Talk:Wookiee

Where does this spelling come from? -- Zoe

All the official Star Wars stuff I've ever seen, including books and promotional material. This is the canonical spelling. Stormwriter

Wow, you're right. I found it at http://www.starwars.com/databank/species/wookiee/. The vast majority of the Internet is wrong in their spelling.  :-) -- Zoe

Popular Culture

Added a popular culture section; it's pretty small & quite frankly worded a bit weird. Any additions and comments on this section are welcome. -- Falmarin

The Law

Is there any documented evidence of the word "Wookiee" being used in a legal sense, or is this pure speculation? If its speculation, it should be removed.

Ibuki 20:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe it was meant as speculation, so I've removed the speculative part of that section. - UtherSRG 20:30, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Taxobox

Wookiee
Classification
Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata SubPhylum: Vertebrata Class: Mammalia Order: Primates Family: Hominidae Genus: Homo Species: Wookiee
Species
Wookiee

This classification table does not belong in the article. Wookiees are entirely fictional, and the usual methods of taxonomy simply cannot apply to such creatures -- unless there's some canonical Star Wars material that gives this information, which I doubt. --MIRV (talk) 21:12, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"classification table does not belong"? the FICTIONAL Wookiee species is cited in several start wars sources (see existing link; other are possible) ...

Wookiees are entirely fictional? yes ...

Usual methods of taxonomy simply cannot apply to such creatures? ummm no, it can be ... and has been ...

"canonical Star Wars material"? yes, several exist .... "Star Wars: The Wookiee Storybook", "Heir to the Empire", "Skywalking - The Life and Films of George" ... among other sites that gather this type of information ... JDR

I never disputed that Wookiees as a species exist within the Star Wars universe. However, it is important to remember that said universe is fictional: it is a work of imagination by many different contributors and bears only tangential relation to our universe. The taxotable, as it stands, places Wookiees within a taxonomic system developed for creatures of Earth. There is nothing within the Star Wars background material -- as far as I know -- to suggest that evolution on Kashyyyk was in any way similar to evolution on Earth. --MIRV (talk) 21:32, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree that SW is a work of imagination by many different contributors, though it has been under analysis with tools of the "real world" (similar to the Physics and Star Wars has). Ans yes, this places Wookiees within a taxonomic system developed for creatures of Earth.

It has everything to do the Star Wars background material and it's suggestions that evolution on Kashyyyk (or any place in the SW universe) is similar to evolution on Earth. Sinmcerely, JDR

Reddi, You do not understand what you are talking about. You do not understand what an encyclopedia is. You do not know how to work in a consensus atmosphere. Please cease editting articles until you understand better. - UtherSRG 21:48, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Show me the canonical Star Wars material that describes Wookiees as having, at some stage in their life, a hollow dorsal nerve cord, pharyngeal slits, a tail extending past the anus, and bands of muscles that go around the body (all distinguishing characteristics of the Chordata, from Chordate). I bet you can't -- and you'll have to do the same for every step on the taxotable before it can be considered a worthy addition to the article. --MIRV (talk) 21:51, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Canonical Star Wars material? I cited the books / sources, you look it up ... also, look @ all the surrounding non-conical literature on them (ie., sites that have info them) ...

"I bet you can't"? you'd have lost that bet ....

Do the same for every step? ummm not really ... JDR

He'll have to do even more than that. He'll have to show that they are directly related to the primitive Hominidae that is the ancestor to all hominids. That's what the table says. - UtherSRG 21:57, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I did say "every step on the taxotable", didn't I? --MIRV (talk) 21:58, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, though showing the lowest proves the higher. Besides, the table's data is incorrect: Hominidae is a family, not a genus, Primates is an order, Mammalia is a class. Vertebrata is a subphylum. - UtherSRG 22:01, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction on the labels (needed a shift up on most of them; just adjusted it) JDR

Given that in fact it's just a bloke in a not very convincing hairy-carpet suit, the taxotable is actually valid ;-) (ducks)

*laughs* Well yeah, except for the incorrect data! - UtherSRG 22:05, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm a rabid Star Wars fan, and I think the table should go down. Wookiee's evolved light-years away from humans. They're not related to any of the ancestors of humans. Putting them in the same genus implies that they're near-human, and they're not, at least not in an evolutionary sense. Furthermore, the taxodermic table really isn't useful or meaningful in any way. -LtNOWIS 23:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes... and this is an old conversation. - UtherSRG 01:04, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Oops. I didn't look look at the dates. So did everyone just stop caring or what? I still think it should go down. Also, I think the spoiler warning should be moved down two paragraphs, to allow those averse to spoilers read the first half of the article. -LtNOWIS 01:12, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

By what do you mean "go down". The taxobox should not be included in the article, at least not in any format the resembles the taxobox used for non-fictional organisms. - UtherSRG 01:37, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

I mean it should be removed. If nobody protests, than I eventually will.-LtNOWIS 19:46, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's been removed from the article ages ago. - UtherSRG 22:29, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Nomination for Deletion

This article is entirely pointless and serves no purpose, practical or otherwise.

• Neither does saying so. but since you didn't actually nominate you can be safely ignored. SchmuckyTheCat 15:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VfD

On May 9, this article was nominated for deletion. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wookiee. The result was, naturally, keep.

Mammalians?

Um - a member of the class mammalia would be a mammal, wouldn't it? I don't think mammalian exists as a noun, just as an adjective. I then saw the whole discussion about whether you should be using these terms for fictional creatures at all. I think 'mammal' is OK, as the basic definition (hairy, live young, milk) is confirmed by the source material, although you can't go any more detailed than that. I've changed it to mammal anyway. Feel free to change it back if there is some special Star Wars reason for the use of 'mammalian'. Cheers 4u1e 08:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Tarfful

Tarfful, trying to get the links to redirect to Tarfful, but without and external link, how do I do this without the link being List_of_Star_Wars_Old_Republic_characters#Tarfful?

Write it like this: [[List of Star Wars Old Republic characters#Tarfful|Tarfful]] Gurko 11:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Could someone please delete the WOOKIEE MATING section? I would believe (and hope) I'm safe in assuming that it's fake, and when I attempted to edit it, the words were not in the EDIT THIS PAGE section, as far as I could see. Could someone more experienced do this?

wookiee extinction

i remember in episode 3 that 2 droids were saying "all the wookiees are dead" only tarful and chewie are left. still how come in star wars battlefront there are wookiee warriors?71.2.38.191 11:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It was the clones that said that.Darth Anzeruthi (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)