Jump to content

Talk:Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2


Direct Digital Transfer

I believe Attack of the Clones is the first live-action direct digital transfer DVD, or at least the first mainstream major Hollywood film to have one. (Though I'm not certain.) Should the article include some mention of this? For that matter, I'm surprised that Wikipedia doesn't have an article about direct digital transfer (otherwise know as digital to digital transfer, or all digital transfer). If there is an article or stub started, it should include a list of firsts (A Bug's Life was the first ever direct digital DVD (as well as CGI), Disney's Tarzan was the first drawn animated feature, and Attack of the Clones was the first live-action.) Not to elaborate too much on an article that doesn't yet exist, but such an article should have a description of benefits, history, a list of films if it's not unmanageable in length, as well as notes such as films being redone with direct digital transfers (Pocahontas and The Iron Giant come to mind.). I'd start the article if I were a member, but I'm not so I won't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.119.221 (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Biological point.

Just a quick one; because all the 'clones' came from the same genetic source, they should be refured to as clone (no plural). I'll change this (not in the title, just when they are talked about in context!). MHDIV ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d(Suggestion?|wanna chat?) 17:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes but were talking about more then one clone, so clone would have us assume there is only one clone, not thousands.--Jakezing (talk) 03:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal (Attack of the Clones: The Visual Dictionary)

The article Attack of the Clones: The Visual Dictionary has recently survived an AfD via a lack of consensus. I had argued in this AfD discussion that the article be merged into Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones. I recapitulate my input below in support of the proposal to merge:

Merge → Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones. This book is insufficiently notable for a stand-alone article, but is certainly verifiable and is part of the media storm around the film. I have added a reference to a book review so that the content has at least one reliable source associated with it. Considering the guidelines for book notability, specifically the five criteria, this book satisfies none of those five criteria (I will not reiterate them here to conserve space). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 09:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

  • One of the primary reasons this was demoted from FA is because of the references. They are not reliable enough – especially IMDB, and the fan sites. This needs to be resolved.
  • "Also, Scholastic published a tie-in junior novel to the movie." – A lone paragraph. This should be merged with something or discarded.
  • "The soundtrack to the film was released on April 23, 2002 by Sony Classical. " – completely unreferenced paragraph
  • There are "citation needed" tags.
  • " Production" section is a monster. Perhaps it can be cut down to different sections?
  • "Star Wars Portal" box should go in "See also" section

Gary King (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Link the dates in the references, if dates are going to be linked in this article.

Gary King (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Anything else? igordebraga ≠ 15:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This article now meets the Good Article criteria and has therefore been passed. Gary King (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Other adaptations?

I'm finding that this article does nothing to discuss the video game adaptations of it, and I think doing so would be very important. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Image caption

I propose that it be changed to: "Ewan McGregor (left) as Obi-Wan Kenobi and Hayden Christensen (right) as Anakin Skywalker in Attack of the Clones. - PM800 (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You may do that. Jhenderson777 (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Reception

Shouldn`t reviews of random people on the web be mentioned aswell, and also all the positive reactions the movie goy. Some people complimented the acting and also the love story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.45.84.114 (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a very good idea, to be honest. But you can still give it a try. - PM800 (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Well Youtube personas like James Rofle have already been mentioned in some acrticles, and I am realy active ion Youtube and know al the reviews and am also gonna do a very postive one myself. What is your opinion on this movie??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.45.85.218 (talk) 11:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah more people like Jamess sjhould be mentioned. I think the movie was a perfect masterpiece and I realy liked every aspect of it, I am also gonna do a defence review for it and counter all criticisms. Also I`dlove to see your review, could you tell me when it comes out, my Youtube account name is reviewreviewer1.

Random people's reviews on YouTube do not merit mention as they are not notable nor reliable. DP76764 (Talk) 15:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well they are notable cause they give inside on the general audiences opinion. Also even among rotten tomatoes usersthere area many people that liked the acting and dalogue, esicialy Ewan Mcgreacor`s performance.

Read WP:Youtube. − Jhenderson 777 23:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

  • What he said. That is, random comments do not an encyclopedia make. I'd also encourage the use of a spelling/grammer checker before you edit an article. ¬¬¬¬

Is it also oke if I edited the summaration, there are a lot of vague and no defying sentences in it. No offence, I have just seen the movie more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.128.72.45 (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the summary is at a good length right now - not too long or too short. Besides, I think the article would be better off without your frequent spelling and grammar mistakes. Sorry. - PM800 (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The summaration lacked important plotelements, also if my spelling is bad, would you like to hlp me correct it?? Also the reception article is too one dimensional, and gices a wrong impression. All the [raise the movie got was also for story and caractdevelopment, acting and dialogue, that needs to be shown. If not the negative responses shouldn`t be shown either. Also the reception part is rather short for mos articles, so iss the sumaration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.128.72.45 (talk) 02:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Why did you change it back?? People here said it was oke, and I have worked many times on Wiki beefore, I am just adding stuff??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.128.72.45 (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

What did I do wrong??? I just added more information, to make the article more informative, I didn`t remove anyting, nor made propoganda, so what is the problem, may I ask???

Partly because you can barely type coherently, partly because what you do type reads like opinion. HalfShadow 03:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I will try to correct the spelling, but I don`t ad opinions, I mention other peoples opinions, isn`t that part of the reception article??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.128.72.45 (talk) 03:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I corrected ALL THE SPELLING I hope, you will leave it this way now, is that oke??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.128.72.45 (talk) 03:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That last revision was your worst revision yet. You deleted every reference from the section. - PM800 (talk) 03:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I made my own account now, but I am new at this so if I deleted references could you tell me how to restore those??? I am very sorry about that, all I wanted to do was add information, my humble apologies. Would it be oke to restore the references without removing the added information??? Reviewreviewer1 (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You're new at this? Gee, that's surprising. An hour ago, you claimed to have worked on Wikipedia "many times beefore." - PM800 (talk) 03:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes on the Dutch versions, also with help, I am good in making articles, but ber bad with links and spelling, but is it oke to rvive my version with th infomation, but restore tthe links?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reviewreviewer1 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

So your first language isn't English... ok, that was obvious. I'm just wondering why you would edit the English version if you aren't even fluent in the language. It nearly got your IP address banned, you know.
Oh well. Here you go, dude: Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia. - PM800 (talk) 04:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Well luckily it was all just a misunderstanding, I restored all the links and I also corrected all the spelling mistakes, I unfortunately forgot to sign, but could the changes stay up now please???? - Reviewreviewer1

I did not add any opinions only information about te movie`s reception, what an reception part is for isn`t it??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reviewreviewer1 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I just added information, about general opinions, not specific articles, so what sources do I lack. Also I got permision to do this. It seems asthough you just want people to think none likeed the acting, that is misleading!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reviewreviewer1 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Oke I restored the links and checked the spelling, I made sure all I said was objective and added to the article, socan it stsy up now???? It is information about online reviews, they are no sources for that except te reiews themselves. Reviewreviewer1 (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Still adding stuff without references. You got a 12-hour block for doing this yesterday, so it's probably not a good idea to continue doing it. - PM800 (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I am doing nothig wrong, additions are often made withou references, and there are no sources for online reviews you no thsat!! Don`t just remove my addiditions for no reasion. Reviewreviewer1 (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Also if you keep vandalising this pade, I will request you are blocked. Reviewreviewer1 (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Oke why is this vandalism, I added information, WITH SOURCES, and restored all links and corrcted the spelling. The information is objective so I`d like to know what the problems is??? Reviewreviewer1 (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You have already been told multiple times that YouTube videos are not references. - PM800 (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

then why are there articles about Redlettermeia and James Rofle, and why are they mentioned on movie pages like Rocky Balboa, oh and why did you say earlier that I coul give it a try, yeah you said that, so what happened??? Reviewreviewer1 (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Just because you see it on other articles doesn't mean it's acceptable here. YouTube is most often not a reliable source to cite. DP76764 (Talk) 22:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I did say that you could "give it a try." And you did try. But apparently, your multiple tries just didn't work out too well. Sorry. Also, I guess this means that the IP address 62.45.84.114 is you, as well. Doesn't surprise me. - PM800 (talk) 23:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, what isn`t good about it. I corrected the spelling, restored th links, the iformation is objective a multisided and qualatif, and I added sources. Unless you have valid objections I would like too ask you to stop removing the information. I m gonna restore the information add even more information, and don`t orry add wy more sources, but I would like you all to leave it intac or bring up valid objecions. Thank you. Reviewreviewer1 (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

So I added more links to both Youtube and other online reviews, unless you have valid objections, I would apreciate it if you di not remove the changes. Reviewreviewer1 (talk) 23:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Oke if there is something wrong with the links, I won`t restore those, but I will restore, the information, is that oke???? Reviewreviewer1 (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not vandalisibngh, I am just adding objective information. Reviewreviewer1 (talk) 00:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do you keep removing it, it is valid, constructive, objective information from oficial sites, with links. For some reason you removed the links, even though Star Wars material is open for free use. But have demonstrated the information supports the page and i only constrctive, so Iwarn you to stop removing it, cause that constitues vandalism. Reviewreviewer1 (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

One again, adding constructive and objective information is not vandalism. Stop falsl acusing me, that is lying!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reviewreviewer1 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

STOP VANDALISING THIS PAGE, AND REMOVING MY ADDITIONS FOR NO REASON, THAT IS BULLYING11!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reviewreviewer1 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

My edoits are both objective and cionstructve, based on officialreviews I even provided the links too. If anyone has a valid objection post it, don`t just reverse it for no reson, Thanks for your time!!Reviewreviewer1 (talk) 11:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, you have not supplied any additional references from reliable sources to support the statements that you have added.SCΛRECROW 11:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

3 refrences too different reviews actualy.Reviewreviewer1 (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Where are the links/references to these reviews? SCΛRECROW 12:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

What I added 3 sources right??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reviewreviewer1 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

No you did not. You just mentioned the references instead of citing them. Please read this to learn how to cite references.SCΛRECROW 12:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Oke may I ask some help in citing sources, I have a bit of a problem with the guilines, is that oke??????? 62.45.85.46 (talk) 05:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Star Wars 3D

I heard from my brother Mark that after he releases Episode I 3D in theaters this year that he is not going to release Episode II-IV 3D is this true or false?

mcdaid72000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcdaid72000 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Need more images of the clones

This movie is about the clones who were created on Camino yet we see only one image of them. We should add images of the clones being created and trained on camino from the movie.-Taeyebaar (talk) 05:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Genre classification

There is a discussion in progress concerning the "epic space opera" label being used throughout the Star Wars film articles. Both epic and space opera are being questioned in the lead. Please voice your opinion on the matter at: Talk:Star Wars (film)#Epic sf war film. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 17 February 2016

FYI: This article has been included in a related move request - please see Talk:Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace#Requested move 17 February 2016. --Fru1tbat (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Wars:_Episode_II_–_Attack_of_the_Clones/Archive_2&oldid=1248836400"