On the Muun issue there is some info here (but no definite answer):

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Muun< /a>

Previously in this very thread though Mr Chee confirmed that those HS characters could well be Muuns:

http://forums.starwars.com/thread.jspa?threadID=152583&messageID=1593 0568#15930568

The Rodians have always puzzled me a bit as well. There were Rodians in the Senate for TPM who were presumably Onaconda Farr and his aides Tox Don and Pa Dua (although they weren't really seen in the film):

h ttp://www.starwarz.com/tbone/index.php?categoryid=12&p2_articleid=177

Then in AOTC, Dar Wac shows up as a hologram. Then, later on in Palpatine's office there's a Rodian that is dressed the same as him. However, as that Image Attack picture shows, the AOTC Onaconda Farr wore a different outfit. So going by all that, it may be that originally Dar Wac and the Rodian in Palpatine's office were supposed to be the same character and Onaconda Farr was another Rodian shot for the Senate scenes. At some point though it was decided that the one in Palpatine's office was Onaconda Farr (despite his costume being the same as Dar Wac's) and the Rodians briefly seen in the Senate must be different character entirely, or simply Farr wearing a different outfit than he wears in Palpatine's office.

I suppose one confusion saving move could've been to say that Dar Wac and the Rodian dressed like him were in fact both Dar Wac. Then all the other seen in the Senate scenes could be Farr and his aides. But I suppose there must be reasons for making Farr be the Rodian in Palpatine's office.

I don't get it.

Its a Muun? So what? Boba Fett first appeared in that cartoon, and ended up in the PT. Who is to say the same thing didn't happen to the Muun species?

Only possible consequence I see from this is that we have to change the First Appearance note of the Muun species on Wookieepedia. I will agree, though, it was a good find.

Mr Chee, I have a question as well if I may:

It is known that in ROTJ Anakin supposedly disappeared after he died and that Luke was simply burning Vader's armour on the funeral pyre. This seems to be an element of continuity which has been altered and that the original intention when the scene was made was that Luke was burning Anakin's whole body. My question is, if it was changed was it an idea created by George Lucas himself and do you know when precisely it was decided upon? The reason I ask is because although recent official sources state that Anakin did disappear (off-screen) nothing has been altered in the film to reflect that fact. So anyone who only sees the film probably does not know that Anakin is supposed to have disappeared since they are given the same impression that the audience in '83 got - that it is Anakin's whole body on the pyre.

He's asking specifically in regards to that article, in fact.

Kren Blista-Vanee is definitely the one in that picture because they made an action figure of him:

http://www.rebelscum.co m/sw0341impdignitaryB.asp

Ars Dangor seems less certain though.

There's conflicting sources about the death of Boga. The film and the comic leave it ambiguous, where the novel states that she is dead. So, what's up? Is Boga really dead, or is she alive?

In Complete Locations the article about the Emepror's tower on the Death Star II it shows a statue given to him by a long time freind a follower Moff Panaka. Is this the same Panaka from Episode I or a relation?

And also: in Empire at War, Antilles raids Wayland in O BBY. Can you clear this up being Wayland was discovered in 9 ABY?

Snake Plissken Katarn:

Quick question. Thanks to Master Zahn, can we now officially refer to Stacy Pink 5 as a canon character?

Stacy exists. All facts about her established in Allegiance exist. Everything else about her from fanfilms that aren't in the book remain fan material.

Quick question. Thanks to Master Zahn, can we now officially refer to Stacy Pink 5 as a canon character?