Talk:Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good article Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Star Wars (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Wars, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Film (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Australian cinema task force.
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

References to use[edit]

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • Grimes, Caleb; Winship, George (2006). "Episode II: Attack of the Clones". Star Wars Jesus: A spiritual commentary on the reality of the Force. WinePress Publishing. ISBN 1579218849. 

Other adaptations?[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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??????? (talk) 05:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Star Wars 3D[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 22:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Need more images of the clones[edit]

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[edit]

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)

External links modified[edit]

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.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

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

Genre classification[edit]

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[edit]

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)