Talk:Technology in Star Wars

Mention of lightsaber without any source of laser technology

Is it a good idea to mention lightsaber's without any sources for laser technology? Also note there is discussion of it in Physics and Star Wars which has sources I believe. I'm not against inducing mention of lightsaber's, but the section was meant to be on laser technology in general and perhaps include mention of lightsaber-all with sources.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Empty sections

All the empty sections I have created have a large number of online results for sources. It just needs to be added. Iĺl do it when I have more time. You can add them yourself if you wish to otherwise I´ll do it when I have more time.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Lightsabers

Any mention (and technical specifications that should go with it) of lightsabers should go under the laser section of the article. May want to see Physics and Star Wars as a guidance or just add info on lightsabers to that article instead.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Forcefields

Please do not remove the content from the forcefields section just because it's incomplete as I plan on expanding on it later.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 03:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm still in the process of editing the section on force fields. It's not uncited, I've got the sources, I just need to add them, so don't remove.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 05:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Corrections and copyedit

This article suffers from a lot of repetition and redundancy. There are also many cases where the word "however" is used as a pause, rather than to show any actual contrast (though this problem is endemic to Wikipedia). There are grammar mistakes such as "Prosthetics was" instead of "Prosthetics were". Several citations did not include a date reference.
I started to try and fix some of these problems but my edit was reverted which happens. What surprised me was User:Nadirali described the revert as being due to unsourced and undiscussed POVs and it is not at all clear to me what was meant by that. It is not clear to me what part of my edit might be considered opinion or point of view. My intent was to tidy and copyedit, not in any way to change the substance of the article but to improve readability. I made my edits in good faith but no good faith efforts were made to keep any of it, not even the addition of proper dates in the citations. This is very disappointing.
User:Nadirali has made several unusual reverts to the BB-8 article, which is being discussed (Talk:BB-8). I may try again to fix this article if the other discussion becomes any clearer. I might not have time, so I'm writing this note to encourage other editors to try reading this article out loud, and then consider ways to improve the article. -- 109.79.102.243 (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

No offense meant to Nadirali, but he/she is a relatively new editor and hasn't totally gotten the hang of this yet. But he is open to advice and constructive criticism. He probably did not look at all your edits before reverting, most of what I saw was great, like removing contractions ("do not" instead of "don't"). Also, Nadirali created the article, so there could be some newbie ownership stuff there. Anyway, I encourage you to do some cleanup again now that Nadirali has done further rewrites, and maybe in smaller edits (by section?) to avoid any kind of mass revert. I'm not really watching or editing this article at the moment, I'd like it to settle down a bit before I consider contributing. Thanks! — TAnthony^Talk 01:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The pattern of complaints and warnings User_talk:Nadirali are not encouraging. It does seem very much like a case of ownership but I am still disappointed by the lack of any good faith effort to retain any small part of an edit I thought was entirely uncontroversial (not even the indentation and pretty printing of the wikisource, who could object to that?). I cannot spend even more time on this without some small show of good faith first.

One of the other problems I tried to fix was the statement that ~Empire was the 2nd film, and 5th in the chronology~ a massively unnecessary detail. I see User:Postdlf added the detail to specify that it was the 2nd film but the important point is that saying what order number it was should not even have been mentioned at all. It is not a detail that should need to be explained in every Star Wars article. It is far simpler to say ~Prosthetics were first seen in Empire~ and avoid the order number entirely.

This is a time where the article is trying to be too specific, and adding a lot of redundancy. There are also times where the article is far too vague, using phrases such as recent or currently that are better avoided in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia. See WP:TIME and WP:NOTNEWS.

The content has potential but the prose and style need substantial work for this to article to approach a rating of C Class. -- 109.79.83.120 (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I've made a few smaller edits, with longer explanations. The edits are small so it should not be difficult to revert just one edit without reverting them all. -- 109.79.66.123 (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@TAnthony: LOL I'm not a new user. I've been here for many years and re-joined Wikipedia last year. In my total time here, I've created over thirty pages. The reverts I made were mostly what this IP user pointed out. I did not have the energy to manually undo some his undesired removal of relevant details, so I had to automatically remove them which may have resulted in removing other more constructive edits. Not defined as WP:OWN. The detail of Episode V being the fifth film in the saga being removed is hardly constructive. Just because older fans are familiar with it, doesn't mean everyone is. And given that Episode five has been stripped off it's official title (that is Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back) on Wikipedia, I think newer fans and readers about Star Wars who are less familiar with the saga are prone to confusion. That is not what Wikipedia should be for. Let's focus on improving the article instead of removing relevant details, and that goes particularly to you our IP friend.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You have many warnings on your talk page, you got it wrong on the BB-8 article, you seem to get it wrong a lot, and yet you continue to assert that you are correct. You make some very odd English mistakes, maybe it isn't your first language but either way it shouldn't have taken this much edit for you to accept the grammar correction. You admit to being lazy "I did not have the energy to manually undo" and you haven't shown much good faith with your large reverts and little attempt to at least take the edits as a suggestion and improve the text in your own way. You continue to assert that you are correct and remove my edits with almost no explanation, acting as if you own the page. It doesn't need to be me but you should get a native English speaker to copyedit the page when you think you are nearly finished expanding the content.

You continue to assert that I removed "relevant details" but if you read the introduction out loud it is very obvious that the sentences are verbose and repetitive. I'd appreciate a third opinion to look at my edit of the introduction and tell me if they think I removed any relevant details. You still don't seem to see the problem with including time phrases (today, modern times, current, recent, etc).

You have some very strange ideas about what details are necessary and what details are not. You chose not to introduce the article by properly explaining that Star Wars is a film, but think it is important to say it is a blockbuster, and you think it is worth verbosely explaining in tedious detail that Empire is 5th but 2nd. You need to think about the readers, and what they might or might not know already about Star Wars when they read this page. If you really believe so much detail is needed, you do need start by saying it is a film, a "blockbuster space opera film" if you must. I still think it is irrelevant and hyperbole to say it is a blockbuster in this context.

Certainly not. The fact that you want to mention only one films of the saga (A New Hope) as being "Star Wars" and don't seem to know that other films don't exist or don't exhibit these technologies demonstrates your ignorance in the subject, which will only do more damage to the article than good. The warnings on my talk page are ages old and have no relevance to this article. The fact that you continue to add factually incorrect edits such as SW being a single film as opposed to a series of films shows me that you are not capable of adding anything truthful to this article. If you don't want your others edits to be reverted, don't use them to bury your incorrect edits, or else you will be reverted again. Users such as TAnthony have made a number of useful contributions without being reverted, but since you do not wish to do the same you want to misuse WP:OWN to bypass factual information and insert your own unsourced POV. Sorry, but on Wikipedia that is just not acceptable.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Try not to be so obviously lazy, instead try to include the suggestions of others, and not just reverting with such vague edit summaries. Try reading WP:GOODFAITH again. I hope you can at least understand the article needs a lot of work and you need to let others help improve it, even if you are going to reject my edits again. -- 109.79.66.123 (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Lazy? I added more than 90% of content to the article without anyone's help, even if it took me over a year. I call laziness removing factual info. And just because I reverted you, does not mean I reject help from anyone. Stop this dishonesty. Going through the history of article, you'll find lots of users (especially TAnthony) making edits without ever getting reverted. Keep your edits constructive otherwise stop all together. Failing to abide by Wiki standards will get you reverted and more warnings on your talk page. Good night.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Use of them term blockbuster

I used it in the intro because Star Wars is indeed a high grossing film franchise, not because I want to give it a positive image. It is a fact that this film series is one of the highest grossing at the box office, so I think it should stay there. But let's not get focused on this too much. See my comments in the previous thread and stick with that for now; especially you IP user. See also WP:DISRUPTION--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

See above. It is a film, a blockbuster film, or if you must, "a blockbuster space opera film" but the important descriptive word is film. -- 109.79.66.123 (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• No it is not "a film". Star Wars is a franchise consisting of multiple films. The fact that you seem to be unaware of this shows me that you have little or no knowledge in the subject and are best advised to read up on it before editing it again. Please stop this.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Possible quotes to use?

I found this quote to be interesting "Star Wars is also very much concerned with the tension between humanity and technology, an issue which, for me, dates back even to my first films. In Jedi, the theme remained the same, as the simplest of natural forces brought down the seemingly invincible weapons of the evil Empire."

I think we can cut out the reference to Return of the Jedi, but stick with the reference to the technology and add it to the intro of the article.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I decided to add it. If anyone has an objection, bring it up here.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

To do list

@TAnthony: Amongst the things we need to clear up here are:

• The overuse of the word "however" as you pointed out
• Additional citations for verification
• I was unaware that book sources have a specific way of being cited including their ISPNs. I was citing Star Wars Technical Journal by Shane Johnson as a source by the time I realized this. To make it easier, I created a bibliography section with the book including it's ISPN number. Over a long time span, I think the book citations can be re-titled in the encyclopedic standard. Note that I have done the same for Physics and Star Wars (which I will request you to review once I'm done fixing it over the span of the next few weeks) so when anyone looking to correct the book citations can check the bibliography section.
• Expansion of sections requiring expansion and tagged for it
• Creating empty sections- which I am in no shape to do at the moment
• Creating any new subtopics that require creation
• Adding any new relevant info, but avoiding any picky issues such as the titling of the films, which I have shortened when they are mentioned more than once.

I'm done editing this article for the time being aside from some possible minor changes. I've had enough of it as it is and will be busy with other Star Wars pages, so you can consider it "settled" and are welcomed to improve it as much as possible, but perhaps discuss any questionable changes (which I doubt will occur).

You might want to contact our IP friend to help out. He's made a series of useful edits, but wants to be cautioned not to make the mistakes of removing relevant information. If you have any questions and/or comments, just message me. Happy editing!--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Potentially useful reference

FYI: http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2015/12/14/droids-and-the-force-how-the-technology-in-star-wars-is-actually-real/ --EEMIV (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Article feedback

I've skimmed through this article and have a few observations regarding content and sourcing. I'm going to add a couple of cleanup tags -- copyediting and needing help with sources -- indicating as such, and perhaps that will draw the attention of other editors outside Star Wars wikidom who sometimes help with these types of things.

• Copyediting: Although written well enough for The Financial Express to copy-and-paste large portions, this article just needs a good copyedit. I changed one awkward sentence, but I see awkward comma use, wordiness, etc.

• Original research: a few of the uncited assertions about Star Wars content read like generalizations stemming from isolated if consistent examples in the text. An example of OR is the assertion that "not all types [of missiles] may have a real-life equivalent." Per WP:WAF and WP:OR, we don't state our own inferences as facts about a fictional world; we need third-party substantiation.

• "Exhaustion": Many of these sections reads as if they're trying to provide an exhaustive, all-encompassing list of details and examples of that type of tech. in SW. Wikipedia is not meant to be exhaustive in its coverage, merely compelling and sufficient for a general-interest audience. The presence of different types of explosives in Star Wars can be sufficiently asserted in a single sentence ("Characters use a variety of explosives in the Star Wars films and other content.") and does not need the three paragraphs enumerating granular details about each explosive used in three different films. That level of detail is more useful and appropriate at Wookieepedia. More broadly, it appears this entire article is attempting to offer an exhaustive list (see next items) of technology in Star Wars, and that's both a) a fruitless task and b) inconsistent with what Wikipedia is (not).

• Article or list?: Other than Lawrence Kasdan's quote in the lede, I don't see any citation to sources addressing Technology in Star Wars as a whole. In the absence of overall cohesion, I wonder if instead this would be more appropriately moved to List of technologies in Star Wars, where we can bullet-point elements of fiction. (An aside about the Kasdan quote: at some point, it should leave the lede; generally, we don't have verbatim quotes or footnoted content in the lede section.) For better or for worse, Lists of... also tend to be a bit more for forgiven/forgiving when it comes to in-universe plot detail balanced against real-world origin and impact.

• Article or list, part 2: The above said, there probably is a good article about Technology in Star Wars to be had. The current structure a) enumerates a piece of technology in Star Wars and then b) appends whatever articles in can find that mention Star Wars in connection with a real-life use or inspiration. But I suspect somewhere there are thoughtful reflections and insights into e.g. Does the absence of writing utensils in Star Wars mean all the characters are functionally illiterate? Is it possible the humans in Star Wars evolved with integrated technology that allows characters to use the Force (a theory NadirAli and I have read about in The Science of Star Wars)? How has the depiction of technology -- whether it's lasers or cybernetics or cryofreezing -- inspired scientists or engineers into their fields to make their own notable contributions? Besides the "used universe," what deliberate production decisions to Lucas and Abrams make in depicting characters' interactions with technology in the films? In other words, this titular subject might be better approached in terms of themes and real-world impact rather than in terms of components and devices.

• Mis-reading of sources; sources don't back up claims: the laser section asserts that the Air Force is developing "laser cannons [that] use the same concept of ion-based technology as seen in Star Wars." I checked both citations attached to this claim, and neither makes any claim like this at all. In fact, the only reference to Star Wars are in both articles' headlines; neither draws a parallel to Star Wars in the article, and even the "Star Wars" in the headline could have been replaced with "Star Trek" or "Buck Rogers" or "sci-fi". The Mashable article doesn't even mention ions. I did not check any other citations in the article, but I'm concerned about others similarly having (at best) a tenuous connection to the claim they apparently substantiate. Probably both of those citations should be deleted and replaced with a tag. (Go figure, one of the citations was broken and instead I found a mirror to make it accessible.)

• Images: I challenge the appropriateness of the picture of the concussion missile (a copyrighted image from an Essential Guide) and the image of Luke next to the vaporator (from a cut scene), specifically regarding non-free content criterion 8, significance to article. Their inclusion does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and [their] omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I think the picture of the prosthetic is okay because there is specific, meaningful discussion about how its appearance is beyond what our own prosthetics can provide.

Three changes I went ahead and did:

• I removed a reference to Wookieepedia, which under no circumstance should Wikipedia ever site as a source due to its status as a self-published fan site.
• I fixed a broken citation: the link wasn't working, but I found another article with the same headline (perhaps a mirror) and dropped that in instead.
• The very first clause -- "The space opera blockbuster Star Wars" -- reads as effusive about the topic's source material and doesn't read as encyclopedic; "The Star Wars franchise" would be a more neutral expression, for example, and consistent with how other Star Wars-related articles generally describe the franchise. Additionally, "blockbuster" is inapt because that's a term almost entirely having to do with films, and the franchise has lots of content wasn't blockbustery (TV shows and comic books, for example).

I'm disinclined to try to jump into doing significant work on this article, but again I hope the maintenance tags draw some additional attention. Perhaps the primary editors could raise a flag for additional input at the wikiproject page. --EEMIV (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)