Jump to content

Talk:Changes in Star Wars re-releases

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.225.23.137 (talk) at 23:19, 13 August 2012 (→This article is a joke: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

???=

where is the detailed version of this page? there was a complete list of changes back when I looked up this article the last time. this is also what SHOULD appear here. restore the complete version! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.125.31 (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Info about 2004 color "problems" problematic

It attributes problems to the 2004 release that are either not there (sorry, I don't see any overly "blue" tint to Empire), that actually existed since the original release (Luke's green tinted lightsaber on the Falcon) and that was there on the *Special Edition* but actually *corrected* on the 2004 releases (like various pinkish tinges that were removed).

Also, whoever wrote this seems to see restoring the film to it's intended and original visual quality as a visual restoration "error." It's supposed to be brighter and more colorful instead of dim and dingy, sheesh.

Actually, the DVD release of the films in 2004 had color timing, contrast levels, and crushed blacks that had never been seen before, not theatrically or on home video. The problems are there, without question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.170.205 (talk) 12:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

This may have "multiple issues," but I found it a WONDERFUL thing to read!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unclekirk (talk • contribs) 19:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective

This line:

Darth Vader's terse-but-forceful line, "Bring my shuttle", is changed to the more benignly-toned "Alert my Star Destroyer to prepare for my arrival"

struck me as subjective. Why is it necessary to judge one line as (implicitly) better than the other? For encyclopedic purposes it should suffice to note the change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.42.69 (talk) 09:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in Episode III

In this Article, it says that the under-construction Death Star was cut out, but on my DVD, you can see it for about 20 sec. in the scene with young Tarkin. Is this just my German DVD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.2.120.171 (talk) 10:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the theartical when Darth Vador is choking Padme, she says something along the lines of "Stop it Ani, you're choking me." A line which was then cut from the film when released on DVD. How come no one else remembers this? The line was so laughable, everyone I went to see the film in theaters with still rembers it, and was looking forward to rewatching it when it was released on DVD, but it was cut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.214.51 (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Errors on this page

I'd like to bring attention to some errors on this page, which I will shortly edit, in the hope that by including this information the edits won't be reverted.

"More debris has been digitally added to the scene at the destroyed Jawa sandcrawler."

This is simply wrong. I've compared the DVD releases side by side and nothing has changed. http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/274/debris.jpg - and nothing has changed in the later shot at the Sandcrawler either.

"New aliens are seen in the Cantina, and the Cantina music is played at a higher pitch and tempo."

The second part is wrong - I've just checked. The most likely explanation is someone comparing a PAL release (they run 4% faster) to an NTSC release, or to a soundtrack CD.

"When Lando contacts Lobot, it is done silently rather than Lando sending a codeword."

There was never any "codeword", and the soundtrack in both the original release (from the 2006 DVD) and the Special Edition (2004 DVD) is identical.

The dialogue spoken by Jabba the Hutt in the scene where he is discussing the price for Chewbacca that had the subtitles added in the 1997 Special Edition has the subtitles removed, making C-3PO's verbal translations in the scene relevant again.

I won't be editing this last one as I haven't checked it myself, but I'm reliably informed the scene has always been subtitled the same way.

David (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this article is quite messy. It seems like it'll take a miracle to overhaul it.--TÆRkast (Communicate) 13:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the discussion of page overhaul. A group have been creating a change list using screen caps. Their work resides here: http://picasaweb.google.com/doubleofive/StarWarsSpecialEditionChangesHD http://picasaweb.google.com/doubleofive/EmpireSpecialEditionChangesHD http://picasaweb.google.com/doubleofive/JediSpecialEditionChangesHD With the current page being textual descriptions. Maybe these Visual Change Guides would be better served as a new page "Visual Guide to changes in Star Wars movies" or it could be incorporated into this existing page, maybe a column on the right where other images currently reside. Not sure how wikipedia deals with image heavy entries. None295 (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure those images would qualify as fair use, Wikipedia has a strict policy on non-free content, there's a lot of copyright issues to deal with, although I do see that images are useful.--TÆRkast (Communicate) 12:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are three images in the current page which are similar. The two showing the variations of Ghosts at the end of RotJ and the SE2 Greedo shooting first. If they have been deemed appropriate reuse, I don't see the issue with the ones from the link. Anyone else want to chime in on this issue? None295 (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that images are essential to this type of article. Only that Wikipedia's fair use rationale stance is quite strict, that's not my view, I think this article should have more images.--TÆRkast (Communicate) 16:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 2004 interview supposedly available from CNN is actually available here: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/6011380/ns/today-entertainment/t/lucas-talks-star-wars-trilogy-returns/ I tried to correct the misinformation and replaced CNN with MSNBC but my change was erased, so in case somebody is interested to correct this error, please go ahead.--Frank Bitterhof (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Lucas - Persecuted martyr.

This man has sacrificed himself for his art. He's burnt himself at the cross, impaled by his own sword, sliced his own bollocks. He has made the Star Wars franchise more streamlined, he has smoothed out inaccuracies that make me cringe to my very core. Watching the original film, it's clear that Greedo should have shot first. No question. By rectifying that, the continuity and character of Han Solo are reconciled with the piece as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwweeeccc (talk • contribs) 14:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about Greedo/Han. People say "But...but...Han is a ROGUE!" over and over again...well, there is a big difference between being a rogue and being a cold-blooded murderer.

Han never looked like a murderer in the original version. If you read the subtitles, it was clear that he was about to be killed by Greedo, so Han firing first was nothing more than preemptive self-defense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.170.205 (talk) 11:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

+1
What, you don’t speak Huttese? —Wiki Wikardo 17:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No original research

See Wikipedia:No original research. Read it. Then ask yourselves how much of this article can be backed up by a "reliable, published source". I think the answer is, to use my local (London, England) vernacular, 'f*** all'. Watching two different versions of a film and noting the differences is 'research', by any reasonable definition. This may be interesting to those concerned, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I suggest that someone either finds a source for this lot (unlikely, I think), or finds another home for it, as it isn't going to survive an AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Largely yes, although the Blu-ray changes, and quite a few of the DVD changes can be reasonably sourced, I'd expect. But this page needs major cleanup, there's no doubt about that.--Tærkast (Discuss) 18:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Policy requires that a WP:RS can be found that states that a particular change has been made. Where are you expecting to find such sources? The only such source I can see in the article is the link to DVDActive in the external links section - and this seems to be a website with little evidence for proper journalistic standards etc - I doubt that it would be considered a reliable source. The simple fact is that this article consists almost entirely of unsourced assertions that there are differences between versions, and as such they shouldn't be in a Wikipedia article. In fact, they almost certainly shouldn't be in an article even if sourced, because composing an exhaustive list of such details is way beyond the remit of the project. This information (if that is what it is) simply doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. I'm going to look into this further, and unless I can see a compelling policy based reason not to, move the article for deletion. Wikipedia shouldn't be acting as a host for pages filled with original research on trivia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:RS 'The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source.' From Wikipedia:No original research 'Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research.' Feldon23 (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of sources for (at least some of) the Blu-ray changes, The Guardian, MSNBC. There are sources, yes, perhaps even reliable sources. By all means, though, propose the article for deletion, but whether it'll be successful or not, is another matter.--Tærkast (Discuss) 15:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt reply. I'll take a look at the sources you've provided. Regarding the question of original research, I've raised a query at the appropriate noticeboard [1]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great - let's cut to the chase - In line with core policy and practice, I've challenged those claims by removing unsourced content - I require verification. The onus on sourcing is on those adding material not those removing it. So let's start to see the RSs for some of those claims. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, many of the changes to the films are quite obvious and there really is no single source to link to for those claims. The wholesale deletion of the list of changes is unfair and even seems suspicious to me. It's as if someone doesn't want anyone to know how much these films have been altered by George Lucas, especially in the last 14 years. You can search for sources and add them but to completely delete the list of changes is unacceptable. No one person can require anything and just butcher a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.170.205 (talk) 11:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you need to go read WP:BOLD - he can. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And read Wikipedia:No original research. If you want to claim that compiling a list based on your own comparisons isn't WP:OR, then argue that on the noticeboard [2]. In any case, there is nothing remotely encyclopaedic about this list - a properly-sourced article about the evolution of the films might be valid, but noting every last detail is just fancruft. This list simply shouldn't be on Wikipedia - I suggest that someone finds another home for it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, I want to get out of the way that I’m not a particularly big Star Wars fan, and that I really don’t care what George Lucas does with his creation. I’ve seen the films and feel no need to buy them on DVD/Blu-ray disc. That said, I do think that an article titled List of changes in Star Wars re-releases would, in fact, list the changes that Lucas has made to the Star Wars re-releases. I briefly went back through the article’s history, and noticed that the deletions to this article have only occurred since 20th Century Fox has released the films on Blu-ray. Perhaps a better idea than neutering the article would be to delete it altogether? 67.239.63.243 (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm inclined to agree about the title - which is why it needs to be changed if the article is to remain on Wikipedia at all - which is questionable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that’s a perfectly reasonable solution. Either change the title of the article or delete it altogether. 67.239.63.243 (talk) 09:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree that the information should be sourced, this whole deletion thing is absolutely ridiculous. Most of these changes [i]can[/i] be sourced using sources, especially those found on the internet. In addition, deleting all of the "original research" defeats the purpose of the article, which is "list of changes in Star Wars rereleases." Here is a proposed solution: revert back to the version of the article [i]with[/i] the changes (and let this article be useful so people don't have to constantly click on the "view history tab" to see what changes were made to the movies) and let's cite each change over the course of a few days, or a week. Although "against policy," it would honestly be much better than doing nothing and simply whining about how all of it is original research. That way, we'll be [i]practical[/i] and not deprive the world of information for the sake of a literal interpretation of a wikipedia policy, with the short term and realistic goal of living up to that said policy.66.254.224.1 (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - there is nothing remotely encyclopaedic about this list, sourced or not. Nobody is suggesting that the world should be deprived of 'information' - simply that it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Find another home for it. (You could try Wikiversity [3] - they apparently have no problem with hosting obscure original research, and I'm sure someone could move the article there for you, to preserve the history). AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think the article belongs on Wikipedia, and so you intend to hold it hostage and participate in edit wars until it goes up for a Deletion vote. That about the size of it? Feldon23 (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the article complies with Wikipedia policy (in fact, I know it doesn't). As such, I'm perfectly entitled to use normal Wikipedia procedures to ensure that it is either revised to comply, or is deleted. That is the size of it. And BTW, don't fake signatures - either register with a proper user name, or sign as an IP - there is policy on that too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AndyTheGrump is currently engaged in Edit Warring of this article. Please post your comments either at his userpage (talk) or at [Edit_warring]. Feldon23 (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

StarWars.com had an article containing pics and text of the 2004 Special Edition changes. The StarWars.com website redesign of 2006? removed the page, if the contents of that page were found, could this article be updated with those pics and text? I'm hoping this info would satisfy the 'No Original Research' and as the pics were placed online by Lucasfilm it would also satisfy the image copyright policy. (None295 (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

If the StarWars.com website is run by LucasFilm, as it seems to be, that would probably be a reliable source, provided it could be ascertained that any copy was itself from a legitimate source. I doubt that LucasFilms will have released the images into the public domain though, so using them would almost certainly breach copyright. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The URL of this article, on the Star Wars changes, was: http://www.starwars.com/episode-iv/release/video/f20060825/index.html (went offline possibly in 2008, and there are articles for ESB and RotJ) Internet Archive's Wayback Machine has a copy of the text of this Aug 25th, 2006 StarWars.com article. Example Wayback Machine archive: http://web.archive.org/web/20060902091106/http://starwars.com/episode-iv/release/video/f20060825/index.html (article opens up a second window)
Here's how the text could be displayed:
  1. The plain green Lucasfilm Limited card was replaced in 1997 with an animated presentation, though the 'new' logo had been in existence since before 1977.
  2. The preface was rendered thinner with wider spacing. In 2004, a different font and color was used.
  3. The original 1977 theatrical crawl did not begin with an Episode title or number; these were added in the 1981 theatrical re-release.
Note: as the text is a little vague without the picture, a brief description would need to be added. For example the second description above is referring to the "A Long Time Ago" phrase. (None295 (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]
As previously discussed, added the text from the StarWars.com article on the Episode IV: A New Hope: Special Edition in it's own sub-category. Can do ESB and RotJ later this year, hopefully. None295 (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was a terrible addition. Excruciatingly detailed list of every minute, trivial change? That's not what Wikipedia is all about. Please finish discussing this topic and establish WP:CONSENSUS before making a change like that. DP76764 (Talk) 00:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok can you provide clarification of what could be revised to make it an acceptable addition to the page. Can we use the three changes mentioned above as our starting place to work? On the charge of 'listing trivial changes' and 'not being what Wikipedia is all about'. I disagree. The definition you pointed to, says that Wikipedia is a 'general and specialized encyclopedia'. I would say that StarWars.com is a specialized encyclopedia. So when their article, which discussed the changes of the Special Editions, gets into smaller details, I feel those should be part of this entry or a separate one.None295 (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should have linked you to what Wikipedia is NOT as well; particularly the section titled "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Effectively, this section usually means we don't cover every exhausting detail of something. Descriptions of significant changes (in this case), from reliable 3rd party sources, would be ideal; preferably in a prose format rather than a mere list. Leave the exhaustive list of smaller details to other sites. DP76764 (Talk) 01:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was also a gross breach of copyright. Does anyone editing this article actually understand any Wikipedia policies? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will defer to your views of copyright. Can you describe how to revise to conform? The reason why I went forward with the revision was after explaining where the information came from (to deal with the No Original Research issue) and posting a piece of the data, no one questioned or commented for a month. To deal somewhat with copyright, each entry was attributed to the original source, as the 70mm ESB Pre-SE changes had done on this page.None295 (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopaedia, not a fan blog. Such trivia doesn't belong here. End of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page seems to have been subjectified by 'fan boys' or something recently.

This page has changed immensely in the past few weeks since the release of the six Star Wars movies on blu-ray.

The lists of changes have all been lumped together when previously they were clearly organised in order of release, and there definitely seems to be some form of 'subjectivity' at play in these changes to this wiki entry, which now leave the reader with a muddled and misleading mess of pseudo-data.

Can it be put back to how it was previously a few days/weeks ago?

Can this page be checked or locked in case people who have a non-encyclopedic interest in these movies decide to again wreck a clear and informative wiki entry, just because they don't approve of the added cgi rocks in front of a robot and suchlike?

This page needs to go on nerd-hacker-watch or something in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.104.167 (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. see the discussion immediately above. Wikipedia articles need to be encyclopaedic, and to conform to policy. It didn't (actually, it still doesn't). It needs cutting right back, and reformatting as an article, rather than the ridiculous unsourced list of trivia it has become - failing that, it should be deleted. Wikipedia isn't a blog for Star Wars fans. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We saw the discussion. It's non-constructive. You want to reshape the article to meet your own personal definition of what an article should be, rather than improving the quality, relevance, and accuracy of the article. By your own admission, you want the article deleted and feel it has no place on Wikipedia. The "core" sections of the article -- the Special Edition changes -- have been lost, removing all value from the article. What is really needed is an expert to work on it. Feldon23 (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you compare how the page read two weeks ago, when the Star Wars movies were first released on blu ray, to how it appears now you will see that it actually has, as you say, become (some kind of) a 'blog' for Star Wars fans, hence the suggestion that this page revert back to the more encyclopedic version that it was before, with the list of releases in chronological order containing the details of the specific alterations to the movies as they were presented to the public. If you are suggesting that this current version of this page is somehow clearer or more encyclopedic than how it was before then I suggest that you are actually one of these 'un-objective' 'nerds' that has altered this page away from its former factual 'list'-form into the 'geek angry at George Lucas blog' that it has become very recently, or you are at least sympathetic to these pointlessly subjective alterations for whatever reason. Unfortunately though now this page is an unencyclopedic, uninformative and purposeless mess, and to suggest that it is now in any way better is clearly nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.104.167 (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the section above, named 'Wikipedia:No original research'. I think you have missed the point of my comments entirely: the previous version wasn't remotely 'encyclopaedic', and neither is this one. If isn't transformed into an article meeting Wikipedia policy regarding original research, sourcing, and general content policy, it is likely to be deleted. As far as I'm aware, content hasn't been moved around - it has been deleted (correctly) as unsourced. I'm not sure why the 'Blu Ray' related items weren't deleted at the same time - this needs investigating. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We read it. You seek to butcher the article without any knowledge of the source material. Further, a DVD is no less a verifiable source than a magazine or a book is. If you don't think this information belongs on Wikipedia anywhere, put it up for a vote for deletion. When your vote fails, then we can move on with improving, rather than destroying this article. Feldon23 (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:RS 'The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source.' From Wikipedia:No original research 'Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research.' Feldon23 (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow this has been hijacked. I must have arrived at this page in the middle of an all out edit war. In response to AndyTheGrump: The amount of unsourced content may have been high, but I must disagree that the site wasn't "remotely 'encyclopaedic'" as you put it. The format has been destroyed. The article name is "List of changes in Star Wars re-releases" The only logical way to organize a page with such a title is to simply start @ 1982 (When Star Wars: A new Hope was first released on VHS and Betamax) and then move forward. There should be section headings for each release in Chronological order and the subsequent changes in that release As a Delta of the Theatrical Version, PERIOD. Much of the data is already here. I'm not sure what has happened but this page now has a single "deleted scenes" section which contains an ill thought out conglomerate list of Deletions/changes/additions across many releases, which is unacceptable.

I'd like to suggest the following major Headings for which Changes changes can be placed under for better organization.

  • 1982 Release of Star Wars: A New Hope
  • 1984 Release of Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back
  • 1986 Release of Star Wars: Return of the Jedi
  • 1989-1994 Releases of Star Wars Trilogy (Definitive Collection)
  • 1995 Release of Star Wars Trilogy (THX Enhanced)
  • 2000 Release of Episode I: The Phantom Menace
  • 2001 Release of Episode I: The Phantom Menace
  • 2002 Release of Episode II: Attack of the Clones
  • 2004 Release of Star Wars Trilogy (Box Set and Individual DVD's)
  • 2005 Release of Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
  • 2006 Release of Star Wars Trilogy (Box Set and Individual DVD's)
  • 2011 Release of Star Wars: The Complete Saga

I'd like some feedback, and the exact wording of the section headings may need to be changed but I think this covers just about every public release of each of the movies. The only job left would be to simply fill in the gaps. If a release didn't have changes, I don't think it should be Removed. Instead for completeness of the article it should have a short note explaining why there are no scene changes in this section. Stupendous Man! (talk) 04:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you think this list belongs in an encyclopedia? Until this is settled, debates about article format are beside the point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I sure can, and my initial response is it probably wouldn't be in a traditional encyclopedia.... however, if you are trying to justify/decide the validity of a page on Wikipedia by using a traditional encyclopedia as your reasoning then I think you're missing the point of the Wikipedia. I mean if Kelly Clarkston can have a wiki page, whom I'm pretty sure wouldn't make the cut for Encyclopedia Britannica, then I think the "General Knowledge"(as quoted from the first sentence on Encyclopedia Britannica) on a subject that involving scene changes in a movie is a perfectly valid wiki page. Wikipedia is a collection of knowledge on any and all subjects in which volunteers contribute to expand it's database.Stupendous Man! (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly Clarkston? "In a career spanning almost a decade, Clarkson has sold over 23 million albums and 36 million singles around the world" - still, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And no, Wikipedia isn't a database for trivia (or at least, it isn't supposed to be). I think the most relevant policy here is WP:LISTN: "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Can you point to the reliable sources that have discussed 'changes in Star Wars re-releases' as a group? I'm sure that there will be the occasional source that remarks in passing on an individual change, but which source discusses this as a topic? There is no such source listed in the references... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your points may be valid, such the "reliable sources that have discussed 'changes in Star Wars re-releases' as a group". - In short response to that, I'm sure with the millions upon millions of Star Wars products/paraphernalia/video/comic books sold, that there is most likely a few "Star Wars Community" respected groups that have discussed, analyzed, and come to certain conclusions on this particular topic. I will point out that I don't have that information but it wouldn't surprise me that one if not many exist. - I never used the word "trivia", I believe the word you're looking for is "General Knowledge", which happens to be the exact definition of what an encyclopedia contains. You place bold citations such as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS implying that I fall under the "Keep There's an article on x, and this is just as famous as that." yet I could simply counter with the same citation for your argument accusing you of falling under the "Delete We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this." - I Really hope this article doesn't go down the tubes, I think it HAD good information about a week ago. (may have lacked some cited sources, but that'll happen)Stupendous Man! (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've more or less proved my point. "Star Wars Community" respected groups" may very well have discussed this issue in great detail - but they don't qualify as the sort of reliable sources that Wikipedia requires to establish the degree of notability required. Without this, the article falls outside of the Wikipedia remit. If the "Star Wars Community" thinks this information is of value, they should find a home for it elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:NOTDIRECTORY - "An article about a product should include a history of its development and major improvements. But avoid a complete step-by-step record of every release or update." Information about the revisions to the Star Wars films does belong on Wikipedia - especially as they are notable for being the most revised pieces of work in cinema - but a huge unsourced article listing every minor change is not the best way to present the information. It may be better to expand the articles for the films themselves (eg Star_Wars_Episode_IV:_A_New_Hope) to include a reliably sourced summary of the the main changes. BridgeSpotter (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this page does seem to have been 'hijacked', I wish there was an easy/straightforward way to view the history (if anyone can point it out I'd be grateful) of this entry so as to see the previous version of this page that 'AndyTheGrump' seems to believe is 'un-encyclopaedic'. As it stands now this page isn't the page it claims to be - it's not a list of alterations to the Star Wars movies as they have been released - it's a list of scenes that were deleted from the Star Wars movies. The deleted scene-info was included in the previous version of this page, but the bulk of the information was the relevant data - the list(s) of changes to the Star Wars films upon re-release(s), and as far as 'sources' go - the film-releases themselves are obviously the primary documents. The new version of this wiki-entry sucks imho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.215.106 (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What part of Wikipedia:No original research do you find so hard to understand? Yes, the films are primary sources - and we don't compile articles from research by contributors based on primary sources. End of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By your definition, the revision history for a product has no place on Wikipedia since it's from a "primary source". So let's start butchering the articles for Windows, Mac OS X, and all other pieces of software. Then we can move on to any movie which has ever had an alternate DVD release, and then we can move on to removing all information about the differences between a DVD version and a Blu-Ray version, and then we can move on to any mention whatsoever of the contents of any and all DVDs and Blu-Rays. Before any more edits are made, it seems like we need a discussion of whether product features and film edits should appear on Wikipedia. Feldon23 (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now not a list of alterations to the Star Wars movies as they have been released - it's a list of scenes that were deleted from the Star Wars movies, why is this the case, can someone sort this out or highlight it to someone that can sort it ?? --Fernandosmission (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the page is going to stay a list of deleted scenes, it should be retitled to show as such or deleted. The current title is incredibly misleading. --JohnVMaster (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, AndyTheGrump really has ruined this page since I last viewed it back in late April... I just re-watched the films again and wanted to see if i'd missed anything (saw the re-done original trilogy for the first time) and found that this is now just a list of the deleted scenes from the back of the boxes. The article no longer even makes sense, nice going Andy. Syko Conor (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syko Conor - Agreed. I would also still like to read some rational explanation of why this wiki page has been massacred such as it has in the wake of the Star Wars blu ray release. When one compares the 'before' and 'after' the edits the 'unsourced materials'-argument just doesn't cut it. This article is still nonsensical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.84.34 (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 'rational explanation' is that the 'before' article breached Wikipedia:No original research policy. As it stands, the article almost certainly still does. Wikipedia isn't a movie-fans blog. If you want the topic to be discussed on Wikipedia, find some reliable sources to base the article on - or find some other site for it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AndyTheGrump is currently engaged in Edit Warring of this article. Please post your comments either at his userpage (talk) or at [Edit_warring]. Feldon23 (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How could one edit in the last two months constitute edit warring by any stretch of the imagination? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SIX major reversions in the last 3 months of the same content. You can't tell me that's ok, even if not fitting a rigid definition of edit warring? Feldon23 (talk) 07:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Six major reversions in three months is called editing. freshacconci talktalk 12:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is called editing according to Wikipedia policy. Whereas appearing out of nowhere to make entirely unjustified allegations of vandalism is called being an obnoxious jerk. If you actually think the deleted material meets Wikipedia policy as regards sourcing (it doesn't, as none is given), then raise the matter at the appropriate noticeboard. Normally, I'd suggest that WP:RS/N, but I think you'll have trouble figuring out how to ask whether 'nothing' can be a reliable source. If you think this article is capable of meeting Wikipedia requirements, then fix it - find proper sources for material, and show that it is actually notable, rather than just material better suited to a film-fans' blog. As long as people continue to add unsourced cruft to the article, I will continue to remove it, per policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I point you to your own words where you say the article (even with your edits) is not encyclopedic and should be put up for deletion. You've clearly indicated that you have no interest or knowledge in the subject matter. Those aren't the words of someone wanting to improve an article. You quite literally came out of nowhere and brought a wrecking ball. A response was warranted. Improve, rather than delete. Feldon23 (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes deletion is improvement. You've been told by several editors that AndyTheGrump's edits/actions were acceptable. Move on. freshacconci talktalk 15:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like someone is trying to stick a load of OR into this article. It is perfectly acceptable for Andy to revert the addition. When new content is being added to the article it is the person adding the content that must justify and reach concensus for its inclusion, see WP:BOLD. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:RS 'The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source.' From Wikipedia:No original research 'Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research.' Feldon23 (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change the article name

Since someone decided to eliminate the actual changes list, this articles name is misleading. This should be relabeled deleted scenes. As for research on the changes I suppose one could watch all the movies and then publish a book with the appropriate license and then have it claimed as "reliable research". Many of the changes can be found by locating all the differences and citing to the movies themselves. Saying that all the changes must be published in some other 3rd party 'reliable' publication is asinine when the direct source could be cited itself. If you want confirmation then you can look at the relevant movie cite find the movie version and then find them first hand. According to some individuals interpretations of policy one could not even make a article talking about a act of Congress because some how citing to the act itself would be some form of "original research". Jcforge (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3rd party sources are not 'asinine'; they are a Pillar of the foundation of Wikipedia. A concept that is worth reviewing. DP76764 (Talk) 23:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Jcforge, you may think that Wikipedia insisting on using reliable published sources (which rarely includes self-published books, BTW) rather than original research is 'asinine'. We prefer to call it 'policy' - or if you think my interpretation of policy is incorrect, raise it at the appropriate noticeboard. By the way, I note that yours is yet another largely-inactive account that has appeared out of nowhere. Am I to assume this is yet another coincidence? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Simply just dug up my bookmark for the page and was confused as to where the functional content of the article had gone. Noticed myself several changes and was interested in seeing which ones I caught in the second reworkings of Empire and Jedi. And not being able to source to primary sources is rather asinine. And no, I did not effect the edit adding them all back in. I copied all the info from the old versions and saved it offline. Not about to get into a editing 'war'. Jcforge (talk) 06:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, right. And for the umpteenth time, we don't give a rats arse what you think is 'asinine' - it is Wikipedia policy, arrived at by consensus. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Given the refusal of the supporters of this article to even attempt to justify it according to Wikipedia policy, I can see no reason whatsoever to assume they wish to do so - and on that basis, an AfD discussion will be a formality, given that such matters are decided by policy, rather than by the comments of random 'contributors' appearing from nowhere to repeat the same old non-arguments. I have suggested in the past that those interested in the subject (such as it is) find a home for their research elsewhere. If they would rather continue with this bullshit, and lose the lot, that is their problem. I'm not going to wait around for the next 'coincidental' supporter of this trivial trash, and will be starting the AfD shortly. I suggest that those who wish to oppose this actually think about valid arguments for retention, rather than canvassing for support - this rarely achieves anything beyond making those engaging in such tactics look weak. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AndyTheGrump doesn't want the article here ("I...will be starting the AfD shortly"), and soon enough it won't be. He wants it deleted, considers it unencyclopedic, and thinks anyone with interest in the subject should bugger off back to Star Wars fan sites. He has openly mocked the authors and editors of this article. The fact he describes the article as "trivial trash" and is backed up by other editors means the article will be deleted soon. I can't wait until he starts paying attention to the Doctor Who sections of Wikipedia. Google shows 140,000 results for Doctor Who at en.Wikipedia.org. 140,000 results about a television show! Talk about trivia! It will be a real picnic when Andy brings his wrecking ball there. I did what I could within the confines of the abuse reporting system available here at Wikipedia to stop his vandalism of this article and got shouted down. Feldon23 (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You flatter yourself far too much Andy. Considering your 'edits' are only a few months old you will probably continue to see the same responses and people attempt to return to the list that was here. Even more so whenever there is a marathon on tv or a new starwars product launch. And opinions that you deride so much are the basis of wikipedia policy to begin with. Asserting your opinion as to the nature of the content of the article is equivalent to what comes out of that rats ass. A article about the officially deleted scenes as noted is at the very least a valid article. Jcforge (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making personal attacks on other editors. Argue the content and policy, not the contributors. DP76764 (Talk) 20:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some, sources. I'm sure another intrepid user can elucidate a fair amount of information from these alone.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2011/08/have-changes-to-star-wars-re-releases-gone-too-far.html
http://www.dvdactive.com/editorial/articles/star-wars-the-changes-part-one.html
http://www.dvdactive.com/editorial/articles/star-wars-the-changes-part-two.html
http://www.dvdactive.com/editorial/articles/star-wars-the-changes-part-three.html
http://www.dvdactive.com/editorial/articles/star-wars-the-changes-part-four.html
http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/09/the-star-wars-re-release-much-we-have-to-learn/
http://articles.cnn.com/2004-09-20/entertainment/star.changes_1_jabba-jango-fett-prequel-trilogy?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ Jcforge (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should feel free to add such entries back to the article, and I will back you up with Wikipedia policy:
From Wikipedia:RS 'The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source.'
From Wikipedia:No original research 'Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research.'Feldon23 (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the bulk of the content of the original article has been removed; whether you are for or against that action, it has taken place and now the name of the article does not accurately reflect the current content. I am for changing the article name or returning the prior content that was relevant to the name. CecilyBug (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think there’s anybody here who would disagree—either change the page name to reflect its current status or restore its previous content. But I’m not going to be bold + do that because I feel the page’s future is uncertain. And unfortunately, I think I’m gonna have to side with the deletionists on this one.
When I first saw this page I was excited—like, way too excited.[nerd] I came to the talk page to figure out whussup, though—where’s Han shot first? Where’s the ridiculous CGI of the Death Star exploding? I think an exhaustive list of all the tweaks, through all the years and versions would be fucking awesome. But now that he mentions it, Andy raises a great point—I can’t really find any way to satisfy WP:OR (surely, someone else on the Internet has already compiled this list?) and stand up to RS. Definitely, that list should show up in the external links to some article—but I don’t think can belong on Wikipedia. —Wiki Wikardo 17:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Information about 3D Version

It seems this page has undergone drastic changes since I last visited it. It used to list the different versions of the film and what changes have been made for each. I found an interview here where George Lucas said the following about the 3-D version of Phantom Menace: "the current version is the Blu-ray version. That’s the one that’s been made into 3D. But it’s just a conversion. We haven’t made any changes other than the 3D." Unfortunately with the new page being changed to a list of "deleted scenes", I'm not sure how I'm supposed to add that information. So I'm putting it here so that someone else can put it on. -Thunderforge (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What now?

This article is but a shadow of its former self, and understandably so (WP:OR etc), but something now needs to happen to this page, as it no longer serves the purpose it used to. --Tærkast (Discuss) 13:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a joke

It doesn't even mention Greedo, the most famous changed scene in the entire franchise. It also doesn't mention Jabba the Hutt getting changed 3 times, the ending of Return of the Jedi getting changed 4 times.

I get it, it said partial list in the first paragraph, but these are like...the most glaring changes that were made to Star Wars.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Changes_in_Star_Wars_re-releases&oldid=507288061"