3568: 3528: 3484: 3461: 3382: 3302: 3192: 3173: 3155: 3100: 3058: 2574: 2532: 2499: 2474: 2284: 2143: 2112: 1566: 1424: 1393: 1335: 1188: 1084: 982: 896: 848: 290: 223: 92: 3088: 2996: 2885:" threshhold. I've cited both the LA Times and this source in the article for "key dates". 2775: 2394: 1977: 1956: 1791: 1728: 1716: 1579: 1313: 1130: 818: 690: 326: 285: 206: 84: 3637: 3451: 3351:

We have those lists, though. We have lists of Star Wars works by inuniverse chronology. -

2982: 2848: 2847:- obvious synthesis and original research from primary sources. We don't do these here. -- 2783: 2482: 1844: 1107: 1069: 314: 3705: 3297: 2779: 2602: 2381: 1925:

You just linked a transcript of an infographic in the LA Times entertainment magazine. -

1455: 806: 802: 194: 190: 3115:"...but groupoing it together in one article to show the timeline is not minimal usage." 1870:

Read that article. It's an excerpt of the same licensed guides we're looking at here. -

628:

Again, just because you can come up with search terms for non-topics (although, perhaps

3755: 1613: 1485: 1460: 1408: 961: 911: 862: 827: 3554: 2882: 2010: 1952: 1795: 1326: 810: 718:

You now appear to be misrepresenting the facts in order to further your argument: The

580: 198: 3652: 3042:

Non-free content meets general Knowledge (XXG) content standards and is encyclopedic.

2883:

significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject

2806: 2340: 1002: 947: 505: 271: 1766:

And that aside, there was quite a bit of discussion when the first prequel came out.

3411: 3221: 2940: 2886: 2723: 2682: 2636: 2606: 2548: 2466: 2023: 1964: 1905: 1857: 1849: 1243: 1224: 747: 675: 634: 584: 1260:. We do not keep deleting articles until someone gets it right. We improve them 166: 2376:

Anyway, the main problem with the argument is that it's an arbitrary, subjective

1980:. Excerpting a timeline from a Lucasfilm publication is not significant coverage. 1727:

it. I have been a Star Wars nerd for a very long time now. But this doesn't have

3724: 3687: 3608: 3585: 3564: 3524: 3480: 3188: 3169: 3151: 3096: 3054: 2961: 2570: 2540: 1062:, the article can be improved, thus deleting is not the correct choice. Regards 575: 456:. There's no IF about it - the claim that this topic is not notable is absurd. 2469:) are as good as a reliable source as it gets for this stuff. It's like using " 3633: 3447: 2978: 1102: 1064: 309: 452:

There are hundreds of references to the Star Wars chronology out there, see

3751: 3319: 3126: 3077: 2624: 2462: 2422: 2385: 2322: 2245: 2126: 1781: 1707: 1654: 1570: 1352: 1317: 1097: 246: 243:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Chronology of the Harry Potter series

187:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Chronology of the Harry Potter series

3296:

a reason to delete an article! Yes, the article is shoddy; yes, it lacks

2801: 2335: 997: 942: 267: 1536:

But what stuff are we organizing? We have BBY-organized lists of works:

3121:, and sincerely don't know, but would like to find out). So, next stop 2815:

By repeating an original theory only advanced by its self-publisher. -

1514:

an LA Times article that has quite a bit of good info. Another source.

1479:

The dating system is not made up; several official sources such as the

693:

which has been linked from this AFD at least a half-dozen times now. -

557: 2590:

been covered in clearly independent and reliable sources (such as the

2321:

Probably, so for me at least, I'll just point to my response above. -

2960:, original research. Content has little to no real-world notability. 2536: 1012:

This is the same problem as the now-deleted Buffyverse chronology. -

2635:

a notable topic, and the article needs major cleanup, not deletion.

1920:

I expect them to report on the Star Wars timeline in the real world.

3182:

I've been asked to expand on this, so I will. First point is that

2125:

WP:NOT#PLOT, and for that matter the ongoing discussions there). -

1978:

Significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject

3118: 2544: 2503: 2204:

PS, add Dream Focus to my "per" above. Said it better than I did.

1507:- BBY seems to be the standard way to chronoligize Star Wars stuff 302:

I disagree. It's a book written by third-party authors about what

2774:- The policy that I feel most strongly addresses this subject is 427:

commentary from authors who aren't in the employ of Lucasfilm? -

3767:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

2369:("Cruft" falls under IDONTLIKEIT, but that aside, it seems that 1729:

multiple substantial reliable sources independent of the subject

2470: 1316:), so what's the rush to delete? Again, AfD is not cleanup. - 1218:. I agree with AMIB in that this seems to border on being a 3553:. We have to present them both and state, descriptively per 51:

First, let's throw out the arguments which don't hold here:

2461:- Official Star Wars web site and a printed book using the 2393:

My interpretation is that the article fails at the minimum

2296:

If it's mentioned above, it doesn't need to be repeated. -

1312:

need to delete this (as one might need to in the case of a

1170:

that would allow for the writing of something encyclopedic.

1129:(a licensed guide), with fan updates and annotations. It's 1058:(not used instead of a web host to store information). Per 403:

it clear that problems arise when people are writing about

1696:

Chronologies are encyclopedic, and exist in encyclopedias.

3260:

of fans' little theories), but both are inappropriate. -

3029:. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. 1325:

Yes there is an immediate need to delete this - it fails

548:

A more careful examination with Google would lead you to

119:

Articles for deletion/Dates in Star Wars (2nd nomination)

1386:

Bullshine. There is only one source from that list that

980:. Neither of you have addressed this in your arguments. 3407: 3403: 173: 162: 158: 154: 2651:

Really. What factual claims are you going to get from

2543:, considered by believers to be written by a somewhat 1703:

so much directly duplicative, but rather illustrative.

1423:

Apart from the obvious incivility, I don't understand

3237:

Comment on OR and expansion of my rationale for keep.

3139:

But yes, this has applied to lists in the past, see

2871:, which in turn cites another newspaper source, the 2631:

source which would allow anyone to verify. But this

2175:

per many fine arguments above. DGG, Colonel Warden,

508:

indicates that we are done. Thank you for playing.

358:". The point of the guideline you cite is to show " 79:

of Star Wars meets notability guidelines. There are

72:sources, some of which have been provided as well. 2655:? An excerpt of a licensed guide isn't coverage. - 3493:What reliable secondary sources would those be? - 3145:Knowledge (XXG):Copyright problems/2006 February 4 75:But that still leaves the question of whether the 2995:as a copyvio. We are quite clearly in breach of 1125:. This is pretty much copied whole cloth out of 412:then it is authoritative and so much the better. 377:franchise, who naturally are interested in it. - 360:strong evidence of interest by the world at large 39:). No further edits should be made to this page. 3777:). No further edits should be made to this page. 3141:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/FHM lists 3137:when it is vital to the points being discussed. 2465:logo and name (= got the 'seal of approval' by 2225:. Fancrap listing of plot elements and events. 1388:comments on the chronology of Star Wars itself 8: 1827:When exactly did George Lucas take over the 2605:unless it advances a contentious position. 1792:reliable sources independent of the subject 3545:, because both these facts are fictional, 2778:. There also seems to be a great deal of 2619:Looking at the article itself, though, it 2782:and it's dangerously close to a copyvio. 2586:. The chronology of the Star Wars series 2567:wookieepedia:Timeline of galactic history 1951:works?) That's the fallacy of conflating 241:- As the nominator suggests, please see 114:Articles for deletion/Dates in Star Wars 3684:Star Wars: The New Essential Chronology 3560:Star Wars: The New Essential Chronology 3053:It doesn't get much simpler than that. 2253:Unless you read past the first word. - 111: 2535:article contains several citations to 1772:So, the chronology has been discussed. 3012:Respect for commercial opportunities. 2881:. This topic now clearly passes the " 2601:, and should in no way be considered 2017:want answered, perhaps it means that 1406:recreate it in a non-infringing way. 65:Chronology of the Harry Potter series 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 2877:; the original article can be found 1569:, and add the primary sources : ) - 2930:. And they report information from 1256:This suggestion is contrary to our 1131:duplicative, excessive plot summary 1127:Star Wars: The Essential Chronology 1049:those events. Citing an essay like 894:is being applied in your argument. 110: 2041:is not an encyclopedia article. - 2039:The Star Wars Essential Chronology 1848:as a source for information about 24: 3549:cannot be discarded in favor of 3093:Knowledge (XXG):Non-free content 2384:to make that determination... - 2282:and holding a bias that others. 266:give outside sourcing for it. -- 3704:to find any great quantity of 3402:Is it proper for an editor to 3113:The key sentence seems to be: 2867:My research has now turned up 1586:, but we already have that. - 1187:per DGG, SoWhy & others.-- 1: 2373:would seem to apply as well.) 1854:List of High Kings of Ireland 1897:COVERED IN A RELIABLE SOURCE 1796:notability is not importance 1098:Palpatine#Character_creation 560:residence in great detail (" 471:Hitler Garden on Google News 264:The New Essential Chronology 85:general notability guideline 2937:That is what newspapers do. 724:cites the following sources 3794: 3760:06:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC) 3733:08:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC) 3719:19:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC) 3696:19:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC) 3678:17:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC) 3661:17:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC) 3642:15:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC) 3617:19:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC) 3598:14:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC) 3573:12:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC) 3541:and a later source states 3533:11:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC) 3514:09:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC) 3489:09:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC) 3470:21:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC) 3456:17:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC) 3436:16:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC) 3420:15:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC) 3391:21:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC) 3372:14:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC) 3343:09:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC) 3311:11:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC) 3281:09:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC) 3255:14:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC) 3230:16:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 3197:15:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC) 3178:13:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC) 3160:13:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC) 3130:02:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC) 3105:22:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 3081:20:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 3063:12:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 2987:11:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 2970:08:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 2949:15:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC) 2921:10:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 2895:04:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 2860:03:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 2836:10:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 2811:04:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 2793:02:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 2757:18:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC) 2732:15:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC) 2717:10:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 2691:04:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 2676:01:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 2645:23:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 2615:22:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 2579:20:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 2527:19:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 2494:18:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 2442:18:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 2426:18:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 2417:18:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 2389:17:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 2365:17:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 2345:17:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 2326:17:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 2317:11:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 2292:11:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 2274:08:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 2249:06:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 2237:04:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 2216:01:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 2200:01:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 2166:01:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 2130:17:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 2120:11:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 2110:. Just an observation ;), 2062:17:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC) 2032:15:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC) 2005:10:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 1973:10:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 1946:06:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 1914:04:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 1891:01:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 1866:22:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 1823:19:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 1785:17:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 1752:09:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 1711:08:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 1684:08:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 1658:05:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 1649:02:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 1624:02:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 1607:02:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 1574:01:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 1561:00:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 1532:00:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 1496:02:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 1471:23:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 1441:09:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 1419:23:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 1401:22:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 1380:21:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 1356:23:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 1343:22:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 1321:21:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 1295:21:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 1274:09:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 1264:as this is the Wiki way. 1248:18:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 1232:18:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 1197:17:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 1180:15:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 1158:08:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 1114:21:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 1092:09:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 1076:08:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 1033:08:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 1007:08:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 990:08:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 972:04:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 952:03:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 922:19:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 904:08:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 873:02:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 856:02:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 838:01:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 756:15:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC) 714:10:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 684:10:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 669:06:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 643:04:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 624:01:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 593:00:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 544:13:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 518:13:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 501:12:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 466:12:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 448:11:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 422:11:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 398:10:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 372:10:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 350:09:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 327:independent of the subject 321:08:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 298:01:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 276:01:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 250:17:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC) 231:01:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 98:01:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC) 2473:" as the source for the " 94:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 3770:Please do not modify it. 1578:To what end? To make an 741:George Lucas: Interviews 32:Please do not modify it. 3292:. "I don't like it" is 2874:Lexington Herald Leader 2421:What else indeed : ) - 1584:List of Star Wars books 1538:List of Star Wars books 1483:use BBY/ABY for dates. 1427:' point. For example, 1204:. This is nothing but 732:Lexington Herald-Leader 129:Chronology of Star Wars 104:Chronology of Star Wars 3607:"ability to exploit"? 3018: 2244:at its clearest : ) - 1481:Star Wars Encyclopedia 728:Star Wars Encyclopedia 109:AfDs for this article: 3123:User talk:Mike Godwin 3027:Minimal extent of use 2569:doesn't help either. 2186:the chronology per se 1699:So essentially, this 475:Adolf Hitler's garden 1214:sourced solely from 1135:Essential Chronology 579:not notable because 556:describing Hitler's 3431:robe and wizard hat 3322:up for deletion. - 3318:But nobody has put 3089:the manual of style 2437:robe and wizard hat 2412:robe and wizard hat 2360:robe and wizard hat 2232:robe and wizard hat 2179:. It really does 1368:Hundreds of sources 1220:copyright violation 601:Jesus break dancing 477:is still a redlink. 2480: 1961:original synthesis 1723:I love Star Wars. 1306:AfD is not cleanup 882:contextual support 89:Star Wars universe 3731: 3694: 3615: 3571: 3531: 3512: 3487: 3434: 3370: 3341: 3279: 3195: 3176: 3158: 3103: 3061: 2919: 2834: 2755: 2715: 2674: 2603:original research 2593:Los Angeles Times 2545:important prophet 2525: 2478: 2440: 2415: 2371:WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC 2363: 2315: 2289: 2272: 2235: 2117: 2060: 2003: 1944: 1889: 1830:Los Angeles Times 1821: 1750: 1682: 1647: 1605: 1559: 1398: 1340: 1156: 1089: 1031: 987: 901: 853: 712: 667: 622: 565:"). There's also 554:this 1938 article 552:, which leads to 542: 499: 446: 396: 348: 295: 228: 3785: 3772: 3727: 3690: 3630:Timeline_of_Arda 3611: 3567: 3527: 3502: 3500: 3483: 3428: 3360: 3358: 3331: 3329: 3269: 3267: 3252: 3247: 3191: 3172: 3154: 3099: 3057: 2909: 2907: 2857: 2851: 2824: 2822: 2789: 2788: 2745: 2743: 2705: 2703: 2664: 2662: 2533:Ten Commandments 2531:To be fair, the 2515: 2513: 2500:Ten Commandments 2475:Ten Commandments 2434: 2409: 2357: 2305: 2303: 2290: 2288: 2262: 2260: 2229: 2213: 2208: 2197: 2192: 2162: 2159: 2156: 2153: 2150: 2147: 2118: 2116: 2050: 2048: 1993: 1991: 1934: 1932: 1879: 1877: 1856:, for example). 1811: 1809: 1740: 1738: 1672: 1670: 1637: 1635: 1622: 1620: 1595: 1593: 1549: 1547: 1520:Peregrine Fisher 1494: 1492: 1467: 1425:User:Dalejenkins 1417: 1415: 1399: 1397: 1341: 1339: 1227: 1211: 1146: 1144: 1110: 1105: 1090: 1088: 1072: 1067: 1021: 1019: 988: 986: 970: 968: 920: 918: 902: 900: 871: 869: 854: 852: 836: 834: 702: 700: 657: 655: 612: 610: 532: 530: 489: 487: 436: 434: 386: 384: 338: 336: 317: 312: 296: 294: 229: 227: 176: 170: 152: 95: 34: 3793: 3792: 3788: 3787: 3786: 3784: 3783: 3782: 3781: 3775:deletion review 3768: 3496: 3354: 3325: 3263: 3250: 3245: 2999:. Specifically: 2932:primary sources 2903: 2855: 2849: 2818: 2786: 2784: 2739: 2699: 2658: 2509: 2299: 2283: 2256: 2211: 2206: 2195: 2190: 2173:<<EC: --> 2160: 2157: 2154: 2151: 2148: 2145: 2111: 2044: 1987: 1928: 1873: 1805: 1734: 1666: 1631: 1614: 1612: 1589: 1543: 1486: 1484: 1461: 1409: 1407: 1392: 1351:delete this. - 1334: 1225: 1216:primary sources 1209: 1140: 1108: 1103: 1083: 1070: 1065: 1015: 981: 962: 960: 912: 910: 895: 863: 861: 847: 828: 826: 696: 651: 606: 526: 483: 430: 380: 332: 315: 310: 289: 222: 172: 143: 127: 124: 107: 93: 44:The result was 37:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3791: 3789: 3780: 3779: 3763: 3762: 3744: 3743: 3742: 3741: 3740: 3739: 3738: 3737: 3736: 3735: 3645: 3644: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3619: 3601: 3600: 3579: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3575: 3535: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3440: 3439: 3438: 3395: 3394: 3393: 3375: 3374: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3283: 3233: 3232: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3208: 3207: 3206: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3180: 3111: 3074: 3046: 3045: 3043: 3035: 3034: 3033: 3024: 3021:Minimal usage. 3015: 3002: 3001: 2989: 2972: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2862: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2648: 2647: 2581: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2374: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2242:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 2220: 2219: 2218: 2168: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2108:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 2100: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2064: 1981: 1923: 1799: 1773: 1770: 1767: 1764: 1760: 1757: 1721: 1704: 1697: 1694: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1474: 1473: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1433:Colonel Warden 1383: 1382: 1372:Colonel Warden 1362: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1308:. There is no 1298: 1297: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1266:Colonel Warden 1258:editing policy 1251: 1250: 1235: 1234: 1199: 1182: 1160: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1079: 1078: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 955: 954: 933: 932: 931: 930: 929: 928: 927: 926: 925: 924: 888:, I feel that 841: 840: 795: 794: 793: 792: 791: 790: 789: 788: 787: 786: 785: 784: 783: 782: 781: 780: 779: 778: 777: 776: 775: 774: 773: 772: 771: 770: 769: 768: 767: 766: 765: 764: 763: 762: 761: 760: 759: 758: 626: 510:Colonel Warden 478: 458:Colonel Warden 414:Colonel Warden 364:Colonel Warden 279: 278: 255: 254: 253: 252: 183: 182: 123: 122: 121: 116: 108: 106: 101: 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3790: 3778: 3776: 3771: 3765: 3764: 3761: 3757: 3753: 3749: 3746: 3745: 3734: 3730: 3726: 3722: 3721: 3720: 3716: 3712: 3707: 3703: 3699: 3698: 3697: 3693: 3689: 3685: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3675: 3671: 3667: 3664: 3663: 3662: 3658: 3654: 3650: 3647: 3646: 3643: 3639: 3635: 3631: 3627: 3624: 3623: 3618: 3614: 3610: 3605: 3604: 3603: 3602: 3599: 3595: 3591: 3587: 3583: 3580: 3574: 3570: 3566: 3561: 3556: 3552: 3548: 3544: 3540: 3536: 3534: 3530: 3526: 3522: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3510: 3506: 3501: 3499: 3492: 3491: 3490: 3486: 3482: 3478: 3475: 3471: 3467: 3463: 3459: 3458: 3457: 3453: 3449: 3444: 3441: 3437: 3432: 3427: 3423: 3422: 3421: 3417: 3413: 3409: 3405: 3401: 3400: 3396: 3392: 3388: 3384: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3376: 3373: 3368: 3364: 3359: 3357: 3350: 3349: 3344: 3339: 3335: 3330: 3328: 3321: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3312: 3308: 3304: 3299: 3295: 3291: 3282: 3277: 3273: 3268: 3266: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3253: 3248: 3241: 3238: 3235: 3234: 3231: 3227: 3223: 3219: 3216: 3215: 3198: 3194: 3190: 3185: 3181: 3179: 3175: 3171: 3167: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3157: 3153: 3150: 3146: 3142: 3138: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3128: 3124: 3120: 3116: 3112: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3102: 3098: 3094: 3090: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3079: 3075: 3072: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3060: 3056: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3044: 3041: 3037: 3032: 3028: 3025: 3022: 3019: 3016: 3013: 3009: 3008: 3007: 3005: 3004: 3000: 2998: 2994: 2990: 2988: 2984: 2980: 2976: 2973: 2971: 2967: 2963: 2959: 2956: 2950: 2946: 2942: 2939: 2938: 2933: 2929: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2917: 2913: 2908: 2906: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2892: 2888: 2884: 2880: 2876: 2875: 2870: 2866: 2863: 2861: 2858: 2852: 2846: 2843: 2837: 2832: 2828: 2823: 2821: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2808: 2804: 2803: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2790: 2781: 2777: 2773: 2770: 2758: 2753: 2749: 2744: 2742: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2729: 2725: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2713: 2709: 2704: 2702: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2688: 2684: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2672: 2668: 2663: 2661: 2654: 2650: 2649: 2646: 2642: 2638: 2634: 2630: 2626: 2622: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2612: 2608: 2604: 2600: 2595: 2594: 2589: 2585: 2582: 2580: 2576: 2572: 2568: 2564: 2561: 2554: 2550: 2546: 2542: 2538: 2534: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2523: 2519: 2514: 2512: 2505: 2501: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2491: 2490: 2486: 2485: 2479:point of view 2476: 2472: 2468: 2464: 2460: 2457: 2443: 2438: 2433: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2424: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2413: 2408: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2372: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2361: 2356: 2352: 2346: 2342: 2338: 2337: 2331: 2327: 2324: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2313: 2309: 2304: 2302: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2286: 2281: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2270: 2266: 2261: 2259: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2247: 2243: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2233: 2228: 2224: 2221: 2217: 2214: 2209: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2198: 2193: 2187: 2182: 2178: 2172: 2169: 2167: 2164: 2163: 2140: 2137: 2131: 2128: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2114: 2109: 2105: 2101: 2063: 2058: 2054: 2049: 2047: 2040: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2029: 2025: 2020: 2016: 2012: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2001: 1997: 1992: 1990: 1982: 1979: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1970: 1966: 1962: 1958: 1954: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1942: 1938: 1933: 1931: 1924: 1921: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1911: 1907: 1902: 1898: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1887: 1883: 1878: 1876: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1863: 1859: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1846: 1841: 1840:autobiography 1836: 1832: 1831: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1819: 1815: 1810: 1808: 1800: 1797: 1793: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1783: 1778: 1774: 1771: 1768: 1765: 1761: 1758: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1748: 1744: 1739: 1737: 1730: 1726: 1722: 1718: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1709: 1705: 1702: 1698: 1695: 1691: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1680: 1676: 1671: 1669: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1656: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1645: 1641: 1636: 1634: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1621: 1619: 1618: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1603: 1599: 1594: 1592: 1585: 1581: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1572: 1568: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1557: 1553: 1548: 1546: 1539: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1529: 1525: 1521: 1516: 1513: 1509: 1506: 1503: 1502: 1497: 1493: 1491: 1490: 1482: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1472: 1469: 1468: 1466: 1465: 1457: 1453: 1450: 1449: 1442: 1438: 1434: 1430: 1426: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1416: 1414: 1413: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1395: 1389: 1385: 1384: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1366: 1363: 1357: 1354: 1350: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1337: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1307: 1303: 1300: 1299: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1287:Cameron Scott 1284: 1281: 1280: 1275: 1271: 1267: 1263: 1259: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1249: 1246: 1245: 1240: 1237: 1236: 1233: 1229: 1228: 1221: 1217: 1213: 1208: 1203: 1200: 1198: 1194: 1190: 1186: 1183: 1181: 1177: 1173: 1172:Bali ultimate 1169: 1164: 1161: 1159: 1154: 1150: 1145: 1143: 1136: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1121: 1120: 1115: 1112: 1111: 1106: 1099: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1086: 1081: 1080: 1077: 1074: 1073: 1068: 1061: 1057: 1056:WP:NOTWEBHOST 1052: 1047: 1044: 1043: 1034: 1029: 1025: 1020: 1018: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1004: 1000: 999: 993: 992: 991: 984: 979: 975: 974: 973: 969: 967: 966: 957: 956: 953: 949: 945: 944: 938: 935: 934: 923: 919: 917: 916: 907: 906: 905: 898: 893: 892: 887: 883: 880: 876: 875: 874: 870: 868: 867: 859: 858: 857: 850: 845: 844: 843: 842: 839: 835: 833: 832: 824: 820: 816: 815:WP:NOTWEBHOST 812: 808: 804: 800: 797: 796: 757: 753: 749: 745: 742: 738: 733: 729: 725: 721: 717: 716: 715: 710: 706: 701: 699: 692: 687: 686: 685: 681: 677: 672: 671: 670: 665: 661: 656: 654: 646: 645: 644: 640: 636: 631: 627: 625: 620: 616: 611: 609: 602: 598: 597: 596: 595: 594: 590: 586: 582: 578: 577: 572: 568: 564: 559: 555: 551: 547: 546: 545: 540: 536: 531: 529: 521: 520: 519: 515: 511: 507: 504: 503: 502: 497: 493: 488: 486: 479: 476: 472: 469: 468: 467: 463: 459: 455: 451: 450: 449: 444: 440: 435: 433: 425: 424: 423: 419: 415: 411: 406: 401: 400: 399: 394: 390: 385: 383: 375: 374: 373: 369: 365: 361: 357: 353: 352: 351: 346: 342: 337: 335: 328: 324: 323: 322: 319: 318: 313: 305: 301: 300: 299: 292: 287: 283: 282: 281: 280: 277: 273: 269: 265: 260: 257: 256: 251: 248: 244: 240: 239:To the closer 237: 236: 235: 234: 233: 232: 225: 220: 216: 212: 208: 204: 203:WP:NOTWEBHOST 200: 196: 192: 188: 180: 175: 168: 164: 160: 156: 151: 147: 142: 138: 134: 130: 126: 125: 120: 117: 115: 112: 105: 102: 100: 99: 96: 90: 86: 82: 78: 73: 71: 66: 62: 58: 54: 53:WP:NOTWEBHOST 49: 47: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 3769: 3766: 3747: 3701: 3683: 3665: 3648: 3625: 3581: 3559: 3550: 3546: 3542: 3538: 3521:WP:CONSENSUS 3497: 3476: 3442: 3426:Doctorfluffy 3408:revert again 3398: 3397: 3355: 3326: 3293: 3289: 3287: 3264: 3236: 3217: 3148: 3135: 3114: 3085: 3052: 3051: 3047: 3039: 3036: 3030: 3026: 3020: 3011: 3006: 3003: 2992: 2991: 2974: 2957: 2936: 2935: 2931: 2927: 2926:supposed to 2904: 2872: 2864: 2844: 2819: 2800: 2791: 2771: 2740: 2700: 2659: 2632: 2628: 2620: 2591: 2587: 2583: 2562: 2510: 2489: 2487:<sac: --> 2483: 2467:George Lucas 2458: 2432:Doctorfluffy 2407:Doctorfluffy 2403:WP:LISTCRUFT 2377: 2355:Doctorfluffy 2334: 2300: 2257: 2227:Doctorfluffy 2222: 2185: 2180: 2176: 2170: 2144: 2138: 2106:than we are 2045: 2038: 2018: 2014: 1988: 1929: 1919: 1900: 1896: 1874: 1850:Warner Bros. 1843: 1839: 1834: 1828: 1806: 1735: 1724: 1700: 1689: 1667: 1632: 1616: 1615: 1590: 1544: 1504: 1488: 1487: 1463: 1462: 1459: 1451: 1411: 1410: 1387: 1364: 1348: 1301: 1282: 1261: 1242: 1238: 1223: 1206: 1201: 1184: 1167: 1162: 1141: 1134: 1126: 1122: 1101: 1063: 1045: 1016: 996: 964: 963: 941: 936: 914: 913: 889: 881: 878: 865: 864: 830: 829: 798: 740: 736: 731: 727: 719: 697: 652: 607: 574: 570: 561: 527: 506:Godwin's law 484: 431: 409: 404: 381: 359: 355: 333: 308: 303: 258: 238: 184: 80: 76: 74: 69: 50: 46:no consensus 45: 43: 31: 28: 3711:HJ Mitchell 3700:You're not 3670:HJ Mitchell 3590:HJ Mitchell 3477:Clean it up 3462:HJ Mitchell 3383:HJ Mitchell 3303:HJ Mitchell 3143:. Also see 3091:, and with 2850:Orange Mike 2776:WP:NOT#PLOT 2563:Weak delete 2541:Deuteronomy 2395:WP:NOT#PLOT 2285:Dalejenkins 2171:Strong Keep 2113:Dalejenkins 1957:WP:NOT#PLOT 1895:An excerpt 1580:in-universe 1429:this source 1394:Dalejenkins 1349:immediately 1336:Dalejenkins 1189:Cube lurker 1085:Dalejenkins 983:Dalejenkins 897:Dalejenkins 849:Dalejenkins 819:WP:NOT#PLOT 581:this search 576:Taxi Driver 454:for example 291:Dalejenkins 224:Dalejenkins 207:WP:NOT#PLOT 2498:Note that 2280:WP:ILIKEIT 2104:WP:ILIKEIT 891:WP:ILIKEIT 473:, and yet 81:references 77:Chronology 3495:A Man In 3353:A Man In 3324:A Man In 3320:Star Wars 3262:A Man In 3251:cierekim 3220:per nom. 2902:A Man In 2817:A Man In 2738:A Man In 2698:A Man In 2657:A Man In 2629:fictional 2625:Coruscant 2508:A Man In 2463:Star Wars 2399:WP:TRIVIA 2298:A Man In 2255:A Man In 2212:cierekim 2196:cierekim 2043:A Man In 2009:Where in 1986:A Man In 1927:A Man In 1872:A Man In 1804:A Man In 1733:A Man In 1665:A Man In 1630:A Man In 1617:Firestorm 1588:A Man In 1542:A Man In 1489:Firestorm 1464:Gtstricky 1412:Firestorm 1310:immediate 1207:Star Wars 1139:A Man In 1060:WP:BEFORE 1014:A Man In 965:Firestorm 915:Firestorm 879:real-life 866:Firestorm 831:Firestorm 695:A Man In 650:A Man In 605:A Man In 525:A Man In 482:A Man In 429:A Man In 379:A Man In 331:A Man In 185:See also 70:secondary 3666:Response 3653:Robofish 3509:past ops 3505:conspire 3399:Question 3367:past ops 3363:conspire 3338:past ops 3334:conspire 3276:past ops 3272:conspire 3040:Content. 2916:past ops 2912:conspire 2831:past ops 2827:conspire 2752:past ops 2748:conspire 2712:past ops 2708:conspire 2671:past ops 2667:conspire 2522:past ops 2518:conspire 2312:past ops 2308:conspire 2269:past ops 2265:conspire 2057:past ops 2053:conspire 2000:past ops 1996:conspire 1941:past ops 1937:conspire 1886:past ops 1882:conspire 1818:past ops 1814:conspire 1747:past ops 1743:conspire 1679:past ops 1675:conspire 1644:past ops 1640:conspire 1602:past ops 1598:conspire 1565:(smile) 1556:past ops 1552:conspire 1528:contribs 1153:past ops 1149:conspire 1028:past ops 1024:conspire 886:WP:FAITH 823:WP:SYNTH 722:article 720:LA Times 709:past ops 705:conspire 664:past ops 660:conspire 633:Google. 619:past ops 615:conspire 539:past ops 535:conspire 496:past ops 492:conspire 443:past ops 439:conspire 410:official 405:themself 393:past ops 389:conspire 345:past ops 341:conspire 211:WP:SYNTH 179:View log 3582:Comment 3412:DHowell 3222:Dlabtot 3184:WP:NFCC 2941:DHowell 2887:DHowell 2724:DHowell 2683:DHowell 2637:DHowell 2607:DHowell 2549:DHowell 2378:opinion 2024:DHowell 1965:DHowell 1906:DHowell 1858:DHowell 1777:WP:LIST 1567:Sofixit 1452:Delete' 1331:WP:PLOT 1262:in situ 1244:Sceptre 1226:pd_THOR 1051:WP:FICT 978:WP:PLOT 748:DHowell 737:notable 676:DHowell 635:DHowell 585:DHowell 558:Berghof 219:WP:FICT 215:WP:SIZE 146:protect 141:history 61:WP:FICT 57:WP:SIZE 3725:Hiding 3688:Hiding 3649:Delete 3609:Hiding 3586:Hiding 3565:Hiding 3525:Hiding 3481:Hiding 3406:, and 3404:revert 3218:Delete 3189:Hiding 3170:Hiding 3166:WT:NOT 3152:Hiding 3097:Hiding 3055:Hiding 2997:WP:NFC 2993:Delete 2975:Delete 2962:Stifle 2958:Delete 2928:report 2865:Update 2845:Delete 2787:Yeller 2772:Delete 2571:BryanG 2537:Exodus 2492:.oOo. 2401:, and 2223:Delete 1833:, who 1720:world. 1512:Here's 1283:Delete 1239:Delete 1222:. — 1202:Delete 1163:Delete 1123:Delete 730:. The 691:WP:WAF 563:music. 304:others 286:WP:BIO 174:delete 150:delete 3706:WP:RS 3702:going 3634:Jwray 3498:Bl♟ck 3448:Hobit 3356:Bl♟ck 3327:Bl♟ck 3298:WP:RS 3265:Bl♟ck 3240:NO OR 3119:IANAL 2979:EEMIV 2905:Bl♟ck 2820:Bl♟ck 2780:WP:OR 2741:Bl♟ck 2701:Bl♟ck 2660:Bl♟ck 2599:lists 2511:Bl♟ck 2504:Bible 2382:WP:OR 2301:Bl♟ck 2258:Bl♟ck 2177:et al 2174:: --> 2161:Focus 2046:Bl♟ck 1989:Bl♟ck 1955:with 1930:Bl♟ck 1875:Bl♟ck 1807:Bl♟ck 1763:Myth. 1736:Bl♟ck 1701:isn't 1668:Bl♟ck 1633:Bl♟ck 1591:Bl♟ck 1545:Bl♟ck 1456:WP:OR 1168:topic 1142:Bl♟ck 1137:). - 1017:Bl♟ck 807:WP:RS 803:WP:OR 698:Bl♟ck 653:Bl♟ck 608:Bl♟ck 528:Bl♟ck 485:Bl♟ck 432:Bl♟ck 382:Bl♟ck 334:Bl♟ck 195:WP:RS 191:WP:OR 177:) – ( 167:views 159:watch 155:links 16:< 3756:talk 3752:Sf46 3748:Keep 3715:talk 3674:talk 3657:talk 3638:talk 3626:Keep 3594:talk 3555:WP:V 3466:talk 3452:talk 3443:Keep 3416:talk 3387:talk 3307:talk 3290:Keep 3246:Dloh 3226:talk 3127:jc37 3125:? - 3078:jc37 2983:talk 2966:talk 2945:talk 2891:talk 2879:here 2869:this 2856:Talk 2807:talk 2728:talk 2687:talk 2653:this 2641:talk 2611:talk 2584:Keep 2575:talk 2553:talk 2539:and 2502:and 2459:Keep 2430::o) 2423:jc37 2386:jc37 2341:talk 2323:jc37 2246:jc37 2207:Dloh 2191:Dloh 2139:Keep 2127:jc37 2028:talk 2019:your 2011:WP:N 1969:talk 1953:WP:N 1910:talk 1862:talk 1845:Time 1782:jc37 1731:. - 1725:Love 1708:jc37 1690:that 1655:jc37 1571:jc37 1524:talk 1505:Keep 1437:talk 1376:talk 1365:Keep 1353:jc37 1329:and 1327:WP:N 1318:jc37 1302:Keep 1291:talk 1270:talk 1212:plot 1193:talk 1185:Keep 1176:talk 1046:Keep 1003:talk 948:talk 937:Keep 821:and 811:WP:V 799:Keep 752:talk 744:here 680:talk 639:talk 630:this 603:. - 589:talk 567:this 550:this 514:talk 462:talk 418:talk 368:talk 329:? - 272:talk 259:Keep 247:jc37 217:and 199:WP:V 163:logs 137:talk 133:edit 59:and 3294:not 3147:. 3038:5. 3017:3. 3010:2. 2853:| 2802:DGG 2588:has 2484:roy 2471:God 2336:DGG 2181:not 2015:you 1901:any 1835:has 1526:) ( 1510:. 1314:BLP 1109:Why 1071:Why 998:DGG 943:DGG 316:Why 268:JJL 3758:) 3717:) 3676:) 3659:) 3640:) 3632:. 3596:) 3507:- 3468:) 3454:) 3418:) 3389:) 3365:- 3336:- 3309:) 3274:- 3228:) 2985:) 2968:) 2947:) 2934:. 2914:- 2893:) 2829:- 2809:) 2785:Ol 2750:- 2730:) 2710:- 2689:) 2669:- 2643:) 2633:is 2621:is 2613:) 2577:) 2547:. 2520:- 2397:, 2343:) 2310:- 2287:| 2267:- 2115:| 2055:- 2030:) 1998:- 1971:) 1939:- 1912:) 1884:- 1864:) 1816:- 1745:- 1677:- 1642:- 1600:- 1554:- 1530:) 1458:. 1439:) 1396:| 1378:) 1338:| 1333:. 1304:- 1293:) 1272:) 1230:| 1195:) 1178:) 1151:- 1104:So 1087:| 1066:So 1026:- 1005:) 985:| 950:) 899:| 851:| 817:, 813:, 809:, 805:, 754:) 707:- 682:) 662:- 648:- 641:) 617:- 591:) 569:(" 537:- 516:) 494:- 464:) 441:- 420:) 391:- 370:) 343:- 311:So 293:| 288:. 274:) 226:| 221:. 213:, 209:, 205:, 201:, 197:, 193:, 165:| 161:| 157:| 153:| 148:| 144:| 139:| 135:| 55:, 3754:( 3729:T 3713:( 3692:T 3672:( 3655:( 3636:( 3613:T 3592:( 3569:T 3551:a 3547:b 3543:b 3539:a 3529:T 3511:) 3503:( 3485:T 3464:( 3450:( 3433:) 3429:( 3414:( 3385:( 3369:) 3361:( 3340:) 3332:( 3305:( 3288:' 3278:) 3270:( 3224:( 3193:T 3174:T 3156:T 3101:T 3059:T 2981:( 2964:( 2943:( 2918:) 2910:( 2889:( 2833:) 2825:( 2805:( 2754:) 2746:( 2726:( 2714:) 2706:( 2685:( 2673:) 2665:( 2639:( 2609:( 2573:( 2555:) 2551:( 2524:) 2516:( 2439:) 2435:( 2414:) 2410:( 2362:) 2358:( 2339:( 2314:) 2306:( 2271:) 2263:( 2234:) 2230:( 2158:m 2155:a 2152:e 2149:r 2146:D 2059:) 2051:( 2026:( 2002:) 1994:( 1967:( 1943:) 1935:( 1908:( 1888:) 1880:( 1860:( 1820:) 1812:( 1798:. 1749:) 1741:( 1681:) 1673:( 1646:) 1638:( 1604:) 1596:( 1558:) 1550:( 1522:( 1435:( 1374:( 1289:( 1268:( 1210:' 1191:( 1174:( 1155:) 1147:( 1030:) 1022:( 1001:( 946:( 750:( 711:) 703:( 678:( 666:) 658:( 637:( 621:) 613:( 587:( 541:) 533:( 512:( 498:) 490:( 460:( 445:) 437:( 416:( 395:) 387:( 366:( 347:) 339:( 270:( 181:) 171:( 169:) 131:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Chronology of Star Wars - Knowledge (XXG)

Index