Talk:Naboo
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Star Wars Galaxies?
[edit]Naboo also appears in the game Star Wars Galaxies.. and is rendered in extreme detail there. Shouldn't "Star Wars Galaxies" be added to the list of appearances? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.136.57 (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Number of Suns???
[edit]Last time I checked, a planet can only orbit around one sun. If it didn't orbit around one sun and belong to one solar system, it wouldn't be a planet anymore...
- You need to check again. Read Planets With Two Suns Likely Common, for starters. PubliusFL 18:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Original inhabitants
[edit]The current text says that it is unknown whether the original inhabitants were Gungan. The next paragraph then tells us of a pre-Gungan civilization. This doesn't make sense. I know the quotes around "original" are supposed to change the meaning somehow to make the reader know that the author knows there is a contradiction and to make the contradiction less confusing, but they succeed only in the former. I'm guessing the author meant, "It is unknown whether the Gungans presence on Naboo predates human colonization," or something like, but I know nothing about it, so I won't change it myself.
When this is fixed, feel free to remove this section from the talk page. 160.39.159.146 (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Earth Resemblance
[edit]During one shot in Episode II-where a starship approaches Naboo-an examination of coastline of Noth America-from Hudson Bay to Florida-is clearly visible!
Return of the Jedi
[edit]Why whould they be cheering wouldn't they be mad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamhaw (talk • contribs)
- As your question stands, it makes no sense. Please make yourself clearer. --maru (talk) contribs 03:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
He means at the end of the remastered return of the jedi, after the deathstar is destroyed, there is a scene of celebration on Coruscant. Wasn't Coruscant an Imperial world? So shouldn't they be like OH NOES 9/11 IN SPACE? 24.116.11.2 02:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Palpatine is an emperor. It is very likely that the crowd also stood under oppression. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 22:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Technically, even under the rule of Palpatine, he was oppressing the people of his capitol. So, the people of Coruscant were glad when Palpy was killed and brought down that butt-ugly statue of him. 01kkk
A more pressing question is "Where did the Imperial troops go?" Palp dies and they all seem to vanish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.75.15.139 (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
"Elders"
[edit]Could the "Elders" that the Gungans revere have been the Rakata of the Infinite Empire? They are humanoid-ish and have left ruins all over the galaxy, so why not Naboo? Chronolegion 19:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Perspective
[edit]This article has some problems with perspective. Per the Wikipedia manual of style, Wikipedia articles on fictional topics should be written from an out-of-universe perspective. So, for example, Naboo has NOT "long been an enigma to astrophysicists," because it is fictional, and fictional planets do not pose problems for scientific theories. PubliusFL 22:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Naboo and Popular monarchy
[edit]In the article on popular monarchy, Naboo is given as an example in fiction. Is this true, and if so, what reference can we cite? Note that popular monarchy means that the monarch is designated the ruler of a people, not a territory, thus we'd need somewhere where (for instance) the title 'Queen of the Nabooans' is found. (Being elected does not make it a 'popular monarchy'.) -- Perey 08:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The picture
[edit]What happened to the old picture?
This one is terrible, can we get it back?Protoform 11:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:LakeRetreat.jpeg
[edit]
Image:LakeRetreat.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
