Talk:The Empire Strikes Back/Archive 1

message: The novellization of the book came out before this movie.  --172.194.68.52 16:30, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting point 

message: Okay, looks like just about everybody is in agreement on this.  Let's try editing again. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He agreed to stop reverting. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotecting

message: All 6 Star Wars film are protected from editing. This bickering is pointless. I find your lack of good faith disturbing. For the sake of unifying discussion, please try to settle the dispute at Talk:Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. Coffee 06:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No constructive discussion is taking place, so I'm unprotecting the article. Please try to work together and reach a compromise rather than simply reverting each other's edits every day and hoping one of you gets tired. Coffee 12:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't working, they're still continually reverting each others edits and messing it around for everyone else. I think more serious action needs to be taken, unfortunately. Ben W Bell 14:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It already has. They've filed a request for arbitration against Copperchair. The Wookieepedian 20:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected due to edit war 

message: I have reordered the opening paragraphs a bit (not claiming perfection, though). Especially the first sentence with the two parantheses felt too convoluted to me. The only info I removed was that fans call the movie ESB or TESB. I don't think this information is so important that it needs to be in the first few words of this article -- fans know that anyway, and do non-fans really need this info? It seems the abbreviation isn't even used on the page. I think it can be dropped or put into "Trivia", but somebody who feels it is important should please find a better place to put it than the very first sentence. --Kusma 06:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the logic here is pretty sound. We have common abbreviations in leads in lots of WP articles. For instance (just picking a few from my watchlist that come to mind): Political correctness and Majestic 12 both do this, and Majestic 12 is arguably far less well-known that the various Star Wars movies are. It could stand to be re-worded, but I think the abbreviation needs to stay in the lead sentence. --chris.lawson 06:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In contrast to your examples, where the abbreviations are actually used by the general public or on Wikipedia, "ESB" and "TESB" are used only on some talk pages (says the google). That certainly doesn't say they shouldn't be in, but does it really justify this prominent place to put them? --Kusma 06:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You can go on any Star Wars message board and see these abbreviations, as they are very well-known among fans. --The Wookieepedian 06:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heck, I don't even frequent SW message boards. I'm not even that big of a SW fan! But I definitely knew about the abbreviations and what they referred to. Contrary to your claim, I found nearly a quarter-million pages on Google when I searched for "ESB star wars" (no quotes). That's hardly "used only on some talk pages". Of course they're not going to show up on Wikipedia if people keep deleting any mention of them!--chris.lawson 07:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. --The Wookieepedian 07:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was only googling Wikipedia itself, not to the whole WWW. However, this discussion is missing my main point. I don't really care about these abbreviations all that much. I'm putting it back in now, as a separate sentence where it doesn't disrupt the reading flow as much as the parentheses did. --Kusma 07:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should put ESB somewhere in the opening paragraph, and then use the abbreviation thereafter. Makes things easier to understand, and equally importantly, to write. --Maru  (talk) Contribs 18:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, I concur. The "ESB" abbreviation somewhat reduces space on the page, and of course, reinforces the fact that "ESB" is a very well known abbreviation. The Wookieepedian 19:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not about the fans's abbreivation or lack there of- the issue is whether we should use an obvious, intuitive acronym to make the prose flow better and ease the writer's task. After all, it is only a small step from Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back to The Empire Strikes Back to ESB. --Maru  (talk) Contribs 20:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to confess, I've never seen the abbreviation "TESB" used for this film - I'm sure some people have, it's just that "ESB" as an acronym is extremely common - "TESB" definitely isn't. I've added "ESB" into the paragraph alongside "TESB", but honestly I think we should just delete the latter in favour of the more common former. --DJ Mike TJG 19:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reordered opening 

message: I contributed some things on this movie page. I did:
*"awards and nominations " section
*"music" section
*"quotes" section
*"budget/box office info" section
*added to the "radio drama" section
*"theme" section
*"setting" section
I added these things to make the Wikipedia entry more complete and informative.  I hope my contributions helped. :) --Dancerlbw 12:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! They certainly did. Now we can apply that to the other five Star Wars film articles. The only thing is, we removed redundant (setting) or POV sections (quotes, theme). Everything else is fine. This article was severely lacking in content, and your contributions helped quite a bit, from what I can see. --The Wookieepedian 17:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm gonna link to WikiQuote. I'm surprised there is not already a quote link, but no better time than the present... --Maru  (talk) Contribs 19:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What I contributed 

message: What is this about 3-D version of the movie?  Source, please.--FDIS
:Lucas himself explained at Celebration III that he plans to release all of the Star Wars films in 3D, beginning in 2007. The Wookieepedian 07:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's too funny.  Crazy old George.--FDIS 20:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And then he'll release the Sooper Dooper Home 3D Mega Ultimate Final This Time I'm Not Kidding DVD Director's Cut.  Endomion 18:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3-D? 

message: What do you think? E Pluribus Anthony 19:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Darth_Vader#RfC.2Fpoll:_Darth_Vader.2FAnakin_Skywalker_.E2.80.93_one_article_or_two_articles.3F|'''RfC/poll''' – Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker: one article or two?]]

message: The "Budget/Box Office" section says "The estimated budget was $18,000,000." The trivia section says "However, certain production problems (especially while filming the Hoth scenes in snow-stricken Norway) caused the budget to rise to $33 million, making it one of the most expensive movies of its day." The latter attributes the documentary Empire of Dreams.
That's a pretty wide discrepancy there. Both iMDB and BoxOfficeMojo cite the budget as $18M. Without further data to substantiate the $33M claim, should it be left in? BinaryTed 16:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancies in budget information 

message: Please argue here about whether to mention the EU origin of the Dark Side cave on Dagobah in this article here instead of revert warring. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neutral: First of all this is a film article and the Expanded Universe is a different article entirely. Since we a encyclopedia our goal is to keep things short and to the point not put in information for the sake of extra information. But as you can see im neutral meaning that i do not care if you guys put it in or not, i wont revert it or anything. Its up to you guys. Tutmosis 01:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't mention it, but I'm really neutral :). It's simple: by leaving it to another article, you keep everyone happy. The information is still present, but it's not included in this article. There's always wikilinks....Deckiller 01:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Keep. The added info seems to reinforce the significance of the cave. The Wookieepedian 00:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Keep. I'm not a big defender of the expanded universe; for me, this was about stopping vandalism and identifying a sock puppet. The only rationale offered was that it wasn't in the movie, but there's no precedent for demanding that canonical information be removed from a fiction article without compromise or discussion, and there's no reason not to have it (Wikipedia is not paper). I'm ambivalent about the content, I just don't like people vandalizing articles and making up their own policies to support their opinions. Kafziel 00:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Keep. My opinions are aleady known on this issue. Leaving it without explanation grates. --maru  (talk) contribs 01:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally, I would be strongly opposed to mentioning this without mentioning that this is a factoid originating in the EU, as it isn't mentioned or even implied in the movie itself. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: As you can see from the article history, Skinmeister isn't interested in talking. At this point he's just interested in vandalizing the page. He doesn't respond to the warnings on his talk page, or the explanations of why it can be left in, and he evidently doesn't care about what we decide on the talk page. He's said he doesn't care if he gets blocked, either. This isn't edit warring, this is just undoing vandalism. Kafziel 13:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's clearly a content dispute here, and this is a contribution made in good faith. Assume good faith on the part of those who disagree with you, please. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did assume good faith, at first. Ten or eleven edits and one meatpuppet later, I don't have to "assume" anything. I can see that it's bad faith, and constant repeated reverts without discussion is vandalism. Kafziel 16:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh, wasn't aware the edit war had been going on that long, but that's still an edit war, not vandalism. An effort to improve an article (say, by omitting a bit of cruft that isn't actually mentioned in the work the article is about) is never vandalism, however obnoxious a form that effort takes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, which is why the first couple of times he did it I explained the situation to him on his talk page and the edit summaries. As I said above, I don't care for "expanded universe" stuff either (and when I first saw that information, I didn't think it should be there) but Maru has precedent behind him. Skinmeister was immediately confrontational and uncivil, and used a sockpuppet to subvert 3RR. He's not interested in discussion, and he doesn't care what policy says or what is decided here, so I don't really see the point. Kafziel 17:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: According to the footnote for Bpfassh, it's from: Timothy Zahn, Vision of the Future, Book 2 of The Hand of Thrawn Duology (1998). ISBN 0553100351 
I'd put the ref in myself but I'd rather not edit this article for a while. Kafziel 21:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. Those summaries you gave as examples are very concise, while getting the point across. (The Wookieepedian is snapped out of his fanboy tendencies on the issue, and applauds Mr. Cash.) ;) The Wookieepedian 21:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dagobah Bpfassi cave factoid? 

message: Anyone want to get this to featured article status? .... 01:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it would be the best SW film article to be featured, but I would prefer if we get the main Star Wars article featured first. The Wookieepedian 06:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article 

message: I've been contributing most of the revisions for the Empire page in the last several days. Empire is one of my favorite films and this has been a labor of love. For those who caught and corrected my little errors of syntax, redundancy, and spelling — thank you!
My initial goal was to clarify the plot summary because I encountered a few problems. The first problem was something you may have noticed before: a fan-centric overemphasis on Star Wars gadgets, military hardware, and proper names from the Expanded Universe that are neither noteworthy by Wiki standards nor helpful for someone who came into this article "blind," i.e., not knowing much about Star Wars. I hope I don't offend any well-intentioned Wiki contributors, but some of the fanboy excesses were hilariously inappropriate. My favorite was a reference to Darth Vader doing a "Force Choke" on Admiral Ozzel, something explicitly described in the Star Wars: Battleground II video game but never referred to in the movies themselves.
I think that we as Wiki contributors — and, especially, as Star Wars fans — run the risk of forgetting that the vast majority of the Wiki readership doesn't give a doody about Star Wars. We need to constantly ask ourselves, "What would someone who knows nothing about this need to know?" and "What is NOTABLE by Wikipedia standards?" It's not our job to create a Star Wars Wiki entry exclusively for fanboys, (that's what the wonderful Wookiepedia is for!); we need to come into it dispassionately and be governed by what is explicitly revealed in the movie itself.
I edited out proper names like "Wampa", "AT-AT," and "Boba Fett" for that reason. They are never named in the film and their presence in the plot summary just confuses things for a reader. I consulted the film a few times, noticing for example that "X-wing" is named aloud (by one of the pilots escorting the Rebel transports out of the Hoth system), but "TIE fighter" is not. This is not to completely ignore a term like "TIE Fighter" You will find that descriptors are linked to other Wiki entries: e.g, "Imperial Walkers" is linked to the AT-AT entry, "The bounty hunter" is linked to the Boba Fett entry, "Imperial pursuit craft" is liked to the TIE Fighter entry, and so on.
My second goal was to make the whole thing a pleasure to read. I was especially aware of this near the climax. From Luke's duel with Vader to the end of the film, I wanted to communicate a sense of the significance of these events — Luke's sense of failure and despair, Leia's mysterious connection with Luke, Leia's feelings for the missing Han, Vader's contemplative pose, and the heroes' relief and sense of purpose in the final scene as they anticipate rescuing Han.
My third goal was to clarify and streamline the other prose sections. These were largely left unedited — previous Wiki contributors had compiled a fantastic wealth of data, especially about the filmmakers' style and technique. I mostly removed redundancies and gave the sections a nice scrub of logic, making sure cause-and-effect relationships between facts made sense.
My overall goal has been to simply make sure the whole thing flows. This meant grouping most of the prose sections together and relegating the tables, charts, and lists to the end.
I have not removed any factual contributions, though I wish the contributors would have cited their sources, especially about the production of Empire. I sincerely doubt Wikipedia would make Empire a Featured Article if it doesn't have citations.
I personally don't care for the excessive listing and table-ing of elements like, for example, a thumbnail of Mark Hamill. First of all, it's redundant, because we know what he looks like in the frame-grabs above. But more importantly, it defeats the purpose of Wikipedia: that LINKS knit the whole thing together and if you want to see what Mark Hamill looks like, you click his name. It's that simple. Excessive table-ing and charting dishonors the Wiki contributors who wrote the "Mark Hamill" entry.
I would ask what this Talk group thinks about the notion of going through the Star Wars film entries — just the movies themselves, not the Expanded Universe stuff — with a big red pen, metaphorically speaking, and editing out the fan-centric stuff. I do intend to tackle the A New Hope and Return of the Jedi plot summaries next.
Matt Genné 15:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What I wrote for the ''Empire'' page 

message: Reasons for failing -
* no references
* stray links that should be refs
* random templates down at the bottom
* no fair use rationales
Please see WP:CITE and WP:FAIR. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 10:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Failing 

message: The second point of trivia says "This is the only one of the six Star Wars films in which no major character dies." Which major character dies in Ep II? I know the question isn't directly related to Ep V but it's on this page, so I'll ask here. --Tim (talk), (contribs) 23:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major character deaths 

message: In the filmography section of his article, Empire Strikes Back is listed among the films Treat Williams has been in. He is also in [Category:Star Wars actors]. Was Williams actually in the movie? I don't seem to remember. Do any of you know what character he played? Serpent-A 06:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to remember reading that Williams is a friend of Harrison Ford. He appeared in the Hoth/Echo Base sequence as a Rebel soldier or officer. --Matt Genné 20:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treat Williams 

message: Lots of changes to the article lately, I know. One of the big ones was the elimination of many fair use images, but if you take a look at any of the prequel Star Wars movie articles, you see a great deal of restraint about which ones they use, since only a few are allowed for FA. I hope to soon submit this for GA status, and help do the groundwork for FA status. Judgesurreal777 04:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone wishes for this to reach FA status, the casting section would need a major overhaul as reviewers would cite it as a weakness. Check Night of the Living Dead or Halloween, both FA examples, as to how the casting section is laid out - Bullet points are usually frowned. Who was originally considered for the parts? How did they get the parts and why did Lucas choose them etc? These are possible questions to answer in the section. If this articles follows the examples I have cited, it would greatly improve its FA / GA chances. LuciferMorgan 14:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, Casablanca (film), Blade Runner, Richard III (1955 film), V for Vendetta (film), and TPM, AOTC, and ROTS all feature dot point cast lists. Do not change, the Cast list is fine. Some people may not like it, but it's not going to stop FA status, or even GA. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 06:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Towards FA status

message: We need a plot picture of Yoda, and the iconic moment from this film is Vader beckoning Luke to the dark side. I vote we go back to the two other plot pictures. Judgesurreal777 13:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The pictures currently there depict the significant opening event and the significant closing event, just like all of the prequel photos. The iconic moment with Vader at the end is aural, not visual. Perhaps a fair use .ogg file of the revalation would suffice? Because the duel is a more significant visual event than the beckoning. Actually, just looking at that shot of Luke and Vader, it's a striking example of how the cinematography and director were differing from the original. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 05:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: I really want this article to become a GA, but unfortunately I have noticed several glaring problems. 
*All the pictures except for the poster need fair use rationales. 
*The last paragraph of the "Production" section jumps around way too much, and perhaps has too much information. Stuff like the Rishi Maze from Attack of the Clones cold probably be omitted.
*"Synopsis-The diverting plot threads are very well balanced and don't jump around, so good job there. But throughout the entire section there are short sentences and poor flow (ex."Han discovers Luke. Han keeps Luke from freezing to death by eviscerating his Tauntaun and stuffing him inside for warmth. The next morning, Rebel searchers rescue the two from the wastes"). Some sentences are redundant (Luke Skywalker, "the son of Skywalker"). Some aren't even full sentences.
*"Reaction"-Some more quotes and refs would be nice. The final paragraph could be slimmed down and better written-we don't need to know every single award the film received. The Literary Impact part either better have some serious references or deleted entirely (I'd go with the latter). It is immensely POV.
*Obviously "Cinematic and Literary Allusions" could be much expanded upon, but I think it can be glanced over for now.   
Good Article in the making here, but I think it needs to receive a thorough copyedit before it moves on.-Dark Kubrick 00:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take care of the initial copyedit, although all copyedits require at LEAST two people making passes. Didn't know you guys were pushing to get the original trilogy featured, as well! — Deckiller 02:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning my failure of GA Nomination 

message: I think it's in the ESB Special Edition VHS that people from ILM talk about these mattes and they were not mistakes; they decided to not print the optical elements of the cockpits at full opacity so that the black lines that traditionally plagued optical mattes (especially when compositing elements into snowy scenes) would be minimized. When they released the SE back in '97 they re-composited the elements digitally, which allowed them to make the cockpits fully opaque and not show the outside landscape, while not showing any matte lines either. On another note, I saw the note on Treat Williams being one of the Rebel Officers in Hoth, and I saw no mention of John Ratzenberger's small appearance as a Rebel Officer, which is mentioned in his article; there are two stubs about his character, Major Bren Derlin in the List of minor Star Wars Rebel characters or Commander Derlin; apparently they're the same character but I believe that the lines given for his character in the Commander Derlin stub were spoken by another actor... Daniel Villalobos 23:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production/Traveling Matte Error - Misc. 

message: The 'spoilers end here' tag is missing. It starts at the beginning of the spoilers, but there's nothing at the end of the spoilers.
:Fixed it. KdogDS 21:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing spoiler tag? 

message: Is not the Galaxy at the end the Milky Way? It seems like it, though I could be wrong.NapoleonAlanparte 11:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Milky May is a completely different galaxy, it does not have an end. ;-) See Star Wars galaxy — Mütze 11:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galaxy 

message: Hello, I'm sorry to have failed this article's GA nomination, perhaps with some more time this article will reach that status.
Some points I noticed...
*The article is glaringly under-referenced, especially in the Production and Soundtrack sections, but it is a problem throughout the whole article.  Article also does not cite a direct quote attributed to the Los Angeles Times in the Radio Drama section
*:Image:ATAT Sketch.png lacks a fair use rationale.
*The prose does not flow correctly at times, especially in the Awards part of the Reaction section, it reads like a giant list.
*The prose is at times not written in an encyclopedic tone(e.g. Three years after the Battle of Yavin, three valiant heroes of the Rebel Alliance — Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, and Princess Leia — are pursued by the evil, implacable Darth Vader and the forces of the Galactic Empire.) This reads more like a story than an encyclopedia article
Overall I enjoyed reading this article and feel that it doesn't have far to go for GA status, provided that it receives a good copyedit and my suggestions are acted upon. Cheers for such a great attempt. Deyyaz [ Talk | Contribs ] 01:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the suggestions; however, I had a version where the summary was written in encyclopedic prose; I may break it out and reintroduce it into the article now that we have someone else agreeing that it reads like a story. — Deckiller 03:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed GA Nomination 

message: I'm deleting the paragraph on Alan Dean Foster's novel Splinter of the Mind's Eye being a possible low-budget sequel, although I believe it to be true, I can't find any suitable sources. If anyone is able to find one, please post it here and I will re-add it into the article. Thanks. :) The Filmaker 03:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alan Dean Foster sequel

message: The idea of having Vader as Luke's father mimics Darkseid and Orion.
Also, if Luke had though it through, he could have done more by accepting Vader's offer to join the Emperor insincerely, acting as a spy within the Emperor's inner circle for the Rebels.
15:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Gods, double agent

message: I've decided to rewrite the article to state that the film received favorable reviews as opposed to mixed reviews. So far I have been unable to locate any notable critic other than Vincent Canby that wrote a negative review about the film. Rotten Tomatoes features only one bad review out of 51 (Canby's), and the Empire of Dreams film states that the film was received well. The only other source of this supposed outlook is Ben Burtt on the audio commentary. He will be mentioned but I don't think the "mixed" evidence outweighs the "favorable" evidence. I'll begin writing the article soon. If anyone has a valid objection, please feel free bring up here. :) The Filmaker 23:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look up Pauline Kael's original review - she was not complimentary - I feel rewriting this based on current searches (when most of the reviews in question are more than 25 years old and predominantly offline) is *very* premature, considering how much Empire has grown in stature over the years. Empire of Dreams glossed over a lot, and Burtt's recollections are accurate. MikeWazowski 06:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found Pauline Kael's review and it appears, she was in fact complimentary. I'd like to hear what you would suggest we do to make the change less premature. As the only evidence we have is Burtt's recollections, one negative review, and your assurance. The Filmaker 00:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know if this helps, but there's a fairly negative review from someone at the Washington Post. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major change to the film's reaction