Talk:List of Star Wars books
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on July 2, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Star Wars, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. To participate, you can improve this article or visit the project page for more information. | ||
| List | This article has been rated as list-Class on the quality scale. | ||
[edit] Creation
I've only added in the ones I've read/heard about. I found a site giving the chronology when I wasn't sure of it myself (http://www.supershadow.com/starwars/timeline.html), and got the authors from (http://www.amazon.com) when I didn't know them. I guess I might fill in more if I have time, but this seems like a good start.--Kyle Dantarin 17:42, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, since the way the heading system works, maybe it would be better to scrap adding singletons in chronological order and just have them under a seperate ordered list of "Stand Alone Books"
I think I will have to do it that way. I'm going to try and find datings for each book so I can have Title/Author/Date
What about the New Jedi Order? I know the books are listed there, but you could always move or duplicate them. DevastatorIIC 07:18, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah that sounds like a good idea for now. Maybe there'll be notions to merge stuff later, but for now let's just get it all on here. --Kyle Dantarin 08:36, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
The Truce at Bakura needs to be added Jun 26 2005
The Lando Calrissian series is also missing. By L. Neil Smith. Del Rey did an omnibus reprint of them. --emb021
erm where have so many of the books gone? Can someone explain or I'm just going to revert this :/ --Kyle Dantarin 21:09, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
I am adding all the books. I will be done by the end of the week so please refrain from editing until then---jedi6 (8-29-05)
- It's a really good job jedi6, nice one :) --Kyle Dantarin 09:12, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
stupid vanadals---jedi6
- Books missing from the list: Star Wars Journals and Star Wars Missions. I don't want to mess up any formatting adding them...
superman 04:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- I could add them both, but I'm also hesitant to mess with the format. They're all over the place. Does anyone have any suggestions? ... Also, what does everyone think of the short stories published in Star Wars Gamer and Star Wars Insider? For example...
- Path of Destruction (1000 BBY)
- Path of Destruction by Drew Karpyshyn (Release in October 2006)
- Darkness Shared by Bill Slavicsek, Star Wars Gamer #5
- Bane of the Sith by Kevin J. Anderson, Star Wars Gamer #3
- --Skope 07:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Short stories are not books so they should be left out. If you want to add the journels make a section on the bottom called journals and I'll format it. Jedi6-(need help?) 18:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Alright. I added what I've got --Skope 23:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Short stories are not books so they should be left out. If you want to add the journels make a section on the bottom called journals and I'll format it. Jedi6-(need help?) 18:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Path of Destruction (1000 BBY)
[edit] Format
I disagree with the new format by The Wookieepedian. While I like some of the stuff he did I don't think we need a heading for every book. It has the heading and then all the information again. I think the heading should only be used for series. The list is now even more confusing with all the titles. Also he got rid of all the dashes and spaces I had that signified a change in time. Remember to propose major changes before doing it. Discuss
- I reorganized the page mainly to improve the appearance of the sections and organize the books into their own sections. The books that didn't fall into a series seemed as though they needed some sort of section of their own to let the reader know they were single books, rather than part of something. The Wookieepedian 06:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- When you reverted you destroyed all my links and time spaces. Oh well. I changed a few things to make it easier. I also added the links and time spaces back.
User:Jedi6 9-26-05
-
- The horizontal rules and bolding really need to go; not only does it make the page more cluttered and less readable, but it also defies standard Wikipedia formatting guidelines. I think that what is good for the rest of Wikipedia is good for this page, too. – Mipadi 23:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- I see no particular reason why. Bolding doesn't seem to matter either way and the dashes help by signifing differences in the time scale. I don't see how it makes it more unreadable and cluttered. I think it adds organization. Can you link to this Wikipedia rule and maybe then I'll understand better?--User:Jedi6 11-08-2005
- The headers already signify the time shifts; why do we need an extra horizontal rule? Furthermore, the header styles are already in the proper font; they do not need to be bolded. How to edit a page and Manual of Style specify how pages should be formatted. Unless there is a strong reason to keep inconsistent formatting on this page (which there has not been a strong reason yet brought forth), I see no reason to keep it. – Mipadi 00:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with the bolding but not the horizontal dividing line. No where does it say to not use it, just in moderation. Also the official guidelines for lists never say you can't do this. Unless you can find another method of differencing time changes I say keep the lines. On another note why do headings get bolder has they continue down in order?--User:Jedi6 11-09-2005
- The headings delineate the time changes. We don't need the horizontal rules; they are redundant and just increase the clutter and disorganization of the page. Why have them if we have headers to set off the time changes? – Mipadi 02:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Is there a reason? – Mipadi 00:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry I had an unexpected leave of absense. When I worked on this page I could find nothing else to signify small time changes like the official Star Wars timeline has. If you have something else that can be used then I would be glad to here it. If not I say keep the horizontal lines. We seem to have an disagreement in opinion. I think the lines make it look more organized while you think the lines make it seemed more cluttered.--User:Jedi6 11-17-2005
- As I've stated, the headers delineate differences between books. That's why we have headers in the first place. The years are even in the headers. The horizontal rules are superfluous, cluttered, and defy Wiki formatting. There's no reason why the formatting used on the rest of Wikipedia is not good enough for this page. – Mipadi 05:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- I've looked at the rules and I haven't seen any where that specifically states we can't do this.--User:Jedi6 11-17-2005
- Are there any other articles, even similar "list"-type articles, that divide sections up in such a way? – Mipadi 15:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- You have to start somewhere. You are clearly a strict interpetor where if Wikipedia doesn't say you can do something it must be illegal. I am a loose interpetor where unless Wikipedia forbides something I think it is legal.--User:Jedi6 11-18-2005
- Let's look at the facts: Fact 1, the page is cluttered; Fact 2, horizontal rules are superfluous when used in conjunction with headers; Fact 3, this is not standard Wiki markup guidelines. Unless you can provide a solid reason why they were there in the first place, a purpose that is not also achieved by other, standard markup (such as headers), they should and will be removed. The page looks too cluttered and unprofessional with them, and frankly, I have standard Wiki markup guidelines on my side.
- This is the problem I see with a lot of Star Wars pages. A few fans become attached to them, and suddenly feel that they deserve some sort of special formatting. They don't. They might be important and they might be interesting, but they are not so much more important than the rest of Wikipedia that they need to defy Wiki markup guidelines. – Mipadi 06:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- I wish you stop assuming that I have gotten attached to this page and I am defying Wikipedia guidelines. I just want a reason other than opinion to change the page. Can you show me the exact page where it says this is against the guidelines?--User:Jedi6 11-18-2005
- All you need to do is look at other pages—none use horizontal rules to break up sections. That's what the section headers are for. Why do we need section headers and horizontal rules? – Mipadi 06:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- You have a point there, there is no reason to have it. I originally created the horizontal rules because I wanted to have something to seperate time changes. I've come to see your point on keeping a standard template for lists. Someone should make not using horizontal lines like this a guideline.--User:Jedi6 11-18-2005
- I believe that the horizontal lines help, not hinder, organization of the list. The lines make very clear the major eras in the Star Wars universe.--User:TychoZzyx 12-14-2005
- This timeline is very flawed. There was one a while back that was a lot better. That is why it must be reverted 12-23-2005
- You have a point there, there is no reason to have it. I originally created the horizontal rules because I wanted to have something to seperate time changes. I've come to see your point on keeping a standard template for lists. Someone should make not using horizontal lines like this a guideline.--User:Jedi6 11-18-2005
- All you need to do is look at other pages—none use horizontal rules to break up sections. That's what the section headers are for. Why do we need section headers and horizontal rules? – Mipadi 06:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- I wish you stop assuming that I have gotten attached to this page and I am defying Wikipedia guidelines. I just want a reason other than opinion to change the page. Can you show me the exact page where it says this is against the guidelines?--User:Jedi6 11-18-2005
- You have to start somewhere. You are clearly a strict interpetor where if Wikipedia doesn't say you can do something it must be illegal. I am a loose interpetor where unless Wikipedia forbides something I think it is legal.--User:Jedi6 11-18-2005
- Are there any other articles, even similar "list"-type articles, that divide sections up in such a way? – Mipadi 15:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- I've looked at the rules and I haven't seen any where that specifically states we can't do this.--User:Jedi6 11-17-2005
- As I've stated, the headers delineate differences between books. That's why we have headers in the first place. The years are even in the headers. The horizontal rules are superfluous, cluttered, and defy Wiki formatting. There's no reason why the formatting used on the rest of Wikipedia is not good enough for this page. – Mipadi 05:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry I had an unexpected leave of absense. When I worked on this page I could find nothing else to signify small time changes like the official Star Wars timeline has. If you have something else that can be used then I would be glad to here it. If not I say keep the horizontal lines. We seem to have an disagreement in opinion. I think the lines make it look more organized while you think the lines make it seemed more cluttered.--User:Jedi6 11-17-2005
- Is there a reason? – Mipadi 00:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- The headings delineate the time changes. We don't need the horizontal rules; they are redundant and just increase the clutter and disorganization of the page. Why have them if we have headers to set off the time changes? – Mipadi 02:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with the bolding but not the horizontal dividing line. No where does it say to not use it, just in moderation. Also the official guidelines for lists never say you can't do this. Unless you can find another method of differencing time changes I say keep the lines. On another note why do headings get bolder has they continue down in order?--User:Jedi6 11-09-2005
- The headers already signify the time shifts; why do we need an extra horizontal rule? Furthermore, the header styles are already in the proper font; they do not need to be bolded. How to edit a page and Manual of Style specify how pages should be formatted. Unless there is a strong reason to keep inconsistent formatting on this page (which there has not been a strong reason yet brought forth), I see no reason to keep it. – Mipadi 00:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- I see no particular reason why. Bolding doesn't seem to matter either way and the dashes help by signifing differences in the time scale. I don't see how it makes it more unreadable and cluttered. I think it adds organization. Can you link to this Wikipedia rule and maybe then I'll understand better?--User:Jedi6 11-08-2005
- The horizontal rules and bolding really need to go; not only does it make the page more cluttered and less readable, but it also defies standard Wikipedia formatting guidelines. I think that what is good for the rest of Wikipedia is good for this page, too. – Mipadi 23:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Grammer
Grammatically it should be years before the Battle of Yavin not the years before the Battle of Yavin. If it is the years before the Battle of Yavin then all the timeline dates would be 37 the years after the battle of yavin, which isn't right. User:Jedi6 9-27-05
[edit] Spacing
OK, I see your point on the spacing of the individual books, I won' remove the lines again then. The Wookieepedian 15:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Merging
I firmly agree with merging the List of Star Wars references into the List of Star Wars books. The List of Star Wars books has all the same information as the List of Star Wars references and more. The List of Star Wars books is also better formatted. We should redirect the List of Star Wars references to the List of Star Wars books. Jedi6 October 23, 2005
- I agree with merging too (obviously. I was the one who put up the templates). But your idea of merging, Jedi6, is very bad. The List of Star Wars books is (for books which do not have their own article) missing quite a bit of data List of Star Wars references has, like, say, ISBNs. --Maru (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- Sorry. But do we really need ISBNs on the page. Why not one the individual book pages. People who use the list aren't likely looking for the ISBNs. -Jedi6 October 24, 2005
-
-
- *sigh*. You did see the part where I said "(for books which do not have their own article)" in reference to adding ISBNs etc. to the list, right? --Maru (talk) Contributions 03:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
-
The list of references page has been deleted, and should not be recreated without a very good reason. Ian Manka Talk to me! 04:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Short story anthologies
The official Star Wars page calls them "Tales of" [1] so shouldn't we put that?--User:Jedi6 November 27, 2006
- I don't think there's a need to repear things verbatim from Star Wars pages. First of all, all but one of the books listed begins with Tales From, not Tales of; secondly, that page is not without its errors—they don't capitalize From consistently. So I don't know how reputable it is, and on such a small detail, I don't think it matters a whole lot. – Mipadi 23:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- Your right. Also short story anthologies makes more sense than Tales of too. I wonder why the Star Wars site has it as Tales of?--User:Jedi6 November 28, 2006
[edit] Reason for Revert
I reverted back for two reasons
- The Anon IP pretended to be me but was not.
- This is a list of books so the books should take pretense over the events in the contents. If you want to make it by event try the Star Wars timeline.
- Incorrect data. Many of the things changed was incorrect. For example all the Eras changed were not what they are officially called. Jedi6 21:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Addition
I added "The Lost Jedi", a single volume collection of two "adventure gamebook" style Star Wars stories (source [2]). I'm not sure if the stories were ever published singularly. Apparently the book was never published in the USA, so I'm adding this note to prove that the addition is bona fida. McPhail 19:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Split
This list is already pretty long and there are still hundreds of books missing(we haven't even stratched the surface of the roleplaying gamebooks). So I suggest we split the article into three lists, List of Star Wars novels, List of Star Wars reference books and List of Star Wars roleplaying gamebooks. That along with List of Star Wars comic books will make a list of every piece of Star Wars literature. As long as there is no objections I will split it soon. --Jedi6 05:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'd rather not be hasty about splitting the book lists. We'll be locked into them for a long time. Haste makes waste, and all that. Is a novels/reference/comic/RPG split really the best possible split? Perhaps the RPG and references could be combined, or perhaps the novels could be combined with the comics. --maru (talk) contribs 05:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- There are more than 60 reference books, 48 comic books, 40 roleplaying gamebooks and near 200 novels. I don't want to split them that much either but this list is going to get insanely long. Jedi6 05:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I mean, we split a few character articles, but this is just a general skeleton list, so Maru has a good point. I'm neutral. Deckiller 05:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Ok I'm undoing my split nomination since we can do it laterif needed. Jedi6 05:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Aren't we planning on merging this list with List of Star Wars references, anyway? – Mipadi 20:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- We are moving all the info from the list of references to here but its a long process since there is alot of books that don't have any info on wikipedia except for the ISBN number. Jedi6 23:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Aren't we planning on merging this list with List of Star Wars references, anyway? – Mipadi 20:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Don't just blame Wikipedia in this matter; Wookieepedia is pretty sorry in this regard as well- I found their article on, say, Courtship of Princess Leia to be next to useless. --maru (talk) contribs 23:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Yeh, only the most popular or recent books have an enough info. Hopefully that will change with the Wiki project starting up. Jedi6 23:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Definately. I've read most of the old school books and the JA series (I don't read this new stuff, I have so much to catch up on....), and I'm sure some of the project's members have as well. Unfortunately, I'm sick right now, so I can't write the plot summaries I wanted to write today :( Deckiller 23:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The list of references page has been deleted, and should not be recreated without a very good reason. Ian Manka Talk to me! 04:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Character listings
I think lists of the characters in the novels should be included. This will help provide a clear understanding of what the novels are about. However, I don't want to brake any rules or upset anyone. Does anyone dissagree with me?
- The listing of characters would be put on the individual pages for the books. Jedi6-(need help?) 22:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Dark Tide: Onslaught was the first novel to implement the character lists, so a lot of the novels don't have character lists. But, if you think I shouldn't, I won't.
- Go ahead, just make sure to add them to the individual books articles, not this page itself. Jedi6-(need help?) 20:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- The X-wing novels had a Dramatis Personae. But I don't think all characters for each book need to be listed. – Mipadi 00:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dark Empire, and Graphic Novels in general
Should graphic novels be listed on this page? Dark Empire is also listed on the List of Star Wars comic books -Skope 04:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- anything in book form (like trade paperback). I'm not too knowledgable in this area though. Jedi6-(need help?) 04:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- well a Graphic novel is defined as a long-form comic book here on wikipedia. I just consider the novels listed on here to tell the story in text-only, and comics to tell it, well, in comic form. -Skope 05:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- YOur right, when I originally made this list I found Dark Empire listen as a trade paperback so I got confused by the term. I never remembered to remove it until now. Jedi6-(need help?) 05:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- well a Graphic novel is defined as a long-form comic book here on wikipedia. I just consider the novels listed on here to tell the story in text-only, and comics to tell it, well, in comic form. -Skope 05:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Star Warped?
What's this Star Warped under Non- Canon Books? I think it's a parody game, or a parody movie. Star Warp'd is the name of a parody movie. But either way, I'm pretty sure it doesn't belong here. --Skope 18:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- You are probably right, how did I miss that one? Jedi6-(need help?) 20:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] operation: infobox-ification
I think I got infoboxes into all of the existing articles. I created the pages for the articles that didn't have any yet, and they're ripe for you article-writing professionals out there. I threw in some publisher's descriptions here and there to give some of them some fiber, but I won't be pissed if you write a good summary and feel it's redundant and delete it. It was just some quick copy and paste work. I might hop on the stuff at the bottom of the list sometime, or I might skip on over to the List of Star Wars comic books. --Skope 06:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Good job! Jedi6-(need help?) 22:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I merged List of Star Wars authors into this article...
...per this AfD. The result was to merge into List of Star Wars books. Ian Manka Talk to me! 04:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jedi Prince is not canonical
Jedi Prince isn't canonical because I've never even heard of Trilcus before I read the article it's never been in the list of all books in the begining either Jamhaw 18:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)jamhaw
- Is it non-canon or secondary canon? (see Star Wars canon#The Holocron. I've never read the series, but from what I hear, it is chock-full of contradictions to the EU. If it's non-canon, just make a different heading for the series below The Legacy Era or Cancelled Books. If it's secondary canon, just leave it in the list as is, but without the disclaimer. It's already marked as secondary canon in the infobox in the articles themselves. —Skope (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
OR, add a tag, like (NC) or something like that, for the "non-canon" series such as Jedi Prince and Galaxy of Fear. —Skope (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
JUST BECAUSE YOUVE NEVER HEARD OF IT BEFORE DOESNT MEAN There N OT Canonical. I actually own these books. And I have read them. And will be reading them soon. I also own some of the Galaxy Of Fear books and some of the books clearly dictate when THEIR EVENTS ARE HAPPENING. I'm completely disappointed in you peopole. Just because youve never read or never heard doesnt meant its not part of the time-line. Unlike most of you I actually own ALMOST EVERY Star Wars Book. I will read them again and tell you to my best estimation when they happened. And as far as i can remember Galaxy Of Fear takes place after Yavin was first destroyed by the Death Star. I am currently in the process of reading every b ook From start to finsh in the actually correct timeline. I can help you if you like. And I can even re-read some for Character Descriptions and ISD, Mon Cals, Pre-ISD. At Which major battle they were a part of. And some of the Star Wars books have been given the honor of being put to graphic novel, AND Yes The Comic Timeline should be included itd be a massive list but itd at least all be on one page.-Balefor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balefor (talk • contribs) 01:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Inside the Worlds of Revenge of the Sith
Although it makes sense for a book like this to have been printed (and in fact Complete Locations contains the material from what was presumably a draft of it), the book doesn't exist. I've removed it.Beganback 19:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dark Forces Trilogy
What abouy dark forces trilogy? Why isn't inside. I mean i found that one on net, but i dont see it inside of here? And could nowhere find anything about it, except on amazon. Is it rejected, disc, or what? IggoRZ 11:05 PM 15. November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.169.218.69 (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
