Talk:Star Wars (film)/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

GA Passing

Honestly I can't think of anything wrong with it, but for aesthetic reasons maybe get a picture of Luke to counter the picture of Vader in the plot summary, but that's minor, good work everyone

(The Bread 06:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC))

Ford vs. Fisher

Currently I have a sentence that connects Fisher with the quote and citation of video evidence from a film documentary. If the sentence is changed, even if a number of sites report the person as Ford, it will conflict with the current citation. Another citation from a random Star Wars fan site would be inferior to the current citation. However, if a number of sites report this and their sources are provided, than the sentence could be changed to something akin to "Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher". The Filmaker 19:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The mention in the article does not specifically cite Empire of Dreams, and Fisher was likely paraphrasing Ford, since Ford's original quote was "You can type this shit, George, but you sure can't say it", which was never filmed, as far as I know. However, the fact of the matter is that it is a Ford quote originally, as I have a more trusted citation than a fan site to back it up. See [1] for starters, and then [2], [3], [4], [5] as well. There's also a reference in Skywalking, but I don't have a copy handy at the moment. Most of those pre-date Empire of Dreams. I will be changing it to the full Ford version as well. TheRealFennShysa 20:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


The information on the changes made to the DVD version of the film is noted in the DVD section already and the information and references that you are deleting pertain more to the Special Edition version, than the DVD. Specifically, the "Han Shot First" note is toward the Special Edition version as Greedo actually shoots first. However, in the DVD version, they simply trade fire. As a note for the future, it is not customary to simply delete information and references and ask for it to be moved to another section. Either you can do it yourself or request in the talk page of the article. The Filmaker 03:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The bits I remove refer to the DVD changes, as evidenced by the references placed next to them. Ossara 18:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  • The overall topic of wherever the references link to does not decide the topic of the sentence or paragraph it is citing. A reference could quite possibly refer to a review on an entirely different movie, however the review could make reference to this film as well. If a review for Batman Begins makes reference to The Matrix than that review can be used as a citation for The Matrix article, whatever the topic of the sentence or paragraph might be. The backlash on the changes began with the Special Edition, not the DVD release. The T-shirts are in reference to a dislike for the changes in the Special Edition, the fact that they were released at the same time as the DVDs is trivial. Finally, please read my statements more carefully, I'll ask you again to please not delete the info or refs until this issue is settled. And by settled I mean that we are both in agreement, not that you have responded to this message and assuming it is settled. The Filmaker 21:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • P.S. I'll ask you once more to, in the future, not simply delete info and refs and ask for other users to move them. It would make much more sense for you to do it yourself or to simply request a user to do so in this talk page. The Filmaker 21:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Those references make the matter confusing, as they suggest that the DVD versions are the same as the Special Edition. Ossara 01:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I do not find the references confusing, and I prefer the version that Filmaker has been reverting to. Please stop removing the information. MikeWazowski 04:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you, Mike. Ossara, please assume good faith I did not say that this was my article, nor did I intend to imply that it was. My previous requests were to steer the article away from an all out edit war. And since all of the users that have worked on the article before me have agreed with the references, I think that you should give my version the benefit of the doubt till we resolve this. The reference for the sentence on the changes to the films has information on both the DVD changes and the Special Edition changes, you cannot tell me that I can only have a reference that has information on one. The reference for the Han Shot First, is for confirmation of the Han Shot First T-shirts not on whether or not they have anything to do with the Special Edition. If they were references for the DVDs in any way, than it would not make any sense as Han does not shoot first in the DVD versions. Finally, please read my messages or at least give me some indication that you are. Do not simply delete info and ask people to move it, either move it yourself, or ask us to do so in here. But please do not delete the info and refs again until we settle this. The Filmaker 04:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ossara. When I clicked on the reference and saw the DVD changes I was like, "WTF?!" And the reference to the T-shirt is just ridiculous; there has been a lot of reaction against Greedo shooting first more important than that, like for example a Kevins Smith picture ("Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back", I think). Bad Night 07:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Please, for the fifth time, stop deleting references and info without giving us a chance to respond to your messages. At Wikipedia we try arrive at consensus, rather than constantly reverting each other. I'd like for either you or Ossara to explain to me, what is so confusing about a reference that links to a page that is clearly about both the changes with the Special Edition version and the DVD version. References in films such as "Jay and Silent Bob" are not notable as they are frequent, the same goes for television. The T-shirts are notable as it gives an example of the backlash to the change made to the Special Edition version. It is also an example of one of the few times that Lucasfilm has acknowledged the backlash. The Filmaker 15:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It is also an example of the popular phrase among fans of the series Han Shot First which in fact has it's own article. It's notable. The Filmaker 15:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That is what makes the reference bizarre: that it is not solely about the Special Edition. As it is ultimately about the DVD version (please at least read the article) it should go in the DVD section. As for the T-Shirts, I've heard no one talking about them, whereas the reference made by Kevin Smith did get a reaction. Bad Night 23:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  • You cannot logically tell me that I cannot have the reference there because it is not solely focused on the Special Edition version. I contest the idea that it is ultimately about the DVD version. While I have not taken the time to check, my educated guess would be that there are more changes between the original and special edition versions, than the special edition and dvd versions. If your argument is that it links to a site that deals specifically with DVDs, than once again I doubt you can logically tell me why the information provided by the source is inferior to that of another site. The Filmaker 00:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • If you wish, I will provide another source for the Han Shot First T-shirts, however I doubt that you can provide a citation for this supposed reaction "Jay and Silent Bob". The Filmaker 00:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The reference is about the DVD, while the section is SOLELY about the Special Edition. End of story. Bad Night 06:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  • No. Not end of story. The reference is not SOLELY about the DVD. If I had a review of Batman Begins which had an entire paragraph on the cinematic influence of the original Batman film, I can't have the review inside the article for the original Batman film? How does this make sense? The Filmaker 14:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The references must be clear, not have bits of this and bits of that... Bad Night 03:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me as if the dvdactive article referenced is showing what changed from the original to the Special Edition, and also what changed for the DVD edition. These two aspects are complementary; it's not really as if the author is setting up one point only to prove it false later. The apparent intent is to do a comparison of all three, so the page is fine as a reference for either what changed in the Special Edition or the DVD. It is perfectly valid to take "bits and pieces" from various sources as long they're in context. And the overall thrust of the editorial is that there were lots of changes for both the Special Edition and the DVD, so the point is not being misrepresented (if someone asserts "A and B", you can logically say that they asserted "A"). The basic structure of the cited article is basically: Here a scene in the original film; here's how it appears in the Special Edition; and here's how it appears in the DVD. It seems like a straightforward organization to me. The thing I'm not entirely sure about is the assertion that "most" of the changes were "minor" or "cosmetic". That is one thing that the article doesn't seem to support (at least not explicitly). The asserts that "some" of the changes were subtle, others not so subtle". And that statement applies to the whole trilogy, not just Episode IV.
As for the T-shirt reference, a secondary source would be nice and would bolster the claim. — TKD::Talk 04:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to clear up any misconceptions in reference to The Filmaker's edit summary. Even though I'm an admin, that just means that I have access to extra cleanup tools. As an editor, I'm just an extra opinoin. In a dispute, any set of fresh eyes can be helpful, admin or not. Wikipedia works by consensus and civil discussion. In certain cases (WP:AFD, etc.), admins are entrusted to gauge consensus, but when we become involved in a run-of-the-mill talk-page debate (as here), there's nothing inherently special about being an admin. Admins are expected to know and be able to apply relevant policies and guidelines, but even then it's certainlu possible to find two admins who disagree in good faith.
Having said all that (I just wanted to clear up that admins don't speak ex cathedra), I do stand by my position that the reference is being appropriately, at least for the fan backlash regarding the Special Edition. It's the general statement before that which concerns me more. — TKD::Talk 07:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Of course, that's why I asked you here. Because you are an admin you are expected understand the fine details of references and would be more likely a better judge than any of us of whether the citation is acceptable or not. The Filmaker 14:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


If you think that this article is ready to be nominated for Featured Article status, sign your username and the date (just use four tildes) in the following subsection.KdogDS 20:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Users who think that Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope is ready for FA status

  • KdogDS 20:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Users who do not think that Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope is ready for FA status

  • I was the prime editor in the nominations of the prequel trilogy films and am the one working on the article currently for FAC, the article still needs a copyedit or two. My first copyeditor is using a program to edit, meaning that he will use one edit to copyedit the entire article. He was having some computer problems that have since been resolved and the copyedit will be done shortly. After that if User:Deckiller has the time, I'm hoping he will copyedit it as well. The last FAC received some major criticism for the prose problems, therefore the article shouldn't be resubmitted until they have been corrected. The Filmaker 22:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • What prose problems? KdogDS 22:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      • If I knew that, than I'd fix them myself. If you look at the previous nomination, you'll see that every single objection lists prose problems as at least one of the reasons. Very few of them listed exact sentences or paragraphs that needed to be rewritten. The article's prose hasn't changed much since the last nomination which is why we are waiting on the copyedits. The Filmaker 00:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
        • The prose has the same format and structure as the prequel trilogy articles, which are featured. So personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with the prose. KdogDS 01:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
          • It doesn't have anything to do with the format or the structure, the problem is within the prose itself. Grammar, spelling and flow. The Filmaker 03:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I toyed around iwth it a bit, but the prose needs work (the section below cast starts with a sentence that would be considered BS even in an essay).Did the other copyeditor ever try his luck on the article? If not, I'll set some time aside in a bit and continue working on it. — Deckiller 03:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I've fired off a message to him to give me an update. If he doesn't answer by Monday (and I doubt that he won't, he's pretty reliable), I'll let you know and you can begin your work. The Filmaker 03:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Bummer; I was getting into it ^_^ — Deckiller 03:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Okay, Deckiller can copyedit the article now, than I'll submit it for FAC. While it's up for FAC, my original copyeditor might come in and take a look as well. The Filmaker 00:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I do not think that an article can or should be a FA when it includes breach-of-copyright images, specifically the screenshots from the film. It is no excuse to say "there are no copyright-free images available" - if there are no free images, then do not use images. Wikipedia is not above the law of copyright, and making a breaching article a FA will merely encourage more breaches. Darcyj 09:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Alright, well in case you didn't notice, the article is already an FA. So obviously a number of users disagree with you. Second of all, free images are not required in the FA criteria. Third, the images used in the article are fair-use images and do not violate any law of copyright per WP:FU. The Filmaker 12:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I wonder if Lucasfilm would agree with you there. Darcyj 11:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Um, they would agree with me that it doesn't violate any copyright law per WP:FU. The question is whether they agree with Wikipedia's policy on fair use itself. This is not the place for that discussion. Try the talk page for WP:FU. The Filmaker 11:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

No Trivia?

How come none of the Star Wars movies don't have a trivia section, while most of the other movie pages do? Can I add a trivia section without causing an incident? (lol) Rewt241

An FA or GA article is made of flowing prose rather than a bulleted trivia section, the trivia is right in the article if it needs to be in there. So if you added a trivia section, you would probably get reverted. Darthgriz98 18:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, per WP:AVTRIV trivia sections are avoided as not only are bulleted lists, but they often times contain useless non-notable info that cannot be cited by a suitable source. If the information is notable enough, it can be merged into the other sections. You will notice that there are not any featured film articles that have trivia sections. So yes, if you attempt to create a trivia section you will most likely be reverted. :) The Filmaker 19:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've read WP:AVTRIV, but do not understand the reasoning behind it. I understand that trivia sections are not in good style, however, there is no painless way to merge them into the main article. Even if you did, you would end up with a huge paragraph of facts, with no common theme. For example, in Galaxy Quest, there isn't any practical way to merge the references or trivia sections into the main article or organize them into a flowing presentation. I think trivia sections are the best way to present little facts of interest, without cluttering the main presentation. I'll follow your suggestion and won't start a trivia section.

  • In a way you've answered your own question. To have a section on "little facts of interest" isn't particularly encyclopedic. What is the point of listing useless facts that are "interesting but not important", some people call it a deletionist's stand point, but it's right there in Wikipedia policy. The Filmaker 20:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then would the following be relavent to the article? Should I integrate it in? Unless it's hidden somewhere I overlooked.

There were no credits at the beginning of the film, even tough The Director's Guild of America (DGA) was upset by it and requested that Lucas put credits at the beginning. Lucas refused, claiming that this would destroy the climactic opening of his film. The DGA fined Lucas, who paid up, and promptly quit the DGA.

  • Sounds more relevant to Lucas than the film. I'd suggest integrating it into the George Lucas article instead. :) The Filmaker 23:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I think the fact may be relevant (if not the conflict between Lucas and the guild over it) since it is now common for movies to open with just the title on screen and no other opening credits, especially "big budget special effects" type movies. It was not common in 1977 and I think that Star Wars was unique for that at the time. Spebudmak 17:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually the circumstances of Lucas' departure came after A New Hope during the Empire Strikes Back. It is now mentioned in that article. So there is no need for it to be mentioned in this one. The Filmaker 17:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, I eventually added (some time ago) my "no credits" section to the "Empire.." article, since it was the "Empire.." credits that eventually got Lucas into hot water with the guilds.

Also, in the "Return.." article, the discussion of the title of "Revenge..." vs. "Return.." is not accurate per the "Empire of Dreams" documentary. The way "Empire of Dreams" presents it is that Lucas' original choice was "Return..", but when his producer said it was weak, he changed it to "Revenge..". The movie was shot with the title "Revenge..". Then two weeks prior to the release he changed it back to "Return". There is some talk in the article that this name changing was delibrate, which I don't buy, and it isn't sourced. Again, it's all just reflecting the backstory presented in "Empire of Dreams" into the wiki articles. Rewt241

The title of this article should be "Star Wars" my opinion, since "Star Wars" was the name of this film when it was released. The fact that it was subsequently re-named should be less important. The article that currently appears as Star Wars could be re-named "Star Wars Film Series" or something to that effect. This "Episode IV" business only became widely known during the marketing blitz for "Episode 1" in 1999. Before that, this film was known widely as Star Wars, with even the 90's VHS releases not saying "Episode IV" on them. Does anyone agree--I suppose if anyone agrees then this issue should be resolved before the FAC is closed. Spebudmak 00:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I dissagree, although it was released as Star Wars, it is now officialy dubbed A New Hope and has been released under that title since then. To name it Star Wars would be extremely confusing, as when most people search the term 'Star Wars' they are looking for the series on whole. Darthgriz98 00:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and according to WP:NAME, titles are to be chosen based on what the majority of English speakers would recognize. After Episode I, the majority of English speakers are familiar with the "Episode" titles. Titles are also chosen for "making linking to those articles easy and second nature." If you were to mention to someone on the street "Hey! I just saw Star Wars last night!" they would most likely reply "Oh yeah? Which one?" This would be a constant conflict issue among other articles. Finally, as a side note, it would upset the symmetry between the six film articles. The Filmaker 03:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The Wookieepedian 13:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I kind of disagree. For people the majority of people that didn't actually see original Star Wars film in the theater, they might not know what you mean when someone says Star Wars; but, if you saw the film (in the theater 1977) then you KNOW what someone is talking about when they say Star Wars. I would agree with you on the consistency it creates for the name of the six articles. --Supercoop 22:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree. "Star Wars" was it's original for the 70's and 80's. The re-name was not very important. Same with V and VI. They should just be "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi". Now the prequel ones, I don't mind having I, II, and III in the names. --James W. 20:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, for one, ROTJ and ESB were titled with the Episode title when they were released. The fact is that renaming the articles would create an enormous linking problem within other articles, which is also an element mentioned in WP:NAME. The Filmaker 20:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I would love to live in a world in which Star Wars was Star Wars. Unfortunately by the actions of Lucasfilm and its president and business partners, this is not that world. The title "Star Wars" now signifies a much larger collection of work, both creative and commercial, and most of it garbage. We can't put the genie back in the bottle. Let's be satisfied that there is a rose among the thorns and that, by any name, it is still a rose. --Dystopos 01:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

FA status

Congrats everyone! Now onto The Empire Strikes Back :) — Deckiller 17:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes! We also pitched a perfect FAC! And on top of that... nobody complained about the cast section! The Filmaker 17:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Congrats everybody! Darthgriz98 18:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • When will it be featured on the Main Page? Ric36 23:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The request has been placed, so it'll be up as soon as Raul chooses it. The Filmaker 14:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Do blind reverts of almost inherently valid edits not also need citations?

If you have a "reliable" source that claims all jidaigeki are about samurai, I would very much like to see it so I can explain to them exactly how they are wrong. (BTW, even the Wikipedia article on the subject open states that they show the lives of the samurai, farmers, craftsmen, and merchants, and the film I mentioned in my edit summary makes almost no mention of samurai.) I did cite a source for the only potentially controversial change I made, but I will not reinstate it until I have checked it again (which may prove difficult as my DVD is missing). I also fixed a bad link. Please do not blindly revert edits like that again. If you have an issue with something I say, you are welcome to bring it up here or on my talk page (although if you do the former, please inform me personally or else I will likely not be made aware of it). elvenscout742 12:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

In he Cast section...

Is Dennis Lawson really noteworthy here? I mean, his character is important to the plot, but he really doesn't have as much of a speaking part as, say, Garrick Hagon (Biggs Darklighter), who does not get mention. elvenscout742 10:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Reviews and Reception

I've made a slight edit to the summary of the reviews. The selected quotes made it seem as though the picture was recieved negatively upon first release, which was not the case. --Jimmyrabbitte 14:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent Vandalisms

I cleaned recent vandalisms made by, and I was just wondering, how do you lock this article? Just refer to the article history to see what I removed. - D2B - 14:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Only administrators can protect or semi-protect articles from edits. Also, the recent vandalism does not warrant the protecting of the page. Vandalism is part of life on Wikipedia and we shouldn't be locking pages over three users who all happen to vandalize the same page within a 7 minute timeframe. The Filmaker 15:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Let's clarify ... semi-protect is useful and reasonable for pages which are regularly vandalized (say, daily or several times a day) and primarily by anonymouse rodents (unregistered). I usually request semi-protect if I've had to revert several times over a week, and see that other Vandal Patrol editors are reverting a page for vandalism daily. I haven't looked at the history here, but if you think a page needs it you can put in a request at WP:RFPP; read the instructions carefully please, admins are overworked as it is and shouldn't need to decipher your submission or rationale. David Spalding (  ) 16:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
BTW please ensure you fill in the edit summary when you make an edit, even if it's a reversion. 1) it helps other editors discriminate your edit from vandalism (vandals rarely disguise their smut with a summary comment) and it also supports a request for protection. In a nutshell: don't make other editors have to figure out what you did. ;) Thanks! David Spalding (  )


Shouldn't there be something about awards - especially as it won several Oscars ? -- Beardo 05:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Awards are covered in the reaction section. The Filmaker 06:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

On the main page for the 30th?

So is this going to be showcased on the main page on May 25? The Wookieepedian 05:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Past History of Production

Frequent editors of this page might want to browse this reference. Berserkerz Crit 10:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary

At Hostel (film) there is a template saying that the plot summary is to long. Well, here the summary is even longer, and yet it's a featured article. Shouldn't someone make the plot summary something like 50% shorter? If you want to know what it's about, just buy it. --Steinninn 17:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, looking at it again, the part that I thought was the plot summary was actually the production article with a spoiler warning on it. Maybe the plot summary isn't to long after all. --Steinninn 17:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars Origins References

The Cinematic and literary allusions contains material that looks like original research to me, and is referenced to Star Wars Origins on . None of those references go anywhere, the jitterbug domain is now a cellphone site. Are there other reliable references available? RB30DE 03:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree that we're relying far too much on original research, and yes, there are numerous sources for tracing Lucas' inspirations. The recent Rinzler book, which examines each draft of the treatment and screenplay, probably gives the most detailed and balanced summary. --Dystopos 03:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The Star Wars Origins website appears to have switched domains. So the references will have to be fixed. The website itself also cites sources from various books. The Filmaker 06:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
      • OK, found it, replaced "jitter" with "spooky", hopefully haven't broken anything else. RB30DE 23:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)