Talk:Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith 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 III – Revenge of the Sith 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.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 15, 2006.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith:
  • Address Featured Article Review complaints
  • Peer review
Priority 1 (top)

Trying this again[edit]

The Citations section needs work and the errors in the sixth and tenth items should be removed. Bleucheeses (talk) 08:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

References to use[edit]

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

Spielberg was "allowed" to help on the movie?[edit]

Might want to reconsider the wording. "Invited" could be better? Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Followed by.. The Clone Wars?[edit]

I mean, however bad it may be.. it is technically G-Canon. So, in that case, wouldn't this one be followed by The Clone Wars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.105.1 (talk) 19:46, 6 No, the Clone Wars was before this, then 19 years after, came a new hope.

Inappropriate Language[edit]

I removed an instance of inappropriate language from the Releases section. Main reason being it's not the type of work you would expect to find when reading an article about star wars. It doesn't really add anything to the article and the paragraph in question certainly doesn't lose any meaning by taking the word out. Spacemonkeynz (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Please review the policy regarding Wikipedia being uncensored. DP76764 (Talk) 00:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Reception[edit]

The reception seems to be strongly focused on near-release reception, and could probably be expanded pretty significantly. Is anyone up for the challenge? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

About the Chinese mis-translation[edit]

The ones you listed are actually your mis-translation. 'Good elephant', 'do not want', that's what you get when you translate Chinese word from word,but Chinese doesn't work that way. The two Chinese words are binded together to mean something completely different than seperated. In these cases, they mean "It seems" and "NOOOOO" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinchengxin (talkcontribs) 14:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Funny thing is, Google's translator only translates those characters (好象, Hǎo xiàng in Pinyin) as "Good Elephant" from Japanese (Kō zō in Japanese romaji) whereas from Chinese, the phrase "Seems to" comes up.
71.173.9.25 (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed for [50][edit]

The link for reference [50] is dead, and I can't find any other source to replace it. Suggest it is replaced with a good old {citation needed} 77.213.95.67 (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification! We do not have to remove a reference if the link is dead. Per WP:LINKROT, we should try to relocate the URL or find an archived version of it. I've done the latter, and Internet Archive had archived versions here. I've updated the reference to contain the archived URL. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Cool! Thanks :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.213.95.67 (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

About Filming[edit]

At first,please forgive me for my poor English.

Not only Phuket in Thailand,but also Guilin in China,was the locations scouted for EP3, to capture plate photography for backdrops on the planet Kashyyyk.

Here are some links of Databank and Wookiepedia:

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Guilin

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Kashyyyk : Behind the scenes

http://www.starwars.com/databank/location/kashyyyk : Behind the scenes

Aragorn3333 (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Mistranslation sources[edit]

Just out of curiosity, why are we letting an apparent blog qualify as a WP:RS in the mistranslation section? DP76764 (Talk) 19:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

'Protocol 66'?[edit]

The plot section describes Order 66 as 'Protocol' 66 - nowhere else have I heard it being called that before. The films call it Order 66; the books call it Order; Lucas calls it Order 66; Wookieepaedia calls it Order 66. Please can someone change this major discrepancy!?

-Tra-

Um Im pretty sure that to the clones It was known as protocol 66 or order 66 because of it is more militaristic that wayJdkoqdnwi (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

'Protocol 66'?[edit]

The plot section describes Order 66 as 'Protocol' 66 - nowhere else have I heard it being called that before. The films call it Order 66; the books call it Order; Lucas calls it Order 66; Wookieepaedia calls it Order 66. Please can someone change this major discrepancy!?

-Tra- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.108.51 (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Wording issues in the plot section[edit]

I have a bit of a concern here regarding the wording on Anakin's immolation scene (specifically "severely burned"). Since immolation means that an object is killed or destroyed by fire and is listed as such in the soundtrack, I think the word nearly immolated makes more sense since Anakin is nearly dying from the flames before he is turned into Vader. I don't want to make it sound ambiguous or get involved in an edit war over it, but I am discussing this matter here so we can come up with a compromise. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Immolation does mean killed or destroyed, often via self sacrifice. That's not what happens in the scene, he's severely burned yes, but not immolated as he's still alive. Canterbury Tail talk 19:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Right, so should we consider "significantly burned", "burned to a significant degree" or "critically burned" an alternative? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I just checked the script to see what terminology they used, but unfortunately Anakin bursting into flames is the closest they get to mentioning the burn damage in it. Maybe significantly burned. Critically I prefer as an expression but I'm concerned we'd be putting too much OR into phrasing it that way. Canterbury Tail talk 01:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Premiere information should be edited[edit]

This article cites the Premiere as taking place on May 16 in Cannes, when in fact there were charity benefit screenings in 10 cities on May 12, 2005. Also, on May 13, there were two screenings in George Lucas' hometown of Modesto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.74.235 (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Deleted Scenes[edit]

George Lucas no longer owns Star Wars, so he will never be the one to release a six DVD collection. Should this be edited out?96.247.7.59 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:33, 10 February 2015 (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 III: Revenge of the Sith. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:29, 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) 17:12, 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)

Edit request on 8 April 2016[edit]

To remove a protected redirect, Do not want, from the Miscellaneous redirects category, it needs redirect category (rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows:

  • from this:
#REDIRECT [[Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith#Leaked workprint]]
{{this is a redirect}}
[[Category:Internet memes]]
  • to this:
#REDIRECT [[Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith#Leaked workprint]]

{{this is a redirect|from catchphrase|from subtopic|to section|printworthy}}

[[Category:Internet memes]]
  • WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINES BLANK FOR READABILITY.

The {{This is a redirect}} template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When {{pp-protected}} and/or {{pp-move}} suffice, the This is a redirect template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance!  Embrace neutralisms! Paine  04:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

 Donexaosflux Talk 13:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much, xaosflux!  Embrace neutralisms! Paine  16:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC) (and I just found the following fully protected double redirect:)

Related 2nd edit request on 8 April 2016[edit]

A protected redirect, DO NOT WANT, is a double redirect that needs to be fixed, and it also needs redirect category (rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows:

  • from this:
#REDIRECT [[Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith#Releases]]
  • to this:
#REDIRECT [[Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith#Leaked workprint]]

{{This is a redirect|from other capitalization|n1='''{{-r|Do not want}}''', an [[internet meme]]|to section|unprintworthy}}
  • WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.

The |n1= parameter clarifies the "other capitalization", which is different from the target. The {{This is a redirect}} template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When {{pp-protected}} and/or {{pp-move}} suffice, the This is a redirect template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance!  Paine  16:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

 Donexaosflux Talk 01:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
In gratitude, xaosflux, and Best of Everything to You and Yours!  Paine  01:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Mention the Clone Wars in the plot summary?[edit]

Recently, there was an issue in the plot summary with regard to mentioning the Clone Wars in the film. Evancahill (talk · contribs) has mentioned the Clone Wars in the plot summary, but it was reverted a few times. Rather than edit warring, I'm starting a discussion here per WP:BRD. That said, should we mention the Clone Wars itself in the plot summary or not? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm personally have no problem with it not being mentioned at all, but perhaps a medium would be something like "During a space battle of the Clone Wars over the planet Coruscant", except much more elegantly than that. (My ability to write a good sentence has been very questionable lately.) I personally don't think the Clone Wars mention is sorely needed, but I strongly agree that the phrase "space battle" is necessary because it's most clear and most accessible to a reader not familiar with Star Wars. But, if it's decided that the Clone Wars be mentioned, something along those lines is what I suggest in that case. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I would rather include the backdrop to the film in the plot, but I'll let you guys decide this. Nevertheless, I vote yes for it to be mentioned. Evancahill (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree the Clone Wars are important to the film, but not to the first line of the plot summary. The problem with putting it in the first line is that to a reader not familiar with the film or series it means nothing and it then takes the user out of the summary to figure out what the Clone Wars is before they can continue. I don't think it's necessary to understand the plot, just that there's a space battle going on. It's good for completeness but not necessary for a plot summary and understanding. Canterbury Tail talk 11:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Misleading?[edit]

"However, the film is now seen as Lucas' masterpiece and has since received critical acclaim, with the imagery and visual poetry being universally praised." This strikes me as being both biased and not true. No citations, what's protocol for this kind of statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.196.57 (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Because it's unsourced, I've removed it. If it's meant to be a summary of later sourced positive statements, there's no need for such in the section. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 03:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)